QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 20th January 2011, 1:07am)
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 20th January 2011, 12:24am)
In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.
Now that smacks of protectionism and self interest. Yeah lets allow the scientists to define what is scientific.
Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious?
Yes, it's not up to Wikipedia to decide what is and isn't a scientific theory. Also, I thought the assignation of categories in Wikipedia was not a content judgment. In other words, if "Enneagram of Personality"
is assigned to the "Pseudoscience" category, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is saying that it is a Pseudoscience, only that one or more of the sources are claiming that. If so, then the same thing should be true for Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, because some people, as reported in the sources, claim that it is. I notice that some of the "Science" editors are very quick to cast aspersions of quackery on theories they don't approve of, but very resistant to those theories being classified in opposite terms even if there are reliable sources showing that some people do consider them to be scientific theories.
This post has been edited by Cla68: