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.--Bob^{bing 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: [1] [2] [3] [4]. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)