See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.
aSK talk:Encyclopaedias and neutrality
From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Contents |
Pseudoscience
Just so you know, creationism is psuedoscience because it does not use the scientific method. Therefore, it should be called psuedoscience. --Acionyx 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, creation scientists use science. But this is another debate I don't have time for at the moment. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you not now? --Acionyx 15:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I do not (have time) now. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps later? --Acionyx 15:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- If he's got the time to create and run an entire Wiki, you'd think he'd have enough time for this. --Gulik 22:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I would. --Acionyx 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fallacious argument. If I've got x amount of time to do something that takes x, then I've got x+y time to do something that takes x+y.
- Yes, later, when things (for me personally) settle down a bit.
- Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I would. --Acionyx 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- If he's got the time to create and run an entire Wiki, you'd think he'd have enough time for this. --Gulik 22:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps later? --Acionyx 15:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I do not (have time) now. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you not now? --Acionyx 15:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) It would help if you distinguished between the Creation Science of young earth creationism and the other ideas of old earth creationism. Please do not make the error of confusing YEC and OEC. Not all creationists are YEC's. In America it's slightly less than half. --Ed Poor 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Title caps not working.
There is a section "Encyclopaedias and neutrality", the markup call for title caps, but it does not appear to be working. Anyone know how to fix it?BradleyF (LowKey) 12:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the lotech repair system still works!BradleyF (LowKey) 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I had the parameter name wrong (I had 'caps', it should have been 'case'). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Changes
As this is a site policy page and not an article, changes to basic content (as opposed to spelling, formatting, etc.) should be proposed on this talk page, not unilaterally made to the project page. Hence my reversion. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. Science works like a court case in that you prove something beyond reasonable doubt. Please correct that. Thank you. --Acionyx 15:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Although in practice what you say is effectively correct in some cases, in principle, what the page says is correct. In a court case, a matter is considered "proved" if the evidence is such that there is no reasonable doubt. In science, no matter is ever considered "proved". I guess that might vary a bit depending on your philosophy of science, but I believe that the page already qualifies the statement sufficiently. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- And you claim to know this how? --Acionyx 15:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- From what I've read over many years. What's your basis for your claim? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a citation? (not to pseudoscientific material) In addition, it would be inpractical for the standard of proof for science to be beyond all doubt, as, just like you said, that is impossible. A good scientist is not sure of anything, but doesn't spend time quibbling about 'is this true, is this true.' --Acionyx 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Acionyx, you made the initial assertion, therefore you need to provide your reasons (e.g. sources) for making it before asking anyone else to provide theirs.BradleyF (LowKey) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, since the article was written by Philip, he has to provide the source first. Pwn. --Acionyx 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- What I actually wrote is a common view (first sentence of that section), and I provided a reference for that. I then built on that view with a line of argument, and a tentative conclusion ("In that sense...", "...can be said..."). You want to change the conclusion to something else and something absolute without changing the line of argument and therefore without providing any reason to change the conclusion. The onus in this case is therefore on you. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, since the article was written by Philip, he has to provide the source first. Pwn. --Acionyx 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Acionyx, you made the initial assertion, therefore you need to provide your reasons (e.g. sources) for making it before asking anyone else to provide theirs.BradleyF (LowKey) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a citation? (not to pseudoscientific material) In addition, it would be inpractical for the standard of proof for science to be beyond all doubt, as, just like you said, that is impossible. A good scientist is not sure of anything, but doesn't spend time quibbling about 'is this true, is this true.' --Acionyx 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- From what I've read over many years. What's your basis for your claim? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- And you claim to know this how? --Acionyx 15:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Although in practice what you say is effectively correct in some cases, in principle, what the page says is correct. In a court case, a matter is considered "proved" if the evidence is such that there is no reasonable doubt. In science, no matter is ever considered "proved". I guess that might vary a bit depending on your philosophy of science, but I believe that the page already qualifies the statement sufficiently. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Red link (more caps problems?)
encyclopædia redlinks but encyclopaedia is fine (see the mark-up to see the difference). Is this because the article title is capitalised? I am raising this here, as this is where the redlink appears.BradleyF (LowKey) 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's because it's trying to link to encyclopædia (with "æ" ligature) rather than encyclopaedia. I've created a redirect at the former, so it will no longer be a redlink. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
