>>97
Here we go again! Let's have a debate and discredit everything the opposition says in an attempt to get the last word and feel vindicated!
>Notice how I said "factual article". A discussion whether god exists or not is not a "factual article", as the question by tradition is not based on facts.
Lots of people who live in the bible belt would beg to differ. This is why they cite theories such as the watchmaker theory and the completionist probability theory. Your opinion in this case is irrelevant.
A fact is a statement of truth. This does not mean that the fact is truth. "God exists" is a fact, that some people have come to through the process of experience/observation. This does not mean it has to be universally true.
>What does this even mean? Are you claiming the scientific method is nothing but popular opinion?
The scientific method has little to do with the scientific process of peer review.
And that, yes, is nothing but popular opinion.
You've never studied science at university level, have you?
>This is why, in general, idiots are not selected for peer review.
Who defines idiocy? Aren't you assuming that idiocy is empirical? Wait a minute, isn't it also defined by society? Whoa.
>Lack of evidence, and lack of a plausible mechanism prevented the theory from wide-spread acceptance. Once a proper amount of supporting evidence was found, the theory was accepted. This is the scientific method working properly.
Up until the 1980's, certain textbooks were still citing continental drift with a label stating that it was "just a theory" and some very important scientific people did indeed believe it was all false. You make it sound as if everyone experienced a spontaneous epiphany -Hallelujah- and became immediately receptive of the theory. This MOST definitely did not happen.
Getting a theory accepted by the scientific community doesn't just require the persuasiveness of the theory, it also requires a beauty pageant of sorts. This is the process of peer review.
>Is not a fact, only a convention, and has nothing to do with this discussion.
The point is that people made arguments about how the old system of currency under British rule was "Easier to understand". This is a classic example of society dictating truth. It was a mistake to lump these with the others without explaining the point here. I apologize.
>Did not spring fully formed from Darwin's mind. Darwin's original theory had its faults and was incomplete. It took a long time to develop the theory to the point where it was sound and complete, and it's still being worked on. Scientific method working as intended, again.
And this explains the labels on textbooks stating that "Evolution is only a theory and shouldn't be taken seriously" in the Bible belt? How true does that theory hold in that area of society? Truth has never been an absolute quality.
The point here is that Wikipedia's system is no more flawed than scientific journals, except it uses a wider peer base, rather than being exclusivist. The verity of Wikipedia could be debated on for hours, but the real value of the facts it presents is ENTIRELY DECIDED by yourself and the audience you present those facts to. It's similiar to currency exchange rates.