Because it assumes standards of evidence and even standards of what "science" is, how to define it, and whether or not all of what is generally considered "science" fits into these normalized molds (they don't).
There are also things like string theory, psychoanalysis, SETI, and eugenics for which the "is it science?" question is continually in debate.
Put another way, the standards of how to determine "right" and "wrong" are exactly what are at the crux of the debate. So taking one side can easily be argued as POV, especially when we are talking about pejorative terms which imply deceit (at the very best, self-deceit) along with falseness.
There are good reasons, though, for leaning towards the "scientific" point of view *when leaning is required* -- that is, not just going that direction by default, but for sorting out the little situations where it is a question of what gets listed first and things of that nature. The primary one is credibility and with whom -- if Wikipedia is seen as a totally uncredible source by scientists and academics, that's a problem, since this is the community whose norms usually define these sorts of standards. If Wikipedia is seen as uncredible by the Creationists, UFOlogists, and so forth -- not as big a problem in my mind; they're a relatively small audience (whether or not most Americans reject evolution, most are not what one would call "Creationists" -- they are not activists about the issue) and their disdain will not harm Wikipedia in the slightest. Again -- I think this only should come up in a matter of emphasis, not a matter of substantive content, and should be done very carefully in all instances.
FF
On 12/14/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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]].
I never made such an assertion (that all non-science is pseudoscience). I said that pseudoscience is often wrong. So could you give me an example of a pseudoscience which is actually 'right'?
Your request is illogical. It asks for something right when it is wrong by definition. If I see something as "right" I would not call it pseudoscience.
Exactly - so how is it POV to demonstrate in an article why a pseudoscience is wrong?
Chris _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l