Something else to talk about:
Some of our rather intelligent sciency people seem to have an unusual inability to distinguish science from neutrality. Ultimately, they tend to argue that articles should hold a defacto deference to what is essentially a Scientific Point of View, rather than a Neutral Point of View.
How best to single these people out and correct their behaviour? Any examples of articles in question? Isnt the term "pseudoscience" a POV pejorative from the SPOV?
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
Something else to talk about:
Some of our rather intelligent sciency people seem to have an unusual inability to distinguish science from neutrality. Ultimately, they tend to argue that articles should hold a defacto deference to what is essentially a Scientific Point of View, rather than a Neutral Point of View.
How best to single these people out and correct their behaviour? Any examples of articles in question? Isnt the term "pseudoscience" a POV pejorative from the SPOV?
Could you give an example of a "scientific point of view" which is not neutral point of view?
Pseudoscience is not a POV pejorative term, as pseudoscience has little or no actual basis in reality. The fact that pseudoscience is 'wrong' is not a POV opinion, as it is true. Scientific observations have demonstrated the vast majority of pseudoscientific babble to be exactly that - babble.
Wikipedia should accurately reflect truth - if people say something wrong, it is not POV for us to point out that it is wrong, and to show why it is wrong.
Pseudoscientific ideas deserve a page (for historical value), but they don't deserve a voice in what is said in it, and the fact it's all wrong should be made crystal clear.
Chris
On 12/12/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Could you give an example of a "scientific point of view" which is not neutral point of view?
Pseudoscience is not a POV pejorative term, as pseudoscience has little or no actual basis in reality. The fact that pseudoscience is 'wrong' is not a POV opinion, as it is true. Scientific observations have demonstrated the vast majority of pseudoscientific babble to be exactly that - babble.
Wikipedia should accurately reflect truth - if people say something wrong, it is not POV for us to point out that it is wrong, and to show why it is wrong.
Pseudoscientific ideas deserve a page (for historical value), but they don't deserve a voice in what is said in it, and the fact it's all wrong should be made crystal clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scientific_point_of_view
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Wikipedia should accurately reflect truth - if people say something wrong, it is not POV for us to point out that it is wrong, and to show why it is wrong.
I got a private message saying this conflicted with Wikipedia's NPOV policy on pseudoscience. I'd like to clarify - it's right to mention that some people disbelieve a certain theory, and believe other ideas on how such a phenomenon exists. It's also good to include why people believes/believed such a theory.
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.
As an encyclopaedia which is intended to include 'all knowledge', I don't see any conflict between including pseudoscientific babble and explaining why it is babble. Including all knowledge doesn't conflict with Wikipedia accurately reflecting reality.
It's easy to get all philosophical about this (what is truth? what is reality? what is knowledge?), so please assume that I'm within the bounds of WP:NPOV with what I'm saying and that any deviations are due to me becoming philosophical :) ).
Chris
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Wikipedia should accurately reflect truth - if people say something wrong, it is not POV for us to point out that it is wrong, and to show why it is wrong.
I got a private message saying this conflicted with Wikipedia's NPOV policy on pseudoscience. I'd like to clarify - it's right to mention that some people disbelieve a certain theory, and believe other ideas on how such a phenomenon exists. It's also good to include why people believes/believed such a theory.
Absolutely.
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]].
As an encyclopaedia which is intended to include 'all knowledge', I don't see any conflict between including pseudoscientific babble and explaining why it is babble. Including all knowledge doesn't conflict with Wikipedia accurately reflecting reality.
When your premise is that the material in question is "pseudoscientific babble" you have already prejudiced the discussion. It presumes that the only thing left to do is to convince otheres that it is babble.
It's easy to get all philosophical about this (what is truth? what is reality? what is knowledge?), so please assume that I'm within the bounds of WP:NPOV with what I'm saying and that any deviations are due to me becoming philosophical :) ).
Assuming that you are within the bounds of NPOV calls for a leap of faith. You might as well ask us to believe in intelligent design with you as the designer.
The foundations of science are philosophical, and without a grasp of that philosophy there is no grasp of the science. A laboratory technician is not really a scientist. He knows how to manipulate certain chemicals (or other equipment) in oder to test a predetermined hypothesis. There is no room for him to suggest alternative hypotheses. He follow science's equivalent to politically correct.. A scientist questions everything down to its roots, and spurns glibly predetermined answers.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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]].
I never made such an assertion (that all non-science is pseudoscience). I said that pseudoscience is often wrong. So could you give me an example of a pseudoscience which is actually 'right'?
Assuming that you are within the bounds of NPOV calls for a leap of faith. You might as well ask us to believe in intelligent design with you as the designer.
That's a bit hyperbolic, isn't it?
Chris
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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]].
I never made such an assertion (that all non-science is pseudoscience). I said that pseudoscience is often wrong. So could you give me an example of a pseudoscience which is actually 'right'?
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.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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]].
I never made such an assertion (that all non-science is pseudoscience). I said that pseudoscience is often wrong. So could you give me an example of a pseudoscience which is actually 'right'?
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?
Chris
Hi,
if you'd like to put all the theories about POV / SPOV into practice, how about taking a look at [[Intelligent Design]]. :)
I'm usually on the SPOV side of these debates, but what I see there is a bit too much even for my tastes.
Thanks, nyenyec
Because it assumes standards of evidence and even standards of what "science" is, how to define it, and whether or not all of what is generally considered "science" fits into these normalized molds (they don't).
There are also things like string theory, psychoanalysis, SETI, and eugenics for which the "is it science?" question is continually in debate.
Put another way, the standards of how to determine "right" and "wrong" are exactly what are at the crux of the debate. So taking one side can easily be argued as POV, especially when we are talking about pejorative terms which imply deceit (at the very best, self-deceit) along with falseness.
There are good reasons, though, for leaning towards the "scientific" point of view *when leaning is required* -- that is, not just going that direction by default, but for sorting out the little situations where it is a question of what gets listed first and things of that nature. The primary one is credibility and with whom -- if Wikipedia is seen as a totally uncredible source by scientists and academics, that's a problem, since this is the community whose norms usually define these sorts of standards. If Wikipedia is seen as uncredible by the Creationists, UFOlogists, and so forth -- not as big a problem in my mind; they're a relatively small audience (whether or not most Americans reject evolution, most are not what one would call "Creationists" -- they are not activists about the issue) and their disdain will not harm Wikipedia in the slightest. Again -- I think this only should come up in a matter of emphasis, not a matter of substantive content, and should be done very carefully in all instances.
FF
On 12/14/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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]].
I never made such an assertion (that all non-science is pseudoscience). I said that pseudoscience is often wrong. So could you give me an example of a pseudoscience which is actually 'right'?
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?
Chris _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
Because it assumes standards of evidence and even standards of what "science" is, how to define it, and whether or not all of what is generally considered "science" fits into these normalized molds (they don't).
It is too easy to forget the influence of Plato and Aristotle in the development of modern science. If these men had viewed things just a little differently the impact on today's science could have been staggering.
There are good reasons, though, for leaning towards the "scientific" point of view *when leaning is required*
Those who lean too much in one direction tend to fall over.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
Because it assumes standards of evidence and even standards of what "science" is, how to define it, and whether or not all of what is generally considered "science" fits into these normalized molds (they don't).
It is too easy to forget the influence of Plato and Aristotle in the development of modern science. If these men had viewed things just a little differently the impact on today's science could have been staggering.
This is coming across as creationist^Wintelligent design arguments that SJ Gould disagrees with Darwin therefore evolution is dubious - making out that minor disagreements destroy the entire concept. See [[Thomas Kuhn]].
What was your substitute word for "pseudoscience" that is actually in current English usage (i.e. is not a Wikipedia-invented neologism) that would communicate this important concept without whatever offense it is you take toward it?
There are good reasons, though, for leaning towards the "scientific" point of view *when leaning is required*
Those who lean too much in one direction tend to fall over.
That's not even close to being an argument.
- d.
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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]].
I never made such an assertion (that all non-science is pseudoscience). I said that pseudoscience is often wrong. So could you give me an example of a pseudoscience which is actually 'right'?
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.
Ec
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.
On Dec 15, 2005, at 3:08 PM, David Gerard wrote:
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"?
Penn and Teller have been using "bullshit" for a while now, but I bet that would be even less popular.
-Phil
David Gerard wrote:
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"?
"Alternate science" is such a term which does not carrry the same negative baggage as "pseudoscience".
Ec
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:58:51PM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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"?
"Alternate science" is such a term which does not carrry the same negative baggage as "pseudoscience".
"Alternate science" suggests that a type of science is being done, which is (a) not always the case, and (b) adopts the practitioner's POV.
Regarding (a), see e.g. the NYT article of December 7 regarding the Templeton Foundation's attempts to fund "Intelligent Design" research. The foundation, which funds work to reconcile science and religion, went to ID advocates -- including the Discovery Institute -- and tried to get research proposals. They got ... nothing. The ID "scientists" don't want to _do_ science, even for a sympathetic audience like Templeton.
Science is not just a field of knowledge -- it's a field of endeavor; a range of organized human behavior. It isn't ideas or subject matter that constitute science, but rather scientific _practice_ -- research, experimentation, observation. If there isn't any science _practice_ being done, then the field isn't scientific.
You don't get to be a scientist by having opinions about the same sort of matters that scientists study. You have to actually do the work and participate in the process. Science isn't something scientists believe in, it's something scientists _do_.
"Alternate science" suggests that there's science being done, but that it simply comes to different conclusions than mainstream science. But in this case (and many others) there isn't actually any science there; there's only the *assertion* of science. That's what makes ID not an "alternate science" but rather a pseudoscience.
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:58:51PM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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"?
"Alternate science" is such a term which does not carrry the same negative baggage as "pseudoscience".
"Alternate science" suggests that a type of science is being done, which is (a) not always the case, and (b) adopts the practitioner's POV.
"Alternate science" is science that deviates from the mainstream in significant ways. As long as there are some involved in good faith experiments which attempt to adhere to scientific principles they are scientists. If their experiments fail they go back to the drawing board to alter the hypothesis or experimental design. Repeated failure of experiments is not enough to make their efforts unscientific.
Are engineers, lab technicians and other practitioners of applied science really scientists, when they simply apply predetermined protocols to deal with certain circumstances. They read the building codes and apply its rules. If the building falls down it is a more serious offence not to have followed the code than to have a perfectly reasoned argument for having done things the way they were done. The average astrologer is no scientist either; he just follows the rules set down in his textbooks..
I would not say that using the term "alternate science" implies adopting the practitioner's POV. It may be adopting his terminology, but by itself naming things is not science. Definitions are not science; they are just a framework upon which to build discussions, and can neither be proven not disproven. When we define "charm" in the context of quarks we are not bound by what that word means to the ordinary person. The naming of things is primarily the domain of the proponents. No-one can meaningfully oppose a concept until it is proposed.
Here we are not concerned with any particular subject by itself, but a wide range of subjects with varying degrees of support or hostility, including mutual hostility. "Alternative science" may appear sympathetic to the proponents, but not outrageously so.
Regarding (a), see e.g. the NYT article of December 7 regarding the Templeton Foundation's attempts to fund "Intelligent Design" research. The foundation, which funds work to reconcile science and religion, went to ID advocates -- including the Discovery Institute -- and tried to get research proposals. They got ... nothing. The ID "scientists" don't want to _do_ science, even for a sympathetic audience like Templeton.
Sorry, but I'm not at all sympathetic to intelligent design. There are other subjects in this category that I find more interesting, but I'm willing to allow it to be called "alternate science" in order to be able to have meningful discussions.
Science is not just a field of knowledge -- it's a field of endeavor; a range of organized human behavior. It isn't ideas or subject matter that constitute science, but rather scientific _practice_ -- research, experimentation, observation. If there isn't any science _practice_ being done, then the field isn't scientific.
If we interpret "science" strictly that's true. Nevertheless, others use the word "science" to refer to any kind of disciplined approach to a subject, as in the science of Texas Hold'em.
You don't get to be a scientist by having opinions about the same sort of matters that scientists study. You have to actually do the work and participate in the process. Science isn't something scientists believe in, it's something scientists _do_.
Then there are very few scientists! ;-)
"Alternate science" suggests that there's science being done, but that it simply comes to different conclusions than mainstream science. But in this case (and many others) there isn't actually any science there; there's only the *assertion* of science. That's what makes ID not an "alternate science" but rather a pseudoscience.
That could be the case with ID, but that's an issue of what gets included in the category. To me the important feature of "alternate science" is not variant conclusions but variant premises. and fundamental hypotheses.
Ec
On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
"Alternate science" is science that deviates from the mainstream in significant ways. As long as there are some involved in good faith experiments which attempt to adhere to scientific principles they are scientists. If their experiments fail they go back to the drawing board to alter the hypothesis or experimental design. Repeated failure of experiments is not enough to make their efforts unscientific.
