Essay talk:Scientific perspectives

I honestly don't think there is a left, right, or middle here, only truth and falsehood. 69.216.116.101 21:27, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

So that's where the redlinks breed. Susan talk to me  21:37, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

->Essay? Susan talk to me  21:37, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Isn't this a logical fallacy of some sort? Acting as if there's a valid compromise in factual matters the way there is in policy or philosophical matters, that is. First time I looked at it, I thought, can you compromise with someone who says 2+2=5? --Kels 21:47, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 21:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 * In that case, 2+2=4.5, please adjust your equipment accordingly. --Kels 21:56, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I liked the PalMD version which limited science to the natural world better. Why turn this into a one-voice essay? If I wanted it in my userspace, I'd have put it there.

I want a rational essay on science - not a personal soapbox for Uncle Ed.

Talk to me!!! --Uncle Ed bug me 18:53, 20 October 2007 (EDT)


 * As far as I can see, Intelligent design is not the middle ground, it's just creationism in disguise. The true middle ground is better represemted by theistic evolution and the principle of Non-Overlapping Magisteria. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 19:37, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I would say there is "science" and "not science". I see no middle ground between these positions.  (Unless you were to suggest "almost science." )Suggesting that holding a scientific position is an extreme position is an attempt to colour the debate.--Bobbing for apples 10:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

What you are proposing, Ed, is that a new brand of science, one that includes non science, be identified as a middle ground.
 * 1) Why, to give you a respectable hole to crawl in to?
 * 2) Science, by its very definition cannot include that which is unscientific (such as big juju up in the sky).
 * 3) Creationism can include whatever it likes, whether it be select items of science or deus ex nihil (sorry latin was my worst school subject). Whatever it does it's flim flam.
 * 4) There is no middle ground on points of scientific fact, a thing either is or it isn't and creationism, god and allied superstitions aren't.

Susan talk to me  11:18, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I know Rob Smith got in trouble recently for using a cartoon as a cite, but I believe this comic from Tom Tomorrow is rather apt here. If science agrees to "compromise" with pseudoscience, religion, or some other non-science, then it hasn't compromised at all, but capitulated. As I said above, you simply can't "compromise" between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. --Kels 17:31, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
 * What are the haps?! As always, Ryan North provides a delicious perspective:   . -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 09:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)