Changes

::My point, and possibly Schlesinger's as well, is that the terms are not well-defined. I agree that the "model" is inarticulate. Reminds me of the climate models used to justify [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]. You can't test a model which is not based on a theory, so there's no way to [[falsify]] it, and it is therefore [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::My point, and possibly Schlesinger's as well, is that the terms are not well-defined. I agree that the "model" is inarticulate. Reminds me of the climate models used to justify [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]. You can't test a model which is not based on a theory, so there's no way to [[falsify]] it, and it is therefore [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It is a useful comparative device ''after the models have been developed''; it is not a point of origin for building a doctine.  In otherwords, it is useful to say British Tories & American Republicans share these things (fill in the blank) in common, therefore copmaratively they may be called "right".  To say the ''point of origin'' of "Leftist" means "challenging the traditional order", therefore al-Qeade and gay rights movement are leftist.  This is patently absurd.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It is a useful comparative device ''after the models have been developed''; it is not a point of origin for building a doctine.  In otherwords, it is useful to say British Tories & American Republicans share these things (fill in the blank) in common, therefore comparatively they may be called "right".  To say the ''point of origin'' of "Leftist" means "challenging the traditional order", therefore al-Qeade and gay rights movement are leftist.  This is patently absurd.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)