Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
The problem with this line of reasoning is in the need to "draw the line". There is no clear-cut demarcation between science and non-science.
I was not so much referring to the line between science and non-science as the general line between *facts* which Wikipedia can report in its own voice without attribution ("The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.") and *contested opinions* which have to be attributed or qualified ("Some critics of the Bush administration have suggested that oil interests were an important factor in the decision to invade Iraq.").
Here are a few statements which I have been using as test cases for where different people might want to draw this line.
Christianity is a religion.
Creationism is pseudo-science.
Americans have landed on the moon.
The Nazis systematically exterminated
millions of Jews.
- Human activities are significantly
affecting the average temperature on Earth.
My personal "line of unmarked narrative" lies somewhere between statements 4 and 5.
My response to those. 1. Yes, by definition, with or without the theology. 2. No, an opinion and characterization. This doesn't mean that I believe in creationism. Only that categorizing something as "pseudoscience" is a falsifiable theory that needs to be itself subject to scientific rigour. 3. Yes. The Hollywood Studio Conspiracy Theory is a little far-fetched, but those theorists have the burden of proof. It's hard to say when the cross the line from mere speculation (which is acceptable in the formation of an early theory) to pseudo-science. My speculation (or theory) would be that that theory was intended as a joke, but I'm willing to let it be at that without wasting time trying to prove it. That would hardly warrant elevating my theory to the status of pseudoscience. That would be a perfectly abandonable theory. 4. Yes, but for the use of the word "systematically". The exterminations are a question of body count. That they were systematic about it requires forming an opinion on a broader set of facts. 5. That's an opinion. Some would say that your Icelandic volcanoes are the problem :-)
This was the main point in Feyerabend's arguments. Drawing on your Chick pick I could certainly find an argument in favor of "Bible Christianity is not religion." Bible Christians are too stuck in the words of the Bible to be brought together as religion should do. By disavowing the record of the Bible the author effectively disavows creation, prefering instead his mystical relationship with Jesus.
Excellent. Would you, then, object to Christianity being included in a religion category on grounds of the NPOV policy?
No. Not all Christianity is Bible Christianity. That one word, "Bible", which you omitted from the comic strip quote can make a big difference. Whether Christianity is a religion is a question of how you define your terms.
Since you seem to disagree with the age of the earth, what would you suggest? How would you back up your alternative theory?
Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I'm fine with the Earth being old. I'm not a geologist, though, and I'm not familiar with the fine points of our current status of knowledge regarding the age of the Earth.
Great! You know your limitations. I wouldn't have the skills to prove or disprove that one either. So we both accept that opinion about the Earth's age as provisionally true. The onus is upon those who want to convince us of something else to come up with convincing proof.
Saying that Christian fundamentalists are wrong is just as POV as saying that they are right.
I'm still not quite clear on your position here. Do you object to the current lead of the [[Earth]] article on grounds of the NPOV policy? If not then why not?
The lead says nothing about the Christian fundamentalists; your question is a non-sequitur. What am I supposed to be objecting to? I have one possible objection. The symbol shown for Earth may have predated meridians, so how can it be based on them? But until I can back up my position I'm not going to jump in on that.
There is no better way to promote creationism than to argue against it. The same happens with a lot of other fields that you might label as pseudoscience.
I happen to disagree with that but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We're not talking about how best to combat pseudoscience, we're talking about how the NPOV principle of Wikipedia applies to such topics and, in particular, their categorization.
To apply NPOV to the naming of categories choose names that are acceptable to both sides of the issue.
Attitudes toward the various topics that end up on the pseudoscience list will vary considerably. The ones that I consider most likely to be credible will differ from those that you put on such a list.
What's important is the consensus of the scientific community. Not the opinion of me or you after a casual look on a list. As with any other topic you have to do substantial research to be able to write well on this.
I'm willing to look at the consensus of the scientific community, then make up my own mind. The science is more important than the scientists. I will not bow down and worship at the feet of the scientific community. Scientists can be just as entrenched in their wrong ideas as writers of paper encyclopedias are about Wikipedia. I will respect a scientist in the work that hehas done in his own field, but I will also be extremely skeptical when he starts to pontificate in other areas.
Ec