My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly rather subjective, is that it doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply *must* be true. "Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but does so selectively, deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict its hypotheses.
I would love it, if someone would expand the Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience and junk science, in a scrupulously neutral way.
For example, the [[global warming]] article has never clarified the relationship (if any) among solar activity, carbon dioxide levels, and observation of temperature at sea level, the lower atmosphere, and the upper atmosphere. Someone who knows what has been observed, and which observations have been deliberately hidden or ignored, could make a great contribution here.
I think Sheldon is the best-qualified person to do this, as he has the most facts at his command.
Uncle Ed
I think only Cunctator agrees with his proposed policy, while nearly half a dozen other oppose it (both as expressed here on the mailing list, as well as on various talk pages).
If the consensus goes against you, Mr. Cunctator, please be so gracious as to revert your undoing of Oliver's work. I would do the same.
Uncle Ed
>It's not really enough to use the bare phrase "observers say...". In
>the absence of knowing just who the observers are, you've just passed
>the buck to somebody that can't be identified, and whose facts can't be
>checked.
>
>Eclecticology
I agree that the article should _name_ the observers who have concluded that communism doesn't work, rather than passing the buck.
Ed
Robert wrote:
>The position I disagreed with was an attempt to stifle
>legitimate scientific discussion of controversial issues.
>I strongly urge Wiki Users to read some of the articles
>below - yet not for the article content as such. Rather, I
>want to illustrate that the term "pseudoscience" has a
>specific use, and is used in a scientific context. It is
>not hatespeech; it in fact has a legitimate use. This word
>should not be banned from our vocabulary.
I agree that the term "pseudoscience" has a legitimate place in
discussions of science. Some terminology is necessary to mark the
boundaries between what is science and what is not science. The
Wikipedia article on pseudoscience is actually quite good.
I would contrast "pseudoscience" with the term "junk science," which
is clearly a pejorative term that is designed to attack the character
and qualifications of its alleged practitioners. Moreover, the term
"junk science" is always used in reference to allegedly poor science
by environmentalists and public health advocates. By contrast, it
almost never gets used in reference to scientific misinformation
coming from corporate polluters or even from the tobacco industry
(arguably the worst single corrupting influence on science of the
20th century). In fact, the tobacco industry has been the
behind-the-scenes sponsor of many of the organizations that purport
to attack "junk science"!
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
Ed Poor wrote:
>Instead of trying to run verbal rings around LittleDan,
>why not take a moment to consider what he *meant*?
I did.
>Which was, apparently:
>
>* putting communist ideas into effect by creating what
> pro-Marxists might call "building socialism" in a country.
I don't think it was at all clear that this was what he meant.
*You're* the person who is rewriting Dan's comments to make them mean
something different from what he actually wrote. Many people, for
example, would argue that the introduction of socialized medicine in
Europe and other countries was a communist measure, and it was
certainly supported at the time by "pro-Marxists." Dan's statement
that "communism never works in practice" is the sort of ideological
argument that one hears even today in the United States as a reason
to oppose socialized medicine here. However, socialized medicine is
quite different from "building socialism" in a country.
>The fact that these "socialist" experiments collapsed
>in the former Soviet bloc would seem to support the POV
>that communism never works in practice.
Here, Ed manages to ignore the example I provided of China, which
*hasn't* collapsed. He must be using some strange definition of the
word "never" that isn't in my dictionary. ;)
>Anyway, the question is still whether:
>
>* the Wikipedia ought to assert the fact that communism
> doesn't work, or
>* the Wikipedia ought to REPORT that various observers
> have concluded that communism doesn't work
>
>My understanding of Jimbo's NPOV policy is that we should
>not assert communism's unworkableness as fact but rather
>report that observers say it doesn't work.
Agreed, for the most part.
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
Sheldon,
The argument that "no communist regime has ever claimed
to actually *be* communist" is already discussed in the
Wikipedia article, and is IMHO opinion an example of
exactly the sort of "disinformation" your other wiki
is supposedly dedicated to exposing.
Instead of trying to run verbal rings around LittleDan,
why not take a moment to consider what he *meant*?
Which was, apparently:
* putting communist ideas into effect by creating what
pro-Marxists might call "building socialism" in a country.
The fact that these "socialist" experiments collapsed
in the former Soviet bloc would seem to support the POV
that communism never works in practice.
Anyway, the question is still whether:
* the Wikipedia ought to assert the fact that communism
doesn't work, or
* the Wikipedia ought to REPORT that various observers
have concluded that communism doesn't work
My understanding of Jimbo's NPOV policy is that we should
not assert communism's unworkableness as fact but rather
report that observers say it doesn't work.
Uncle Ed
I like Axelboldt's idea of avoiding double quotes, and I guess there's no need for the colon if there are single quotes, so I'll change the article titles as suggested.
Sorry to Cunctator if he'd like the word "slogan" at the end of the title, but I think it would be less of a shock to Google surfers to put the "slogan" tag at the front. This will be especially useful for long, multi-word slogans such as:
[[Slogan 'The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer']]
...which refers to an economic principle espoused by many Marxists (and vigorously disputed by most free-market advocates).
Uncle Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Axel Boldt [mailto:axelboldt@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:42 PM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Slogan policy (was: DTK article)
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
> Please see the following articles. I wrote the first three, then
> renamed the last to conform to my proposed naming convention of
> [[Slogan:XYZ]].
>
> * [[Slogan:Power to the people]]
> * [[Slogan:Better dead than Red]]
> * [[Slogan:Kills Bugs Dead]]
> * [[Slogan:AIDS Kills Fags Dead]]
The colon may confuse readers (and the software?) into treating
"Slogan" as a name space. Also I think quotes would be in order. Since
double quotes are not available at this point, I'd prefer
[[Slogan 'Power to the people']].
