Missouri bill redefines science....tries to implement "intelligent design"

[shrewsbury]

alex, don't think I am picking on you. I enjoy your posts just trying to help you use better resources to backup your point. In every class my wife or I or the kids have or are taking (which I am still taking college courses at age 44 and my wife is as well) zero of them allow wikipedia, zero.

obviously you can use whatever source you like, but I also know you consider yourself a man based in science, science does not use wikipedia as a source. stick to quality sources and it can only make your already good posts even better.

[JustAlex]

None of my professors let us use wikipedia...we could use the sources of information, but not wiki itself. Why? Because anyone can edit it! Yes you need a source, but who knows where that source is from?

Here's my date...he's a french model.

You're saying the same misconception that Shrew continues to imply over and over again.

Wikipedia is very highly moderated.

Again, the way it works is that you CAN edit various things BUT.....you MUST source your references.

How the hell do you guys not know how wikipedia works?

You can read anything you want in there and take it at face value....OR, you can go to the footnotes check the sources and do research and check to see if what is being said in the article is accurate or not.

shrewsbury is right, all through high school and now college, every teacher I've had says don't use Wikipedia and they won't take that as a source. Some will fail you automatically if you use it as a source.

Big deal.

The majority will STILL use wikipedia because of it's great sources found within many of the pages.

I can type "evolution" in wikipedia and I'll get a ton of great sites to make my paper on it....such as Talkorigins.org and Livescience.com and many others.

I personally don't just go in there and believe whatever is written....I go to the footnotes and research the sources.....THIS is the correct way to use it.

[deansayso]

I do understand it...how the hell do you not understand what I am saying?

I can create a website and then use that on wikipedia...the only articles that should be used for serious writings should be from the jstor and other academic journal sources. Bash on fox all you guys want, but they are an entertainment site for the most part. not a news source..

[drtom2005]

How many people can reference an encyclopedia when doing a report? Not any college class I have done. Wikipedia=encyclopedia. When writing a paper you must use a primary source, not reference material.

The wiki argument is moot. People can look up the links(primary literature). Wiki places warning for artilces not referenced.

[JustAlex]

How many people can reference an encyclopedia when doing a report? Not any college class I have done. Wikipedia=encyclopedia. When writing a paper you must use a primary source, not reference material.

The wiki argument is mute. People can look up the links(primary literature). Wiki places warning for artilces not referenced.

And that's a very good point....and you probably said it better than I could.

When doing a report, one isn't going to copy & paste what wikipedia says.....one is going to do research.

You can use wikipedia to get sources as I have already mentioned.

The example I used was evolution.

I did an "evolution thread" on here when I was very new and most of my arguments were from the sources which I found in wikipedia.

I could easily copy & paste anything wikipedia says but that isn't the point of research.

Finding your sources and getting expert opinion on the subject on hand is a better use.


However, in this particular thread, all I did was copy & paste the DEFINITION of 'hypothesis' and 'scientific theory'......this was done in order to show how ridiculous it was that the Missouri legislators literally invented their own definitions to these terms, when the definition is ALREADY available.

I could've easily copy & pasted the dictionary definitions....which are still basically the same as Wikipedia's:

Scientific theory: a theory that explains scientific observations;"scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...entific+theory

Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis?s=t


@Shrew....do you see that dictionary and wikipedia both have very similar definitions of 'hypothesis'?

It's very simplistic but it's enough.

As for 'scientific theory', the dictionary is also using a very simplistic definition.

Wikipedia is paraphrasing from THIS definition:

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

@Shrew and Wickabee.

The reason I said that I got my source from "nap.edu" and not wikipedia is because when I went to wikipedia I noticed that their definition of "scientific theory" was taken from that site.

How do I know this?

Because it was referenced and cited in their footnotes to a legitimate educational site.....and thus this is a GOOD source!


Now, with all that being said.....I will be very careful from now on of how I use my sources and references and I will be VERY sure to point to the DIRECT and primary source.

I take this pretty serious.

I don't like making illogical and/or bad arguments....even if it is a sports card forum.

I really wish to live and act upon my signature tagline.

[Wickabee]

As long as you see what we saw, it's cool.

As for your signature, you might want to add "and a dash of emotion"

[shrewsbury]

alex, you did use wikipedia and you did copy and paste from there and you have done it way more than once. also, being so based in science you should have known that the definition of hypothesis was not correct.

cent, people do try to use wikipedia as a source and nearly all professors specifically state you can't use wikipedia, so it is not mute, people do use it all the time.

[drtom2005]

alex, you did use wikipedia and you did copy and paste from there and you have done it way more than once. also, being so based in science you should have known that the definition of hypothesis was not correct.

cent, people do try to use wikipedia as a source and nearly all professors specifically state you can't use wikipedia, so it is not mute, people do use it all the time.

Can people use Encyclopedia Britannica in a research paper? No. This is not a college class and people can look up the references.

I wish people would do some of the work themselves sometimes.

The wiki issue is a distractor anyway. The point is intelliegent design is not science and public representatives have no right to change the accepted definition of hypothesis and theory to fulfill their religous agenda.

If the scientists of the world(the experts) wanted to change the defintion then it would be fine. See the pluto debate.

[Wickabee]

alex, you did use wikipedia and you did copy and paste from there and you have done it way more than once. also, being so based in science you should have known that the definition of hypothesis was not correct.

cent, people do try to use wikipedia as a source and nearly all professors specifically state you can't use wikipedia, so it is not mute, people do use it all the time.

Actually, it's not mute because it's moot.
And it's not moot.

[shrewsbury]

that is why I agreed with his post and pointed out the definition of hypothesis he posted was lacking as much as the "new" one being suggested. which is a direct result of using a junk source that is not accepted by any educational institution. which means if you want to complain of a poor definition you should not use one as your own example of what is correct.