David Gerard write:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Your request is illogical. It asks for something right when it is wrong by definition. If I see something as "right" I would not call it pseudoscience.
Exactly - so how is it POV to demonstrate in an article why a pseudoscience is wrong?
Because you had to characterize it as pseudoscience in the first place.
This resembles a circular argument.
Is there any word or phrase in *common usage* (i.e., we can't coin a Wikipedia-only neologism) that covers what is meant by "pseudoscience"?
- d.
Yes. Problem is that it's "pseudoscience"
User Filiocht
billy mills wrote:
David Gerard write:
Is there any word or phrase in *common usage* (i.e., we can't coin a Wikipedia-only neologism) that covers what is meant by "pseudoscience"?
Yes. Problem is that it's "pseudoscience"
I'm still not at all convinced this is a problem, except in the view of those who don't like a label that accurately and concisely describes what they're doing.
(and, per the A is part of B therefore B is part of A fallacy, I now expect someone to follow up with a marvellous strawman example of some unrelated grossly POV description)
- d.
In 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I'm still not at all convinced this is a problem, except in the view of those who don't like a label that accurately and concisely describes what they're doing.
(and, per the A is part of B therefore B is part of A fallacy, I now expect someone to follow up with a marvellous strawman example of some unrelated grossly POV description)
I'm still not certain why "concepts described as pseudoscience" wouldn't do. It is NPOV and still conveys the same message. It is a little unwieldy, but it would work fine in prose and probably also as a category title.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
In 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I'm still not at all convinced this is a problem, except in the view of those who don't like a label that accurately and concisely describes what they're doing. (and, per the A is part of B therefore B is part of A fallacy, I now expect someone to follow up with a marvellous strawman example of some unrelated grossly POV description)
I'm still not certain why "concepts described as pseudoscience" wouldn't do.
[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
It is NPOV and still conveys the same message. It is a little unwieldy, but it would work fine in prose and probably also as a category title.
I disagree. It's horribly clunky.
- d.
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I'm still not certain why "concepts described as pseudoscience" wouldn't do.
[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
But not at the expense of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
It is NPOV and still conveys the same message. It is a little unwieldy, but it would work fine in prose and probably also as a category title.
I disagree. It's horribly clunky.
Yes, but entirely accurate and undeniable.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I'm still not certain why "concepts described as pseudoscience" wouldn't do.
[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
But not at the expense of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
And using "pseudoscience" alone would be at the expense of NPOV
It is NPOV and still conveys the same message. It is a little unwieldy, but it would work fine in prose and probably also as a category title.
I disagree. It's horribly clunky.
Yes, but entirely accurate and undeniable.
Clunky terms never have a long shelf life. People tend not to like the discipline of repeating the clunky term whenever the term is needed.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
But not at the expense of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
And using "pseudoscience" alone would be at the expense of NPOV
You still appear to be trying to "prove" this by assertion.
- d.
On 12/17/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
And using "pseudoscience" alone would be at the expense of NPOV
You still appear to be trying to "prove" this by assertion.
Actually if you'd look over the discussion you'd see there is somewhat more than just assertion, and that you have been the one doing the most blunt asserting. If you can't see why labeling a form of inquiry as "pretend science" might be a POV problem, I'm not sure how much you are going to bring to the discussion.
I agree that most things labeled pseudoscience are "crap" or worst. But I'm willing to recognize where that POV I happen to hold comes from, and that there are valid and actually quite common alternatives to it.
As an aside, did anybody notice in last month's _Wired_ they made fun of Wikipedia for having decided that Scientology was a pseudoscience? I don't know enough about Scientology to know whether it was a good idea or not (I suspect it is bonkers, but that's different from being pseudoscience), but the fact that _Wired_ would find that amusing enough to comment on is a bit suspicious and really gets at the heart of some of what I have been saying.
Labeling something as "pretend science" is a POV statement, as I have tried to demonstrate at length (and have not yet seen any compelling arguments against it), and if we are to be applying such a label, we should come up with standards so that it is not "Wikipedia" who is responsible for the POV.
The biggest difficulty, in my mind, is figuring out a better category name which expresses something along the lines of "Considered 'pseudoscience' by the scientific community". Which would be both a useful tag (labels the nonsense for those who are fans of real science) and a neutral one (properly attributes POV, is not WP who is making the decision), as well as a set of verifiable critieria (it is not hard to determine whether or not something is considered pseudoscience in an indisputed way amongst most mainstream scientists; keyword searches of _Nature_ and _Science_ make that pretty easy).
FF
On 12/17/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
But not at the expense of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
And using "pseudoscience" alone would be at the expense of NPOV
You still appear to be trying to "prove" this by assertion.
The problem is that "pseudoscience" is a subjective term. Whether a topic is pseudoscience is not a black-and-white thing. Who determines whether the scientific method has been followed? Not us! That would be original research, and asserting a point of view. Yes, sometimes it will be obvious. However, most of the time it will not be. The proponents of these theories will never be of the opinion that they are pseudoscience, and that they fail to conform to the scientific method!
Wikipedia often has the problem of falling into pushing a relativist point of view. This is one of those occasions.
-- Sam
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:29AM +0000, Sam Korn wrote:
The problem is that "pseudoscience" is a subjective term. Whether a topic is pseudoscience is not a black-and-white thing.
When someone says "it's not a black-and-white thing", they are usually correct that there exist *some* "gray" or undecided cases ... but there usually are also many cases that are definitely "black" or "white".
