[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific POV

[Poor, Edmund W]

I don't mind a bit of science creeping into Wikipedia, but let's not
exalt it or enshrine it. Science can make mistakes. 

If a bunch of scientists agree on something, that doesn't make it true.
If they change their minds later, that doesn't make it false.

If a hypothesis is true, but scientists refuse to accept it, that
doesn't make it false. And if they eventually decide to accept it, that
ACCEPTANCE does not MAKE IT become true. 

What bothers me is when some contributors insist that Wikipedia endorse
a particular point of view (see [[Wikipedia:POV]]) on the grounds that
"scientists believe it" or that "it is scientific". Much ink has been
spilled (or phosphor illuminated) to show that, e.g., the runaway
greenhouse theory (aka Global Warming) enjoys consensus support of the
world's climatologists and that THEREFORE this encyclopedia should stop
dicking around and just ENDORSE it.

I have pretty much decided to stay away from the climate pages, because
I'm tired of this battle. But I'm never going to drop the subject
completely: the subject being,

* "How shall Wikipedia describe unsettled scientific questions?"

1. Perhaps my first error is to assume that global warming has not been
settled. The United Nations' climate panel makes it sound like there's
virtually no other hypothesis being entertained. Only nuts like Singer,
Lindzen and Balunias think otherwise (and they're obviously on the
industry payroll, so they can safely be ignored).

2. Or perhaps even if it's been "settled" (in the sense of all but an
inconsiderable percentage of the world's scientists endorsing it),
Wikipedia should still remain neutral on the question - saying only that
XX% of the world's scientists endorse the theory, according to surveys
conducted by P, Q, and R.

Ed Poor
Great-grandson of the notable astronomer Charles Lane Poor