It's particularly foul-smelling icing, though. NPOV certainly is compatible with not giving minority or conspiracy-theory opinions undue weight by inserting them everywhere or making them seem as if they're mainstream, but at the same time outright name-calling is a little inappropriate. Saying, as Wikipedia, that Creationism is pseudoscience is across the line of good taste I think. Not mentioning the young-earth theory in the intro to [[Earth]] may imply that we judge it as not being a serious scientific position, but outright saying "Creationism is a load of horse-shit" is a little more inappropriate.
No-one is proposing that we do. Pseudo-science is a word with a particular meaning, not name-calling (unless applied to something that isn't actually pseudo-science).
There are, Godwin help me, nazi categories on Wikipedia. That's not name-calling either, when used appropriately.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
It's particularly foul-smelling icing, though. NPOV certainly is compatible with not giving minority or conspiracy-theory opinions undue weight by inserting them everywhere or making them seem as if they're mainstream, but at the same time outright name-calling is a little inappropriate. Saying, as Wikipedia, that Creationism is pseudoscience is across the line of good taste I think. Not mentioning the young-earth theory in the intro to [[Earth]] may imply that we judge it as not being a serious scientific position, but outright saying "Creationism is a load of horse-shit" is a little more inappropriate.
No-one is proposing that we do. Pseudo-science is a word with a particular meaning, not name-calling (unless applied to something that isn't actually pseudo-science).
There are, Godwin help me, nazi categories on Wikipedia. That's not name-calling either, when used appropriately.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Creationism is a prickly problem, wikipedia can't really take either side due to the fact that no matter what you write on it it's almost impossible to avoid POV pushing.
-Jtkiefer
Jtkiefer:
Creationism is a prickly problem, wikipedia can't really take either side due to the fact that no matter what you write on it it's almost impossible to avoid POV pushing.
Stating that creationism is pseudoscience is not POV-pushing. Maybe Intelligent Design, which is a bit more controversial -- but creationism as in "God created the World", where it makes "scientific" claims, is pretty much universally regarded as pseudoscience by people from existing scientific disciplines.
Erik
On 7/1/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Jtkiefer:
Creationism is a prickly problem, wikipedia can't really take either side due to the fact that no matter what you write on it it's almost impossible to avoid POV pushing.
Stating that creationism is pseudoscience is not POV-pushing. Maybe Intelligent Design, which is a bit more controversial -- but creationism as in "God created the World", where it makes "scientific" claims, is pretty much universally regarded as pseudoscience by people from existing scientific disciplines.
Nobody is attempting to denigrate personal belief or faith by labelling Creationism as psuedoscience. It's just that Creationism is not science.
Saying that it's psuedoscience because scientists say so doesn't do much to help. Perhaps if we say that scientists test and confirm theories by experiment and change what they believe to be true going by the results, but adherents of psuedoscience make no such changes - they reject or ignore evidence contrary to their existing beliefs, and it is the *appearance* rather than the reality of scientific method which is important to them.
Creationism (and other psuedosciences) may well contain many beliefs that are true and accurate and testable. For example, a Creationist might point out in all sincerity that the first Neanderthal remains were discovered to be merely those of an old man with arthritis. True enough, but the old man was a Neanderthal old man. If only one side of the story is being told, it is NOT science.
If only one side of the story is being told, it is NOT science.
I hate to say it, but not everyone agrees, and that's really all there is to be said.
~~~~
On 6/30/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/1/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Jtkiefer:
Creationism is a prickly problem, wikipedia can't really take either side due to the fact that no matter what you write on it it's almost impossible to avoid POV pushing.
Stating that creationism is pseudoscience is not POV-pushing. Maybe Intelligent Design, which is a bit more controversial -- but creationism as in "God created the World", where it makes "scientific" claims, is pretty much universally regarded as pseudoscience by people from existing scientific disciplines.
Nobody is attempting to denigrate personal belief or faith by labelling Creationism as psuedoscience. It's just that Creationism is not science.
