Ray Saintonge wrote:
Of course, because the other ideas are normally all wrong, it's not POV to include a criticism section in the article with references to scientific experiments demonstrating that the idea is wrong.
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]].
One of the fun, but often irritating aspects of the NPOV debates/disputes is getting to the bottom of this very issue. I think that anyone who wants to assert what is "scientific truth" on WP needs to come to terms with just how primitive the state of science still is (and we should be glad for that). In other words, humility has to be a central value.
The editors of the article on Pseudoscience, Quackery, and other articles that seek to make these distinctions are constantly struggling with the issue; I think they will only succeed if they concentrate on making it an honest dialectic rather than an attempt at arriving at the truth.
All science, and I think it's safe to be that categorical, is tentative; the conceptual models are based on available information. Some models (the earth is round) do a better job of describing reality and predicting what will happen next; but it is safe to say that they will in time be overtaken by others. Add to that the difficulty of achieving a consensus among scientists on anything but the most basic concepts, and we are arrogant indeed to think that we are in a position to pronounce what is scientifically true on issues that are controversial in the real world.
I'm so glad that I don't have to believe in science for all those engineers and scientists who do make my nice pretty computers and internets and lightbulbs and keyboards and mp3 encodings and electric guitars so i can listen to blink 182, which rocks the hardest.
hmph.
Lets not be sarcastic. Science is largely a process of exclusion; Sherlock Holmes style reduction of possible explanations. Granted its ground rules are reasonable enough to contain some interesting debates which stretch the boundaries. But if we say for sake of argument that science has little compatibility with religion, why then do a reasonable percentage of scientists hold religious personal views? Is it just for the church dating scene?
Stevertigo
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'm so glad that I don't have to believe in science for all those engineers and scientists who do make my nice pretty computers and internets and lightbulbs and keyboards and mp3 encodings and electric guitars so i can listen to blink 182, which rocks the hardest.
hmph. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 12/12/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'm so glad that I don't have to believe in science for all those engineers and scientists who do make my nice pretty computers and internets and lightbulbs and keyboards and mp3 encodings and electric guitars so i can listen to blink 182, which rocks the hardest.
Lets not be sarcastic. Science is largely a process of exclusion; Sherlock Holmes style reduction of possible explanations. Granted its ground rules are reasonable enough to contain some interesting debates which stretch the boundaries. But if we say for sake of argument that science has little compatibility with religion, why then do a reasonable percentage of scientists hold religious personal views? Is it just for the church dating scene?
What evidence do you have that I'm being sarcastic?
Why do you say that science has little compatibility with religion?
Are you making the claim that science is inconsistent with religion? If so, how?
Speaking of the church dating scene, I wouldn't denigrate the biological imperative for a reason for people's behavior.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What evidence do you have that I'm being sarcastic?
Intuition.
Why do you say that science has little compatibility
with religion?
I wrote 'for sake of argument, if we say...'
Are you making the claim that science is inconsistent with religion? If so, how?
No. See above.
Speaking of the church dating scene, I wouldn't denigrate the biological imperative for a reason for people's behavior.
No denigration was implied.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 12/12/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What evidence do you have that I'm being sarcastic?
Intuition.
I actually am so glad that I don't have to believe in science for all those engineers and scientists who do make my nice pretty computers and internets and lightbulbs and keyboards and mp3 encodings and electric guitars so i can listen to blink 182, which rocks the hardest.
Why do you say that science has little compatibility
with religion?
I wrote 'for sake of argument, if we say...'
Okay, why, for the sake of argument, do we say that? I mean, is there any evidence to support that claim? Because if there's not, it's pretty silly to start a discussion based on the claim.
Are you making the claim that science is inconsistent with religion? If so, how?
No. See above.
Not even for the sake of argument?
Speaking of the church dating scene, I wouldn't denigrate the biological imperative for a reason for people's behavior.
No denigration was implied.
Ah. I used my intuition there.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I actually am so glad that I don't have to believe...
I have been trolled! (I had thought it beneath you.) I will go have a nice day now.
