[[Category:Pseudoscience]] is one which gets objections at fairly regular intervals. The reasons for the objections are pretty straightforward -- the users making such objections are almost always either Creationists or Eugenicists or other people who believe in bodies of thought labeled as "pseudoscience" -- and the response is generally pretty straightforward as well: Wikipedia is not claiming these so-labeled articles are actually "pseudoscience", but rather that they are labeled *by the mainstream scientific community* as "pseudoscience".
And the text of the category page and the [[Pseudoscience]] article spell this out pretty clearly, in my mind. The article itself goes to much length to talk about how the notion itself is seen as somewhat dubious even in circles of people not labeled as such -- philosophers and historians of science, for example, have at times gone to lengths to argue that the boundaries between what is a "science" and what is not are exceedingly difficult to lay down. Feyerabend, for example, made a large point out of showing that many things today considered canonical distinctions between "science" and other modes of thought did not apply to many of the "fathers" of science (i.e. Galileo, Newton, etc.) and others have made similar observations both in historical and current science. After a century of thought on it, the demarcation problem has still not been convincingly solved.
Okay. So we have a nice NPOV article on the subject itself. But what about the category? Does that nuance and care get lost when articles just say "Pseudoscience" at the bottom of the page? Can we trust the user to click it and read our little explanation/disclaimer?
Let's assume that we can, for a moment.
What if we had an article on [[Satanic lies]], which explains that followers of certain religion sects view a number of modern practices and beliefs as lies of the Devil. It also notes that quite a few other religion sects don't believe in this, and that mainstream philosophers and scientists find this a pretty poor model of thought. After ten centuries of thought, the problem of knowing what is a Satanic lie or not has still not been convincingly solved. A nice, NPOV article.
Would we accept a placement of [[Category:Satanic lie]] onto pages about Evolution? Sure, the category page itself would not, "Now, this is only believed by a certain group."
Would we allow it? If not, why not? Do we accept it if we lean towards the mainstream opinion in categorization efforts, or do we see this as a NPOV problem?
I've been defending the presence of [[Category:Pseudoscience]] for some time now as a sociological category, but it occurred to me today that one could imagine all sorts of circumstances in which it would seem hopelessly POV to have category labels of this sort (one could include things like [[Category:Hoaxes]] or [[Category:Conspiracies]] or whatever in this, if those categories exist), even if their actual articles (and even category pages) were written in perfect NPOV. Does the brevity of category labels make this impossible? I'm beginning to think they might, and that these sorts of categories should be converted wholly into lists. I wouldn't mind a [[List of Satanic lies]] which clearly noted who thought they were and included [[Evolution]] on the list. But I would mind having [[Category:Satanic lie]] put onto the Evolution page.
Any input on this would be appreciated as I mull this over.
FF
On 26/06/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I've been defending the presence of [[Category:Pseudoscience]] for some time now as a sociological category, but it occurred to me today that one could imagine all sorts of circumstances in which it would seem hopelessly POV to have category labels of this sort (one could include things like [[Category:Hoaxes]] or [[Category:Conspiracies]] or whatever in this, if those categories exist), even if their actual articles (and even category pages) were written in perfect NPOV. Does the brevity of category labels make this impossible? I'm beginning to think they might, and that these sorts of categories should be converted wholly into lists. I wouldn't mind a [[List of Satanic lies]] which clearly noted who thought they were and included [[Evolution]] on the list. But I would mind having [[Category:Satanic lie]] put onto the Evolution page.
Any input on this would be appreciated as I mull this over.
I'm not sure how much use this is, but it strikes me as an interesting example.
A large number of people consider the Apollo landings to be a hoax - I'm sure you've encountered them. We have many, many pages on the Apollo program, the individual flights and associated topics. None of these contain any significant discussion of the hoax theories - at least, I haven't seen any.
We also have [[Apollo moon landing hoax accusations]], which discusses the various hoax theories, counterarguments, all that sort of thing. *It* is categorised under "Conspiracy theories" & "Hoaxes" (so, yeah, we have both)...
There's been a lot of talk about this at [[Category:Conspiracy theories]], and although I hate the fact that that label closes people's minds to thinking about these theories, it is the most concise and recognizable descriptor for them.