Saying that it's psuedoscience because scientists say so doesn't do much to help. Perhaps if we say that scientists test and confirm theories by experiment and change what they believe to be true going by the results, but adherents of psuedoscience make no such changes - they reject or ignore evidence contrary to their existing beliefs, and it is the *appearance* rather than the reality of scientific method which is important to them.
Creationism (and other psuedosciences) may well contain many beliefs that are true and accurate and testable. For example, a Creationist might point out in all sincerity that the first Neanderthal remains were discovered to be merely those of an old man with arthritis. True enough, but the old man was a Neanderthal old man. If only one side of the story is being told, it is NOT science.
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Erik Moeller wrote:
Jtkiefer:
Creationism is a prickly problem, wikipedia can't really take either side due to the fact that no matter what you write on it it's almost impossible to avoid POV pushing.
Stating that creationism is pseudoscience is not POV-pushing. Maybe Intelligent Design, which is a bit more controversial -- but creationism as in "God created the World", where it makes "scientific" claims, is pretty much universally regarded as pseudoscience by people from existing scientific disciplines.
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your right calling creationism a science would be POV pushing, but if you take the stance that creationism is anything, science, pseudo-science, legend, myth, total bullshit... you're still gonna piss someone off which is an inherent problem with having an open medium like wikipedia.
-Jtkiefer
On Thursday 30 June 2005 21:56, Jtkiefer wrote:
Stating that creationism is pseudoscience is not POV-pushing. Maybe Intelligent Design, which is a bit more controversial -- but creationism as in "God created the World", where it makes "scientific" claims, is pretty much universally regarded as pseudoscience by people from existing scientific disciplines.
As an aside: I find Perakh and Young's (2004) definition of pseudoscience to be useful:
[[ Results for 'Perakh and Young 2004' + Is intelligent design science? o ch=12 p=Rutgers University press bt=Why Intelligent Design Fails y=2004 e=Matt Young, Taner Edis a=New Brunswick r=20050209 o intelligent design is not bad science like cold fusion or wrong science like Lamarckian inheritance (Perakh and Young 2004:185) o some features of pseudoscience # denial of established fact (e.g., homeotherapy and young earth creationists) (Perakh and Young 2004:186) # untestable hypotheses: a theory that explains everything explains nothing (e.g., astrology) (Perakh and Young 2004:187) # tries to "prove that": "a pseudoscientist tries to prove that something is true; a good scientist tries to find out whether it is true." (Perakh and Young 2004:188) # everyone is wrong but us (Perakh and Young 2004:188) # other features: never admit to mistakes, made-up terms and vague concepts (Perakh and Young 2004:189) ]]
Meeeeoooooowwwmmmm, incoming naive person alert
What's the problem of saying that creationsim is psuedoscience, and then just pointing to all the books by well-regarded scientists that state that as the reference? (I have one on my book shelf :-), and I'm sure there's more ).
Surely that's all that's required under WP:NPOV and WP:CS.
Dan
On 01/07/05, Joseph Reagle reagle@mit.edu wrote:
On Thursday 30 June 2005 21:56, Jtkiefer wrote:
Stating that creationism is pseudoscience is not POV-pushing. Maybe Intelligent Design, which is a bit more controversial -- but creationism as in "God created the World", where it makes "scientific" claims, is pretty much universally regarded as pseudoscience by people from existing scientific disciplines.