The existence of vague boundaries doesn't rule out that some things are definitely on one side and others definitely on the other.
Who determines whether the scientific method has been followed? Not us!
Who's talking about "the scientific method" here? There isn't *one* scientific method, and nobody here is claiming that there is. What's at issue are fields that don't do anything even remotely resembling scientific work, yet the practitioners call their ideas "scientific".
We're not talking about string theory or cold fusion. We're not even talking about zero-point energy or acupuncture or orgonomy.
We're talking about "scientific astrology", "creation science", and other fields that do nothing resembling scientific work, and yet call themselves "science".
The proponents of these theories will never be of the opinion that they are pseudoscience, and that they fail to conform to the scientific method!
Of course not. But many people likewise reject unflattering facts about them. Scientologists would prefer we don't talk about Xenu. That a person who falsely claims "science" doesn't like it talked about that they have not done any experiments or observations, simply doesn't enter into the issue. There exists a fact of the matter, and we are bound to report it as such.
If someone comes up with a new conjecture -- call it the Moo Principle -- and claims that it is "scientific", then we are correct to seek out the citations for scientific research on the subject. If there actually is not any research -- they simply chose to call it "scientific" because "religious" wouldn't get their Moo Principle into the public schools -- then calling their work "para-science" or "alternate science" would be simply false. "Pseudoscience" is simply the correct term.
Wikipedia often has the problem of falling into pushing a relativist point of view. This is one of those occasions.
It sounds to me like you are simultaneously decrying and advocating "relativism". Can you clarify?
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:29AM +0000, Sam Korn wrote:
The problem is that "pseudoscience" is a subjective term. Whether a topic is pseudoscience is not a black-and-white thing.
When someone says "it's not a black-and-white thing", they are usually correct that there exist *some* "gray" or undecided cases ... but there usually are also many cases that are definitely "black" or "white".
The existence of vague boundaries doesn't rule out that some things are definitely on one side and others definitely on the other.
True it doesn't, but we still need structured criteria before deciding whether something is black or white. Things that cannot meet the criteria stay in the vague middle.
Who determines whether the scientific method has been followed? Not us!
Who's talking about "the scientific method" here? There isn't *one* scientific method, and nobody here is claiming that there is.
So now there are at least two scientific methods, maybe more. Please describe the difference between what you see as the two prinipal ones. What happens when they come in conflict with each other.
What's at issue are fields that don't do anything even remotely resembling scientific work, yet the practitioners call their ideas "scientific".
We're not talking about string theory or cold fusion. We're not even talking about zero-point energy or acupuncture or orgonomy.
We're talking about "scientific astrology", "creation science", and other fields that do nothing resembling scientific work, and yet call themselves "science".
That's a very wide range of topics indeed. Most have some believers who try very hard to be scientific.
The proponents of these theories will never be of the opinion that they are pseudoscience, and that they fail to conform to the scientific method!
Of course not. But many people likewise reject unflattering facts about them. Scientologists would prefer we don't talk about Xenu. That a person who falsely claims "science" doesn't like it talked about that they have not done any experiments or observations, simply doesn't enter into the issue. There exists a fact of the matter, and we are bound to report it as such.
If someone comes up with a new conjecture -- call it the Moo Principle -- and claims that it is "scientific", then we are correct to seek out the citations for scientific research on the subject. If there actually is not any research -- they simply chose to call it "scientific" because "religious" wouldn't get their Moo Principle into the public schools -- then calling their work "para-science" or "alternate science" would be simply false. "Pseudoscience" is simply the correct term.
A more likely result on Wikipedia would be to call it "original research".
Ec
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/17/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
But not at the expense of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
And using "pseudoscience" alone would be at the expense of NPOV
You still appear to be trying to "prove" this by assertion.
The problem is that "pseudoscience" is a subjective term. Whether a topic is pseudoscience is not a black-and-white thing. Who determines whether the scientific method has been followed? Not us! That would be original research, and asserting a point of view. Yes, sometimes it will be obvious. However, most of the time it will not be. The proponents of these theories will never be of the opinion that they are pseudoscience, and that they fail to conform to the scientific method!
Wikipedia often has the problem of falling into pushing a relativist point of view. This is one of those occasions.
This is the whole point. Many of the topics that are typically put into the pseudoscience category are deeply suspect. I could choose any one of them and spend an entire lifetime trying to determine whether it is science or pseudoscience, and the results would still be inconclusive. So I would prefer to find some relatively neutral term, put a caveat at the top of the list, and go on with life.
I have no particular sympathy for Creation Science, but I find it odd that I should be in a position where I need to defend their right to be referred to in a relatively respectful manner.
Ec
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I'm still not at all convinced this is a problem, except in the view of those who don't like a label that accurately and concisely describes what they're doing.
Here's the crux of the problem: How do you know whether [[Cold fusion]] belongs in the pseudoscience category or not? Some people argue it is pseudoscience. Some argue it is protoscience. Some argue it is none of the above. "Some" can include scientists, philosophers, historians, and the practitioners.
Whose analysis do you go with? Do you try and offer up your *own* analysis? Do you try to debate it on the wiki? Considering that a hundred years of debate have not produced a well-accepted model of what "normal scientific practice" or even "the scientific method" is, do we expect to resolve this on Wikipedia? What happens when our private conclusions vary from those of the mainstream opinion?
The article text, of course, can handle such uncertainty. We can state all POVs and concerns and arguments and well attribute them. But we haven't found a way to do it with this category definition.
FF