I'm a scientist, so I am totally biased on the pseudoscience issue, but I think that a well written article that is NPOV should explain both sides: it should describe the theory, it's history, and the objections of the scientific community. In other words, a NPOV article in [[Category:Pseudoscience]] should already describe exactly what it means for it to be in that category - that mainstream science doesn't accept this theory for various reasons. One wouldn't need to read [[Pseudoscience]] in order to understand why it's been placed in the category.
The [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag at the bottom is definitely used by some as a warning label, which I can't really fault because many theories cloak themselves in scientific language that can easily lure a non-scientist into thinking its a mainstream scientific theory backed by the scientific community. I suppose that the [[Category:Conspiracy theories]] serves a similar purpose.
So I guess my conclusion is that it might be okay to have something like [[Category:Satanic lies]] for example if the article text dealt with who thought it was a satanic lie and why, but inappropriate otherwise, as the reader wouldn't understand the characterization. Of course, I wouldn't use the name satanic lies. I mean I thought conspiracy theory was a loaded phrase for a category name, and it's a commonly used.
Laura
On Jun 26, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Fastfission wrote:
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] is one which gets objections at fairly regular intervals. The reasons for the objections are pretty straightforward -- the users making such objections are almost always either Creationists or Eugenicists or other people who believe in bodies of thought labeled as "pseudoscience" -- and the response is generally pretty straightforward as well: Wikipedia is not claiming these so-labeled articles are actually "pseudoscience", but rather that they are labeled *by the mainstream scientific community* as "pseudoscience".
And the text of the category page and the [[Pseudoscience]] article spell this out pretty clearly, in my mind. The article itself goes to much length to talk about how the notion itself is seen as somewhat dubious even in circles of people not labeled as such -- philosophers and historians of science, for example, have at times gone to lengths to argue that the boundaries between what is a "science" and what is not are exceedingly difficult to lay down. Feyerabend, for example, made a large point out of showing that many things today considered canonical distinctions between "science" and other modes of thought did not apply to many of the "fathers" of science (i.e. Galileo, Newton, etc.) and others have made similar observations both in historical and current science. After a century of thought on it, the demarcation problem has still not been convincingly solved.
Okay. So we have a nice NPOV article on the subject itself. But what about the category? Does that nuance and care get lost when articles just say "Pseudoscience" at the bottom of the page? Can we trust the user to click it and read our little explanation/disclaimer?
Let's assume that we can, for a moment.
What if we had an article on [[Satanic lies]], which explains that followers of certain religion sects view a number of modern practices and beliefs as lies of the Devil. It also notes that quite a few other religion sects don't believe in this, and that mainstream philosophers and scientists find this a pretty poor model of thought. After ten centuries of thought, the problem of knowing what is a Satanic lie or not has still not been convincingly solved. A nice, NPOV article.
Would we accept a placement of [[Category:Satanic lie]] onto pages about Evolution? Sure, the category page itself would not, "Now, this is only believed by a certain group."
Would we allow it? If not, why not? Do we accept it if we lean towards the mainstream opinion in categorization efforts, or do we see this as a NPOV problem?
I've been defending the presence of [[Category:Pseudoscience]] for some time now as a sociological category, but it occurred to me today that one could imagine all sorts of circumstances in which it would seem hopelessly POV to have category labels of this sort (one could include things like [[Category:Hoaxes]] or [[Category:Conspiracies]] or whatever in this, if those categories exist), even if their actual articles (and even category pages) were written in perfect NPOV. Does the brevity of category labels make this impossible? I'm beginning to think they might, and that these sorts of categories should be converted wholly into lists. I wouldn't mind a [[List of Satanic lies]] which clearly noted who thought they were and included [[Evolution]] on the list. But I would mind having [[Category:Satanic lie]] put onto the Evolution page.
Any input on this would be appreciated as I mull this over.
FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/26/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] is one which gets objections at fairly regular intervals. The reasons for the objections are pretty straightforward -- the users making such objections are almost always either Creationists or Eugenicists or other people who believe in bodies of thought labeled as "pseudoscience" -- and the response is generally pretty straightforward as well: Wikipedia is not claiming these so-labeled articles are actually "pseudoscience", but rather that they are labeled *by the mainstream scientific community* as "pseudoscience".