...
Here we are not concerned with any particular subject by itself, but a wide range of subjects with varying degrees of support or hostility, including mutual hostility. "Alternative science" may appear sympathetic to the proponents, but not outrageously so.
The sumpathetic aspect is calling it science at all. Things labeled pseudoscience are not alternative interpretations of scientific theories, but are things which are contended to not even be science itself. Pseudoscience is defined as a non-scientific methodology which calls itself a scientific methodology. The POV problem with it is not the definition, but the assignment of fields to it. Similarly with Soviet spies, the problem is not that the idea of the category is inherently flawed (the idea of a Soviet spy is certainly comprehensible), but in saying that one person or another actually was a Soviet spy (versus accused of spying by the U.S. intelligence community, or something like that).
In analogic form about applied POV... Pseudoscience : Soviet spying :: Scientists : U.S. intelligence services.
If we interpret "science" strictly that's true. Nevertheless, others use the word "science" to refer to any kind of disciplined approach to a subject, as in the science of Texas Hold'em.
Okay, but that's not the sense of "science" used when talking about alternative science or pseudoscience. You can't just decide arbitrarily when something is a strict or a loose sense of the term.
FF
One slight refinement...
In analogic form about applied POV... Pseudoscience : Soviet spy :: Mainstream scientific community : U.S. intelligence services.
Or, put bluntly, "pseudoscience" is a designation given by the mainstream scientific community (to certain fields of study), "Soviet spy" is a designation given by U.S. intelligence services (to certain individuals).
Now the problem with both is that such designations are often highly disputed -- ID claims it is not a pseudoscience and indeed claims that often evolution is pseudoscientific. In labeling ID a pseudoscience and evolution not one, we're implicitly taking a side in this debate.
Again, I think in some circumstances such leaning is not bad -- I would rather Wikipedia be known for supporting the mainstream scientific position on such small details as categorization than known for supporting the fringe position. We're an encyclopedia, after all, and the scientific community POV is easy to understand and relatively transparent for people to look at and evaluate (not the case in terms of U.S. intelligence services POV, which is very purposely closed and obscured). But that's just one take on it.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
"Alternate science" is science that deviates from the mainstream in significant ways. As long as there are some involved in good faith experiments which attempt to adhere to scientific principles they are scientists. If their experiments fail they go back to the drawing board to alter the hypothesis or experimental design. Repeated failure of experiments is not enough to make their efforts unscientific.
...
Here we are not concerned with any particular subject by itself, but a wide range of subjects with varying degrees of support or hostility, including mutual hostility. "Alternative science" may appear sympathetic to the proponents, but not outrageously so.
I was about to launch int the question of favouring "alternate" to "alternative" science, but a review of the matter in my Oxford Dictionary informs me that this is really a British vs. American usage issue with "alternate" being favoured in North America. Traditionally the adjective "alternate" in British usage is restricted to situations where there are only two choices. To whatever extent it may be relevant this aspect should be guided by our usual policies regarding British and American usages.
The sumpathetic aspect is calling it science at all. Things labeled pseudoscience are not alternative interpretations of scientific theories, but are things which are contended to not even be science itself.
Are we prepared to enforce a strict definition of the word "science". Searching on Wikipedia tells me that we have 50,211 articles with the word "science" We have an article called [[Icelandology]] which says "Icelandology comprises the wide range of scientific problems and topics concerning this specific insular country." And later: "Icelandology also covers tourism". If we are going to be strict about using the term "science" what do we do about this sort of article? What do we do about the broad area of social sciences where many of us would agree that there is very little hard science involved
Pseudoscience is defined as a non-scientific methodology which calls itself a scientific methodology. The POV problem with it is not the definition, but the assignment of fields to it. Similarly with Soviet spies, the problem is not that the idea of the category is inherently flawed (the idea of a Soviet spy is certainly comprehensible), but in saying that one person or another actually was a Soviet spy (versus accused of spying by the U.S. intelligence community, or something like that).
In analogic form about applied POV... Pseudoscience : Soviet spying :: Scientists : U.S. intelligence services.
I agree, and many of the mainstream scientists who are quick to attach the "pseudoscience" label have likely done little or no study of the field that they want to label. In doing so they are themselves acting pseudoscientifically. In one of my earlier go-rounds with this topic when it was about the [[List ...]] of such topics there were some editors who would strongly support the idea of the list, but would balk at putting cryptozoölogy, exobiology, and the SETI Project on the list. If someone wants to apply the term "pseudoscience" he should carry the burden of verifiability in a manner consistent with what that term means.
If we interpret "science" strictly that's true. Nevertheless, others use the word "science" to refer to any kind of disciplined approach to a subject, as in the science of Texas Hold'em.
Okay, but that's not the sense of "science" used when talking about alternative science or pseudoscience. You can't just decide arbitrarily when something is a strict or a loose sense of the term.
It may not be the sense that some are talking about, but that will not be evident from a simple title. Some others will use a much broader broader meaning. We really can't say how users will interpret it. The Oxford Dictionary that I cited does not make specific mention of alternat[iv]e science. It does refer to an "alternate universe" in the context of distinguishing the two forms. It does have an entry for "alternative medicine" which it defines as "any of a range of medical therapies that are not regarded as orthodox by the medical profession, such as herbalism, naturopathy and crystal healing." Even if we limit discussion to these three topics there would be disputes, and I suspect that crystal healing may have relatively less respectability than the other two.
Is medicine anything other than a branch of science? "Unorthodox science" anybody?
Ec
On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Are we prepared to enforce a strict definition of the word "science". Searching on Wikipedia tells me that we have 50,211 articles with the word "science" We have an article called [[Icelandology]] which says "Icelandology comprises the wide range of scientific problems and topics concerning this specific insular country." And later: "Icelandology also covers tourism". If we are going to be strict about using the term "science" what do we do about this sort of article? What do we do about the broad area of social sciences where many of us would agree that there is very little hard science involved
We should enforce a methodological/strict definition of the term when it is being used to define methodological/strict issues, which it is in this case.
I agree, and many of the mainstream scientists who are quick to attach the "pseudoscience" label have likely done little or no study of the field that they want to label. In doing so they are themselves acting pseudoscientifically. In one of my earlier go-rounds with this topic when it was about the [[List ...]] of such topics there were some editors who would strongly support the idea of the list, but would balk at putting cryptozoölogy, exobiology, and the SETI Project on the list. If someone wants to apply the term "pseudoscience" he should carry the burden of verifiability in a manner consistent with what that term means.
But this result is one in which Wikipedians will be arguing with each other about the methodology and whether something like Creationism counts as a science. However this is not a problem that even philosophers have been able to work out to any satisfaction. Aside from that, it ends up violating NOR. This is what inevitably happens, anyway. Is Intelligence Design a science? Someone says, "not falsifiable," someone else points out that there are ways in which ID thinks it can be falsified, and start pulling out complicated arguments on the subject, and also notes that evolution might not be falsifiable, etc. etc. etc.
Hence, I have long argued that we should try to adopt a sociological definition for the purposes of categorization. If we had a neat way to say, "Considering to not actually be scientific by mainstream science", that would be the best example of it. Because that is really what people expect when they look at a pseudoscience category -- not some idiosyncratic application of the term which is Wikipedia-specific and based on who on Wikipedia is the best debater or has the most support behind them.
FF
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:31:12PM -0500, Fastfission wrote:
But this result is one in which Wikipedians will be arguing with each other about the methodology and whether something like Creationism counts as a science. However this is not a problem that even philosophers have been able to work out to any satisfaction. Aside from that, it ends up violating NOR. This is what inevitably happens, anyway. Is Intelligence Design a science? Someone says, "not falsifiable," someone else points out that there are ways in which ID thinks it can be falsified, and start pulling out complicated arguments on the subject, and also notes that evolution might not be falsifiable, etc. etc. etc.
To me, falsifiability isn't really at issue here. (If you want to be epistemological, I'm following a more reliabilist approach rather than a logical-positivist or -empiricist approach.)
The issue isn't what subject matter the field deals with, or what sort of claims the practitioners make. Science can yield all kinds of weird and nonintuitive claims. Many people find evolution nonintuitive -- how can natural selection, a process which is based on death, lead to the survivors becoming better fitted to their environments?
The issue is whether the practitioners are in fact *doing science* ... whether they're coming up with their claims by studying the world and participating in processes such as peer review and repeating of experiments and observations ... or whether they're just pulling their claims out of wishful thinking or their religious text or whatever, and just _call_ them "science" for political or economic benefit.
Pseudoscience isn't about the subject matter -- it's about the method, and the difference between what the practitioners *say* about the method, and what they actually *do*.
On 12/16/05, Karl A. Krueger kkrueger@whoi.edu wrote:
The issue is whether the practitioners are in fact *doing science* ... whether they're coming up with their claims by studying the world and participating in processes such as peer review and repeating of experiments and observations ... or whether they're just pulling their claims out of wishful thinking or their religious text or whatever, and just _call_ them "science" for political or economic benefit.
Pseudoscience isn't about the subject matter -- it's about the method, and the difference between what the practitioners *say* about the method, and what they actually *do*.
I think you entirely missed my earlier point.
1. The question is not about what "pseudoscience" is supposed to *mean*. The definition is clear. 2. The quesiton is about how we decide who falls under it or not. In practice this is difficult, because many forms of things which are considered "legitimate" science do not meet all of the "requirements", and many things which are not considered legitimate science do meet some of them.
FF
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:29:59PM -0500, Fastfission wrote:
I think you entirely missed my earlier point.
- The question is not about what "pseudoscience" is supposed to
*mean*. The definition is clear.
OK. I'm not so sure it was, considering the discussion about falsifiability.
- The quesiton is about how we decide who falls under it or not. In
practice this is difficult, because many forms of things which are considered "legitimate" science do not meet all of the "requirements", and many things which are not considered legitimate science do meet some of them.
I'm not sure I see a wide variety of "requirements" here. I'm not suggesting any complicated philosophy-of-science laundry list of what makes Good Science, or Normal Science, or whatever. I'm just saying that we're safe calling it "pseudoscience" when someone parades around under the banner of "SCIENCE" but isn't actually doing anything resembling it.
On 12/17/05, Karl A. Krueger kkrueger@whoi.edu wrote:
OK. I'm not so sure it was, considering the discussion about falsifiability.
Well, let me be more specific: the meaning, in a general sense, is clear. Something which claims to be science but is not science. The specifics of how one defines "science" in this sense is not clear, not only not on Wikipedia but not even in the larger academic context in general, and so things like falsifiability get bandied around as possible approaches to this.
I'm not sure I see a wide variety of "requirements" here. I'm not suggesting any complicated philosophy-of-science laundry list of what makes Good Science, or Normal Science, or whatever. I'm just saying that we're safe calling it "pseudoscience" when someone parades around under the banner of "SCIENCE" but isn't actually doing anything resembling it.
Again, you're begging the question, which is entirely how one tells when one is "resembling it". Science looks like many things, and whether something resembles it depends on whether you stress the similarities or the differences.
FF
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:28:23AM -0500, Fastfission wrote:
On 12/17/05, Karl A. Krueger kkrueger@whoi.edu wrote:
OK. I'm not so sure it was, considering the discussion about falsifiability.
Well, let me be more specific: the meaning, in a general sense, is clear. Something which claims to be science but is not science. The specifics of how one defines "science" in this sense is not clear, not only not on Wikipedia but not even in the larger academic context in general, and so things like falsifiability get bandied around as possible approaches to this.
OK. It's just that falsifiability was brought into the discussion as what looked like a straw man: I don't recall if it was you or someone else, but it was introduced in a way which made it seem that I had been holding it up as a criterion for science, which I wasn't.
(Why does it matter? Falsifiability applies to claims. It holds that a claim which is not falsifiable can't be studied scientifically at all, since it isn't amenable to testing. But falsifiability doesn't apply so well to processes, which is what we're talking about.)
I'm not sure I see a wide variety of "requirements" here. I'm not suggesting any complicated philosophy-of-science laundry list of what makes Good Science, or Normal Science, or whatever. I'm just saying that we're safe calling it "pseudoscience" when someone parades around under the banner of "SCIENCE" but isn't actually doing anything resembling it.
Again, you're begging the question, which is entirely how one tells when one is "resembling it".
Well, that's going to differ from case to case, but basically along the same route that I've been describing: find out the *method* by which the claims in question were arrived at. As noted before, it isn't about the results; it's about the method.
"Creation scientists" didn't come up with their claims by observing the world and participating in a scientific process -- they came up with them by reading the Bible, for instance. Reading the Bible is part of doing theology, but it isn't part of doing science. We can go to the proponents and ask (as the Templeton Foundation did) "Where is the science?" The answer is, it isn't there. And that is why it's both correct and neutral to class "creation science" as pseudoscience.
Science looks like many things, and whether something resembles it depends on whether you stress the similarities or the differences.
Well, sure, that's true. But that's the very same sort of judgment that we make when we put an article into any other category: "Is this subject more similar to the other things in this category, or more different?" It's always possible to find ways to stress the differences if your motive is to make a subject seem unique and special.
But it seems to me that your argument would lead us to throwing out the idea of categories entirely, since there are *always* similarities and differences. Indeed, I'm not sure how we can write a single categorical sentence that doesn't invoke the same problem if someone wants to nitpick. "Cats are mammals" is a statement of similarity that glosses over the differences between cats and other mammals, after all ....
On 12/17/05, Karl A. Krueger kkrueger@whoi.edu wrote:
"Creation scientists" didn't come up with their claims by observing the world and participating in a scientific process -- they came up with them by reading the Bible, for instance. Reading the Bible is part of doing theology, but it isn't part of doing science. We can go to the proponents and ask (as the Templeton Foundation did) "Where is the science?" The answer is, it isn't there. And that is why it's both correct and neutral to class "creation science" as pseudoscience.
Those who label themselves as "creationist scientists" are happy to go to great pains to show that 1. nobody really approaches the world with a "truly" open mind, but must, by definition, have some preconceived idea of what there is to be found and how to look for it (an assertion well asserted by psychologists as well as philosophy and history of science), and 2. that they also use empirical evidence, they also use external review, they also are happy to set up little experiments. It can be very difficult telling the two apart.
But let us assume that "creation science" is not science. How can we verify such a thing? By our own philosophical analysis of the methods? Sounds like original research to me.
Better, in my mind, to attribute the judgment to something more reputable than other Wikipedian's analysis.
But it seems to me that your argument would lead us to throwing out the idea of categories entirely, since there are *always* similarities and differences. Indeed, I'm not sure how we can write a single categorical sentence that doesn't invoke the same problem if someone wants to nitpick. "Cats are mammals" is a statement of similarity that glosses over the differences between cats and other mammals, after all ....
And if asked to be defended, we would happily point to science textbooks which classify cats as mammals. We don't have to rely on an individual Wikipedian's take on things because we don't do original research. If there is any doubt -- for example, on the classification of a platypus -- we refer to the experts and happily defer any responsibility for getting it wrong ("If you disagree, take it up with THEM, not us. We don't make such decisiions"). Which is what we should do here as well. But unfortunately I seem to be the only one who sees it this way.
FF
On 12/20/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
But let us assume that "creation science" is not science. How can we verify such a thing? By our own philosophical analysis of the methods? Sounds like original research to me.
Better, in my mind, to attribute the judgment to something more reputable than other Wikipedian's analysis.
Exactly.
And if asked to be defended, we would happily point to science textbooks which classify cats as mammals. We don't have to rely on an individual Wikipedian's take on things because we don't do original research. If there is any doubt -- for example, on the classification of a platypus -- we refer to the experts and happily defer any responsibility for getting it wrong ("If you disagree, take it up with THEM, not us. We don't make such decisiions"). Which is what we should do here as well. But unfortunately I seem to be the only one who sees it this way.
You're not.
-- Sam
Fastfission wrote:
If there is any doubt -- for example, on the classification of a platypus -- we refer to the experts and happily defer any responsibility for getting it wrong ("If you disagree, take it up with THEM, not us. We don't make such decisiions"). Which is what we should do here as well.
Agreed.
But unfortunately I seem to be the only one who sees it this way.
Huh??? Ec
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
- The quesiton is about how we decide who falls under it or not. In
practice this is difficult, because many forms of things which are considered "legitimate" science do not meet all of the "requirements", and many things which are not considered legitimate science do meet some of them.
I'm not sure I see a wide variety of "requirements" here. I'm not suggesting any complicated philosophy-of-science laundry list of what makes Good Science, or Normal Science, or whatever. I'm just saying that we're safe calling it "pseudoscience" when someone parades around under the banner of "SCIENCE" but isn't actually doing anything resembling it.
But if you ignore the principles of the philosophy of science, then what you do is no longer science. There's nothing safe at all in calling it "pseudoscience". When "someone" is parading around there is no reason to generalize that to everyone who happens to support the practice in question. Accepted science has innumerable supporters who aren't doing anything resembling it.
Ec
It seems to me that the sides of this debate are somewhat talking past each other. I take the opposition to the term "pseudoscience" as based on the claim that we should not be judging whether particular experiments or observations are done scientifically or not.
In that, I actually agree. Wikipedia isn't a judge or critic of scientific methodology. In such cases we should report what was done and how the world responded to it.
But I've been talking about fields where there _aren't_ any experiments or methodology to report on. There's just speculation, tradition, marketing, or religious pronouncement ... and an adherent claiming that the noises of same are "scientific".
I just don't see what's non-neutral about saying that speculation doesn't count as science just because someone says it is. Or that while 3000-year-old religious tradition is a fine thing, it isn't a form of scientific methodology.
Is it the "pseudo-" prefix, that some people have taken as an imputation of criminal fraud? We could simply say "nonscience" or "not based on experiment" or whatever instead. But I don't think we should fail to report the fact that some fields _do_ claim to be "science" for political or marketing reasons, even when there's no science around.
In that, I actually agree. Wikipedia isn't a judge or critic of scientific methodology. In such cases we should report what was done and how the world responded to it.
I admit I haven't read most of this discussion. However, wouldn't the normal approach work here? If reputable science magazines claim a field is "pseudoscience" and only the field itself claims it is "science", would we not conclude it is "pseudoscience" simply based on the quality and range of sources that say so? Or is the issue that we are incapable of deciding whether "Creation Science Monthly" is a "reputable" "scientific journal" or not? If so, how do we decide that *any* publication is "reputable"?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
In that, I actually agree. Wikipedia isn't a judge or critic of scientific methodology. In such cases we should report what was done and how the world responded to it.
I admit I haven't read most of this discussion. However, wouldn't the normal approach work here? If reputable science magazines claim a field is "pseudoscience" and only the field itself claims it is "science", would we not conclude it is "pseudoscience" simply based on the quality and range of sources that say so? Or is the issue that we are incapable of deciding whether "Creation Science Monthly" is a "reputable" "scientific journal" or not? If so, how do we decide that *any* publication is "reputable"?
The conclusion may be more easily reached when we deal with the subjects one by one. Even if I accept that you have adequately established the term "pseudoscience" in relation to creationism we will still need to go through the whole argument again with respect to each subject where the matter comes up. When it comes to these subjects there is a tendency on the part of "reputable science magazines" to become self-serving. The claims of being "science" within the field itself may only be partial claims. The "scientific astrologer" may indeed be performing acceptable statistical analyses of data, and have as much disdain for the everyday astrologer as the mainstream scientists does. Blanket statements tend to ignore these subtleties. The reputable magazine that makes such claims needs to be under an obligation to source the basis for the claims. I suspect that many of these magazines would prefer not to deal with these subjects at all. It's just not worth it to devote valuable magazine space trying to disprove something that you already believe to be false. nevertheless, a metaanalysis of how reputable magazines across many fields handle the area would be interesting
I prefer finding ways to circumvent any decision about the reputability of a magazine, especially when the only issue has to do with using a particular label. By assuming that we can judge the reputability of a magazine, aren't we just passing the buck from the problem to the meta-problem? Let the reader decide about the reputability of "Creation Science Monthly". If a reputable magazine claims that something is pseudoscience let's give a precise citation in the article so that any reader can try to track it down. Let's also say whether it was as part of an original study, or whether it was in the middle of the editor's monthly rant. Attaching a simple pseudoscience category label without proper attestation in the article is not enough.
Ec
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
It seems to me that the sides of this debate are somewhat talking past each other.
I think that I can read that comment as a step forward. I found the article that David Gerrard cited to be mostly quite good. As Karla McLaren says: "It is not merely, as many surmise, a conflict between fact-based viewpoints and faith-based viewpoints. Nor is it simply a conflict between rationality and credulity. No, it's a full-on clash of cultures that makes real communication improbable at best." To make her point she did not once use the term "pseudoscience" in her article. Her comments about how the skeptic community uses language are significant:
It's vital that a way be found to help people in my culture question, think about, and critically interpret the barrage of information and misinformation they receive on a daily basis. However, it's also vital that the information be culturally sensitive. For instance, the first time I visited the skeptical health care Web site called Quackwatch, it felt as if I were walking into enemy territory. "Quack" is a very loaded word-it's a fighting word! Though site owner Dr. Stephen Barrett has every right to call his excellent Web site anything he likes, I wonder why it couldn't have been called, for instance, HealthWatch, HealingInfo, DocFacts, or something equally nonthreatening. Why do I have to type the word "quack" when I want a skeptical review of the choices I make in medical care? And why do I have to spend so much time translating on the skeptical sites I visit-or just skipping over words like scam, sham, quack, fraud, dupe, and fool? Why do I (the sort of person who actually needs skeptical information) have to see myself described in offensive terms and bow my head in shame before I can truly access the information available in your culture?
If a comfortable accomodation is to be found in this subject area, we need to find language that is acceptable. When you can let go of the prejudicial language you will probably find an alternatives community that is far more accomodating to your ideas than you might have expected. From reading her article it is evident that the writer had a level of insights and skill that her spiritual transformation possible. This is not characteristic of the majority who believe as she did. If they feel a need to review their beliefs the kind of welcome that they normally get from the skeptical community may effectively drive them back into beliefs that are familiar to them, or into an institution for the mentally disturbed.
I take the opposition to the term "pseudoscience" as based on the claim that we should not be judging whether particular experiments or observations are done scientifically or not.
More or less. It is not just about "particular" experiments and observation but about all the experiments and observations, and whether there are any where good-faith experiments are carried out, and where a failed experiment will simply cause the experimenter to revise his hypothesis and plan a new experiment. That, after all, is what science is. Science does not have a 3RR which says that if you continue experimenting after your third failure you are engaging in pseudoscience. Science will take its bad results as a basis for experimenting further; true pseudoscience will take bad results, and draw premature conclusions, or worse, ignore the results all together. As long as there are some practitioners pursuing the scientific method you cannot fairly extrapolate those selected outcomes to represent the entire field of study.
In that, I actually agree. Wikipedia isn't a judge or critic of scientific methodology. In such cases we should report what was done and how the world responded to it.
I agree there, and the closer our source is to the original source the more believable our reporting will be.
But I've been talking about fields where there _aren't_ any experiments or methodology to report on. There's just speculation, tradition, marketing, or religious pronouncement ... and an adherent claiming that the noises of same are "scientific".
Yes there is. If we can't find any evidence of scientific experimentation we can say exactly that. If the adherents make the kinds of claims that you envision, and there is evidence for that we can say that too. But that's still not enough to draw a conclusion from it all.
I just don't see what's non-neutral about saying that speculation doesn't count as science just because someone says it is. Or that while 3000-year-old religious tradition is a fine thing, it isn't a form of scientific methodology.
At one level "speculation" and "claim" are just synonyms for "hypothesis" The 3000 year old tradition predates what we now call the scientific method, hence the term "ancient science". It obviously does not meet today's standards, but they had no way of knowing better. The four traditional elements (5 among the Cninese) was as far as they could go with the tools that they had at the time. Does the fact that Aristotle did not supply experimental data with his speculations make him wrong, or worse unscientific?
Is it the "pseudo-" prefix, that some people have taken as an imputation of criminal fraud? We could simply say "nonscience" or "not based on experiment" or whatever instead. But I don't think we should fail to report the fact that some fields _do_ claim to be "science" for political or marketing reasons, even when there's no science around.
It's a matter of fraud and a whole lot of other things that the alternative community believes to be demeaning. Maybe it's the word "science" itself that's problematic. When you use a word, you use all its meanings: the ones you intend, the ones you consider to be wrong, and the ones you never eve heard about. You have absolutely no control over haw the reader is going to interpret what you say. Thus in some of its older forms, science could be any body of knowledge, not just only a body that was defined by certain rigid rules and requirements. Traditionally the "seven liberal sciences" were grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy. There are also a number of set phrases which include the word science, many of whioh like "political science"would not fit a rigid definition of "science". When you consider most set phrases in which "science" is qualified by another word most would not be hard sciences. "Alternative science" carries with it the connotation of difference from strict science much better than "political science". Some terms like "creation science" can even be oxymorons.
So I agree too that it's important that we make prominent note the fact when for whatever reason an area of study deviates from mainstream science including marketing. But we need to do that in a more nuanced way than can possibly be stuffed into a single word in a category. The degree to which these topics deviate from mainstream science is just too wide.
Throughout this debate I have never said that I consider any of these topics a proven science. I have always been largely sceptical about many of them, but without ever losing my fascination. I read once that the scientific failure of many of these in general, and astrology in particular was not in their inability to design and test experimental models, but in their inability to develop credible hypotheses, i.e. in a different part of the scientific process than what is generally stated. Even if I believe that there are transient phenomena I do not feel compelled to build a whole science around them. I can accepy that there is not enough information upon which to establish an understanding of any individual phenomenon. It would be nice to be able to design an experiment that reproduces a transient phenomenon, but we don't have enough information upon which to design that experiment. Some event just whooshed by and one is left singing, "Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, Do you, Mr. Jones?"
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I agree, and many of the mainstream scientists who are quick to attach the "pseudoscience" label have likely done little or no study of the field that they want to label. In doing so they are themselves acting pseudoscientifically.
When a field of study is clearly grossly defective as science but still insists it's a science, it's pretty obvious. (In the case of intelligent design, the smoking-gun documents showing it was invented as a creationist stalking horse have reached the public eye and are referenceable.) A scientist doesn't have to become an expert in aetherometry to call it pseudoscience any more than you have to become a heroin addict to say that being so is probably a bad thing.
Is medicine anything other than a branch of science? "Unorthodox science" anybody?
It's bodily tech support that tries to be supported by science. c.f. [[Evidence-based medicine]].
- d.
On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: Parascience is often used...
Thats it: 'Parascience' shall be the NPOV term that replaces the SPOV term 'pseudoscience' in most cases.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote: Parascience is often used...
Thats it: 'Parascience' shall be the NPOV term that replaces the SPOV term 'pseudoscience' in most cases.
If it describes what pseudoscience describes, and it ever reaches common English usage rather than being a Wikipedia neologism, I predict those so labeled will object to it in just the same way.
(Trivia: the word "Scientology" was first used in 1910 or so to mean what we now call "pseudoscience".)
- d.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:35:11PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Thats it: 'Parascience' shall be the NPOV term that replaces the SPOV term 'pseudoscience' in most cases.
If it describes what pseudoscience describes, and it ever reaches common English usage rather than being a Wikipedia neologism, I predict those so labeled will object to it in just the same way.
Yup. See also [[euphemism treadmill]]. Creating a politically-correct neologism won't change the situation: People who are misleading the public (by pretending to scientific research they aren't doing) don't like having the fact pointed out.
(Trivia: the word "Scientology" was first used in 1910 or so to mean what we now call "pseudoscience".)
I've heard people who didn't know of Hubbard's group use the term in that way as recently as a few years ago. Also to mean what's sometimes called "scientism", that is, the ascription of moral truth to the latest favored hypothesis.
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:35:11PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Thats it: 'Parascience' shall be the NPOV term that replaces the SPOV term 'pseudoscience' in most cases.
If it describes what pseudoscience describes, and it ever reaches common English usage rather than being a Wikipedia neologism, I predict those so labeled will object to it in just the same way.
Yup. See also [[euphemism treadmill]]. Creating a politically-correct neologism won't change the situation: People who are misleading the public (by pretending to scientific research they aren't doing) don't like having the fact pointed out.
20,000 Google hits is not a characteristic of a neologism.
The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith; "pseudoscioence" does not.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
20,000 Google hits is not a characteristic of a neologism. The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith; "pseudoscioence" does not.
The other difference is that, as you'll see if you look through the search results, "parascience" has a different meaning entirely: the paranormal and [[anomalous phenomena]].
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
20,000 Google hits is not a characteristic of a neologism. The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith; "pseudoscioence" does not.
The other difference is that, as you'll see if you look through the search results, "parascience" has a different meaning entirely: the paranormal and [[anomalous phenomena]].
Yes, I did have that concern, which is why I would prefer the broader term "alternat[iv]e science.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith; "pseudoscioence" does not.
And by the way, "pseudoscience" does not imply bad faith; it implies incompetence. The pseudoscientist frequently takes the label as a personal attack because they literally do not understand why what they do is not science at all, even though they sincerely believe in what they are doing.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
- an article on why so many New Age advocates exhibit the reasoning skills of cheese. And feel so put-upon when people who know what science is point and say "pseudoscience": they literally don't understand what's pseudo- about it.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
And by the way, "pseudoscience" does not imply bad faith; it implies incompetence. The pseudoscientist frequently takes the label as a personal attack because they literally do not understand why what they do is not science at all, even though they sincerely believe in what they are doing.
Well, it really is a personal attack; it means something akin to what "quack" means in medicine. It occasionally gets slung around among scientists, especially when getting into flamewars about the relative merits of various of the "soft sciences", and is rarely considered anything but an attack. For example, if I were to say, "although it uses many statistics, sociology is more of a pseudoscience than a proper science", it's pretty clearly an overt attack on sociology.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Well, it really is a personal attack; it means something akin to what "quack" means in medicine. It occasionally gets slung around among scientists, especially when getting into flamewars about the relative merits of various of the "soft sciences", and is rarely considered anything but an attack. For example, if I were to say, "although it uses many statistics, sociology is more of a pseudoscience than a proper science", it's pretty clearly an overt attack on sociology.
My point remains: it's an attack on its *competence*, not its *good faith*. Saying it's an assumption of bad faith is simply incorrect.
- d.
Delirium wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
And by the way, "pseudoscience" does not imply bad faith; it implies incompetence. The pseudoscientist frequently takes the label as a personal attack because they literally do not understand why what they do is not science at all, even though they sincerely believe in what they are doing.
Well, it really is a personal attack; it means something akin to what "quack" means in medicine. It occasionally gets slung around among scientists, especially when getting into flamewars about the relative merits of various of the "soft sciences", and is rarely considered anything but an attack. For example, if I were to say, "although it uses many statistics, sociology is more of a pseudoscience than a proper science", it's pretty clearly an overt attack on sociology.
Now that McLaren is a convert it wouldn't do for them to criticize her plans to get a "real" degree in sociology. :-)
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith; "pseudoscioence" does not.
And by the way, "pseudoscience" does not imply bad faith; it implies incompetence. The pseudoscientist frequently takes the label as a personal attack because they literally do not understand why what they do is not science at all, even though they sincerely believe in what they are doing.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
- an article on why so many New Age advocates exhibit the reasoning
skills of cheese. And feel so put-upon when people who know what science is point and say "pseudoscience": they literally don't understand what's pseudo- about it.
I have no significant problems with McLaren's article. She's especially right about the debate being a clash of cultures. She does not use the word "pseudoscience" even once in the entire article. Her reference to other words like "quack" or "fraud" is only to point out the damage that such vocabulary can cause. So when you want to insist on keeping the word "pseudoscience" I begin to wonder whether you have seriously read the very article that you recommend.
If "pseudoscience" implies incompetence that applies equally to the two sides. Why shouldn't they feel put-upon when you use such offensive terminology to describe them. Do the so-called scientists who use the term "pseudo-" understand what's pseudo- any better. Very few have made any attempt to understand what they're talking about.
If the divide that McLaren so aptly describes is ever going to be bridged its not going to be by name calling, but by respecting the views of others without judgement. Only then can there be any progress toward common solutions.
Ec
G'day Ray,
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
Yup. See also [[euphemism treadmill]]. Creating a politically-correct neologism won't change the situation: People who are misleading the public (by pretending to scientific research they aren't doing) don't like having the fact pointed out.
20,000 Google hits is not a characteristic of a neologism.
So it's a euphemism, not necessarily a neologism. A slight improvement; like being rescued from the fire and dumped into the frying pan.
The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith; "pseudoscioence" does not.
Assume Good Faith is a community tool, not an explanation of how to achieve NPOV. Describing astrology, Intelligent Design[0], the healing power of magnets[1], etc. as "pseudoscience" is entirely accurate.
Describing it as "alternative science" is adopting a label that fraudsters and dupes (e.g. I've no doubt many astrologers really believe they're telling the truth, which makes them more dupes than liars themselves) would prefer, conjuring up as it does positive thoughts of the spiritual knowledge of the Ancients of the Orient, as with "alternative medicine".
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are expected to tell the truth, whether they do so in a neutral tone of voice or not. It is not POV to call a liar a liar; it is not NPOV to refuse to do so. NPOV does not oblige us to give all sides a fair hearing. That's called "journalistic balance", and it's an ethically bankrupt concept which inevitably hands victory to the biggest liar. We're obliged to be truthful, and neutral; we're not obliged to be "balanced". We should be careful that, in our rush to give pseudoscience a fair hearing, we do not start POV-pushing for them.
Someone, I think it was David Gerard, said recently that we won't get into trouble if we lean too far towards what Jack Lynch calls "SPOV": 'tis better to be thought of as scientifically accurate than to be considered a haven of confused POV-pushing liars. If it was him, he's exactly right.
[0] That is, the American extremist Christian fraud "Intelligent Design", not the concept of an intelligent designer
[1] By which I mean those who promise to send you a motivational VHS tape and a packet of fridge magnets for just $199.95 (+ $4.95 p&s) and if you pay NOW by credit card you'll get not one, not two, but FOUR free sets of steak knives ...
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Someone, I think it was David Gerard, said recently that we won't get into trouble if we lean too far towards what Jack Lynch calls "SPOV": 'tis better to be thought of as scientifically accurate than to be considered a haven of confused POV-pushing liars. If it was him, he's exactly right.
It wasn't me, but it's still exactly right ;-)
This proposal to purge the word "pseudoscience" smacks of Sympathetic Point Of View. We don't do that here.
- d.
I notice SPOV seems to be being used to mean "scientific point of view" and "sympathetic point of view". Should these possibly be disambiguated to SciPOV and SymPOV?
Steve
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Tuesday, 20th December 2005 12:26 AM To: m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au; English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Parascience subst. pseudoscience
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Someone, I think it was David Gerard, said recently that we
won't get
into trouble if we lean too far towards what Jack Lynch
calls "SPOV":
'tis better to be thought of as scientifically accurate than to be considered a haven of confused POV-pushing liars. If it
was him, he's
exactly right.
It wasn't me, but it's still exactly right ;-)
This proposal to purge the word "pseudoscience" smacks of Sympathetic Point Of View. We don't do that here.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik%3E ien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
I notice SPOV seems to be being used to mean "scientific point of view" and "sympathetic point of view". Should these possibly be disambiguated to SciPOV and SymPOV?
SPOV already means Sympathetic Point Of View (it is the policy on wikinfo, as i understand it), so SciPOV will do :-)
- d.
The debate started about Scientific POV, but it seems that in referring to the Sympathetic POV he was exercising the Sarcastic POV.
Ec
Steve Bennett wrote:
I notice SPOV seems to be being used to mean "scientific point of view" and "sympathetic point of view". Should these possibly be disambiguated to SciPOV and SymPOV?
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Someone, I think it was David Gerard, said recently that we won't get
into trouble if we lean too far towards what Jack Lynch calls "SPOV":
'tis better to be thought of as scientifically accurate than to be considered a haven of confused POV-pushing liars. If it was him, he's exactly right.
It wasn't me, but it's still exactly right ;-)
This proposal to purge the word "pseudoscience" smacks of Sympathetic Point Of View. We don't do that here.
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
This proposal to purge the word "pseudoscience" smacks of Sympathetic Point Of View. We don't do that here.
This thread has gone long enough and proponents of the term "pseudoscience" have been somewhat successful at muddling the issue of the term and the normal application of NPOV, and claiming there is some choice between using a pejorative and using a crackpot terminology. No doubt this is due to our history of fending off various crackpots and so forth, and hence a defacto deference to SPOV may be justified. But I'd like to see people actually admit that there is such a deference, and that this influences the interpretation of NPOV.
They seem to forget that NPOV is largely based on the use of relatively neutral terms, and that while the term "pseudoscience" has its place, and its not clear that it doesnt have too much of a place in Wikipedia. Why dont we use derogatively racist or sexist terms in writing articles? Social propriety? No, because the term itself is in violation of NPOV, and shapes any discussion around the term in a way which makes NPOV writing difficult.
People on this list seem to have come around to the point of agreeing with this basic point, but because change requires effort, have simply fallen to defacto positions, and some even seem to have backwards-crafted their arguments in a way which make NOR seem to be more important than NPOV. That itself is a SPOV claiming NOR to be greater than NPOV.
For the pro-SPOV crowd to claim changing "pseudoscience" is contradicting NOR is about as much of an irrational circularly-supported argument Ive ever heard. (Science by definition is the institution by which all "research" is measured, and which even in its most important research can often only be generally communicated to the general or non-specialist public.) The argument that POV terms shift over time is a long-term one and is not valid in this context.
In this case, I dont think its either original research or overly sympathetic to point out the problems with creating an institutional prejudice of accepting a non-scientific term "pseudo-science" as a neutral term for any non-science. Naturally, the other side likes to argue that deference to science is close enough to NPOV for most cases. But there should be some explicit statement that Wikipedia NPOV has indeed a defacto policy of defaulting to SPOV.
NPOV trumps NOR. Does "pseudoscience" violate NPOV? If so, saying other terms cross NOR fails if the term itself can be substituted at this time and if the costs are covered by the benefits to NPOV.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 12/20/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
They seem to forget that NPOV is largely based on the use of relatively neutral terms, and that while the term "pseudoscience" has its place, and its not clear that it doesnt have too much of a place in Wikipedia. Why dont we use derogatively racist or sexist terms in writing articles? Social propriety? No, because the term itself is in violation of NPOV, and shapes any discussion around the term in a way which makes NPOV writing difficult.
I think the above displays the fundamental misunderstanding in stevertigo's argument. The neutral point of view is *not* largely based on the use of relatively neutral terms.
It is largely based on the use of accurate, specific, definable terms.
We don't use derogatively racist or sexist terms because they're generally ill-defined, non-specific, and slang. But we do use terms like [[Black]] and [[African-American]] in articles like [[Bill Cosby]]. Note that those terms are defined.
Again, we use racial epithets where appropriate (e.g. the [[Richard Pryor]] article, which I had to edit, since it failed to mention that he was black...) and link to definitions.
Stevertigo may find it really upsetting that pseudoscience is the accepted term for stuff that seems scientific but isn't (or isn't accepted by scientists as scientific), but Wikipedia is not the place to try to change culture to a person's way of thinking.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/20/05, stevertigo wrote: They seem to forget that NPOV is largely based on
the use of relatively neutral terms... Why dont we use derogatively racist or sexist terms in writing articles? Social propriety? No, because the term itself is in violation of NPOV, and shapes any discussion >>around the term in a way which makes NPOV
writing difficult.
I think the above displays the fundamental misunderstanding in stevertigo's argument. The
neutral point of view is *not* largely based on the use of relatively neutral >terms. It is largely based on the use of
accurate, specific, definable terms.
I believe (and responses may bear this out) that the "fundamental misunderstanding" is yours. We can all agree with "based on accurate, specific, definable terms," but to say that choosing neutral terms is not an element NPOV writing (or actually Good writing) carries the problem of being largely incorrect.
We don't use derogatively racist or sexist terms
because they're generally ill-defined, >non-specific, and slang. But we do use
terms like [[Black]] and >[[African-American]] in
articles like [[Bill >Cosby]]. Note that those terms are defined.
True, but NPOV is a rather simple and powerful concept which can solve the issue of terms quite definitively: Does the term color the argument in a POV way for the context of the article? Each of your given criteria are subjective ("ill-defined, non-specific, and slang"), and because each requires explanation, qualification, and interpretation, lacks the basic and powerful simplicity that an NPOV-based argument does not lack.
Again, we use racial epithets where appropriate
(e.g. the [[Richard Pryor]] article, which I had to edit, since it failed to mention that he was black...) and link to definitions.
Yes, in context. Pseudoscience appears to be used in a general way which does not contain the term in appropriate qualification and reference.
Stevertigo may find it really upsetting that
pseudoscience is the
accepted term for stuff that seems >scientific but
isn't (or isn't accepted by >scientists as scientific), but
Yes, it has a definition -- one which is appropriate to use in contexts of fraudulent science. But calling something fraudulent is more definitive (and precise - ie. 'well-defined, specific, and non-slang') than calling something "pseudoscience" which after a hundred thread-count discussion, still appears to be not much more than an socially-acceptable epithet (in these circles anyway).
'Cant make stuff up:' I can point out cases ('Iraq disarmament crisis' comes to mind) where the term (the name of an article even) that was most neutral (i.e. acceptable to consensus) was one that someone (me in that case) happened to conjure up. Wikipedia's 'global localism' in a sense makes using neologisms proper, when the common terms demonstrably fail to meet NPOV. As of 2005, the world still contains localist cultures and concepts --all of which are bound to have conflicts (in a global context) with a globalist-universalist ethos like NPOV. NPOV is a rational too for resolving these, and special cases at times require special terms.
Wikipedia is not the place to try to >change culture
to a person's way of >thinking.
Giving 'all people free access to a wealth of knowledge' doesnt have anything to do 'changing the way people think?' What have I been thinking all these years? Yikes! I should probably just go somewhere else then.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Ray,
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
Yup. See also [[euphemism treadmill]]. Creating a politically-correct neologism won't change the situation: People who are misleading the public (by pretending to scientific research they aren't doing) don't like having the fact pointed out.
20,000 Google hits is not a characteristic of a neologism.
So it's a euphemism, not necessarily a neologism. A slight improvement; like being rescued from the fire and dumped into the frying pan.
Whatever rhetorical label you want to attach to the terminology only obfuscates the issues.
The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith; "pseudoscioence" does not.
Assume Good Faith is a community tool, not an explanation of how to achieve NPOV.
And in you mind good faith is not essential to NPOV?
Describing astrology, Intelligent Design[0], the healing power of magnets[1], etc. as "pseudoscience" is entirely accurate.
Not without evidence.
Describing it as "alternative science" is adopting a label that fraudsters and dupes (e.g. I've no doubt many astrologers really believe they're telling the truth, which makes them more dupes than liars themselves) would prefer, conjuring up as it does positive thoughts of the spiritual knowledge of the Ancients of the Orient, as with "alternative medicine".
So because fraudsters and dupes choose to use such a label then their guilt must be transferred to anyone that uses the term? I don't know what you mean by "the spiritual knowledge of the Ancients of the Orient". It seems like an ignorant substitute for a lack of facts and knowledge.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are expected to tell the truth, whether they do so in a neutral tone of voice or not.
I don't subscribe to the same self-righteous interpretation of "the truth" as you. That's perhaps why I need to read a neutral point of view to be able come to a scientific conclusion. Neutral point of view is different from your "neutral tone of voice"
It is not POV to call a liar a liar; it is not NPOV to refuse to do so. NPOV does not oblige us to give all sides a fair hearing. That's called "journalistic balance", and it's an ethically bankrupt concept which inevitably hands victory to the biggest liar.
It defies journalistic balance to limit one's offensive epithets to one side only. Calling someone a liar requires some basis for saying so. Your presumption that he is a liar is not such a basis. I'm sorry to hear that you believe the debate to be to be between two sets of liars.
We're obliged to be truthful, and neutral; we're not obliged to be "balanced". We should be careful that, in our rush to give pseudoscience a fair hearing, we do not start POV-pushing for them.
We shouldn't be POV pushing for either side, neither for what you cal "pseudoscience" nor scientism.
Someone, I think it was David Gerard, said recently that we won't get into trouble if we lean too far towards what Jack Lynch calls "SPOV": 'tis better to be thought of as scientifically accurate than to be considered a haven of confused POV-pushing liars. If it was him, he's exactly right.
Being scientifically accurate, no matter where it leads us, is superior to being todies of SPOV-pushing liars.
[0] That is, the American extremist Christian fraud "Intelligent Design", not the concept of an intelligent designer
[1] By which I mean those who promise to send you a motivational VHS tape and a packet of fridge magnets for just $199.95 (+ $4.95 p&s) and if you pay NOW by credit card you'll get not one, not two, but FOUR free sets of steak knives ...
What happened when you tried to get your money back? I can understand that such an expereince could give rise to your bitterness.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Being scientifically accurate, no matter where it leads us, is superior to being toadies of SPOV-pushing liars.
Er, WTF? What on earth are you talking about? "SPOV-pushing liars"?
I've corrected my typo above. For a better understanding of what I said, please see the context of my comments.
Ec
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Ray,
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
Yup. See also [[euphemism treadmill]]. Creating a politically-correct neologism won't change the situation: People who are misleading the public (by pretending to scientific research they aren't doing) don't like having the fact pointed out.
20,000 Google hits is not a characteristic of a neologism.
So it's a euphemism, not necessarily a neologism. A slight improvement; like being rescued from the fire and dumped into the frying pan.
The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith; "pseudoscioence" does not.
Assume Good Faith is a community tool, not an explanation of how to achieve NPOV. Describing astrology, Intelligent Design[0], the healing power of magnets[1], etc. as "pseudoscience" is entirely accurate.
Describing it as "alternative science" is adopting a label that fraudsters and dupes (e.g. I've no doubt many astrologers really believe they're telling the truth, which makes them more dupes than liars themselves) would prefer, conjuring up as it does positive thoughts of the spiritual knowledge of the Ancients of the Orient, as with "alternative medicine".
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are expected to tell the truth, whether they do so in a neutral tone of voice or not. It is not POV to call a liar a liar; it is not NPOV to refuse to do so. NPOV does not oblige us to give all sides a fair hearing. That's called "journalistic balance", and it's an ethically bankrupt concept which inevitably hands victory to the biggest liar. We're obliged to be truthful, and neutral; we're not obliged to be "balanced". We should be careful that, in our rush to give pseudoscience a fair hearing, we do not start POV-pushing for them.
Someone, I think it was David Gerard, said recently that we won't get into trouble if we lean too far towards what Jack Lynch calls "SPOV": 'tis better to be thought of as scientifically accurate than to be considered a haven of confused POV-pushing liars. If it was him, he's exactly right.
[0] That is, the American extremist Christian fraud "Intelligent Design", not the concept of an intelligent designer
[1] By which I mean those who promise to send you a motivational VHS tape and a packet of fridge magnets for just $199.95 (+ $4.95 p&s) and if you pay NOW by credit card you'll get not one, not two, but FOUR free sets of steak knives ...
I second the above comment (and I was trying to get at this myself, less eloquently I might add).
Chris
The way to get around POV problems is not to create new terms, but to properly attribute the POV.
Instead of saying "X is Y", you write, "X is considered Y by Z". NPOV, no problem. Changing it to "X is Q" changes nothing and misses the point.
FF
On 12/16/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: Parascience is often used...
Thats it: 'Parascience' shall be the NPOV term that replaces the SPOV term 'pseudoscience' in most cases.
Stevertigo
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
The way to get around POV problems is not to create new terms, but to properly attribute the POV.
Instead of saying "X is Y", you write, "X is considered Y by Z". NPOV, no problem. Changing it to "X is Q" changes nothing and misses the point.
Yes, aqssuming that "Z" is properly referenced so that the reader can go to that source to determine whether Z gave any evidence for his point of view. Tracing these sources could be a tough job.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Here we are not concerned with any particular subject by itself, but a wide range of subjects with varying degrees of support or hostility, including mutual hostility. "Alternative science" may appear sympathetic to the proponents, but not outrageously so.
I think it's too sympathetic to pass NPOV muster when it simply isn't.
Sorry, but I'm not at all sympathetic to intelligent design. There are other subjects in this category that I find more interesting, but I'm willing to allow it to be called "alternate science" in order to be able to have meningful discussions.
I'm not. It's an example of the pseudo- in "pseudoscience": wearing some of the clothes of "science" to pretend to respectability it doesn't warrant.
If we interpret "science" strictly that's true. Nevertheless, others use the word "science" to refer to any kind of disciplined approach to a subject, as in the science of Texas Hold'em.
Pseudoscience is stuff pretending to be [[science]], properly speaking - not stuff claiming to be other plausible meanings of the word "science."
- d.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
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"?
"Alternate science" is such a term which does not carrry the same negative baggage as "pseudoscience".
No, instead it carries unduly positive baggage. It's not "alternate science", it's "pretend science". That's the point. "Alternate science" is not an alternative wording that means what the stuff is. "Pseudoscience" is precisely what pseudoscience actually is.
- d.
On 12/15/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
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"?
"Not considered science by the mainstream scientific community though it presents itself in scientific terms." I don't know if any simple way to do it, though.
FF
Quoting from my favourite encyclopaedia: Fringe science is a phrase used to describe scientific inquiry in an established field that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories. Fringe science can be a field of inquiry which is not yet considered a real "science" (known as a protoscience), but which nevertheless bears some resemblance to the norms of the scientific method. Fringe science is, by definition, at the fringes of an already accepted discipline. Based upon the merits of the hypothesis and methods of the inquiry, specific instances of fringe science may or may not come to be included in the canon of actual science.
Fringe science can be distinguished from some similar sounding, but pejorative in nature, categories as follows:
* Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is notoriously lax in rigorous application of the scientific method. Reproducibility is typically a problem. This is not so in fringe science. * Junk science - Junk science is used to describe agenda-driven research that ignores certain standard methodologies and practices in an attempt to secure a given result from an experiment. Fringe science, as in standard methodology, proceeds from theory to conclusion with no attempt to direct or coax the result. * Bad science - Bad science might more properly be labeled "poor science" in that it is typically characterized by substandard or "sloppy" methodology. Fringe science maintains the normal standards of methodology.
