781
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + +
Talk:Essay: Worst Liberal Books (view source)
Revision as of 03:24, September 23, 2011
, 03:24, September 23, 2011→Fictional vs. Non-fictional: new section
==Origin of species?==
==Origin of species?==
Darwin was wrong, but not about everything. Newton was wrong about a few things as well. Darwin didn't set out to destroy God, he waited for 20 years to publish because he didn't want to upset the religious community, and even now that we know more than Darwin possibly could have many of his contributions are still of great importance. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:20, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Darwin was wrong, but not about everything. Newton was wrong about a few things as well. Darwin didn't set out to destroy God, he waited for 20 years to publish because he didn't want to upset the religious community, and even now that we know more than Darwin possibly could have many of his contributions are still of great importance. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:20, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
== Fictional vs. Non-fictional ==
I question the categorization of these works into fiction and non-fiction works, for a few reasons, perhaps inappropriately phrased as questions. 1) Are we labeling them as such based on the categories the publishers assign them? 2) If so, should we not also consider that these classifications are incorrect? For example, Zinn's work is considered by most reputable historians --and even many less than reputable ones-- as primarily a work of fiction. This criticism stems from his highly flawed approach to historical research that displays numerous examples of sampling error. Is this something we should consider in this article? [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] <sup>[[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]]</sup> 23:24, 22 September 2011 (EDT)