On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Are we prepared to enforce a strict definition of the word "science". Searching on Wikipedia tells me that we have 50,211 articles with the word "science" We have an article called [[Icelandology]] which says "Icelandology comprises the wide range of scientific problems and topics concerning this specific insular country." And later: "Icelandology also covers tourism". If we are going to be strict about using the term "science" what do we do about this sort of article? What do we do about the broad area of social sciences where many of us would agree that there is very little hard science involved
We should enforce a methodological/strict definition of the term when it is being used to define methodological/strict issues, which it is in this case.
I agree, and many of the mainstream scientists who are quick to attach the "pseudoscience" label have likely done little or no study of the field that they want to label. In doing so they are themselves acting pseudoscientifically. In one of my earlier go-rounds with this topic when it was about the [[List ...]] of such topics there were some editors who would strongly support the idea of the list, but would balk at putting cryptozoölogy, exobiology, and the SETI Project on the list. If someone wants to apply the term "pseudoscience" he should carry the burden of verifiability in a manner consistent with what that term means.
But this result is one in which Wikipedians will be arguing with each other about the methodology and whether something like Creationism counts as a science. However this is not a problem that even philosophers have been able to work out to any satisfaction. Aside from that, it ends up violating NOR. This is what inevitably happens, anyway. Is Intelligence Design a science? Someone says, "not falsifiable," someone else points out that there are ways in which ID thinks it can be falsified, and start pulling out complicated arguments on the subject, and also notes that evolution might not be falsifiable, etc. etc. etc.
Hence, I have long argued that we should try to adopt a sociological definition for the purposes of categorization. If we had a neat way to say, "Considering to not actually be scientific by mainstream science", that would be the best example of it. Because that is really what people expect when they look at a pseudoscience category -- not some idiosyncratic application of the term which is Wikipedia-specific and based on who on Wikipedia is the best debater or has the most support behind them.
FF