[WikiEN-l] Creationism is not horse-shit, it's pseudo-science

[Michael Turley]

On 7/21/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Jtkiefer wrote:
> > Your right calling creationism a science would be POV pushing, but if
> > you take the stance that creationism is anything, science,
> > pseudo-science, legend, myth, total bullshit... you're still gonna piss
> > someone off which is an inherent problem with having an open medium like
> > wikipedia.
> 
> The issue is generally easy enough to solve with freeform text in the
> body of an article by "going meta" and shifting the emphasis carefully
> until everyone is more or less satisfied.  I am not the only person who
> has been pleasantly astounded at how well Wikipedia actually works at
> producing good high-quality consensus explanations in this manner.
> 
> Categories, on the other hand, are not as easy because they are so
> strictly limited.  If we had a category of "things which are widely
> regarded, by scientists and others of a similar bent, as being less than
> fully established science, but which are often, by those who are not
> scientists, put forward as if they were science" then we'd have less
> trouble, I think.  (And edit my description as you please until it's
> satisfactorily neutral. :-))
> 
> <POV>
> Now, a big part of the irritant in this discussion is that creationism
> is, as a matter of simple ordinary fact, pseudo-science or worse.
> Readers deserve to know, and quickly and simply, that treating
> creationist theories as if they were somehow scientific is completely
> and utterly unacceptable in scientific circles.  The category does that
> concisely and correctly.
> </POV>
> 
> I have been thinking for many days (but with no progress) about a better
> name for the category.
> 
> --Jimbo

I think the existence of a pseudoscience category doesn't require that
every item ever thought to be pseudoscience should be in that
category.  For example, there is perfectly normal, scientific support
for aromatherapy used for mood enhancement.  For simple health
problems like headache and stuffy nose, there is also proof that
aromatherapy is at least somewhat effective for those uses.  Yet some
fringe supporters claim that it is capable of much more, so it is
grouped in the category "pseudoscience".  I don't think it belongs in
that category.

The category "pseudoscience" should only be for the truly and
completely pseudoscientific; things that have been widely and publicly
disproven, such as biorhythms, astrology, phrenology and perpetual
motion machines.  Aromatherapy doesn't belong, as its mainstream
component (mood enhancement) is backed by science.  Mentioning the
pseudoscientific fringe application in the article is enough; it
doesn't also have to be in the category.  Items where fringe believers
delve into pseudoscientific beliefs and practices should not poison
the general article with the pseudoscience categorization if the
mainstream use and application of the belief is not pseudoscience.

Since we cannot prove to the satisfaction of everyone but the fringe
of society that creationism is pseudoscience, it shouldn't be in that
category.  Instead, it should be in a category of "origin theory" or
"origin beleifs" or something like that, along with the big bang
theory and intelligent design.  That way, they share a common link as
similar subjects, but we don't categorize religious theories as
science of any kind.  Creationism should be in any science category,
either.

Errors of categorization should always be of omission whenever such
classification can reasonably be viewed as an insult. 
Undercategorization due to POV doesn't have to be a problem; we should
just make similar categories to link similar ideas together in other
ways without POV judgement.

For example, I see no similarity between aromatherapy and creationism,
except the POV judgement that someone has made to both articles,
thereby linking them through pseudoscience.  Neither has been widely
disproven, so without the POV judgement, they wouldn't be linked, and
shouldn't be.  On the other hand, not having creationism and big bang
theory linked in a common category is clearly breaking a rule of
keeping similar ideas together, so we should find an NPOV common theme
(origin theory or origin beliefs) to join them.

 
-- 
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused