The Cunctator wrote:
The problem is that Ed Poor has been editing articles on climate science to give equal weight to opinions outside of mainstream science, and describing the different sides as "environmentalists, liberals, Democrats and some scientists" and "other scientists".
This isn't a dispute over generalities or a philosophy of neutrality; it's a specific dispute over the presentation of particular scientific issues.
The question is: What is "mainstream science"?
1. Money
Is it determined by where the bulk of the money is spent on research? If so, then all we have to do is find out which hypotheses and/or conclusions are winning the most research grants, and so on.
For argument's sake, let us grant that the environmentalist positions on the (A) "CFCs cause deadly cancer" issue and the (B) "carbon dioxide heats up the air too much" issue are getting $5 billion per year. Further, let us suppose that the contrary positions are getting less than 5% of that, say, $200 million.
This would mean that mainstream science supports the environmentalist positions on the (A) and (B) issues.
2. Journal Articles
Is mainstream science defined by what the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals say?
Then all we have to do is review those articles, or for those not familiar with the language of science, maybe just the article "abstracts" (the summary at the beginning of the text).
If the overwhelming majority of these articles report that their research supports the environmentalist positions on the (A) and (B) issues, then our Wikipedia articles should say so.
And if our "Wikipedia definition" of "mainstream science" is "whatever the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals say", then we can say:
* The viewpoint of [[mainstream science]] is that the [[global warming]] theory is true.
However, the link to "mainstream science" should provide either the money definition given above, or the journal article count one.
I for one would trust someone like William Connolley to tell me what the journal articles say, and perhaps we could cite Sheldon Rampton as a source for where what views the bulk of the research funds is supporting.
Ed Poor
The issue is whether the opinions of someone posing as a scientist but in fact pushing a position derived from devine revelation is to be treated as a legitimate divergent view from a scientific viewpoint. Clearly, if not excluded which is my preference, such material should be clearly labeled as to its nature, including references to the source of the revelation.
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:02:56 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Mainstream of science
The Cunctator wrote:
The problem is that Ed Poor has been editing articles on climate science to give equal weight to opinions outside of mainstream science, and describing the different sides as "environmentalists, liberals, Democrats and some scientists" and "other scientists".
This isn't a dispute over generalities or a philosophy of neutrality; it's a specific dispute over the presentation of particular scientific issues.
The question is: What is "mainstream science"?
- Money
Is it determined by where the bulk of the money is spent on research? If so, then all we have to do is find out which hypotheses and/or conclusions are winning the most research grants, and so on.
For argument's sake, let us grant that the environmentalist positions on the (A) "CFCs cause deadly cancer" issue and the (B) "carbon dioxide heats up the air too much" issue are getting $5 billion per year. Further, let us suppose that the contrary positions are getting less than 5% of that, say, $200 million.
This would mean that mainstream science supports the environmentalist positions on the (A) and (B) issues.
- Journal Articles
Is mainstream science defined by what the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals say?
Then all we have to do is review those articles, or for those not familiar with the language of science, maybe just the article "abstracts" (the summary at the beginning of the text).
If the overwhelming majority of these articles report that their research supports the environmentalist positions on the (A) and (B) issues, then our Wikipedia articles should say so.
And if our "Wikipedia definition" of "mainstream science" is "whatever the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals say", then we can say:
- The viewpoint of [[mainstream science]] is that the [[global warming]]
theory is true.
However, the link to "mainstream science" should provide either the money definition given above, or the journal article count one.
I for one would trust someone like William Connolley to tell me what the journal articles say, and perhaps we could cite Sheldon Rampton as a source for where what views the bulk of the research funds is supporting.
Ed Poor
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ed Poor wrote
The question is: What is "mainstream science"?
I doubt that's the question. If a science can't account for its internal mainstream, it's in trouble. It is perfectly acceptable to argue that some part of science is in crisis - we know it happens, from time to time. It isn't really acceptable, to me, to argue in terms of interest groups. That's a covert (OK, barely concealed) attack on the status of what is going on.
Charles