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