Changes

On the definition of pseudoscience
Line 412: Line 412:     
: It reflects a lack of accountability which is a by-product of the systematic bias.  It also demonstrates that the distortions in Wikipedia do matter, as newspapers and others are relying on them and repeating them.  Why any system has some errors, you're not likely to find this kind of error in a real encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)
 
: It reflects a lack of accountability which is a by-product of the systematic bias.  It also demonstrates that the distortions in Wikipedia do matter, as newspapers and others are relying on them and repeating them.  Why any system has some errors, you're not likely to find this kind of error in a real encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
== On the definition of pseudoscience ==
 +
 +
One of the arguments presented is "It currently offers a article on the topic listed under the category "Pseudoscience". What reputable encyclopedia uses such an unencyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism?"  The definition given for this is "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method."  There are indeed people who claim that [Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|creation is scientific].  As it stands Creationism and Intelligent Design do not make testable theories nor is it falsifiable and thus it is not scientific.
 +
 +
It is unfortunate that this falls into a similar category as people making claims about astrology, ghosts, and crop circles.    If this is not attempted to be presented as scientific fact and stayed as a religious belief, one would assume that it would not be categorized as pseudoscience.
 +
 +
This is a poor critique of wikipedia that weakens other arguments. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
1,129

edits