Singer wrote in 1995,
<< For the general public, and even for the trained scientist, these scientific controversies are difficult to sort out. It is indeed a multi-faceted problem, a chain with many links connecting the release of CFCs into the atmosphere with the occurrence of skin cancer. Briefly, the steps are postulated as follows (6):
1. CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine.
2. Chlorine, in its active form, can destroy ozone catalytically and thereby lower its total amount in the stratosphere.
3. A reduced level of ozone results in an increased level of solar ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth.
4. Exposure to increased UV leads to increases in skin cancer.
Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect (7,8). One can reasonably conclude that policy is rushing far ahead of the science. >>
William Connolley is picking apart #1 above (the well-mixed point).
The context of the discussion is the POLITICAL controversy over the CFC ban. Singer says it's not justified, because NOT ALL of the 4 points in the chain of reasoning are correct. If even one is incorrect, he argues, then the Montreal Protocol was unjustified.
It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with Singer.
Many of the environmentalists try to bolster their argument by saying that "the consensus of scientists" agrees with them. But I don't think Wikipedia ought to support the claim that such a "consensus" exists.
Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point, we could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on evolution: 95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed support Darwin's theory, and well over 99% of biologists.
I'm getting tired, so I'll see you guys tomorrow...
Uncle Ed
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with Singer.
This sounds just like creationists working to bolster their position by saying it's just one POV against another. It is a sneaky tactic; once you've gotten people to admit the discredited theory might just possibly conceivably be valid in some alternate universe, then jump on it and demand equal time.
Many of the environmentalists try to bolster their argument by saying that "the consensus of scientists" agrees with them. But I don't think Wikipedia ought to support the claim that such a "consensus" exists.
Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point, we could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on evolution: 95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed support Darwin's theory, and well over 99% of biologists.
Another sneaky tactic; it's unlikely anyone will survey scientists about global warning, so you can safely say "we have to be open-minded until then". The scientific consensus is normally defined by the peer review and publication process, so that's all that's necessary. If there are no peer-reviewed articles anywhere, that's a sure sign of crackpot theory.
Although the global warming hypothesis is controversial, many of the specific processes are completely straightforward and no longer a matter of scientific dispute. It would be very harmful to Wikipedia's credibility if solid theories were to be called into question in the name of NPOV, just because they are used as supporting arguments for theories that are controversial. What if data about animal evolution unequivocally supports the global warming hypothesis, are we going to back off and say "well, it may be a consensus, but the scientific community has been wrong before, we need to go put creationism mentions in every evolution-related article".
Stan
Stan
Just to jump into this debate, here are the relevant two paragraphs, from [[Ozone hole]]:
---- One prominent opponent of CFC reduction strategy has been the atmospheric scientist Fred Singer, who has noted the scientific uncertainties such as the lack of direct observations of surface UV increases (as mentioned above). However, Singer goes far beyond this to claim, for example, that "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine" is controversial [4], when there is clear evidence for it (though Singer is wrong to use the word "percolate"). Singer, who is also a leading skeptic of strategies on global warming, has consistently insisted that the remaining level of scientific uncertainty about these issues is too high to justify taking the control measures recommended by most other atmospheric scientists, given their possible economic impact.
As noted above, Singer's objections go beyond reasonable skepticism. Moreover, he is a retired scientist who has produced no new research since the mid-1970s. His only recent publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is a single technical comment published in 1994 in Science magazine.[5] In 1995 testimony before the US Congress, Singer himself stated that his last original, peer-reviewed research was in 1971. His contributions to the recent debates over ozone deption and global warming have consisted entirely of commentaries and letters, mostly self-published or published in newspapers and other popular media rather than in scientific journals. Environmentalists critical of Singer's role also allege a conflict of interest, pointing out that he has financial ties to oil companies (Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil). ----
I don't think these read like NPOV. I'm completely unfamiliar to the debate, but they read to me like they were written by someone who is trying to discredit Singer. Whether Singer is credible or not is another matter, but the tone of the writing shouldn't make it sound like it's written by someone who dislikes Singer. It also shouldn't be phrased as *Wikipedia* making the claim that Singer's objections are "beyond reasonable skepticism"--we are not in a position to judge what skepticism is reasonable and what isn't. If it is a widely accepted viewpoint that Singer's skepticism is unreasonable, we should say "However, most scientists find Singer's objections to go beyond reasonable skepticism...", preferably with a source. The rest of the 2nd paragraph in particular needs to be rephrased--it reads entirely as someone trying to build a case against Singer, which Wikipedia is not the proper place for.
-Mark
(I've omitted the lengthy quotes.)
Delirium wrote:
I don't think these read like NPOV. I'm completely unfamiliar to the debate, but they read to me like they were written by someone who is trying to discredit Singer.
I agree completely. That's one of the worst examples of non-neutral writing that I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time.
It also shouldn't be phrased as *Wikipedia* making the claim that Singer's objections are "beyond reasonable skepticism"--we are not in a position to judge what skepticism is reasonable and what isn't. If it is a widely accepted viewpoint that Singer's skepticism is unreasonable, we should say "However, most scientists find Singer's objections to go beyond reasonable skepticism...", preferably with a source.
I think you said this very very well.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
"However, most scientists find Singer's objections to go beyond reasonable skepticism...", preferably with a source.
I think you said this very very well.
Madness. Absolute madness.
We now have a carte blanche for the inclusion on any scientific page absolutely any crackpot theories we care to include, as long as we annotate them.
Are you really suggesting that "most scientists find Theory X to be beyond reasonable skepticism." is not an acceptable standard for the exclusion of Theory X from a supposedly scientific encyclopedia.
I despair.
Gareth Owen wrote:
Are you really suggesting that "most scientists find Theory X to be beyond reasonable skepticism." is not an acceptable standard for the exclusion of Theory X from a supposedly scientific encyclopedia.
I don't think I'm suggesting that, no. It depends on what you mean, so I better ask some questions before I answer. (And I think there's a grammatical typo of some sort in what you wrote? I think you meant to say 'exclusion of criticism of Theory X'?)
What do you mean by 'exclusion'? Do you mean that if most scientists believe something, that we should be careful not to even _mention_ alternatives that are actually held by significant critics?
I think if most scientists find Theory X to be beyond reasonable skepticism, then that's exactly what we should say. We should not give "equal time" to the other side, nor make it seem as if our opinion is that both points of view are equally valid. But we can achieve all of that without actually needing to make the claim ourselves.
We do this all the time in articles on actually crackpot notions, like the Loch Ness Monster. Here's a very good paragraph:
The Loch Ness Monster legend refers to the purported existence of a large plesiosaur-like creature that lives in Loch Ness, a large lake in Scotland near the city of Inverness. "Nessie" is generally considered to be a sea monster. In July 2003, the BBC reported that an extensive investigation of Loch Ness by a BBC team, using 600 separate sonar beams, found no trace of any "sea monster" in the loch. The BBC team stated that it is now conclusively proven that "Nessie" does not exist [1].
Notice that the reader is not given any wishy-washy nonsense about "some say this, some say that". And yet, at the same time, the article *itself*, Wikipedia *itself*, takes no stand on the issue. (I haven't read the rest of the article just now, so I can't say if the rest of the article is as good.)
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Do you mean that if most scientists believe something, that we should be careful not to even _mention_ alternatives that are actually held by significant critics?
Significant scientific critics do not hold opinions that are demonstrably false. We don't mention flat earthers in discussion of geology, because simply mentioning their alternative hypothesis lends it credence which it does not deserve. [[Solar system]] does not mention the various pre-Copernican theories as viable alternatives, because science has thoroughly discredited them. These are, however, quite rightly placed in their historical context. We do not attempt to weasel a fake NPOV by saying "some obscure religious orders still believe in the geocentric universe." Even if its true, these demonstrably false opinions do not belong in scientific arguments.
The opinions of SEPP are not scientifically motivated or justifiable. They do not belong with scientific discussions. I've not problem with their opinions appearing in the discussion of the beliefs of SEPP.
Gareth Owen wrote:
We do not attempt to weasel a fake NPOV by saying "some obscure religious orders still believe in the geocentric universe." Even if its true, these demonstrably false opinions do not belong in scientific arguments.
I don't actually see what's wrong with this. It adds information that was otherwise not present--that there are some obscure religious orders that believe in the geocentric universe (perhaps accompany with a link to [[Flat Earth Society]] or some other group that flals in this category). And it doesn't place it on even footing with scientific consensus, because it's clearly labeled as the view of "obscure religious orders", not of scientists or even any mainstream religions.
