Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Reliability"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(sp: reliable) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
#Science is reliable when enough scientists make enough effort to check each other's work. | #Science is reliable when enough scientists make enough effort to check each other's work. | ||
#*The watchwords of science are [[falsifiability]] and [[reproducible results]]. | #*The watchwords of science are [[falsifiability]] and [[reproducible results]]. | ||
| − | #Bias gets in the way of reliability. | + | #[[Bias]] gets in the way of reliability. |
#Neutrality may not be an antidote to bias. | #Neutrality may not be an antidote to bias. | ||
Revision as of 20:24, March 30, 2007
This a proposal to improve Conservapedia or its policies and guidelines. It is not official, and does not have wide acceptance. Please regard it as tentative and formative.
A few suggestions about reliability.
- Reliability is the quality that makes people want to rely on you.
- It's like trust: you have to earn it.
- People test you, and you must pass their test, or they won't trust you or rely on you.
- A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated
- Science is reliable when enough scientists make enough effort to check each other's work.
- The watchwords of science are falsifiability and reproducible results.
- Bias gets in the way of reliability.
- Neutrality may not be an antidote to bias.