Steve Bennett wrote:
In that, I
actually agree. Wikipedia isn't a judge or critic
of scientific methodology. In such cases we should report
what was done and how the world responded to it.
I admit I haven't read most of this discussion. However, wouldn't the
normal approach work here? If reputable science magazines claim a field
is "pseudoscience" and only the field itself claims it is "science",
would we not conclude it is "pseudoscience" simply based on the quality
and range of sources that say so? Or is the issue that we are incapable
of deciding whether "Creation Science Monthly" is a "reputable"
"scientific journal" or not? If so, how do we decide that *any*
publication is "reputable"?
The conclusion may be more easily reached when we deal with the subjects
one by one. Even if I accept that you have adequately established the
term "pseudoscience" in relation to creationism we will still need to go
through the whole argument again with respect to each subject where the
matter comes up. When it comes to these subjects there is a tendency on
the part of "reputable science magazines" to become self-serving. The
claims of being "science" within the field itself may only be partial
claims. The "scientific astrologer" may indeed be performing acceptable
statistical analyses of data, and have as much disdain for the everyday
astrologer as the mainstream scientists does. Blanket statements tend
to ignore these subtleties. The reputable magazine that makes such
claims needs to be under an obligation to source the basis for the
claims. I suspect that many of these magazines would prefer not to deal
with these subjects at all. It's just not worth it to devote valuable
magazine space trying to disprove something that you already believe to
be false. nevertheless, a metaanalysis of how reputable magazines
across many fields handle the area would be interesting
I prefer finding ways to circumvent any decision about the reputability
of a magazine, especially when the only issue has to do with using a
particular label. By assuming that we can judge the reputability of a
magazine, aren't we just passing the buck from the problem to the
meta-problem? Let the reader decide about the reputability of "Creation
Science Monthly". If a reputable magazine claims that something is
pseudoscience let's give a precise citation in the article so that any
reader can try to track it down. Let's also say whether it was as part
of an original study, or whether it was in the middle of the editor's
monthly rant. Attaching a simple pseudoscience category label without
proper attestation in the article is not enough.
Ec