-Mark
From: Delirium
Gareth Owen wrote:
We do not attempt to weasel a fake NPOV by saying "some obscure
religious
orders still believe in the geocentric universe." Even if its true,
these
demonstrably false opinions do not belong in scientific arguments.
I don't actually see what's wrong with this. It adds information that was otherwise not present--that there are some obscure religious
orders
that believe in the geocentric universe (perhaps accompany with a link to [[Flat Earth Society]] or some other group that flals in this category). And it doesn't place it on even footing with scientific consensus, because it's clearly labeled as the view of "obscure religious orders", not of scientists or even any mainstream religions.
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.
--tc
Gareth Owen wrote:
Are you really suggesting that "most scientists find Theory X to be beyond reasonable skepticism." is not an acceptable standard for the exclusion of Theory X from a supposedly scientific encyclopedia.
I don't see why we shouldn't mention it, especially if it has some following in the political debate, as long as we do mention that most scientists consider it unreasonable and unfounded (when that is the case). Our pages on various minority religious views don't say, for example, "only a bunch of crazy cultists hold this obviously illogical view" (even in cases where the view is provably in conflict with reality). We instead say something more like "These claims are nearly universally discounted by those outside the group." Sure, it's a *little* silly in some very fringe cases, but there's a lot of gray area where we simply can't make that decision. I don't really see what's wrong with saying "This view is sometimes promoted, by widely discredited by the scientific community." That, to my mind, in fact is a *stronger* statement against than "This view is clearly false", because in the latter case people will say "so what if Wikipedia says it's false?", given that we have no independent authority on essentially any topic. In the former case it's clear that we're reporting a matter that was settled by people in the field, not making the claim ourselves
-Mark
Still have confusion about the topic in this comment. The passage under discussion relates to ozone depletion, not global warming. Other than that it seems right on.
It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with Singer.
Is simply a false statement. There may be some serious scientists that doubt that global warming exists or has a human cause, but there may not be any that side with Singer on the ozone question. Who, for example, seriously thinks UV radiation doesn't cause skin cancer? But what Ed says is even more insidious, he says "lots of environmentalists (or is it others, what others?) side with Singer.
The worst thing about this for me is that Ed makes absolutely no claim to any knowledge or expertise on the underlying facts yet he advances a position seemingly utterly without factual basis.
Fred
From: Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:49:14 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor(Re: toJimbo)
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with Singer.
This sounds just like creationists working to bolster their position by saying it's just one POV against another. It is a sneaky tactic; once you've gotten people to admit the discredited theory might just possibly conceivably be valid in some alternate universe, then jump on it and demand equal time.
Many of the environmentalists try to bolster their argument by saying that "the consensus of scientists" agrees with them. But I don't think Wikipedia ought to support the claim that such a "consensus" exists.
Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point, we could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on evolution: 95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed support Darwin's theory, and well over 99% of biologists.
Another sneaky tactic; it's unlikely anyone will survey scientists about global warning, so you can safely say "we have to be open-minded until then". The scientific consensus is normally defined by the peer review and publication process, so that's all that's necessary. If there are no peer-reviewed articles anywhere, that's a sure sign of crackpot theory.
Although the global warming hypothesis is controversial, many of the specific processes are completely straightforward and no longer a matter of scientific dispute. It would be very harmful to Wikipedia's credibility if solid theories were to be called into question in the name of NPOV, just because they are used as supporting arguments for theories that are controversial. What if data about animal evolution unequivocally supports the global warming hypothesis, are we going to back off and say "well, it may be a consensus, but the scientific community has been wrong before, we need to go put creationism mentions in every evolution-related article".
Stan
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Cunctator is unilaterally deleting Votes for Deletion headers from pages that are still under discussion on the Votes for Deletion page.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
"Well done"? Please elaborate.
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: Rick wrote:
The Cunctator is unilaterally deleting Votes for Deletion headers from pages that are still under discussion on the Votes for Deletion page.
Well done!
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
I think tha speaks for itself. Cunc evidently did not want the article to be deleted, and didn't have the time to waste at VfD. All I'm saying is that I support his action.
Ec
Rick wrote:
"Well done"? Please elaborate.
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Rick wrote: > The Cunctator is unilaterally deleting Votes for Deletion headers from > pages that are still under discussion on the Votes for Deletion page. > Well done!
