[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

[Ray Saintonge]

Sam Korn wrote:

>On 12/17/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>  
>
>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Sam Korn wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On 12/16/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>But not at the expense of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>And using "pseudoscience" alone would be at the expense of NPOV
>>>      
>>>
>>You still appear to be trying to "prove" this by assertion.
>>    
>>
>
>The problem is that "pseudoscience" is a subjective term.  Whether a
>topic is pseudoscience is not a black-and-white thing.  Who determines
>whether the scientific method has been followed?  Not us!  That would
>be original research, and asserting a point of view.  Yes, sometimes
>it will be obvious.  However, most of the time it will not be.  The
>proponents of these theories will never be of the opinion that they
>are pseudoscience, and that they fail to conform to the scientific
>method!
>
>Wikipedia often has the problem of falling into pushing a relativist
>point of view.  This is one of those occasions.
>  
>
This is the whole point.  Many of the topics that are typically put into 
the pseudoscience category are deeply suspect.  I could choose any one 
of them and spend an entire lifetime trying to determine whether it is 
science or pseudoscience, and the results would still be inconclusive.  
So I would prefer to find some relatively neutral term, put a caveat at 
the top of the list, and go on with life.

I have no particular sympathy for Creation Science, but I find it odd 
that I should be in a position where I need to defend their right to be 
referred to in a relatively respectful manner.

Ec