Talk:Scientific fundamentalism

I propose we keep this article but put the following text:

Scientific Fundamentalism is a myth based on ignorance of the scientific method and the nature of scientific debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zen Metheus (talk • contribs)

I'd say that's too POV toward the other end of the spectrum... but at any rate, until AfD closes, you should comment here, not on this page. Groupthink 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PoV[edit]

I've edited the article to make it less PoV. No doubt some will say that it is now PoV in the other direction. Rjm at sleepers 05:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By mistake, I described a recent set of edits as minor when they were not - my apologies. Rjm at sleepers 08:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd say that's a good job... IFF it can be backed by citations. Groupthink 13:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

If no one objects, at this time tomorrow I will redirect this page to scientism. Groupthink 00:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originators response[edit]

As the originator of the "scientific fundamentalism" page, I am unable to work more on it for now, so accept merging into scientism. However, those dismissing this term should read the eminent philosopher Mary Midgley - in particular her "Science as Salvation - a modern myth and its meaning" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Salvation-Modern-Myth-Meaning/dp/0415107733/ref=sr_1_1/202-2746987-6635853?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187429748&sr=8-1). Mary is no creationist. Wakeford 09:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]