I don't mind a bit of science creeping into Wikipedia, but let's not exalt it or enshrine it. Science can make mistakes.
If a bunch of scientists agree on something, that doesn't make it true. If they change their minds later, that doesn't make it false.
If a hypothesis is true, but scientists refuse to accept it, that doesn't make it false. And if they eventually decide to accept it, that ACCEPTANCE does not MAKE IT become true.
What bothers me is when some contributors insist that Wikipedia endorse a particular point of view (see [[Wikipedia:POV]]) on the grounds that "scientists believe it" or that "it is scientific". Much ink has been spilled (or phosphor illuminated) to show that, e.g., the runaway greenhouse theory (aka Global Warming) enjoys consensus support of the world's climatologists and that THEREFORE this encyclopedia should stop dicking around and just ENDORSE it.
I have pretty much decided to stay away from the climate pages, because I'm tired of this battle. But I'm never going to drop the subject completely: the subject being,
* "How shall Wikipedia describe unsettled scientific questions?"
1. Perhaps my first error is to assume that global warming has not been settled. The United Nations' climate panel makes it sound like there's virtually no other hypothesis being entertained. Only nuts like Singer, Lindzen and Balunias think otherwise (and they're obviously on the industry payroll, so they can safely be ignored).
2. Or perhaps even if it's been "settled" (in the sense of all but an inconsiderable percentage of the world's scientists endorsing it), Wikipedia should still remain neutral on the question - saying only that XX% of the world's scientists endorse the theory, according to surveys conducted by P, Q, and R.
Ed Poor Great-grandson of the notable astronomer Charles Lane Poor
What bothers me is when some contributors insist that Wikipedia endorse a particular point of view (see [[Wikipedia:POV]]) on the grounds that "scientists believe it" or that "it is scientific". Much ink has been spilled (or phosphor illuminated) to show that, e.g., the runaway greenhouse theory (aka Global Warming) enjoys consensus support of the world's climatologists and that THEREFORE this encyclopedia should stop dicking around and just ENDORSE it.
That depends on what you mean by 'endorse.' It's very possible to endorse a theory without ever once saying something like "this theory is the correct one." It's unavoidable when presenting evidence for a certain theory not to inadvertenly 'endorse' it unless you plaster the article with silly disclaimers like 'under this widely agreed upon theory, it is said...'
Global warming is a bad example. That's an area that involves considerable controversy and contention among scientists, there really is no scientific consensus on it. Also, all sides are at least capable of being scientific (as they are very falsifiable) and there is science being practiced , to some extent, on both sides.
This is quite a bit different than well-established, non-controversial theories for which there is near unanimous consent in the scientific community. Especially in cases where the only opposition is religious and/or political in nature. I'll note this applies to to theories that only work within contraints as well as long as the article clarifies that it only works within those contraints (e.g. general relativity has various situations where it doesn't work).
When you're dealing with something like "creation science" though, it's quite a bit different. It is not actually falsifiable, there is no level of science involved with it and it's based entirely on religion. There is pretty much unanimous agreement among scientists that evolution is the most likely theory save a few religious zealots who only went into science to proseletize.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
Poor, Edmund W (Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com) [050702 00:42]:
- Perhaps my first error is to assume that global warming has not been
settled. The United Nations' climate panel makes it sound like there's virtually no other hypothesis being entertained. Only nuts like Singer, Lindzen and Balunias think otherwise (and they're obviously on the industry payroll, so they can safely be ignored).
I am shocked that anyone could ever consider [[S. Fred Singer]], famous for his work for the tobacco industry via the [[Alexis de Tocqueville Institution]], any sort of industry shill.
- d.