Steve
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission Sent: Friday, 16th December 2005 4:54 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV
On 12/15/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
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"?
"Not considered science by the mainstream scientific community though it presents itself in scientific terms." I don't know if any simple way to do it, though.
FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik%3E ien-l
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ William_M._Connolley&diff=9512576&oldid=9512379
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/ William_M._Connolley&oldid=9512805
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience
Fred
The statement of On Dec 12, 2005, at 12:20 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Something else to talk about:
Some of our rather intelligent sciency people seem to have an unusual inability to distinguish science from neutrality. Ultimately, they tend to argue that articles should hold a defacto deference to what is essentially a Scientific Point of View, rather than a Neutral Point of View.
How best to single these people out and correct their behaviour? Any examples of articles in question? Isnt the term "pseudoscience" a POV pejorative from the SPOV?
Stevertigo
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How best to single these people out and correct their behaviour? Any examples of articles in question? Isnt the term "pseudoscience" a POV pejorative from the SPOV?
Stevertigo
No, not really - pseudoscience is a term for something which adopts the appearances of the scientific method, and claims to be scientific, without actually using the scientific method. The difference between science and pseudoscience is fairly clear. It isn't really an expression of an opinion. If something can be objectively described as science or pseudoscience, then it isn't POV. (Of course you could go into a long debate about the nature of reality, but for our purposes I think we have to assume we know what is is).
Ian (Guettarda)
--- Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
No, not really - pseudoscience is a term for something which adopts the appearances of the scientific method, and claims to
be scientific, without
actually using the scientific method.
This is rather well stated, and perhaps my question was a bit oblique. The point really goes to the issue of how the term 'pseudoscience' may have, outside of a qualified statement ("scientists think ID is pseudoscience" (1)), have gained undue use, due to our strong science-oriented contingency.
Read logically, (1) is not much different than saying 'apple lovers think pears are at best pseudo-apples.' The distinctions between terms are always arbitrary and meaningful only in context. In the context of Wikipedia articles and the terms we tend to use, the term 'pseudoscience' is only meaningful in the science context. IMHO. There are areas where relatively neutral and objective terms have been deprecated because they carry pejorative use.
The difference between science and pseudoscience is fairly clear. It isn't > really an
expression of an
opinion. If something can be objectively described
as science or pseudoscience, then it isn't POV.
No, I respectfully disagree. The word isn't a designation, because it defers to scientific rationality - ie. a particular view. Hence it IS a POV term, albeit one which is legitimate to state in the context of conflicts between science (rational methodology) and everything else. In short:
pseudoscience is a term from the language of science, and is not a neutral term in the context of debates where science is a partisan party.
Fred linked to Larry Sanger's quotes on the subject, which were quite to the point. But the NPOV pseudoscience section seems written from the POV of a disgruntled SPOV devotee "there was no consensus" instead of "was flat out rejected as contradictory with NPOV" but thats probably just nitpicking.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
No, I respectfully disagree. The word isn't a designation, because it defers to scientific rationality - ie. a particular view. Hence it IS a POV term, albeit one which is legitimate to state in the context of conflicts between science (rational methodology) and everything else. In short:
pseudoscience is a term from the language of science, and is not a neutral term in the context of debates where science is a partisan party.
Fred linked to Larry Sanger's quotes on the subject, which were quite to the point. But the NPOV pseudoscience section seems written from the POV of a disgruntled SPOV devotee "there was no consensus" instead of "was flat out rejected as contradictory with NPOV" but thats probably just nitpicking.
Off topic here, but you'd think that 200+ years after the Enlightenment we'd all accept that scientific (empiric) rationalism isn't just a 'view' but is the only sensible way to understand anything (with an exception for logical rationalism, i.e. philosophy)!
There are no 'conflicts' between Science (with a capital S) and anything else. Science, or empirical rationalism, is a method to discover how something works. Are there any other ways to discover how something works, (excluding logical rationalism, which has been superseded by empirical rationalism as using senses is rather more useful than thinking up the 'answer to the universe' without interaction) that I am not aware of? In case it needs saying here, I am aware of religion.
The concept of any kind of 'war' between science and religion is fundamentally wrong. The concept was actually constructed (very deliberately) by some rationalists in the 19th century who believed that religion was outdated and superstitious nonsense. Science, with its empirical nature, seemed a useful ally to have in a campaign to remove religion from society. It's not science and religion which are in conflict, it is people. The idea of a war is actually very revisionist, and a historical study of the trial of Galileo and the Enlightenment will show the holes in the argument that science and religion are in some kind of conflict.
Chris
--- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Off topic here, but you'd think that 200+ years after the Enlightenment we'd all accept that scientific (empiric) rationalism isn't just a 'view' but is the only sensible way to understand
anything (with an exception for > logical rationalism, i.e. philosophy)!
Translation: "Its not the dark ages anymore, so everyone should just accept SPOV as the One True POV." Hrmph.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
Translation: "Its not the dark ages anymore, so everyone should just accept SPOV as the One True POV." Hrmph.
So what term do you suggest for the thing that is currently usefully described by the word "pseudoscience"?
- d.
(how about "BCE/CE", that's a good inoffensive term)
-- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
So what term do you suggest for the thing that is currently usefully described by the word "pseudoscience"?
I dunno- "quasiscientific," maybe. Because 'pseudo' carries a prejudicial connotation of 'falseness,' while 'quasi' carries a perhaps more accurate connotation of "almost" or "partly" being something; in this case, as something being based in science.
The term "pseudoscientific," to be fair, seems like a natural one to use in cases where non-scientific claims are asserted as if there was established scientific proof. Its probably more accurate to just call certain specific outlandish claims as plain scientific 'fraud,' though my guess would be that that would probably be considered POV. 'Pseudoscience' is not much different than calling something 'fraud,' though 'fraud' seems to imply deliberate deception rather than an honest claim, written in religionese, and borne of intellectual confusion (SPOV) or 'ecstatic inspiration' (RPOV).
There are claims which are best described as being from the POV of the domain to which they belong: religion, philosophy, or metaphysics, etc. (ie. 'pseudoscience' is naturally in the domain of science). That alone should satisfy in almost any case I can think of. Whether String Theory should also be called "quasiscientific" of course stands out as an interesting fulcrum for Wikipediology.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
-- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
So what term do you suggest for the thing that is currently usefully described by the word "pseudoscience"?
I dunno- "quasiscientific," maybe. Because 'pseudo' carries a prejudicial connotation of 'falseness,' while 'quasi' carries a perhaps more accurate connotation of "almost" or "partly" being something; in this case, as something being based in science.
Original research. Is there a current word that means the same thing?
The term "pseudoscientific," to be fair, seems like a natural one to use in cases where non-scientific claims are asserted as if there was established scientific proof. Its probably more accurate to just call certain specific outlandish claims as plain scientific 'fraud,' though my guess would be that that would probably be considered POV. 'Pseudoscience' is not much different than calling something 'fraud,' though 'fraud' seems to imply deliberate deception rather than an honest claim, written in religionese, and borne of intellectual confusion (SPOV) or 'ecstatic inspiration' (RPOV).
It sounds like you don't like that some of the things so described are associated with others of the things so described.
- d.
stevertigo wrote:
-- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
So what term do you suggest for the thing that is currently usefully described by the word "pseudoscience"?
I dunno- "quasiscientific," maybe. Because 'pseudo' carries a prejudicial connotation of 'falseness,' while 'quasi' carries a perhaps more accurate connotation of "almost" or "partly" being something; in this case, as something being based in science.
"Parascience" or "alternate science" are often used, and do not carry the same emotional baggage as pseudoscience. I have also seen "traditional science" in relation to subjects like astrology or alchemy that predate the development of the modern scientific method.
When you look at the abortion debate there seems to be somewhat of a truce in that the primary name for the two sides are "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Each of these is a term that the respective sides feel as acceptably representing what they stand for. If the pro-life people start by calling the other side "baby killers" there is no room for dialogue.
Whatever term we choose for what saome call "pseudoscience" must be acceptable to both sides, but especially to the side so named.
The term "pseudoscientific," to be fair, seems like a natural one to use in cases where non-scientific claims are asserted as if there was established scientific proof. Its probably more accurate to just call certain specific outlandish claims as plain scientific 'fraud,' though my guess would be that that would probably be considered POV. 'Pseudoscience' is not much different than calling something 'fraud,' though 'fraud' seems to imply deliberate deception rather than an honest claim, written in religionese, and borne of intellectual confusion (SPOV) or 'ecstatic inspiration' (RPOV).
"Fraud" would be worse because of the implications of criminality. The profit motive is often totally absent in the minds of most believers in a "pseudoscience". The people who develop these ideas are usually doing so in good faith, and they were effectively applying GFDL long before it was invented. They, no more than Wikipedia, could not control commercial applications by downstream users..
There are claims which are best described as being from the POV of the domain to which they belong: religion, philosophy, or metaphysics, etc. (ie. 'pseudoscience' is naturally in the domain of science). That alone should satisfy in almost any case I can think of. Whether String Theory should also be called "quasiscientific" of course stands out as an interesting fulcrum for Wikipediology.
Many of these subjects are like comets from a mental Oort Cloud. Like many ideas, they show up and disappear almost as quickly. A few are puzzlingly persistent and leave the germ of an idea that may be quite indirect and different from the original formulation. The inhabitants of Flatland found it difficult to understand the impact of a three dimensional object on their world. Newton depended on a set of immutable "facts" to develop his notions; he was right as far as he went, and it took two centuries before anyone seriously questioned his premises.
Ec
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:55:08AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
"Parascience" or "alternate science" are often used, and do not carry the same emotional baggage as pseudoscience. I have also seen "traditional science" in relation to subjects like astrology or alchemy that predate the development of the modern scientific method.
We should probably avoid coining new terms or encouraging the use of terms which are very likely to be misunderstood. To me, "traditional science" sounds like the opposite of "alternative science", whereas the above suggests that they would include many of the same fields -- for instance, current practitioners of "scientific astrology".
There's one overarching reason, it seems to me, that Wikipedia aligns itself more strongly with science than with faith or other "systems of knowledge": one of our principles is _verifiability_, which is also a principle of scientific research. When a scientist propounds results that are not verifiable -- such as Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion -- the resulting smackdown from the rest of the scientific field is *exactly* the sort of thing we want for unverifiable wild claims on Wikipedia, too.
Proposed systems of knowledge which do not include verifiability as a criterion will necessarily, it seems to me, do worse on Wikipedia than science does. That doesn't exempt us from reporting their claims accurately when relevant; but it -does- mean that we're less likely to accept their standards of evidence for describing the world.
It's tricky. I think we really do want to describe the Earth as a roughly spherical planet in orbit around a yellow-white star. It isn't enough to say that most scientists and astronomers believe this, while various other people think it's a flat plane or a hollow sphere: we really do want to accept the scientific standard of evidence here rather than just treating it as a "Scientific Point of View".
The thing is, the same set of standards likewise lead us to say that:
* Homeopathic preparations made according to Hahnemann's method contain none of the "potentized" substance. * Dogs, bears, apes, and humans descended from a common ancestral population of small furry creatures resembling shrews, which lived around the same time as the dinosaurs.
* The Sun is in the constellation of Ophiuchus, not Sagittarius or Scorpio, for the first half of December.
People who believe in homeopathy, creationism, or astrology are likely to denounce these claims as belonging to a "Scientific Point of View" or something similar. Nonetheless they are based on the same standards of evidence that entail that we may describe Earth as a planet rather than a plane, disc, hollow ball, or carrot-shape.
We need to take those standards seriously, though. We should be sure not to embrace a claim simply because it is made by a scientist or other professional, for instance. Likewise we need to make sure that claims of doubt or disproof are *also* verifiable: when someone goes to list something in a "criticisms" section (be it on [[Homeopathy]] or on [[Evolution]]) we need to be sure that the so-called criticism actually addresses the subject at hand.
Consider also the related case of the law, which -- like science -- has some kind of standards of evidence. We start the article on [[Ted Bundy]] with the claim that he _was_ a serial killer and rapist ... not merely that the court _claimed_ that he was a serial killer and rapist. We don't apply this standard uncritically; there are certainly courts whose opinions we would not take in evidence. But where we do, we are generally not wrong to do so.
When you look at the abortion debate there seems to be somewhat of a truce in that the primary name for the two sides are "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Each of these is a term that the respective sides feel as acceptably representing what they stand for. If the pro-life people start by calling the other side "baby killers" there is no room for dialogue.
I certainly agree that we need to refrain from epithets. I'm not sure where the term "pseudoscience" falls, though. I personally would use it very narrowly, to refer to fields whose practitioners make a point of calling the field scientific, but where nothing like scientific practice is being done ... or, perhaps by extension, where there are not actually any data upon which to do scientfic study.