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve,
Thanks for answering LittleDan's question. I was also
interested in the answer, as you surmised.
I agree that the word "anti-Semitic" is thrown around
an awful lot. My own church has been hit by charges
of anti-Semitism, despite what I regard as its
exceptionally clear commitment to Israel's well-being
and high regard for Jews and Judaism. Why, Abraham is
the "father of our faith" and both Jacob and Joseph
are considers models for us all to emulate in the
modern era.
Perhaps in Wikipedia articles we might devote less
time to determining whether a given figure or insti-
tution *is* anti-Semitic. It is much easier to say
that "so-and-so" considers X to be anti-Semitic, on
"thus-and-such" grounds; and leave it at that.
Really, we need a standard on political (and other)
labels.
Uncle Ed
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> > Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something
> > similar)
And Jimmy Wales responded:
>It's better to soften the claim to an extent that even a pro-Communist
>could agree with it. It's very vague to say "never works", for
>example. It would be better to simply point out that communist
>societies have had some notable failures such as X, Y, and Z.
The vagueness is what makes Daniel's statement indefensible. One
might as easily say that "Christianity never works in practice" or
"capitalism never works in practice." The statement is so broadly
worded that it is open to legitimate dispute on several definitional
grounds alone, e.g., "How do you define 'communism'?" or "What does
it mean to say that something 'works in practice'?" For example:
(1) Marxists make a clear definitional distinction between
"socialism" and "communism," and no communist regime has ever claimed
to actually *be* communist. The Soviet Union, for example, called
itself the "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics." In Marxist theory,
socialism is viewed as a transitional social system that will
eventually give way to communism (once the state "withers away").
Obviously this theory is open to challenge, but the regimes that
collapsed in the former Soviet bloc were examples of what a member of
the Communist Party USA would call "actually existing socialism," not
"communism." From the point of view of Marxist theory, therefore,
communism has never "failed" because it has never yet *existed*.
(2) On the other hand, various non-Marxist definitions of communism
also exist. If we adopt some of those definitions, it is possible to
argue that communism has sometimes worked quite well. During the 19th
century, for example, members of the Mormon Church practiced a form
of religious communism known as the "United Order." Participants held
all property in common and acted in concert under the leadership of
religious authorities. Under this system, they successfully colonized
a large portion of the American west and accomplished things that no
one else was able to accomplish. (Mormons, for example, were the
first successful irrigators in the western United States.) Likewise,
there is the example of the Israeli kibbutz, as well as any number of
communes operating today in the United States and elsewhere that
practice some form of "communism." Just last month, a nonprofit
organization for which I volunteer received a check for $30,000 from
a guy who lives on a commune. If he's got that kind of money to send
our way, you'd have to conclude that his preferred brand of communism
works pretty well for him!
(3) Even under capitalism, there are many examples and forms of
successful community-based ownership. For example, some intellectual
works are in the public domain. (Depending on how you define
communism, Wikipedia itself could be characterized as an example of
"communism that works"!) Most industrialized nations outside the
United States have some form of socialized medicine, and the end
result seems to "work" pretty well. (Europeans have marginally better
longevity than U.S. citizens, while paying a third of what we spend
per capita on health care.)
(4) Finally, Daniel's original statement is terminally vague about
what it means to "work in practice." The Bolshevik revolution "worked
in practice" as a way of ending Russian participation in a
debilitating war. The Chinese Communist revolution "worked in
practice" at ending opium addiction (after Mao executed a million
addicts). It has also "worked in practice" for more than half a
century at achieving social stability and economic growth. Here, for
example, is how Wikipedia currently describes the achievements of the
regime:
>The large number of deaths during the period of consolidation of
>power after victory in the Chinese civil war paled in comparison to
>the number of deaths caused by famine, anarchy, war, and foreign
>invasion in the years before the Communists took power.
>
>Supporters of Mao point out that before 1949, for instance, the
>illiteracy rate in Mainland China was 80 percent, and life
>expectancy was a meager 35 years. At his death, illiteracy had
>declined to less than seven per cent, and average life expectancy
>had increased to more than 70 years. In addition, China's population
>which had remained constant at 400 million from the [[Opium War]] to
>the end of the [[Chinese Civil War|Civil War]], mushroomed to 700
>million as of Mao's death.
[SNIP]
>China, unlike virtually any other [[Third World]] nation, no longer
>has to fear the prospects of [[over-population]], [[malnutrition]],
>and famine in spite of the doubling of life expectancy during the
>Mao years. With population growth stabilized, China is sustaining
>one of the world's highest rates of per capita economic growth in
>the world.
DISCLAIMER: None of the above discussion should be interpreted to
mean that I endorse the economic policies, political philosophy or
repressive practices of the Chinese government. The point is not that
sweeping statements like the one that Daniel gave *are* POV because
they overgeneralize, ignoring facts and arguments that contradict the
generalization.
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
Robert wrote:
>It was proposed that the term "pseudoscience" has no
>validity, and it was clearly implied that this word is
simply a hateful attack, like "kike" or "nigger".
It's not a question of validity, but of whether Wikipedia
articles should flatly categorize any particular idea or
system as "pseudoscience".
My reading of Jimbo's NPOV policy is that the Wikipedia
should avoid drawing conclusions where there is signifi-
cant disagreement. Thus, I would prefer to see articles
on, say, chiropractic, say something like:
* "The Western medical establishment dismisses
chiropractic as pseudoscience."
This clearly attributes the point of view (or POV) to its
advocate, leaving Wikipedia neutral on the issue.
Blandly,
Uncle Ed