As an aside: I find Perakh and Young's (2004) definition of pseudoscience to be useful:
[[ Results for 'Perakh and Young 2004' + Is intelligent design science? o ch=12 p=Rutgers University press bt=Why Intelligent Design Fails y=2004 e=Matt Young, Taner Edis a=New Brunswick r=20050209 o intelligent design is not bad science like cold fusion or wrong science like Lamarckian inheritance (Perakh and Young 2004:185) o some features of pseudoscience # denial of established fact (e.g., homeotherapy and young earth creationists) (Perakh and Young 2004:186) # untestable hypotheses: a theory that explains everything explains nothing (e.g., astrology) (Perakh and Young 2004:187) # tries to "prove that": "a pseudoscientist tries to prove that something is true; a good scientist tries to find out whether it is true." (Perakh and Young 2004:188) # everyone is wrong but us (Perakh and Young 2004:188) # other features: never admit to mistakes, made-up terms and vague concepts (Perakh and Young 2004:189) ]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Friday 01 July 2005 07:43, Dan Grey wrote:
What's the problem of saying that creationsim is psuedoscience, and then just pointing to all the books by well-regarded scientists that state that as the reference? (I have one on my book shelf :-), and I'm sure there's more ).
Huh? I don't understand. I'm not advocating for a psuedoscience category, only that those who do may find that reference interesting and useful. Are you objecting to the title of the book (shouldn't we instead look at the substance of the content), or the attempt by scientists (and philosophers thereof) to define their field? The article is quite useful in distinguishing pseudoscience on the basis of methodological naturalism (e.g., the publication of the Bible Codes in Statistical Science and the resulting discussion, critique, and consensus) . Some creationists and IDers object to methodological naturalism, but that is straightforward: methodological supernaturalism isn't science -- if there is such a thing.
Jtkiefer wrote:
Your right calling creationism a science would be POV pushing, but if you take the stance that creationism is anything, science, pseudo-science, legend, myth, total bullshit... you're still gonna piss someone off which is an inherent problem with having an open medium like wikipedia.
The issue is generally easy enough to solve with freeform text in the body of an article by "going meta" and shifting the emphasis carefully until everyone is more or less satisfied. I am not the only person who has been pleasantly astounded at how well Wikipedia actually works at producing good high-quality consensus explanations in this manner.
Categories, on the other hand, are not as easy because they are so strictly limited. If we had a category of "things which are widely regarded, by scientists and others of a similar bent, as being less than fully established science, but which are often, by those who are not scientists, put forward as if they were science" then we'd have less trouble, I think. (And edit my description as you please until it's satisfactorily neutral. :-))
<POV> Now, a big part of the irritant in this discussion is that creationism is, as a matter of simple ordinary fact, pseudo-science or worse. Readers deserve to know, and quickly and simply, that treating creationist theories as if they were somehow scientific is completely and utterly unacceptable in scientific circles. The category does that concisely and correctly. </POV>
I have been thinking for many days (but with no progress) about a better name for the category.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
strictly limited. If we had a category of "things which are widely regarded, by scientists and others of a similar bent, as being less than fully established science, but which are often, by those who are not scientists, put forward as if they were science" then we'd have less trouble, I think.
How about "disputed science" or "disputed scientific theories"?
Sam
How about "disputed science" or "disputed scientific theories"?
Calling it "disputed science" implies that it _is_ science that happens to be disputed by some. However the category contains things that are clearly _not_ science. So that name is no good. I can't think of a good replacement name myself though.
Theresa
Theresa Knott wrote:
Calling it "disputed science" implies that it _is_ science that happens to be disputed by some. However the category contains things that are clearly _not_ science. So that name is no good. I can't think of a good replacement name myself though.
Well, [[eugenics]] is in the category (or has been on and off), and isn't non-science, or at least not "clearly" non-science. (It varies from outright quackery that'd qualify as pseudoscience, to morally questionable but scientifically rigorous proposals, such as those in the early 20th century by the New England Journal of Medicine to sterilize people who had heritable diseases.)
-Mark
How about "disputed science" or "disputed scientific theories"?
I don't think that would be a good name change. The whole point is that [[Creationism]], [[Homeopath]] etc. aren't scientific theories at all. And they aren't disputed by the scientific community. This is very different from new and disputed scientific theories.
To quote Fastfission:
"The need to have some meaning indicates we will have to perhaps sometimes have some statements which are less neutral than others."
Regards, Haukur
On 21/07/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
strictly limited. If we had a category of "things which are widely regarded, by scientists and others of a similar bent, as being less than fully established science, but which are often, by those who are not scientists, put forward as if they were science" then we'd have less trouble, I think.