Not even for the sake of argument?
Not even for that. Its just too advanced for me. Particularly on tha internet.
No denigration was implied.
Ah. I used my intuition there.
Well, you were wrong to. You may have been 'right' in the self-fulfilling prophetic sense of predicting future discussion, but you were entirely off the mark about the subject of said denigration. Thats an intuition.
Anyway, you can forget I mentioned it. It was a topic brought up in good faith and not as a personal attack. Why you seem to have made it one I dunno.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 12/13/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I actually am so glad that I don't have to believe...
I have been trolled! (I had thought it beneath you.) I will go have a nice day now.
I really don't know where you're going here. Tone aside, I was making the very serious point that the evidence that the scientific method works, people's opinions aside, should be pretty obvious to anyone enjoying the fruits of technological progress.
Not even for the sake of argument?
Not even for that. Its just too advanced for me. Particularly on tha internet.
No denigration was implied.
Ah. I used my intuition there.
Well, you were wrong to. You may have been 'right' in the self-fulfilling prophetic sense of predicting future discussion, but you were entirely off the mark about the subject of said denigration. Thats an intuition.
Anyway, you can forget I mentioned it. It was a topic brought up in good faith and not as a personal attack. Why you seem to have made it one I dunno.
I didn't.
G'day C,
I really don't know where you're going here. Tone aside, I was making the very serious point that the evidence that the scientific method works, people's opinions aside, should be pretty obvious to anyone enjoying the fruits of technological progress.
You're violently agreeing with each other, from my reading.
On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
I really don't know where you're going here. Tone aside, I was making the very serious point that the evidence that the scientific method works, people's opinions aside, should be pretty obvious to anyone enjoying the fruits of technological progress.
You're violently agreeing with each other, from my reading.
Well, no. I think that arguing against the concept or wording of "pseudoscience" is wrong.
I really think that search power of Google and the healing power of the rays of Venus are different things.
stevertigo wrote:
Lets not be sarcastic. Science is largely a process of exclusion; Sherlock Holmes style reduction of possible explanations. Granted its ground rules are reasonable enough to contain some interesting debates which stretch the boundaries. But if we say for sake of argument that science has little compatibility with religion, why then do a reasonable percentage of scientists hold religious personal views? Is it just for the church dating scene?
What a ridiculous premise for a discussion. Obviously if a large number of scientists hold religious personal views, then there can't be much of a conflict (unless all scientists with religious views are schizophrenic).
People who frame science and religion at each other's throats are either uninformed on the subject, or deceitfully trying to manipulate opinion.
Chris
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Lets not be sarcastic. Science is largely a process of exclusion; Sherlock Holmes style reduction of possible explanations. Granted its ground rules are reasonable enough to contain some interesting debates which stretch the boundaries. But if we say for sake of argument that science has little compatibility with religion, why then do a reasonable percentage of scientists hold religious personal views? Is it just for the church dating scene?
What a ridiculous premise for a discussion. Obviously if a large number of scientists hold religious personal views, then there can't be much of a conflict (unless all scientists with religious views are schizophrenic).
People who frame science and religion at each other's throats are either uninformed on the subject, or deceitfully trying to manipulate opinion.
Chris _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree of course that science and religion are not "at each other's throats". However, there is one place where I think the SPOV is seen most clearly as a POV. This is when any account of a miracle, or other supernatural event, is presumed to be false, impossible, or to necessarily have a purely scientific explanation. The 'laws of science' are undoubtedly useful, and have produced lots of great things. Of course, people made some progress even when the leading 'scientists' of the day thought everything was made of just four elements. But to presume that everything supernatural is bunk, is imposing a scientific point of view in a way that many people think goes too far.