Well, I didn't finish my PhD but I am not creationist, neither a fan of eugenics, is not very interested in ghosts and not involved in alternative medicine. Still, I don't think science is the ruler with which everything should be measured. Let's remember that the category Pseudoscience is sorted under the category Science; we have a category for non-sciency in the section for science. To me this is illogical.
Let's study what is not put in this category. The category Religion, for some reasons, is not put as a subcategory to Pseudoscience. I'd say the reason for this is that the major religions are to powerful to be called pseudosciences, and then the other religions can follow. However the difference, from a scientific point of view, is pretty small - no, let's be frank. The difference between believing in ghosts, or in Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ who died for us but lived again is, from a scientific perspective, non-existent. The fact that there are scientists who are Moslims and Christians doesn't make the major religions of the world more scientific. Btw I am sure there are scientists who do believe in ghosts; they just don't say so in the interviews as it doesn't look good.
Here I expect someone to say "but religion doesn't claim to be science". Actually, a large part of what is in the Pseudoscience category doesn't either. A fraction of the people who are interested in ghosts imitate a scientific language, but that is mainly a way of adopting to the prevailing paradigm. Most people who are deeply into alternative medicine actually frown at science, and think the concepts of science are not valid or at least greatly over-estimated. Sometimes they try and get a treatment scientifically proven - but that is mainly a way of trying to adopt to society and to the paradigm, to gain acceptance. In their hearts, they don't believe in science. We can study religions from outside, that is a kind of science - but if so we can study antroposofy also, write papers about the roots and consequences of their beliefs and publish in scientific journals.
Today, science has almost taken the place of religion. No, I am _not_ saying that science is a religion, but thinking about what decides what we find important and valuable in life - what and who we let guide us - science has taken a huge chunk of the space that some hundred years ago was filled by religion alone. A Wikipedia created in, say, 1650 would probably have a huge category for Heresy. Under it would be subcategories for the slowly sprouting Western science and the small pieces of quite advanced Arabian science that reached Europe, another for pre-christian religions plus Islam and other foreign religions, and a third for "wrong" christian beliefs such as gnosticism, catharism, and psilanthropism. IMO we should not have this organisation in the reverse order. Today we should be able to look more neutrally at our own prevaling paradigm.
A small subset of the articles in the Category Pseudoscience actually is about science; old scientific beliefs now abandoned. For those, I suggest the category Obsolete scientific theories. Possibly one could complement it with a meighbouring category for questionable or not accepted scientific theories; the line isn't easy to draw, but that only illustrates that the concept isn't as easy as we sometimes like to think. There is no need to lump this together with all kinds of stuff that never was scientific in the first place. Actually, almost all articles in the Pseudoscience category are already placed in at least one other category - in most of the cases several. This also speaks for the redundance of the category. The only hole it would leave after itself, is that of the garbage can for those who through everything they find non-scientific there and don't want to spend more time finding out if this is Folklore, Quackery, Paranormal phenomena, Creationism or something else.
/Habj
I can offer no particularly helpful opinion on this, other than to say that with this kind of thoughtful analysis, we will certainly do our best in the end.
This kind of thinking is *really* important to me, it is the *essence* of what it means (to me) to be a good wikipedian.
Thanks.
--Jimbo
Fastfission wrote:
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] is one which gets objections at fairly regular intervals. The reasons for the objections are pretty straightforward --
[...]
From: Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com
I've been defending the presence of [[Category:Pseudoscience]] for some time now as a sociological category, but it occurred to me today that one could imagine all sorts of circumstances in which it would seem hopelessly POV to have category labels of this sort (one could include things like [[Category:Hoaxes]] or [[Category:Conspiracies]] or whatever in this, if those categories exist), even if their actual articles (and even category pages) were written in perfect NPOV. Does the brevity of category labels make this impossible? I'm beginning to think they might, and that these sorts of categories should be converted wholly into lists. I wouldn't mind a [[List of Satanic lies]] which clearly noted who thought they were and included [[Evolution]] on the list. But I would mind having [[Category:Satanic lie]] put onto the Evolution page.
Any input on this would be appreciated as I mull this over.
