| Revision as of 19:00, 26 September 2013 editMarkbassett (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,476 edits →Reinstating edit on Creation-evolution controversy← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:50, 27 September 2013 edit undoMarkbassett (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,476 edits →Reinstating edit on Creation-evolution controversy: wording betterNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| I'd really appreciate it if you could self revert your last edit and open a new thread so we can discuss it. Thank you very much. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | I'd really appreciate it if you could self revert your last edit and open a new thread so we can discuss it. Thank you very much. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Please try the article talk since the re-creation means I've looked and |
Please try the article talk since the re-creation means I've really looked and still think the edit is appropriate and so posted there. But first, please consider the desireability of having the primary source on the section topic Falsifiability (the Popper book) in favor of a lesser secondary source and on what wording would convey what is modern application or re-interpretation and where it will have gone too far in rephrasing the secondary source. To be precise, Popper defines falsifiability as a separator for science from all else, not saying the all-else is pseudoscience. Even the secondary source seems to not be making it the determinant for pseudoscience but noting it as a criteria (one of many?) for distinguishing science from psuedoscience is the Stanford extension of modern discussions. Saying a test mentioned in modern discussions is correct of STanford, but saying it as the determination of a duality was not in Stanford. Non-falsifiable pieces might equally well be poetry, law, music, acconting etcetera. And while Popper used the word pseudoscience, to him Pseudoscience usage differs from that of modern day -- he used that for Bolsheviks as epithet for his fellow Jews having to teach politically-correct Marxist views in what we now would call 'soft' sciences. ] (]) 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:50, 27 September 2013
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to road, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.
Deletion discussion about Intelligent design (historical)
Hello, Markbassett,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Intelligent design (historical) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Intelligent design (historical) .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Reinstating edit on Creation-evolution controversy
Hi Markbasset, I see you reinstated your edit I had reverted previously, which removes the word pseudoscience. That word is backed by the reliable secondary source used and quoting Popper directly could actually be considered WP:OR since it's a primary source. It'd be great if you could give WP:BR a read. When an edit you make is reverted you go to the talk page, open a new thread about it and then wait to hear from other editors' input on the issue. Reverting back is considered bad practice and doing so more than three times in less than 24 hs (I'm not saying you did BTW) is considered edit warring. I'd really appreciate it if you could self revert your last edit and open a new thread so we can discuss it. Thank you very much. Regards. Gaba 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Please try the article talk since the re-creation means I've really looked and still think the edit is appropriate and so posted there. But first, please consider the desireability of having the primary source on the section topic Falsifiability (the Popper book) in favor of a lesser secondary source and on what wording would convey what is modern application or re-interpretation and where it will have gone too far in rephrasing the secondary source. To be precise, Popper defines falsifiability as a separator for science from all else, not saying the all-else is pseudoscience. Even the secondary source seems to not be making it the determinant for pseudoscience but noting it as a criteria (one of many?) for distinguishing science from psuedoscience is the Stanford extension of modern discussions. Saying a test mentioned in modern discussions is correct of STanford, but saying it as the determination of a duality was not in Stanford. Non-falsifiable pieces might equally well be poetry, law, music, acconting etcetera. And while Popper used the word pseudoscience, to him Pseudoscience usage differs from that of modern day -- he used that for Bolsheviks as epithet for his fellow Jews having to teach politically-correct Marxist views in what we now would call 'soft' sciences. Markbassett (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)