-- sockmonk [[User:Wesley]]
sockmonk@gmail.com wrote:
I agree of course that science and religion are not "at each other's throats". However, there is one place where I think the SPOV is seen most clearly as a POV. This is when any account of a miracle, or other supernatural event, is presumed to be false, impossible, or to necessarily have a purely scientific explanation. The 'laws of science' are undoubtedly useful, and have produced lots of great things. Of course, people made some progress even when the leading 'scientists' of the day thought everything was made of just four elements. But to presume that everything supernatural is bunk, is imposing a scientific point of view in a way that many people think goes too far.
An example of a 'supernatural phenomenon' which is not 'bunk' would be welcome. :)
Chris
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
An example of a 'supernatural phenomenon' which is not 'bunk' would be welcome. :)
The Resurrection of Christ. Certainly it is inexplicable (a term I prefer to "supernatural"), but that doesn't make it nonsense.
-- Sam
On Dec 13, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
An example of a 'supernatural phenomenon' which is not 'bunk' would be welcome. :)
The Resurrection of Christ. Certainly it is inexplicable (a term I prefer to "supernatural"), but that doesn't make it nonsense.
There's got to be a corollary to Godwin's Law that covers this.
-Phil
On 12/13/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There's got to be a corollary to Godwin's Law that covers this.
What, against all comparisons with controversial figures? We could have Big Foot, or UFOs, or many, many other things.
;=)
-- Sam
There's got to be a corollary to Godwin's Law that covers this.
-Phil
Strange, is it not, to have SPOV high on one's list of worries. Of course you could take it as read that NPOV copes swimmingly with troubles coming from politics, religion, economic self-interest, ethnicity, cultural blinkers and bad history. But somehow grinds to a halt when asked to cope with the verifiable/falsifiable nexus and those insidious claims on scientific method. When all we have to do is report proportionately on consensus and minority views, not root out the bad science (which of course is always with us).
Charles
Agreed, reporting proportionately on consensus and minority views would be wonderful, without folks trying to root out bad science, or bad philosophy, or bad theology, all of which are always with us. ;-)
The real issue I think is one of philosophy. The SPOV or materialist view wants to say that all knowledge we can have is acquired through our senses, and all occurrences can ultimately be explained in terms of natural processes and laws of physics, even if our current understanding of those processes and laws isn't up to explaining everything just yet. That obviously works very well in terms of the scientific progress that has been and is being made. One other view is that there are other ways of acquiring knowledge; perhaps divine or angelic revelation, perhaps via ESP or clairvoyance or from spirits of the dead. The 'supernaturalist' view allows for occurrences either contrary to or transcendant of what are usually thought to be the laws of physics, whether it's some miracle or healing or resurrection, or teleknesis, or some kind of qi manipulation. Obviously there are many variations on a theme, and many many different ideas of which or even what sort of revelations might be reliable, or which phenomena might be genuine or why. To ask whether these other phenomena are scientifically verifiable is to examine them from within the SPOV, and almost presupposes the answer. One might just as well ask whether some random miraculous healing can be explained in terms of qi or the five elements of traditional Japanese acupressure.
As far as reporting on consensus and minority views, it's fine to report that scientists are skeptical of this or that miraculous occurrence, and that some religious folks are skeptical of the morality or ethics of this or that application of scientific knowledge. These fields are not diametrically opposed at all, they often learn from each other or borrow from each other, but they do generally represent different ways of looking at the world. Neither should have a completely free pass to pass itself off as NPOV by itself.
On 12/13/05, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
There's got to be a corollary to Godwin's Law that covers this.
-Phil
Strange, is it not, to have SPOV high on one's list of worries. Of course you could take it as read that NPOV copes swimmingly with troubles coming from politics, religion, economic self-interest, ethnicity, cultural blinkers and bad history. But somehow grinds to a halt when asked to cope with the verifiable/falsifiable nexus and those insidious claims on scientific method. When all we have to do is report proportionately on consensus and minority views, not root out the bad science (which of course is always with us).
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- User:Wesley
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
An example of a 'supernatural phenomenon' which is not 'bunk' would be welcome. :)
The Resurrection of Christ. Certainly it is inexplicable (a term I prefer to "supernatural"), but that doesn't make it nonsense.