I've already seen categories used specifically for the purpose of promoting a POV. For example, a few months ago someone added [[Muhammad al-Durrah]] to the [[Category:Hoaxes]], and in response a [[User:Alberuni]] added [[Anne Frank]] to the [[Category:Hoaxes]] I have no doubt neo-Nazis would be repeatedly adding [[The Holocaust]] to the [[Category:Hoaxes]] as well, if they were smart enough to figure out how to do it.
Unsurprisingly, the Arab-Israeli conflict is fertile ground for this kind of issue. As an unsurprising example, [[Zionism]] has been added to (and removed from [[Category:Racism]] more than once. Recently [[User:Yuber]] went on a campaign of removing all sorts of areas controlled by Israel from [[Category:Geography of Israel]], typically adding them to [[Category:Geography of Syria]], apparently on the grounds that the these kinds of Categories were not intended as an aid to the reader in finding articles, nor should they reflect physical reality, but rather the should be seen and used as a political statements about legitimate ownership of territories. Both sides quoted the same policy to each other (""Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category"), indicating that the specific policy was actually of little help in making these kinds of decisions.
Jay.
On 6/27/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com
I've been defending the presence of [[Category:Pseudoscience]] for some time now as a sociological category, but it occurred to me today that one could imagine all sorts of circumstances in which it would seem hopelessly POV to have category labels of this sort (one could include things like [[Category:Hoaxes]] or [[Category:Conspiracies]] or whatever in this, if those categories exist), even if their actual articles (and even category pages) were written in perfect NPOV. Does the brevity of category labels make this impossible? I'm beginning to think they might, and that these sorts of categories should be converted wholly into lists. I wouldn't mind a [[List of Satanic lies]] which clearly noted who thought they were and included [[Evolution]] on the list. But I would mind having [[Category:Satanic lie]] put onto the Evolution page.
Any input on this would be appreciated as I mull this over.
I've already seen categories used specifically for the purpose of promoting a POV. For example, a few months ago someone added [[Muhammad al-Durrah]] to the [[Category:Hoaxes]], and in response a [[User:Alberuni]] added [[Anne Frank]] to the [[Category:Hoaxes]] I have no doubt neo-Nazis would be repeatedly adding [[The Holocaust]] to the [[Category:Hoaxes]] as well, if they were smart enough to figure out how to do it.
Unsurprisingly, the Arab-Israeli conflict is fertile ground for this kind of issue. As an unsurprising example, [[Zionism]] has been added to (and removed from [[Category:Racism]] more than once. Recently [[User:Yuber]] went on a campaign of removing all sorts of areas controlled by Israel from [[Category:Geography of Israel]], typically adding them to [[Category:Geography of Syria]], apparently on the grounds that the these kinds of Categories were not intended as an aid to the reader in finding articles, nor should they reflect physical reality, but rather the should be seen and used as a political statements about legitimate ownership of territories. Both sides quoted the same policy to each other (""Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category"), indicating that the specific policy was actually of little help in making these kinds of decisions.
Jay.
Indeed policy, unless intricately written to cover all situations, will occasionally fail to be of much use in individual circumstances. In problem instances, it is best to look at the individual case, and have the majority of editors insist on common sense and a resolution that comes closest to NPOV while being accepted by most.
Zoney
From: Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com
On 6/27/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Unsurprisingly, the Arab-Israeli conflict is fertile ground for this
kind of
issue. As an unsurprising example, [[Zionism]] has been added to (and removed from [[Category:Racism]] more than once. Recently
[[User:Yuber]]
went on a campaign of removing all sorts of areas controlled by Israel
from
[[Category:Geography of Israel]], typically adding them to [[Category:Geography of Syria]], apparently on the grounds that these kinds of Categories were not intended as an aid to the reader in finding articles, nor should they reflect physical reality, but rather they
should be
seen and used as a political statements about legitimate ownership of territories. Both sides quoted the same policy to each other ("Unless
it
is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a
category, it
should not be put into a category"), indicating that the specific policy
was
actually of little help in making these kinds of decisions.
Jay.
Indeed policy, unless intricately written to cover all situations, will occasionally fail to be of much use in individual circumstances. In problem instances, it is best to look at the individual case, and have the majority of editors insist on common sense and a resolution that comes closest to NPOV while being accepted by most.
Well, that's one way of looking at it; however, as I understand Jack Lynch's and Fred Bauder's view, this would more likely be seen as organized attempts by POV pushers to control article content. :-)
Jay.
