On 12/12/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote: What evidence do you have that I'm being sarcastic? Why do you say that science has little compatibility with religion? Are you making the claim that science is inconsistent with religion? If so, how? Speaking of the church dating scene, I wouldn't denigrate the biological imperative for a reason for people's behavior.

On 12/12/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I actually am so glad that I don't have to believe in science for all those engineers and scientists who do make my nice pretty computers and internets and lightbulbs and keyboards and mp3 encodings and electric guitars so i can listen to blink 182, which rocks the hardest. Okay, why, for the sake of argument, do we say that? I mean, is there any evidence to support that claim? Because if there's not, it's pretty silly to start a discussion based on the claim. Not even for the sake of argument? Ah. I used my intuition there.

On 12/13/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I really don't know where you're going here. Tone aside, I was making the very serious point that the evidence that the scientific method works, people's opinions aside, should be pretty obvious to anyone enjoying the fruits of technological progress. I didn't.

On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote: Well, no. I think that arguing against the concept or wording of "pseudoscience" is wrong. I really think that search power of Google and the healing power of the rays of Venus are different things.

On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris(a)starglade.org> wrote: I agree of course that science and religion are not "at each other's throats". However, there is one place where I think the SPOV is seen most clearly as a POV. This is when any account of a miracle, or other supernatural event, is presumed to be false, impossible, or to necessarily have a purely scientific explanation. The 'laws of science' are undoubtedly useful, and have produced lots of great things. Of course, people made some progress even when the leading 'scientists' of the day thought everything was made of just four elements. But to presume that everything supernatural is bunk, is imposing a scientific point of view in a way that many people think goes too far. -- sockmonk [[User:Wesley]]

On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris(a)starglade.org> wrote: The Resurrection of Christ. Certainly it is inexplicable (a term I prefer to "supernatural"), but that doesn't make it nonsense. -- Sam

On 12/13/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: What, against all comparisons with controversial figures? We could have Big Foot, or UFOs, or many, many other things. ;=) -- Sam

Agreed, reporting proportionately on consensus and minority views would be wonderful, without folks trying to root out bad science, or bad philosophy, or bad theology, all of which are always with us. ;-) The real issue I think is one of philosophy. The SPOV or materialist view wants to say that all knowledge we can have is acquired through our senses, and all occurrences can ultimately be explained in terms of natural processes and laws of physics, even if our current understanding of those processes and laws isn't up to explaining everything just yet. That obviously works very well in terms of the scientific progress that has been and is being made. One other view is that there are other ways of acquiring knowledge; perhaps divine or angelic revelation, perhaps via ESP or clairvoyance or from spirits of the dead. The 'supernaturalist' view allows for occurrences either contrary to or transcendant of what are usually thought to be the laws of physics, whether it's some miracle or healing or resurrection, or teleknesis, or some kind of qi manipulation. Obviously there are many variations on a theme, and many many different ideas of which or even what sort of revelations might be reliable, or which phenomena might be genuine or why. To ask whether these other phenomena are scientifically verifiable is to examine them from within the SPOV, and almost presupposes the answer. One might just as well ask whether some random miraculous healing can be explained in terms of qi or the five elements of traditional Japanese acupressure. As far as reporting on consensus and minority views, it's fine to report that scientists are skeptical of this or that miraculous occurrence, and that some religious folks are skeptical of the morality or ethics of this or that application of scientific knowledge. These fields are not diametrically opposed at all, they often learn from each other or borrow from each other, but they do generally represent different ways of looking at the world. Neither should have a completely free pass to pass itself off as NPOV by itself. On 12/13/05, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: -- User:Wesley

On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris(a)starglade.org> wrote: Christian literature. That makes it not bunk. We should present all views, not only the ones that seem most rational to us. To call the Resurrection "bunk" is completely POV and unacceptable. It doesn't conform to our knowledge of science, but that should not say that Wikipedia should present an opinion on whether or not it happened. SPOV should be in NPOV, but it isn't NPOV in itself. -- Sam

Sam Korn wrote: Well, obviously Christian literature would say that Christ was resurrected. I accepted that, and I asked for other verification. Consider this scenario: The world was considered flat in ancient times. That conformed to contemporary rational thinking (basically, the world is flat since we can't see it curve). It was also wrong. Is Wikipedia presenting a point of view by stating this theory is wrong? Chris

On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris(a)starglade.org> wrote: But Christian literature and Christian beliefs are quite enough! Why should anything else be needed? It is clearly POV to say that Christians' beliefs are "bunk", however little they conform to scientific rules. Yes. Wikipedia should never make statements of fact unless they are undisputed. All others should be cited. -- Sam

geni wrote: Well, according to [[Flat Earth]] "in early Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus." The Flat Earth article references a web page called "Analysis of 7000 Years of Thinking Regarding Earth's Shape", at http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.html, which summarises and in turn cites a number of sources. Chris

On 12/15/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote: (phenomenon) What's your point? The goal of Wikipedia is not to predict the future but to accurately reflect the present.

The Cunctator wrote: The point is that the trickster is still alive and well and living in science. Ec