[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

[Ray Saintonge]

Fastfission wrote:

>On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at 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