On 6/27/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com
On 6/27/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Unsurprisingly, the Arab-Israeli conflict is fertile ground for this
kind of
issue. As an unsurprising example, [[Zionism]] has been added to (and removed from [[Category:Racism]] more than once. Recently
[[User:Yuber]]
went on a campaign of removing all sorts of areas controlled by Israel
from
[[Category:Geography of Israel]], typically adding them to [[Category:Geography of Syria]], apparently on the grounds that these kinds of Categories were not intended as an aid to the reader in finding articles, nor should they reflect physical reality, but rather they
should be
seen and used as a political statements about legitimate ownership of territories. Both sides quoted the same policy to each other ("Unless
it
is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a
category, it
should not be put into a category"), indicating that the specific policy
was
actually of little help in making these kinds of decisions.
Jay.
Indeed policy, unless intricately written to cover all situations, will occasionally fail to be of much use in individual circumstances. In problem instances, it is best to look at the individual case, and have the majority of editors insist on common sense and a resolution that comes closest to NPOV while being accepted by most.
Well, that's one way of looking at it; however, as I understand Jack Lynch's and Fred Bauder's view, this would more likely be seen as organized attempts by POV pushers to control article content. :-)
Jay.
Organised attempts by POV pushers are usually reasonably transparent. The only problem of course, is where the majority of Wikipedians support a POV and put that ahead of NPOV editing (easy to do when you're in the majority and can get your way).
But this is a problem when doing up policy in any case (particularly if attempting to nail down individual cases in general policy/guidelines - e.g. MoS).
An interesting question is what would have happened if a majority vote/voted for using BCE/CE near-universally (except for Chrisitan topics). Does that mean it would have been NPOV?
Zoney
From: Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com
An interesting question is what would have happened if a majority vote/voted for using BCE/CE near-universally (except for Chrisitan topics). Does that mean it would have been NPOV?
NPOV, morally right, and might well have cured humanity's insatiable appetite for burning greenhouse-gas producing fossil fuels. ;-)
Jay.
Fastfission wrote:
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] is one which gets objections at fairly regular intervals. The reasons for the objections are pretty straightforward -- the users making such objections are almost always either Creationists or Eugenicists or other people who believe in bodies of thought labeled as "pseudoscience" -- and the response is generally pretty straightforward as well: Wikipedia is not claiming these so-labeled articles are actually "pseudoscience", but rather that they are labeled *by the mainstream scientific community* as "pseudoscience".
Well, I happen to be a scientist by training and profession, and not a Creationist or Eugenicist, but I really dislike [[Category:Pseudoscience]]. This *is* indeed making a claim from Wikipedia that said articles describe pseudoscience, which is not particularly neutral. If, as you describe, we want to describe something as "labelled pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community", it should be given a category that reflects that more neutrally, such as [[Category:Non-mainstream scientific theories]]. Sort of how we have [[Category:Alternative medicine]] rather than [[Category:Quack medicine]].
-Mark
On 6/27/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Well, I happen to be a scientist by training and profession, and not a Creationist or Eugenicist, but I really dislike [[Category:Pseudoscience]]. This *is* indeed making a claim from Wikipedia that said articles describe pseudoscience, which is not particularly neutral. If, as you describe, we want to describe something as "labelled pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community", it should be given a category that reflects that more neutrally, such as [[Category:Non-mainstream scientific theories]]. Sort of how we have [[Category:Alternative medicine]] rather than [[Category:Quack medicine]].
But a major aspect of Category:Pseudoscience is that they generally aren't scientific theories at all, but rather that they use scientific language without the accompanying rigor. They might be right, but they generally are not science.
I agree that a more neutral sounding name would be nice, but I'm not sure what would work... I believe the category is useful, so we shouldn't just do away with it.
Yes, non-mainstream scientific theories are something different than pseudoscience; i.e. that whole "Variable Speed of Light" theory whatnot that a few legitimate physicists have advocated and is considered within the bounds of physical research but is not currently accepted by most physicists as likely being true. (At least, that's my understanding of it -- I'm no physicist)
A better label might do it, but at some point you risk things being unmanageable and bordering on self-parody. [[Category:Is labeled as a "pseudoscience" by the mainstream scientific communitiy]] is more accurate and NPOV, but for obvious reasons it seems impractical.
If there was some way to make it so that when somebody entered in [[Category:Pseudoscience]] it would say that at the bottom of the page, it would be more practical, but as far as I understand it the best one can do along these lines is a redirect which doesn't fix the problem. And I don't think this is necessarily a sensible modification to request for MediaWiki -- it would be somewhat complicated and the developers have better things to do.
Hmm. If someone could come up with a better title that might fix it, but I fear there are no simple titles. And anyway, it still doesn't solve the question of symmetry: [[Category:Considered a Satanic lie by certain religious sects]] would still feel too much like pandering to a certain POV for me to feel comfortable with it on the [[Evolution]] page.
I'm leaning towards just creating a [[List of pseudosciences]] which would redirect to [[List of "pseudosciences"]] or some other title which would indicate explicitly the problematic nature of the term. I don't think there is an article like this at the moment, with the exception of [[List of alternative, speculative, or disputed theories]] which is not quite the same thing, is not a great title, and is currently in debate on VfD, I believe. Then I would nominate [[Category:Pseudoscience]] for CfD. However I'm not sure it would pass -- there are a lot of people who are (rightfully, in my mind) suspicious of such nominations as either misunderstanding the category, or being someone who is just unhappy with falling under it. Clearly neither is the case in this instance but I'm not sure everybody else would see it this way.
On the other hand, I'm inclined to think that there SHOULD be somewhat POV "warnings" on some pages of *some* sort. It would be counter to the idea of producing a true encyclopedia of *reliable* knowledge if it was impossible to distinguish things which have good support for their belief from things that do not. Of course, I fully recognize that my sense that science is a more reliable form of knowledge than most others is reflective of a certain POV I carry (and honestly, I'm a lot more moderate on these lines than a good number of people -- there are some branches of science I definitely take more seriously than others, and I've probably spent more time than most in looking at the problems with the scientific "system", at least from a historical point of view). In an ideal world, a well-written NPOV article though ought to indicate that sort of thing pretty clearly and pretty early on.
And in the end, maybe what it comes down to is: Categories should not serve as "warning" flags. They are meant to just be taxonomic devices. Obviously taxonomy carries strong implications towards meaning (viz. George Lakoff's work), but this fact just reinforces the point that taxonomy needs to be considered strictly under the NPOV policy as well.
Hmm. Well anyway, I will think about it some more still, there is no rush on this. I appreciate the comments given so far in response to this.
(And I'm clearly not trying to imply that this is just MY decision to make, of course! But I'm aware other people have other things they are working on, so if I imply that this is something weighing of me specifically, it's just because I know that this is not likely at the top of anyone else's agenda)
FF
On 6/27/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Well, I happen to be a scientist by training and profession, and not a Creationist or Eugenicist, but I really dislike [[Category:Pseudoscience]]. This *is* indeed making a claim from Wikipedia that said articles describe pseudoscience, which is not particularly neutral. If, as you describe, we want to describe something as "labelled pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community", it should be given a category that reflects that more neutrally, such as [[Category:Non-mainstream scientific theories]]. Sort of how we have [[Category:Alternative medicine]] rather than [[Category:Quack medicine]].
But a major aspect of Category:Pseudoscience is that they generally aren't scientific theories at all, but rather that they use scientific language without the accompanying rigor. They might be right, but they generally are not science.
I agree that a more neutral sounding name would be nice, but I'm not sure what would work... I believe the category is useful, so we shouldn't just do away with it. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] is one which gets objections at fairly regular intervals. The reasons for the objections are pretty straightforward -- the users making such objections are almost always either Creationists or Eugenicists or other people who believe in bodies of thought labeled as "pseudoscience" -- and the response is generally pretty straightforward as well: Wikipedia is not claiming these so-labeled articles are actually "pseudoscience", but rather that they are labeled *by the mainstream scientific community* as "pseudoscience".
It is the year 2047.
After a plentiful dinner, Bob and Stan have somehow got into this discussion that doesn't seem to want to come to an end. Bob is a Creationist, firmly believing in the truth of the Bible. Stan is a scientist and defends Darwin's theory of evolution.
