Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
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.
I got a private message saying this conflicted with Wikipedia's NPOV policy on pseudoscience. I'd like to clarify - it's right to mention that some people disbelieve a certain theory, and believe other ideas on how such a phenomenon exists. It's also good to include why people believes/believed such a theory.
Absolutely.
Of course, because the other ideas are normally all wrong, it's not POV to include a criticism section in the article with references to scientific experiments demonstrating that the idea is wrong.
Your statement that "the other ideas are normally all wrong" is a POV. If your criticism depends on a POV then it too is a POV. A scientific experiment that shows something to be wrong is not the same as one that fails to show it right. To say that something which is not science is necessarily pseudoscience is a textbook application of the fallacy of [[False dilemma]].
As an encyclopaedia which is intended to include 'all knowledge', I don't see any conflict between including pseudoscientific babble and explaining why it is babble. Including all knowledge doesn't conflict with Wikipedia accurately reflecting reality.
When your premise is that the material in question is "pseudoscientific babble" you have already prejudiced the discussion. It presumes that the only thing left to do is to convince otheres that it is babble.
It's easy to get all philosophical about this (what is truth? what is reality? what is knowledge?), so please assume that I'm within the bounds of WP:NPOV with what I'm saying and that any deviations are due to me becoming philosophical :) ).
Assuming that you are within the bounds of NPOV calls for a leap of faith. You might as well ask us to believe in intelligent design with you as the designer.
The foundations of science are philosophical, and without a grasp of that philosophy there is no grasp of the science. A laboratory technician is not really a scientist. He knows how to manipulate certain chemicals (or other equipment) in oder to test a predetermined hypothesis. There is no room for him to suggest alternative hypotheses. He follow science's equivalent to politically correct.. A scientist questions everything down to its roots, and spurns glibly predetermined answers.
Ec