Re: Facts vs Opinions
Yannig - F4IUJ
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:52 AM, Jim Manley wrote:
These are creative strawmen,
I told you to " read the primary references given in these Wikipedia articles" that is very different from taking Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Wikipedia is very useful though if you can read with a critical mind as it tends to be well sourced thus it is possible to make up your mind on a subject without being dependent on others thinking for you. If you are in a hurry and don't have time to comb through the primary references, you can always go to the bottom of the article check if what is written is backed up and finally decide whether what's written is worth consideration!
I can't remember writing that the scientific method has anything to do with a nomenclature of theories. That is not my view, not sure why you seem to think I hold this view.
You clearly misunderstand how scientific publications are written, you wouldn't use any encyclopedia (wikipedia, universalis or whatever encyclopedia you prefer) in your references because you are meant to use the primary source. That would be as ridiculous as saying "according to the new scientist who wrote a feature about X work on Y subject". You obviously cite directly X as the author of the work. How you discovered the source is not relevant to its reliability.
You probably need to question why you think Wikipedia is biased. It is written by 10s of 1000s of people and it would be nearly impossible to convince them all to show the same biases. May be you are not seeing the world as it really is.
I have one more Wikipedia article for you : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
I love Wikipedia (BTW thanks Mark for your hard work!) in less than 10 seconds I dug out something I have studied when I was in high school nearly 30 years ago!
Yannig - F4IUJ