Category talk:Science

Someone want to go through here and see if there is any content worth putting up as featured yet? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 14:50, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

We need more articles!

I'd like to propose a major expansion of the science (and math) category. (Oh no! Not an "article creation drive"!) We could gather serious articles on science, making this a trustworthy encyclopedia (where have I heard that phrase before?) with science articles at the lay level. That is, aimed at much of the target audience of Conservapedia, but, of course, without the debate over how kangaroos migrated to Australia after getting off the ark.

We have some good articles, and discussions, so far. See, for example, Bayes' material on relativity. (I've contributed an essay on CP relativity denial; that's different; see below.) There are a fair number of science/math articles already at CP, written by an acquaintance of mine, who will give me his enthusiastic permission to copy them over here. And there's a lot more we could write.

The goal is not to directly make these just anti-CP anti-creationist essays. Where complete essays on CP science lunacy are called for (such essays already exist, especially in the creationism area) we would point to them. The format I propose for dealing with this is sort of a take-off on how CP spins their lunacy. For controversial articles they typically have a "creationist views" section, that occupies most of the article, followed by a section that lambastes us heathens. We could present the topic in a completely straightforward manner ("Just the facts, ma'am.") followed, where needed, by a short section at the end titled "Abuse by Reactionaries, Fundamentalists, and Lunatics". This would briefly point out the lunacy, and point to the appropriate essays or other RW pages that discuss the problem.

Of course we could have an article on creationism, with a slightly different format. It could lay out the issue in as straight-faced a manner as possible, followed by a section titled "Use by Reactionaries, Fundamentalists, and Lunatics", pointing to the appropriate other pages. Note the word "use" instead of "abuse".

Gauss 13:04, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I wholeheartedly agree! I am not though, a scientist, nor have I any special training that would enable me to cobble together anything more than the most bare of barebones articles. I'm the store muse. Class clown. We're under the GDFL so we should be able to C&P wikipedia articles then bend them to suit our will.

Then too, we have some templates saying WP has this or that article as well as ones that say "don't bother looking for this on CP".

CЯacke® 13:39, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah - I've been trying with some articles - just a brief popularisation with pointer to wp or somewhere else if anyone really wants to know wots goin on. (I'm no scientist eitheras you can possibly tell) Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 14:00, 6 September 2007 (CDT)