Do you have any verification that the 'Resurrection' of Christ actually occurred, other than Christian literature?
Chris
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Do you have any verification that the 'Resurrection' of Christ actually occurred, other than Christian literature?
Christian literature. That makes it not bunk.
We should present all views, not only the ones that seem most rational to us. To call the Resurrection "bunk" is completely POV and unacceptable. It doesn't conform to our knowledge of science, but that should not say that Wikipedia should present an opinion on whether or not it happened.
SPOV should be in NPOV, but it isn't NPOV in itself.
-- Sam
On 12/13/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Do you have any verification that the 'Resurrection' of Christ actually occurred, other than Christian literature?
Christian literature. That makes it not bunk.
We should present all views, not only the ones that seem most rational to us. To call the Resurrection "bunk" is completely POV and unacceptable. It doesn't conform to our knowledge of science, but that should not say that Wikipedia should present an opinion on whether or not it happened.
SPOV should be in NPOV, but it isn't NPOV in itself.
I agree. I personally don't have any faith that the Resurrection occurred (or even in Jesus' existence), but to say that it's total bunk is certainly as POV as saying that the Resurrection absolutely happened.
-- [[User:Blackcap]]
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Do you have any verification that the 'Resurrection' of Christ actually occurred, other than Christian literature?
Christian literature. That makes it not bunk.
We should present all views, not only the ones that seem most rational to us. To call the Resurrection "bunk" is completely POV and unacceptable. It doesn't conform to our knowledge of science, but that should not say that Wikipedia should present an opinion on whether or not it happened.
SPOV should be in NPOV, but it isn't NPOV in itself.
Well, obviously Christian literature would say that Christ was resurrected. I accepted that, and I asked for other verification.
Consider this scenario:
The world was considered flat in ancient times. That conformed to contemporary rational thinking (basically, the world is flat since we can't see it curve). It was also wrong. Is Wikipedia presenting a point of view by stating this theory is wrong?
Chris
We should present all views, not only the ones that seem most rational
to us. To call the Resurrection "bunk" is completely POV and unacceptable. It doesn't conform to our knowledge of science, but that should not say that Wikipedia should present an opinion on whether or not it happened.
SPOV should be in NPOV, but it isn't NPOV in itself.
Well, obviously Christian literature would say that Christ was resurrected. I accepted that, and I asked for other verification.
Consider this scenario:
The world was considered flat in ancient times. That conformed to contemporary rational thinking (basically, the world is flat since we can't see it curve). It was also wrong. Is Wikipedia presenting a point of view by stating this theory is wrong?
Chris
No, because the earth has been conclusively proven wrong, and there isn't any significant opposition to the theory that the world is flat (and so there is no conflict). The Resurrection, on the other hand, is, hasn't been conclusively proven wrong (due to lack of evidence), and is still believed by a vast amount of people.
-- [[User:Blackcap]]
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Well, obviously Christian literature would say that Christ was resurrected. I accepted that, and I asked for other verification.
But Christian literature and Christian beliefs are quite enough! Why should anything else be needed? It is clearly POV to say that Christians' beliefs are "bunk", however little they conform to scientific rules.
Consider this scenario:
The world was considered flat in ancient times. That conformed to contemporary rational thinking (basically, the world is flat since we can't see it curve). It was also wrong. Is Wikipedia presenting a point of view by stating this theory is wrong?
Yes. Wikipedia should never make statements of fact unless they are undisputed. All others should be cited.
-- Sam
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
The world was considered flat in ancient times.
Evidence?
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
The world was considered flat in ancient times.
Evidence?
Well, according to [[Flat Earth]] "in early Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus." The Flat Earth article references a web page called "Analysis of 7000 Years of Thinking Regarding Earth's Shape", at http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.html, which summarises and in turn cites a number of sources.