Stan Shebs wrote:
This sounds just like creationists working to bolster their position by saying it's just one POV against another. It is a sneaky tactic; once you've gotten people to admit the discredited theory might just possibly conceivably be valid in some alternate universe, then jump on it and demand equal time.
Perhaps that is what Ed is doing, but it doesn't sound like it to me. The particular statement that he's discussing is an example where, as originally written, _Wikipedia_ was itself making a claim that is significiantly too strong for us.
If there are no peer-reviewed articles anywhere, that's a sure sign of crackpot theory.
That's one possible sign yes, but of course that is NOT what is going on here. There are peer-reviewed articles.
Although the global warming hypothesis is controversial, many of the specific processes are completely straightforward and no longer a matter of scientific dispute. It would be very harmful to Wikipedia's credibility if solid theories were to be called into question in the name of NPOV, just because they are used as supporting arguments for theories that are controversial.
Ah, I think this is one of the misconceptions about good NPOV writing. We do not need to "call into question" solid theories, we just need to accurately report on the state of the actual field in question.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Perhaps that is what Ed is doing, but it doesn't sound like it to me. The particular statement that he's discussing is an example where, as originally written, _Wikipedia_ was itself making a claim that is significiantly too strong for us.
Its not. Really. That's what CFCs do. Honestly. Everyone knows this. It is a fact. You can look it up in any reputable encyclopedia.
That's one possible sign yes, but of course that is NOT what is going on here. There are peer-reviewed articles.
Denying that turbulent mixing occurs in the atmosphere? That CFCs reach the stratosphere? Its not a theory. Its not a model prediction. You can detect them there, with balloon-borne gas chromatographs.
I'm all for scepticism, but in this area Ed too often cannot distinguish between NPOV and Ed'sPOV
On 11/24/03 5:54 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Singer wrote in 1995,
<< For the general public, and even for the trained scientist, these scientific controversies are difficult to sort out. It is indeed a multi-faceted problem, a chain with many links connecting the release of CFCs into the atmosphere with the occurrence of skin cancer. Briefly, the steps are postulated as follows (6):
- CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the
atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine.
- Chlorine, in its active form, can destroy ozone catalytically and
thereby lower its total amount in the stratosphere.
- A reduced level of ozone results in an increased level of solar
ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth.
- Exposure to increased UV leads to increases in skin cancer.
Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect (7,8). One can reasonably conclude that policy is rushing far ahead of the science. >>
William Connolley is picking apart #1 above (the well-mixed point).
The context of the discussion is the POLITICAL controversy over the CFC ban. Singer says it's not justified, because NOT ALL of the 4 points in the chain of reasoning are correct. If even one is incorrect, he argues, then the Montreal Protocol was unjustified.
It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with Singer.
Actually, it's "people who believe in science" vs. Singer.
Arguing that active chlorine doesn't destroy ozone catalytically, that ozone doesn't absorb solar radiation, and that UV radiation doesn't cause skin cancer is the same as arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry are wrong. It's arguing that Newton, Einstein, Watson & Crick, Mendeleev, etc. were wackos.
These are arguments that are BEYOND THE PALE of scientific debate.
It's not "environmentalists" vs. "others".
It is true that there is debate over the total effect of CFCs, what their actual longevity is, exactly how variation in UV radiation changes cancer rates, etc., etc. but Singer's claims are bogus.
Ed also wrote:
The big picture is:
- Some people say "the science is settled"
- Other people say "there is still a controversy"
That's a simplification so gross as to be a total misrepresentation of the truth.
Under Ed's criteria, one could write
The big picture is: * Some people say "the Holocaust happened" * Other people say "there is still a controversy"
The big picture is: * Some people say "Judaism is a valid religion" * Other people say "Jewish people, you have to repent"
The big picture is: * Some people say "Islamic countries are nations of human beings" * Other people say they are "the principalities of darkness" with "demonic" people
Yes, I'm falling into the Godwin trap, but we don't present the existence of the Holocaust as simply a dispute between different factions of historians. We don't present Rev. Moon's stated opinions about Jews as an equal counterweight in our entries on Judaism. Nor we we present General Boykin's claims about Islam as an equal side in our entries on Islam.
Instead, we create a consistent, coherent picture of the world through our interlocking articles. For example, if on one page we say that active chlorine doesn't destroy ozone catalytically, that contradicts all the pages that describe how chemistry works.