How about "disputed science" or "disputed scientific theories"?
But this doesn't really work. The steady-state universe is a disputed scientific theory; impact-driven mass extinctions ditto... cold fusion is about as wacky as you get whilst still being a disputed scientific theory.
Lots of pseudoscience isn't a scientific theory which is disputed; it's a theory the "scientificness" of which is disputed, if that makes sense.
Sam Korn wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
strictly limited. If we had a category of "things which are widely regarded, by scientists and others of a similar bent, as being less than fully established science, but which are often, by those who are not scientists, put forward as if they were science" then we'd have less trouble, I think.
How about "disputed science" or "disputed scientific theories"?
Currently we have [[List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories]]. I've waltzed around this topic for the last three years, and I'm convinced that that's about as close as we'll ever get to consensus.
Ec
Jimmy Wales wrote:
<POV> Now, a big part of the irritant in this discussion is that creationism is, as a matter of simple ordinary fact, pseudo-science or worse. Readers deserve to know, and quickly and simply, that treating creationist theories as if they were somehow scientific is completely and utterly unacceptable in scientific circles. The category does that concisely and correctly. </POV>
I'm not sure why that's necessary though. No reader who reads [[creationism]] will come away with the idea that it is accepted in scientific circles---the article itself does a good job of finessing the issue. The category is sort of a blunt object that summarizes one particular view of the issue (that of nearly all scientists) without explanation or nuance. This is fine when no nuance is necessary and pretty much all viewpoints agree on the categorization ([[United States Democratic Party]] can go into [[Category:United States political parties]] without objection), but IMO generally inappropriate when a dispute exists between different viewpoints.
In any case, "pseudoscience" has more of a judgment feel than a merely informational feel. Even common or virtually-unanimous judgments aren't acceptable---we don't put [[Charles Manson]] and [[Adolf Hitler]] into [[Category:Evil people]].
-Mark
I'm not sure why that's necessary though. No reader who reads [[creationism]] will come away with the idea that it is accepted in scientific circles---the article itself does a good job of finessing the issue. The category is sort of a blunt object that summarizes one particular view of the issue (that of nearly all scientists) without explanation or nuance. This is fine when no nuance is necessary and pretty much all viewpoints agree on the categorization ([[United States Democratic Party]] can go into [[Category:United States political parties]] without objection), but IMO generally inappropriate when a dispute exists between different viewpoints.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Would you disagree with categorizing Christianity as a Religion? Jack T. Chick does (see e.g. frame 38 in this tract: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1023/1023_01.asp).
How far are you willing to go in the name of NPOV? How many Christian fundamentalists have to disagree with a fact to make it too controversial for Wikipedia to state in its unmarked voice? Our [[Earth]] article currently states without attribution that "[t]he planet formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109) years ago". Do you think that sentence should be changed or qualified to reflect the "different viewpoints" on this subject?
None of these are meant as rhetorical questions or trick questions. I'm honestly interested in where you want to draw the line.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
I'm not sure why that's necessary though. No reader who reads [[creationism]] will come away with the idea that it is accepted in scientific circles---the article itself does a good job of finessing the issue. The category is sort of a blunt object that summarizes one particular view of the issue (that of nearly all scientists) without explanation or nuance. This is fine when no nuance is necessary and pretty much all viewpoints agree on the categorization ([[United States Democratic Party]] can go into [[Category:United States political parties]] without objection), but IMO generally inappropriate when a dispute exists between different viewpoints.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Would you disagree with categorizing Christianity as a Religion? Jack T. Chick does (see e.g. frame 38 in this tract: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1023/1023_01.asp).
How far are you willing to go in the name of NPOV? How many Christian fundamentalists have to disagree with a fact to make it too controversial for Wikipedia to state in its unmarked voice? Our [[Earth]] article currently states without attribution that "[t]he planet formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109) years ago". Do you think that sentence should be changed or qualified to reflect the "different viewpoints" on this subject?