Chris
When Newton originally presented his theory of gravity it was seriously attacked by his contemporaries as being comprised of "occult forces" rather than being a truly mechanistic physics (like Cartesian physics). Now we all know how that worked out in the end -- not only did Newton triumph, but even what science was ended up being redefined in the process. And it has been redefined many times since then, in different ways and different fields -- each time something initially incompatible becomes the accepted norm, it changes not only the evidence, but the entire standard of what counts as evidence and even what counts as argumentation. This is a well-documented phenomena, and even the most positivistic of philosophers acknowledge this to some degree.
FF
On 12/13/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
sockmonk@gmail.com wrote:
I agree of course that science and religion are not "at each other's throats". However, there is one place where I think the SPOV is seen
most
clearly as a POV. This is when any account of a miracle, or other supernatural event, is presumed to be false, impossible, or to
necessarily
have a purely scientific explanation. The 'laws of science' are
undoubtedly
useful, and have produced lots of great things. Of course, people made
some
progress even when the leading 'scientists' of the day thought
everything
was made of just four elements. But to presume that everything
supernatural
is bunk, is imposing a scientific point of view in a way that many
people
think goes too far.
An example of a 'supernatural phenomenon' which is not 'bunk' would be welcome. :)
Chris _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/15/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
When Newton originally presented his theory of gravity it was seriously attacked by his contemporaries as being comprised of "occult forces" rather than being a truly mechanistic physics (like Cartesian physics). Now we all know how that worked out in the end -- not only did Newton triumph, but even what science was ended up being redefined in the process. And it has been redefined many times since then, in different ways and different fields -- each time something initially incompatible becomes the accepted norm, it changes not only the evidence, but the entire standard of what counts as evidence and even what counts as argumentation. This is a well-documented phenomena, and even the most positivistic of philosophers acknowledge this
(phenomenon)
to some degree.
What's your point? The goal of Wikipedia is not to predict the future but to accurately reflect the present.
If you'd looked at what I was replying to, maybe my point would have been more clear to you: "An example of a 'supernatural phenomenon' which is not 'bunk' would be welcome. :)" I provided one, with an emphasis that what counts as supernatural and what counts as natural is not a transhistorical category. But I think my position on all of this (predicting the future has nothing to do with this) should be pretty clear from my other posts, so I won't repeat myself.
FF
On 12/15/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/15/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
When Newton originally presented his theory of gravity it was seriously attacked by his contemporaries as being comprised of "occult forces" rather than being a truly mechanistic physics (like Cartesian physics). Now we all know how that worked out in the end -- not only did Newton triumph, but even what science was ended up being redefined in the process. And it has been redefined many times since then, in different ways and different fields -- each time something initially incompatible becomes the accepted norm, it changes not only the evidence, but the entire standard of what counts as evidence and even what counts as argumentation. This is a well-documented phenomena, and even the most positivistic of philosophers acknowledge this
(phenomenon)
to some degree.
What's your point? The goal of Wikipedia is not to predict the future but to accurately reflect the present. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/15/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
When Newton originally presented his theory of gravity it was seriously attacked by his contemporaries as being comprised of "occult forces" rather than being a truly mechanistic physics (like Cartesian physics). Now we all know how that worked out in the end -- not only did Newton triumph, but even what science was ended up being redefined in the process. And it has been redefined many times since then, in different ways and different fields -- each time something initially incompatible becomes the accepted norm, it changes not only the evidence, but the entire standard of what counts as evidence and even what counts as argumentation. This is a well-documented phenomena, and even the most positivistic of philosophers acknowledge this
(phenomenon)
to some degree.
What's your point? The goal of Wikipedia is not to predict the future but to accurately reflect the present.
The point is that the trickster is still alive and well and living in science.
Ec
--- Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
One of the fun, but often irritating aspects of the NPOV debates/disputes is getting to the bottom of this very issue. I think that anyone who wants to assert what is "scientific truth" on WP needs to come to terms with just how primitive the state of science still is (and we should be glad for that). In other words, humility has to be a central value.
I dont know about humility ("civility" is about the only real principle or intangible quality we can really handle), but I think youve got the balance right. Reality is indeed often a misnomer for 'scientific truth.'
The Siegenthaler scandal made Yahoo's front page BTW.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com