Conservapedia:Human beings and science
We need some guidelines for articles which report how scientists study human beings. Biology is called a "life science" by some, but is treated as physical science by others. What its true classification should be is problematic and can be controversial.
- Anthropology - the study of human beings, especially primitive tribes
- Medicine - the healing art of restoring human health
- Health - as taught in elementary schools
- Psychology - the study of the human mind
- Psychiatry - the medical science that treats mental disorders
- Social psychology
- Sociology - studies human relationships
- Economics - the science of buying and selling
- Political science
- History
The essence of being human is invisible and therefore difficult to study. We can't tell what people are thinking; rather, we must ask them to report their thoughts. (Are there any reliable mind readers?) Emotions can be studied, assuming we can observe people candidly; but actors can conceal or fake emotions.
If there is a soul (or what St. Paul called a spiritual body), then the physical sciences will not be able to detect it. Not without relying on something other than physical instruments (unless some technology like Kirlian photography can be proven reliable).
Is it right for biology to insist that we have a brain but no mind? That is, no mind of any higher dimension than an animal's instincts. Are human imagination, fantasy, dreams while sleeping, visions while inspired all manifestations of biochemistry?
Is this the viewpoint our encyclopedia should take? It's what Wikipedia has adopted, in the most garish and deliberate flouting of its own NPOV policy. Their article are consistently pro-materialism and anti-supernatural. There is zero neutrality there on anything which "science" says. They cannot admit there is a controversy on any scientific disagreement between materialists and others, because then by their own rules they would have to give sufficient space for opposing views.