In short, you can't be doing pseudoscience if you don't claim to be doing science, or more generally try to adopt the mantle of science. If you teach dance and tell your students that it's good for their souls, this isn't a claim to science -- so it can't be pseudoscientific.
I recognize that some "skeptics" like to call various practices "pseudo- science" even when they don't aspire to science. I don't think we should accept that usage in Wikipedia. We should use the term narrowly to refer to specific cases where claims of science are made without the actual scientific practice to back them up.
Whatever term we choose for what saome call "pseudoscience" must be acceptable to both sides, but especially to the side so named.
I'm not so sure this makes sense. There are lots of labels that we are willing to apply to people who do not themselves accept the labels. The most obvious are those drawn from fields such as science and law, which have reasonably credible standards of verifiability.
"Fraud" would be worse because of the implications of criminality. The profit motive is often totally absent in the minds of most believers in a "pseudoscience". The people who develop these ideas are usually doing so in good faith, and they were effectively applying GFDL long before it was invented. They, no more than Wikipedia, could not control commercial applications by downstream users..
I'd limit "fraud" the same way as "murder" -- it's basically a legal claim that needs reference to some sort of juridical decision. But there are other terms, such as "quackery" in the practice of medicine, which refer to deceptive claims more specifically. It's perfectly reasonable to refer for instance to the [[Violet Wand]] as a quack medical device that gained popularity as a fetish toy.
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:55:08AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
"Parascience" or "alternate science" are often used, and do not carry the same emotional baggage as pseudoscience. I have also seen "traditional science" in relation to subjects like astrology or alchemy that predate the development of the modern scientific method.
We should probably avoid coining new terms or encouraging the use of terms which are very likely to be misunderstood. To me, "traditional science" sounds like the opposite of "alternative science", whereas the above suggests that they would include many of the same fields -- for instance, current practitioners of "scientific astrology".
I don't think any of these are "new" terms, but the more I think about the more it seems that "parascience" and "traditional science" would have more restrictive usages. For that reason alone I am disinclined to advocate for their usage in the present context.
There's one overarching reason, it seems to me, that Wikipedia aligns itself more strongly with science than with faith or other "systems of knowledge": one of our principles is _verifiability_, which is also a principle of scientific research. When a scientist propounds results that are not verifiable -- such as Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion -- the resulting smackdown from the rest of the scientific field is *exactly* the sort of thing we want for unverifiable wild claims on Wikipedia, too.
Absolutely. I have no problem with verifiability, but that also implies that the statement "Xxxx is a pseudoscience" is subject to verifiability. Obviously a category tag must be short to be effective, but any article that has the "pseudoscience" tag needs to have verification in the article for being put there.
Proposed systems of knowledge which do not include verifiability as a criterion will necessarily, it seems to me, do worse on Wikipedia than science does. That doesn't exempt us from reporting their claims accurately when relevant; but it -does- mean that we're less likely to accept their standards of evidence for describing the world.
We can only say, "These are the premises of their ideas." We can say that many scientists (whom we name and cite) call them "pseudoscience", but we can't call them pseudoscience ourselves unless we are prepared to go much further on the road to verifiability.
We also need to avoid the temptation to disprove everything that follows from a suspect premise. If a premise is false then everything that depends on it is probably false. Disproving all these consequences leads to poor style and unreadable articles; that can only diminish the impact of the original finding.
It's tricky.
Indeed!
I think we really do want to describe the Earth as a roughly spherical planet in orbit around a yellow-white star. It isn't enough to say that most scientists and astronomers believe this, while various other people think it's a flat plane or a hollow sphere: we really do want to accept the scientific standard of evidence here rather than just treating it as a "Scientific Point of View".
Most of science still depends on a number of intuitive notions which are only questioned when the results are counter-intuitive. At one time in history a flat earth was the intuitive reality
The thing is, the same set of standards likewise lead us to say that:
Homeopathic preparations made according to Hahnemann's method contain none of the "potentized" substance.
Dogs, bears, apes, and humans descended from a common ancestral population of small furry creatures resembling shrews, which lived around the same time as the dinosaurs.
The Sun is in the constellation of Ophiuchus, not Sagittarius or Scorpio, for the first half of December.
People who believe in homeopathy, creationism, or astrology are likely to denounce these claims as belonging to a "Scientific Point of View" or something similar. Nonetheless they are based on the same standards of evidence that entail that we may describe Earth as a planet rather than a plane, disc, hollow ball, or carrot-shape.
Hahnemann needs to be viewed in the context of his own time. He didn't know about bacteria and virusus because they weren't discovered yet, but unwittingly his thinking foreshadows the discovery of vaccines. Your comment is still phrased negatively. Burdens of proof remain with the person making the claim; requiring proof that something does not exist can be an impossible task. If it doesn't exist you won't find it; if it does exist you may not find it.
I have no comment about your example from evolution.
The astrological example is a question of definition. Astrologers will say that the sun is in a sign rather than a constellation. These signs are predetermined 30 degree segments which need not correspond with the constellations of the same name. The real issues in astrology are quite different, and have more to do about the relationship of planetary positions to what happens here on earth.
We need to take those standards seriously, though. We should be sure not to embrace a claim simply because it is made by a scientist or other professional, for instance. Likewise we need to make sure that claims of doubt or disproof are *also* verifiable: when someone goes to list something in a "criticisms" section (be it on [[Homeopathy]] or on [[Evolution]]) we need to be sure that the so-called criticism actually addresses the subject at hand.
We agree, but as in the astrology example above it's very easy to get off on an explainable tangent that is not a real part of the problem at all.
Consider also the related case of the law, which -- like science -- has some kind of standards of evidence. We start the article on [[Ted Bundy]] with the claim that he _was_ a serial killer and rapist ... not merely that the court _claimed_ that he was a serial killer and rapist. We don't apply this standard uncritically; there are certainly courts whose opinions we would not take in evidence. But where we do, we are generally not wrong to do so.
I essentially agree, but there will still be a problem with deciding which court decisions can be used as valid evidence. We can doubt the validity of Trotsky's conviction by Stalin's show trials, but even countries with suspect governments will need to deal with common criminals.
When you look at the abortion debate there seems to be somewhat of a truce in that the primary name for the two sides are "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Each of these is a term that the respective sides feel as acceptably representing what they stand for. If the pro-life people start by calling the other side "baby killers" there is no room for dialogue.
I certainly agree that we need to refrain from epithets. I'm not sure where the term "pseudoscience" falls, though. I personally would use it very narrowly, to refer to fields whose practitioners make a point of calling the field scientific, but where nothing like scientific practice is being done ... or, perhaps by extension, where there are not actually any data upon which to do scientfic study.
I too prefer a narrow usage, tending to not at all. "Nothing like" and "not any data" both depend on negative findings.
In short, you can't be doing pseudoscience if you don't claim to be doing science, or more generally try to adopt the mantle of science. If you teach dance and tell your students that it's good for their souls, this isn't a claim to science -- so it can't be pseudoscientific.
Some people in the dance community might dispute your findings. I sit as a parent member on a stakeholders' committee of our local school board, and we heard a recent presentation on learning and the arts. Their point was that dance activity can help to improve student achievement iover a range of more traditional subjects.
I recognize that some "skeptics" like to call various practices "pseudo- science" even when they don't aspire to science. I don't think we should accept that usage in Wikipedia. We should use the term narrowly to refer to specific cases where claims of science are made without the actual scientific practice to back them up.
Fine.
Whatever term we choose for what saome call "pseudoscience" must be acceptable to both sides, but especially to the side so named.
I'm not so sure this makes sense. There are lots of labels that we are willing to apply to people who do not themselves accept the labels. The most obvious are those drawn from fields such as science and law, which have reasonably credible standards of verifiability.
When it comes to naming issues I tend to favour proponents rather than opponents. In our situation there is no dispute about the naming of most individual fields, only about what we call them collectively. It's important that the term which we choose carry no implication about the truth or falsity of the contents, or carry in anyway that something is personally wrong with the practitioners. To me "alternat[iv]e" only suggests that it's different.
"Fraud" would be worse because of the implications of criminality. The profit motive is often totally absent in the minds of most believers in a "pseudoscience". The people who develop these ideas are usually doing so in good faith, and they were effectively applying GFDL long before it was invented. They, no more than Wikipedia, could not control commercial applications by downstream users..
I'd limit "fraud" the same way as "murder" -- it's basically a legal claim that needs reference to some sort of juridical decision. But there are other terms, such as "quackery" in the practice of medicine, which refer to deceptive claims more specifically. It's perfectly reasonable to refer for instance to the [[Violet Wand]] as a quack medical device that gained popularity as a fetish toy.
Was it always a quack device? I think that Tesla was basically honest in his work, much of which is still being questioned. "Quackery" doesn't enter the conversation until the marketting starts to happen. It's modern use as a sexual fetish toy is a whole other story.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
* Homeopathic preparations made according to Hahnemann's method contain none of the "potentized" substance.
Hahnemann needs to be viewed in the context of his own time. He didn't know about bacteria and virusus because they weren't discovered yet, but unwittingly his thinking foreshadows the discovery of vaccines.
I think that's far too generous, akin to claiming that the thinking of alchemists who wanted to turn lead into gold unwittingly foreshadowed the work of [[Ernest Rutherford]].
Your comment is still phrased negatively. Burdens of proof remain with the person making the claim; requiring proof that something does not exist can be an impossible task. If it doesn't exist you won't find it; if it does exist you may not find it.
The burden of proof is on the pseudoscientist asserting the respectability of "science" to show this apparent non-science works for any verifiable definition of "works" - theirs is the outrageous claim.
The astrological example is a question of definition. Astrologers will say that the sun is in a sign rather than a constellation. These signs are predetermined 30 degree segments which need not correspond with the constellations of the same name. The real issues in astrology are quite different, and have more to do about the relationship of planetary positions to what happens here on earth.
I have yet to see an advocate of astrology asked for some [[falsifiable]] prediction even understand the question.
Consider also the related case of the law, which -- like science -- has some kind of standards of evidence. We start the article on [[Ted Bundy]] with the claim that he _was_ a serial killer and rapist ... not merely that the court _claimed_ that he was a serial killer and rapist. We don't apply this standard uncritically; there are certainly courts whose opinions we would not take in evidence. But where we do, we are generally not wrong to do so.
I essentially agree, but there will still be a problem with deciding which court decisions can be used as valid evidence. We can doubt the validity of Trotsky's conviction by Stalin's show trials, but even countries with suspect governments will need to deal with common criminals.
This is really not relevant to the issue of the word "pseudoscience".
I certainly agree that we need to refrain from epithets. I'm not sure where the term "pseudoscience" falls, though. I personally would use it very narrowly, to refer to fields whose practitioners make a point of calling the field scientific, but where nothing like scientific practice is being done ... or, perhaps by extension, where there are not actually any data upon which to do scientfic study.
I too prefer a narrow usage, tending to not at all. "Nothing like" and "not any data" both depend on negative findings.
"Where's the science?" is a reasonable question that pseudoscience fails.
In short, you can't be doing pseudoscience if you don't claim to be doing science, or more generally try to adopt the mantle of science. If you teach dance and tell your students that it's good for their souls, this isn't a claim to science -- so it can't be pseudoscientific.
Some people in the dance community might dispute your findings. I sit as a parent member on a stakeholders' committee of our local school board, and we heard a recent presentation on learning and the arts. Their point was that dance activity can help to improve student achievement iover a range of more traditional subjects.
Did they have numbers? Did you examine the methodology?
I'm not so sure this makes sense. There are lots of labels that we are willing to apply to people who do not themselves accept the labels. The most obvious are those drawn from fields such as science and law, which have reasonably credible standards of verifiability.
When it comes to naming issues I tend to favour proponents rather than opponents. In our situation there is no dispute about the naming of most individual fields, only about what we call them collectively. It's important that the term which we choose carry no implication about the truth or falsity of the contents, or carry in anyway that something is personally wrong with the practitioners. To me "alternat[iv]e" only suggests that it's different.
The thing is that it isn't just "different", it's qualitatively defective as the thing it's pretending to be.
I'm coming across as much more strident in this thread than I mean to be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
- Homeopathic preparations made according to Hahnemann's method contain none of the "potentized" substance.
Hahnemann needs to be viewed in the context of his own time. He didn't know about bacteria and virusus because they weren't discovered yet, but unwittingly his thinking foreshadows the discovery of vaccines.
I think that's far too generous, akin to claiming that the thinking of alchemists who wanted to turn lead into gold unwittingly foreshadowed the work of [[Ernest Rutherford]].
Which particular alchemist were you thinking of? Or are you just drawing on stereotypes about what alchemists did.
Your comment is still phrased negatively. Burdens of proof remain with the person making the claim; requiring proof that something does not exist can be an impossible task. If it doesn't exist you won't find it; if it does exist you may not find it.
The burden of proof is on the pseudoscientist asserting the respectability of "science" to show this apparent non-science works for any verifiable definition of "works" - theirs is the outrageous claim.
I don't know what the "respectability" of science has to do with anything; no-one is arguing that science is not respectable.
When you begin from the premise that the person making is a pseudoscientist you prejudice the argument. Why not just say, "the person asserting..."? The burden of proof for a theory or process is certainly upon the person asserting it.
Similarly the burden of proof for the assertion that the person is a pseudoscientist is upon the person making that assertion. Otherwise there's no difference between that and the libel in the Seigenthaler case.
The astrological example is a question of definition. Astrologers will say that the sun is in a sign rather than a constellation. These signs are predetermined 30 degree segments which need not correspond with the constellations of the same name. The real issues in astrology are quite different, and have more to do about the relationship of planetary positions to what happens here on earth.
I have yet to see an advocate of astrology asked for some [[falsifiable]] prediction even understand the question.
No definition is falsifiable. If he doesn't understand your question, that says nothing for or against the validity of the theories he supports. But I wouldn't expect the local drafter of charts to understand that question anymore than the local lab technician. Both are more likely to understand it as an accusation of cooking the results, or deviating from what their respective textbooks tell them to do.
Consider also the related case of the law, which -- like science -- has some kind of standards of evidence. We start the article on [[Ted Bundy]] with the claim that he _was_ a serial killer and rapist ... not merely that the court _claimed_ that he was a serial killer and rapist. We don't apply this standard uncritically; there are certainly courts whose opinions we would not take in evidence. But where we do, we are generally not wrong to do so.
I essentially agree, but there will still be a problem with deciding which court decisions can be used as valid evidence. We can doubt the validity of Trotsky's conviction by Stalin's show trials, but even countries with suspect governments will need to deal with common criminals.
This is really not relevant to the issue of the word "pseudoscience".
But I wasn't the one to mention Ted Bundy, or make an analogy with law.
I certainly agree that we need to refrain from epithets. I'm not sure where the term "pseudoscience" falls, though. I personally would use it very narrowly, to refer to fields whose practitioners make a point of calling the field scientific, but where nothing like scientific practice is being done ... or, perhaps by extension, where there are not actually any data upon which to do scientfic study.
I too prefer a narrow usage, tending to not at all. "Nothing like" and "not any data" both depend on negative findings.
"Where's the science?" is a reasonable question that pseudoscience fails.
That's an empty generality. Science is in the process, not the results.
In short, you can't be doing pseudoscience if you don't claim to be doing science, or more generally try to adopt the mantle of science. If you teach dance and tell your students that it's good for their souls, this isn't a claim to science -- so it can't be pseudoscientific.
Some people in the dance community might dispute your findings. I sit as a parent member on a stakeholders' committee of our local school board, and we heard a recent presentation on learning and the arts. Their point was that dance activity can help to improve student achievement iover a range of more traditional subjects.
Did they have numbers? Did you examine the methodology?
They did refer to studies on the effect of the arts on student achievement done education faculties of universities.
I'm not so sure this makes sense. There are lots of labels that we are willing to apply to people who do not themselves accept the labels. The most obvious are those drawn from fields such as science and law, which have reasonably credible standards of verifiability.
When it comes to naming issues I tend to favour proponents rather than opponents. In our situation there is no dispute about the naming of most individual fields, only about what we call them collectively. It's important that the term which we choose carry no implication about the truth or falsity of the contents, or carry in anyway that something is personally wrong with the practitioners. To me "alternat[iv]e" only suggests that it's different.
The thing is that it isn't just "different", it's qualitatively defective as the thing it's pretending to be.
And how would that statement be verifiable.
I'm coming across as much more strident in this thread than I mean to be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
Pseudoscience can very well be characterized as bullshit. However, the process whereby certain studies and practices are classified as pseudoscience is also bullshit.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I'm coming across as much more strident in this thread than I mean to be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
Pseudoscience can very well be characterized as bullshit. However, the process whereby certain studies and practices are classified as pseudoscience is also bullshit.
And what's that process, as you understand it?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I'm coming across as much more strident in this thread than I mean to be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
Pseudoscience can very well be characterized as bullshit. However, the process whereby certain studies and practices are classified as pseudoscience is also bullshit.
And what's that process, as you understand it?
A "scientist" _believes_ that some topic is pseudoscientific, and simply puts it on the list without question. It is trite to say that astronomers do not believe in astrology, but how many of them would have the time to investigate the matter further. Although astrologers will largely draw upon astronomical calculations as a part of their work, most of astrology has nothing to do wioth what astronomers do. For that alone it is of no real interest to them.
Ec
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 02:42:12AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
"Where's the science?" is a reasonable question that pseudoscience fails.
That's an empty generality.
No, it isn't, because ...
Science is in the process, not the results.
... science *is* in the process, not the results. Exactly right!
Calling something "pseudoscience" is not an indictment of the results. It is a statement about the process: that the "results" were not come by using a process which resembles science, despite the proponent's own claims to the mantle of "science".
When someone presents "scientific astrology" -- Google it; it's a real expression! -- we are correct to ask, "Where's the science?" That is to say, "By what process did you come up with this astrology? Where are your data, or observations, or clinical trials, or case studies? What is your method? When did you test your hypotheses? Which ones did you reject as false, and why? Where is your peer review? How can someone else replicate your results to test their accuracy? How would your results differ if the conditions were different -- say, if Mars were in trine to Venus instead of Jupiter?"
If the answer to "Where's the science?" is an evasion -- be it "Oh, have faith!" or "But it's the wisdom of the ancients!" or "The spirits of lost Atlantis revealed it to me!" or "Astrology is more powerful than rational thought" or "We don't have to show you no steeenking science" or "Doesn't it *feel* true?" -- then what we have is indeed fake science -- or, in a word, pseudoscience.
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 02:42:12AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
"Where's the science?" is a reasonable question that pseudoscience fails.
That's an empty generality.
No, it isn't, because ...
Science is in the process, not the results.
... science *is* in the process, not the results. Exactly right!
Calling something "pseudoscience" is not an indictment of the results. It is a statement about the process: that the "results" were not come by using a process which resembles science, despite the proponent's own claims to the mantle of "science".
When someone presents "scientific astrology" -- Google it; it's a real expression! -- we are correct to ask, "Where's the science?" That is to say, "By what process did you come up with this astrology? Where are your data, or observations, or clinical trials, or case studies? What is your method? When did you test your hypotheses? Which ones did you reject as false, and why? Where is your peer review? How can someone else replicate your results to test their accuracy? How would your results differ if the conditions were different -- say, if Mars were in trine to Venus instead of Jupiter?"
Yes the term exists, but just a string of Google hits says nothing about how it's used on any given site. I have no problem with asking "Where's the science?" but I also don't jump to conclusions when the answer is not satisfactory. I think that there are astrologers who do go through this kind of analysis. Unfortunately the results have been inconclusive at best. So they revise their hypothesis and try again; what more can we ask of the "scientific astrologer"? This does not mean that the neighborhood practitioner who casts charts for a fee is doing anything scientific at all. She is probably just following the instructions that she got from a book somewhere, and has no clue what science is about. But this kind of practitioner can also exist purporting in perfectly good faith to apply recognized science to his or her own purpose. Is that person a scientist?
If the answer to "Where's the science?" is an evasion -- be it "Oh, have faith!" or "But it's the wisdom of the ancients!" or "The spirits of lost Atlantis revealed it to me!" or "Astrology is more powerful than rational thought" or "We don't have to show you no steeenking science" or "Doesn't it *feel* true?" -- then what we have is indeed fake science -- or, in a word, pseudoscience.
So now you are indicting a whole area of study because you got this kind of answers from a supporter of astrology who had no idea WTF he was talking about. If you are getting this kind of answer, cite your sources.
David Gerard wrote:
I'm coming across as much more strident in this thread than I mean to be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Pseudoscience is nothing more than dogmatic and irrational thinking trying to pretend it's exactly the opposite to get public support. It should not be given a single bit of credibility at all - and not giving it credibility would fit perfectly with our policy of neutral point of view.
Chris
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I'm coming across as much more strident in this thread than I mean to be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Pseudoscience is nothing more than dogmatic and irrational thinking trying to pretend it's exactly the opposite to get public support. It should not be given a single bit of credibility at all - and not giving it credibility would fit perfectly with our policy of neutral point of view.
The Neutral Point of View has nothing to do with what you say, which is clearly the ranting of someone who doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I'm coming across as much more strident in this thread than I mean to be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Pseudoscience is nothing more than dogmatic and irrational thinking trying to pretend it's exactly the opposite to get public support. It should not be given a single bit of credibility at all - and not giving it credibility would fit perfectly with our policy of neutral point of view.
The Neutral Point of View has nothing to do with what you say, which is clearly the ranting of someone who doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
Despite being somewhat of a scientist myself (well, as a PhD student in the sciences, in some sense a scientist-in-training), I tend to agree more with Ray than David or Chris here. I can't say I have any interest in pseudoscience, parascience, "alternative science", or whatever you want to call it, and it certainly shouldn't be portrayed as accepted by the mainstream, but on the other hand I see no reason or justification for actively attacking it. The point of Wikipedia is not to discern fundamental truths (an impossible task, and original research in any case), but to document who says what. If someone has proposed what they call a scientific theory, but most scientists think it's not one, then we can report that matter-of-factly, preferably with citations to who says what.
Using the label "pseudoscience" upsets this matter-of-fact reporting, because we essentially take sides in the dispute. It's NPOV to say that it's rejected by most scientists; that it's not taught in science classes; that so-and-so a scientific body or eminent scientist has issued a statement saying it's crap; and so on. Saying outright "Wikipedia has concluded that it is fake science" is not neutral. More neutral is "Wikipedia has concluded that it is claimed by its proponents to be science, but not accepted by most scientists as science." "Pseudoscience" means literally "fake science", which is the former, and therefore inappropriate; we need a term that means the latter.
-Mark
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Translation: "Its not the dark ages anymore, so everyone should just accept SPOV as the One True POV." Hrmph.
So what term do you suggest for the thing that is currently usefully described by the word "pseudoscience"?
You state that some people (preferably citing) call it pseudoscience, and then describe what the term means. This explains why a category "Pseudoscience" is a bad idea. "Concepts labelled pseudoscientific" is far better, if more wordy, if such a category is really necessary.
-- Sam
There isn't much to discuss here. Articles should cite verifiable POV's in a neutral manner. Ergo we cite scientific journal X, and religious periodical Y. Everybody reads and makes up their own minds.
Only the most irredeemable fanatic feels that science possesses a monopoly on the truth, or that all things labeled as "pseudoscience" by random eggheads (or worse yet POV pushing wikipedia editors) are in fact unscientific or lacking in merit.
In short, cite sources in a neutral manner. Do NOT attempt to make the wikipedia a primary source, or bully pulpit from which to spout materialist pseudoscience.
Sam Spade
Sam Spade wrote:
There isn't much to discuss here. Articles should cite verifiable POV's in a neutral manner. Ergo we cite scientific journal X, and religious periodical Y. Everybody reads and makes up their own minds.
Only the most irredeemable fanatic feels that science possesses a monopoly on the truth, or that all things labeled as "pseudoscience" by random eggheads (or worse yet POV pushing wikipedia editors) are in fact unscientific or lacking in merit.
I don't feel that science possesses a monopoly on the truth but other examples of alternatives to science which are 'true' would be nice. And examples of things labelled as 'pseudoscience' by 'random eggheads' which are actually scientific or have merit would be nice too.
Chris
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Off topic here, but you'd think that 200+ years after the Enlightenment we'd all accept that scientific (empiric) rationalism isn't just a 'view' but is the only sensible way to understand anything (with an exception for logical rationalism, i.e. philosophy)!
I would not call your "empiric rationalism" just a view. A creed is far more than just a view.
Ec
It's a little more complicated than this -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
In some cases it is easy, in some it is difficult if not impossible, even from a practical point of view. But this is a problem not just for Wikipedia but is also a major problem dealt with in areas relating to law as well (i.e. what diagnosis/assessment is admissable as evidence).
FF
On 12/12/05, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
No, not really - pseudoscience is a term for something which adopts the appearances of the scientific method, and claims to be scientific, without actually using the scientific method. The difference between science and pseudoscience is fairly clear. It isn't really an expression of an opinion. If something can be objectively described as science or pseudoscience, then it isn't POV. (Of course you could go into a long debate about the nature of reality, but for our purposes I think we have to assume we know what is is).
Ian (Guettarda) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l