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

[Nathan J. Yoder]

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

That depends on what you mean by 'endorse.'  It's very possible to
endorse a theory without ever once saying something like "this theory
is the correct one."  It's unavoidable when presenting evidence for a
certain theory not to inadvertenly 'endorse' it unless you plaster the
article with silly disclaimers like 'under this widely agreed upon
theory, it is said...'

Global warming is a bad example.  That's an area that involves
considerable controversy and contention among scientists, there really
is no scientific consensus on it.  Also, all sides are at least
capable of being scientific (as they are very falsifiable) and there
is science being practiced , to some extent, on both sides.

This is quite a bit different than well-established, non-controversial
theories for which there is near unanimous consent in the scientific
community.  Especially in cases where the only opposition is religious
and/or political in nature.  I'll note this applies to to theories
that only work within contraints as well as long as the article
clarifies that it only works within those contraints (e.g. general
relativity has various situations where it doesn't work).

When you're dealing with something like "creation science"
though, it's quite a bit different.  It is not actually falsifiable,
there is no level of science involved with it and it's based entirely
on religion.  There is pretty much unanimous agreement among
scientists that evolution is the most likely theory save a few
religious zealots who only went into science to proseletize.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------