None of these are meant as rhetorical questions or trick questions. I'm honestly interested in where you want to draw the line.
The problem with this line of reasoning is in the need to "draw the line". There is no clear-cut demarcation between science and non-science. This was the main point in Feyerabend's arguments. Drawing on your Chick pick I could certainly find an argument in favor of "Bible Christianity is not religion." Bible Christians are too stuck in the words of the Bible to brought together as religion should do. By disavowing the record of the Bible the author effectively disavows creation, prefering instead his mystical relationship with Jesus.
Since you seem to disagree with the age of the earth, what would you suggest? How would you back up your alternative theory? Saying that Christian fundamentalists are wrong is just as POV as saying that they are right. There is no better way to promote creationism than to argue against it. The same happens with a lot of other fields that you might label as pseudoscience.
Attitudes toward the various topics that end up on the pseudoscience list will vary considerably. The ones that I consider most likely to be credible will differ from those that you put on such a list.
Ec
The problem with this line of reasoning is in the need to "draw the line". There is no clear-cut demarcation between science and non-science.
I was not so much referring to the line between science and non-science as the general line between *facts* which Wikipedia can report in its own voice without attribution ("The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.") and *contested opinions* which have to be attributed or qualified ("Some critics of the Bush administration have suggested that oil interests were an important factor in the decision to invade Iraq.").
Here are a few statements which I have been using as test cases for where different people might want to draw this line.
1. Christianity is a religion.
2. Creationism is pseudo-science.
3. Americans have landed on the moon.
4. The Nazis systematically exterminated millions of Jews.
5. Human activities are significantly affecting the average temperature on Earth.
My personal "line of unmarked narrative" lies somewhere between statements 4 and 5.
This was the main point in Feyerabend's arguments. Drawing on your Chick pick I could certainly find an argument in favor of "Bible Christianity is not religion." Bible Christians are too stuck in the words of the Bible to brought together as religion should do. By disavowing the record of the Bible the author effectively disavows creation, prefering instead his mystical relationship with Jesus.
Excellent. Would you, then, object to Christianity being included in a religion category on grounds of the NPOV policy?
Since you seem to disagree with the age of the earth, what would you suggest? How would you back up your alternative theory?
Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I'm fine with the Earth being old. I'm not a geologist, though, and I'm not familiar with the fine points of our current status of knowledge regarding the age of the Earth.
Saying that Christian fundamentalists are wrong is just as POV as saying that they are right.
I'm still not quite clear on your position here. Do you object to the current lead of the [[Earth]] article on grounds of the NPOV policy? If not then why not?
There is no better way to promote creationism than to argue against it. The same happens with a lot of other fields that you might label as pseudoscience.
I happen to disagree with that but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We're not talking about how best to combat pseudoscience, we're talking about how the NPOV principle of Wikipedia applies to such topics and, in particular, their categorization.
Attitudes toward the various topics that end up on the pseudoscience list will vary considerably. The ones that I consider most likely to be credible will differ from those that you put on such a list.
What's important is the consensus of the scientific community. Not the opinion of me or you after a casual look on a list. As with any other topic you have to do substantial research to be able to write well on this.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
The problem with this line of reasoning is in the need to "draw the line". There is no clear-cut demarcation between science and non-science.
I was not so much referring to the line between science and non-science as the general line between *facts* which Wikipedia can report in its own voice without attribution ("The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.") and *contested opinions* which have to be attributed or qualified ("Some critics of the Bush administration have suggested that oil interests were an important factor in the decision to invade Iraq.").
Here are a few statements which I have been using as test cases for where different people might want to draw this line.
Christianity is a religion.
Creationism is pseudo-science.
Americans have landed on the moon.
The Nazis systematically exterminated
millions of Jews.
- Human activities are significantly
affecting the average temperature on Earth.
My personal "line of unmarked narrative" lies somewhere between statements 4 and 5.
My response to those. 1. Yes, by definition, with or without the theology. 2. No, an opinion and characterization. This doesn't mean that I believe in creationism. Only that categorizing something as "pseudoscience" is a falsifiable theory that needs to be itself subject to scientific rigour. 3. Yes. The Hollywood Studio Conspiracy Theory is a little far-fetched, but those theorists have the burden of proof. It's hard to say when the cross the line from mere speculation (which is acceptable in the formation of an early theory) to pseudo-science. My speculation (or theory) would be that that theory was intended as a joke, but I'm willing to let it be at that without wasting time trying to prove it. That would hardly warrant elevating my theory to the status of pseudoscience. That would be a perfectly abandonable theory. 4. Yes, but for the use of the word "systematically". The exterminations are a question of body count. That they were systematic about it requires forming an opinion on a broader set of facts. 5. That's an opinion. Some would say that your Icelandic volcanoes are the problem :-)
This was the main point in Feyerabend's arguments. Drawing on your Chick pick I could certainly find an argument in favor of "Bible Christianity is not religion." Bible Christians are too stuck in the words of the Bible to be brought together as religion should do. By disavowing the record of the Bible the author effectively disavows creation, prefering instead his mystical relationship with Jesus.
Excellent. Would you, then, object to Christianity being included in a religion category on grounds of the NPOV policy?
No. Not all Christianity is Bible Christianity. That one word, "Bible", which you omitted from the comic strip quote can make a big difference. Whether Christianity is a religion is a question of how you define your terms.
Since you seem to disagree with the age of the earth, what would you suggest? How would you back up your alternative theory?
Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I'm fine with the Earth being old. I'm not a geologist, though, and I'm not familiar with the fine points of our current status of knowledge regarding the age of the Earth.
Great! You know your limitations. I wouldn't have the skills to prove or disprove that one either. So we both accept that opinion about the Earth's age as provisionally true. The onus is upon those who want to convince us of something else to come up with convincing proof.
Saying that Christian fundamentalists are wrong is just as POV as saying that they are right.
I'm still not quite clear on your position here. Do you object to the current lead of the [[Earth]] article on grounds of the NPOV policy? If not then why not?
The lead says nothing about the Christian fundamentalists; your question is a non-sequitur. What am I supposed to be objecting to? I have one possible objection. The symbol shown for Earth may have predated meridians, so how can it be based on them? But until I can back up my position I'm not going to jump in on that.
There is no better way to promote creationism than to argue against it. The same happens with a lot of other fields that you might label as pseudoscience.
I happen to disagree with that but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We're not talking about how best to combat pseudoscience, we're talking about how the NPOV principle of Wikipedia applies to such topics and, in particular, their categorization.
To apply NPOV to the naming of categories choose names that are acceptable to both sides of the issue.
Attitudes toward the various topics that end up on the pseudoscience list will vary considerably. The ones that I consider most likely to be credible will differ from those that you put on such a list.
What's important is the consensus of the scientific community. Not the opinion of me or you after a casual look on a list. As with any other topic you have to do substantial research to be able to write well on this.
I'm willing to look at the consensus of the scientific community, then make up my own mind. The science is more important than the scientists. I will not bow down and worship at the feet of the scientific community. Scientists can be just as entrenched in their wrong ideas as writers of paper encyclopedias are about Wikipedia. I will respect a scientist in the work that hehas done in his own field, but I will also be extremely skeptical when he starts to pontificate in other areas.
Ec
On 7/21/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Jtkiefer wrote:
Your right calling creationism a science would be POV pushing, but if you take the stance that creationism is anything, science, pseudo-science, legend, myth, total bullshit... you're still gonna piss someone off which is an inherent problem with having an open medium like wikipedia.
The issue is generally easy enough to solve with freeform text in the body of an article by "going meta" and shifting the emphasis carefully until everyone is more or less satisfied. I am not the only person who has been pleasantly astounded at how well Wikipedia actually works at producing good high-quality consensus explanations in this manner.
