stevertigo wrote:
Something else to talk about:
Some of our rather intelligent sciency people seem to have an unusual inability to distinguish science from neutrality. Ultimately, they tend to argue that articles should hold a defacto deference to what is essentially a Scientific Point of View, rather than a Neutral Point of View.
How best to single these people out and correct their behaviour? Any examples of articles in question? Isnt the term "pseudoscience" a POV pejorative from the SPOV?
Could you give an example of a "scientific point of view" which is not neutral point of view?
Pseudoscience is not a POV pejorative term, as pseudoscience has little or no actual basis in reality. The fact that pseudoscience is 'wrong' is not a POV opinion, as it is true. Scientific observations have demonstrated the vast majority of pseudoscientific babble to be exactly that - babble.
Wikipedia should accurately reflect truth - if people say something wrong, it is not POV for us to point out that it is wrong, and to show why it is wrong.
Pseudoscientific ideas deserve a page (for historical value), but they don't deserve a voice in what is said in it, and the fact it's all wrong should be made crystal clear.
Chris