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