Categories, on the other hand, are not as easy because they are so strictly limited. If we had a category of "things which are widely regarded, by scientists and others of a similar bent, as being less than fully established science, but which are often, by those who are not scientists, put forward as if they were science" then we'd have less trouble, I think. (And edit my description as you please until it's satisfactorily neutral. :-))
<POV> Now, a big part of the irritant in this discussion is that creationism is, as a matter of simple ordinary fact, pseudo-science or worse. Readers deserve to know, and quickly and simply, that treating creationist theories as if they were somehow scientific is completely and utterly unacceptable in scientific circles. The category does that concisely and correctly. </POV>
I have been thinking for many days (but with no progress) about a better name for the category.
--Jimbo
I think the existence of a pseudoscience category doesn't require that every item ever thought to be pseudoscience should be in that category. For example, there is perfectly normal, scientific support for aromatherapy used for mood enhancement. For simple health problems like headache and stuffy nose, there is also proof that aromatherapy is at least somewhat effective for those uses. Yet some fringe supporters claim that it is capable of much more, so it is grouped in the category "pseudoscience". I don't think it belongs in that category.
The category "pseudoscience" should only be for the truly and completely pseudoscientific; things that have been widely and publicly disproven, such as biorhythms, astrology, phrenology and perpetual motion machines. Aromatherapy doesn't belong, as its mainstream component (mood enhancement) is backed by science. Mentioning the pseudoscientific fringe application in the article is enough; it doesn't also have to be in the category. Items where fringe believers delve into pseudoscientific beliefs and practices should not poison the general article with the pseudoscience categorization if the mainstream use and application of the belief is not pseudoscience.
Since we cannot prove to the satisfaction of everyone but the fringe of society that creationism is pseudoscience, it shouldn't be in that category. Instead, it should be in a category of "origin theory" or "origin beleifs" or something like that, along with the big bang theory and intelligent design. That way, they share a common link as similar subjects, but we don't categorize religious theories as science of any kind. Creationism should be in any science category, either.
Errors of categorization should always be of omission whenever such classification can reasonably be viewed as an insult. Undercategorization due to POV doesn't have to be a problem; we should just make similar categories to link similar ideas together in other ways without POV judgement.
For example, I see no similarity between aromatherapy and creationism, except the POV judgement that someone has made to both articles, thereby linking them through pseudoscience. Neither has been widely disproven, so without the POV judgement, they wouldn't be linked, and shouldn't be. On the other hand, not having creationism and big bang theory linked in a common category is clearly breaking a rule of keeping similar ideas together, so we should find an NPOV common theme (origin theory or origin beliefs) to join them.
Michael Turley wrote:
I think the existence of a pseudoscience category doesn't require that every item ever thought to be pseudoscience should be in that category. For example, there is perfectly normal, scientific support for aromatherapy used for mood enhancement. For simple health problems like headache and stuffy nose, there is also proof that aromatherapy is at least somewhat effective for those uses. Yet some fringe supporters claim that it is capable of much more, so it is grouped in the category "pseudoscience". I don't think it belongs in that category.
I'd certainly agree with that. By the definition a lot of people are using to place things like [[aromatherapy]] into [[category:pseudoscience]], we could easily place [[psychiatry]] there as well, and certainly [[psychoanalysis]] (and putting [[Jacques Lacan]] and arguably [[Sigmund Freud]] into [[category:pseudoscientists]] would be even more of a slam-dunk).
Now while I might not personally mind such a judgment, I still think it'd be inappropriate, and don't see most of the rest as much different...
-Mark
Jimbo wrote:
<POV> Now, a big part of the irritant in this discussion is that creationism is, as a matter of simple ordinary fact, pseudo-science or worse. Readers deserve to know, and quickly and simply, that treating creationist theories as if they were somehow scientific is completely and utterly unacceptable in scientific circles. The category does that concisely and correctly. </POV>
Well put! Now, if you'd please replace <POV>...</POV> with <ex cathedra>...</ex cathedra>... ;)
Regards, Haukur