To settle the dispute, Stan gets up and grabs a book from the shelf. The front cover reads, "Wikipedia 1.0 - Category Index". Knowing that if there's one thing he and Bob can agree on, it's the reliability of the world-renowned Wikipedia, he browses through it and eventually presents to Bob a page led by the heading "Category:Pseudoscience". His finger points to the place where Creationism is listed.
"See, Creationism is pseudoscience," he explains.
Bob snaps the book out of Stan's hands and browses forward a fair chunk of pages. Under "Category:Satanic lies", he shows to Stan, we find a reference to the entry on "Evolution".
"See, Evolution is a Satanic lie."
No matter how many people you can convince that listing Article X under [[Category:Pseudoscience]] does /not/ mean that Wikipedia takes the stance that Topic X is a pseudoscience, the vast majority will assume that it does.
And that is why people are complaining about those categorisations.
I am happy to have [[Creationism]] listed under [[Category:Pseudoscience]], but only because it happens to agree with my POV.
Maybe the only way out of this is to call the categories something unwieldy-but-NPOV like [[Category:Theories or beliefs widely considered pseudoscience]]...
Timwi
On 6/30/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Maybe the only way out of this is to call the categories something unwieldy-but-NPOV like [[Category:Theories or beliefs widely considered pseudoscience]]...
Well, "pseudoscience" is not something "widely" considered -- it is something which is reflective of the consideration of a relatively small community (the scientific community, very small in the world at large). And if we have, [[Category:Theories or beliefs considered by mainstream scientists to be pseudoscience]] why would we not also have [[Category:Theories or beliefs considered by fundamentalist Christians to be lies of Satan]]?
The American Association for the Advancement of Science claims 10 million members. According to the Wikipedia article [[Evolution poll]], far far FAR greater numbers in the USA believe in some variety of Creationism. 45% of citizens in 2001 believe in straight Biblical creationism -- some some 126 million people or so! (yuck!) So appeals to consensus don't help us much, unless we start plugging in the *specific* communities we are talking about. I can't see any good reason not to label Evolution as a [[Satanic lie]] if we'll label Creationism [[Pseudoscience]] -- they've certainly got us beat in the numbers game! (Sigh...)
FF
The important insertion that Wikipedia is not making in this debate is that pseudoscience is wrong.
That most reasonable people do believe pseudoscience to be wrong is incidental. The term itself does not necessarily imply the value judgment that "satanic lies" does.
-Snowspinner
On Jun 30, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Timwi wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] is one which gets objections at fairly regular intervals. The reasons for the objections are pretty straightforward -- the users making such objections are almost always either Creationists or Eugenicists or other people who believe in bodies of thought labeled as "pseudoscience" -- and the response is generally pretty straightforward as well: Wikipedia is not claiming these so-labeled articles are actually "pseudoscience", but rather that they are labeled *by the mainstream scientific community* as "pseudoscience".
It is the year 2047.
After a plentiful dinner, Bob and Stan have somehow got into this discussion that doesn't seem to want to come to an end. Bob is a Creationist, firmly believing in the truth of the Bible. Stan is a scientist and defends Darwin's theory of evolution.
To settle the dispute, Stan gets up and grabs a book from the shelf. The front cover reads, "Wikipedia 1.0 - Category Index". Knowing that if there's one thing he and Bob can agree on, it's the reliability of the world-renowned Wikipedia, he browses through it and eventually presents to Bob a page led by the heading "Category:Pseudoscience". His finger points to the place where Creationism is listed.
"See, Creationism is pseudoscience," he explains.
Bob snaps the book out of Stan's hands and browses forward a fair chunk of pages. Under "Category:Satanic lies", he shows to Stan, we find a reference to the entry on "Evolution".
"See, Evolution is a Satanic lie."
No matter how many people you can convince that listing Article X under [[Category:Pseudoscience]] does /not/ mean that Wikipedia takes the stance that Topic X is a pseudoscience, the vast majority will assume that it does.
And that is why people are complaining about those categorisations.
I am happy to have [[Creationism]] listed under [[Category:Pseudoscience]], but only because it happens to agree with my POV.
Maybe the only way out of this is to call the categories something unwieldy-but-NPOV like [[Category:Theories or beliefs widely considered pseudoscience]]...
Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I've always though that the pseudoscience (and protoscience) catogries were far more trouble than they were worth.
As truly informative (and useful in arguments) as it is, isn't [[Category:Logical fallacies]] a little non-NPOV too, if people use them everyday, and believe in their truth?
~~~~
On 6/30/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I've always though that the pseudoscience (and protoscience) catogries were far more trouble than they were worth.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Certain attempts at reasoning have been labeled logical fallacies at one time or another. The category just points you to them, whether or not they are really logical fallacies or not (logically speaking}. A category is an aid in finding, not a conclusion.
Fred
On Jul 1, 2005, at 10:19 PM, Geoffrey Bell wrote:
As truly informative (and useful in arguments) as it is, isn't [[Category:Logical fallacies]] a little non-NPOV too, if people use them everyday, and believe in their truth?
On 6/30/05, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've always though that the pseudoscience (and protoscience) > catogries were far more trouble than they were worth. > > > -- > geni > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As truly informative (and useful in arguments) as it is, isn't [[Category:Logical fallacies]] a little non-NPOV too, if people use them everyday, and believe in their truth?
If they aren't NPOV, you can correct them. There are generic examples you can make that convey the point clearly without treading on any ground that would involve something like mocking a religion indirectly.
I haven't reviewed the logical fallacies category extensively, but from what I've seen, they've identified legitimate logical fallacies, ones that are widely recognized in literature about logical fallacies. Now I think a lot of the articles are poorly written, but they are generally on the mark about the logical fallacies.
If you could provide specific examples of what you consider POV within a logical fallacy article, I'd like to see them.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
"Pseudoscience" implies, at the very minimum, a form of deception (it is "pretending" to be science). I think that's a pretty strong value judgment. And most people interpret it to mean "crackpot" and "false." It is certainly not a neutral term in and of itself. I don't know how to quantify whether it is more or less neutral than something like "Satanic lies" but I don't think it's quite so far off for most people. For a practice or belief system which attempts to be represented as some form of truth, being labeled as "pseudoscience" cannot be seen in a "neutral" light. Which is why I think a heavy attributional approach (what I've been calling a "sociological" approach) is the only NPOV way to approach it.
FF
On 6/30/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
The important insertion that Wikipedia is not making in this debate is that pseudoscience is wrong.
That most reasonable people do believe pseudoscience to be wrong is incidental. The term itself does not necessarily imply the value judgment that "satanic lies" does.
-Snowspinner
On Jun 30, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Timwi wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] is one which gets objections at fairly regular intervals. The reasons for the objections are pretty straightforward -- the users making such objections are almost always either Creationists or Eugenicists or other people who believe in bodies of thought labeled as "pseudoscience" -- and the response is generally pretty straightforward as well: Wikipedia is not claiming these so-labeled articles are actually "pseudoscience", but rather that they are labeled *by the mainstream scientific community* as "pseudoscience".
It is the year 2047.
After a plentiful dinner, Bob and Stan have somehow got into this discussion that doesn't seem to want to come to an end. Bob is a Creationist, firmly believing in the truth of the Bible. Stan is a scientist and defends Darwin's theory of evolution.
To settle the dispute, Stan gets up and grabs a book from the shelf. The front cover reads, "Wikipedia 1.0 - Category Index". Knowing that if there's one thing he and Bob can agree on, it's the reliability of the world-renowned Wikipedia, he browses through it and eventually presents to Bob a page led by the heading "Category:Pseudoscience". His finger points to the place where Creationism is listed.
"See, Creationism is pseudoscience," he explains.
Bob snaps the book out of Stan's hands and browses forward a fair chunk of pages. Under "Category:Satanic lies", he shows to Stan, we find a reference to the entry on "Evolution".
"See, Evolution is a Satanic lie."
No matter how many people you can convince that listing Article X under [[Category:Pseudoscience]] does /not/ mean that Wikipedia takes the stance that Topic X is a pseudoscience, the vast majority will assume that it does.
And that is why people are complaining about those categorisations.
I am happy to have [[Creationism]] listed under [[Category:Pseudoscience]], but only because it happens to agree with my POV.
Maybe the only way out of this is to call the categories something unwieldy-but-NPOV like [[Category:Theories or beliefs widely considered pseudoscience]]...
Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l