From: Delirium
The Cunctator wrote:
>Considering both Wikipedia's mission and Wikipedia's methods, having
a
>bias towards scientific (objective, confirmable,
empirical, etc.)
>language and methods in constructing articles is right and (I
believe)
>necessary.
>
>If we do not use specific, empirical language, we cannot express
>confirmable statements. We will instead use sentences that muddle
>meaning and issues. This fails Wikipedia's mission and leads to a
>breakdown in Wikipedia's methods, as the hammerings of multiple
authors
will not lead
inexorably to one result.
Another way of putting the same idea: Wikipedia needs to be biased
towards language based on consensual thought, such as scientific
language, because Wikipedia is a consensual product.
I don't in general agree with this: there is very good reason Ethics
journals do not use scientific terminology exclusively when discussion
the abortion issue, because such terminology, while well-suited to
discussing specific medical procedures, is ill-suited to discussing
ethical issues. I think when discussing ethical issues we should make
current accepted practice in the field of Ethics our model, not
current
accepted practice in the largely unrelated scientific
fields. I've
suggested the Journal of Applied Ethics as a good model, but I'm open
to
other suggestions as well.
I'm including the social sciences in my definition of scientific
language.
I would argue that ethics journals *do* use scientific terminology
exclusively when discussing the abortion issue. They do not use
*medical* terminology exclusively.
That is to say, I agree with your recommendations. We just haven't found
exactly the right language to establish our concordance. ("Scientific
language" is not necessarily the best term to express my point.)