[WikiEN-l] Re: SPOV threatens NPOV

Tue Dec 13 01:42:08 UTC 2005

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>
> > Of course, because the other ideas are normally all wrong, it's not
> > POV to include a criticism section in the article with references to
> > scientific experiments demonstrating that the idea is wrong.
>
> Your statement that "the other ideas are normally all wrong" is a POV.
> If your criticism depends on a POV then it too is a POV.  A scientific
> experiment that shows something to be wrong is not the same as one that
> fails to show it right.  To say that something which is not science is
> necessarily pseudoscience is a textbook application of the fallacy of
> [[False dilemma]].

One of the fun, but often irritating aspects of the NPOV debates/disputes is
getting to the bottom of this very issue. I think that anyone who wants to
assert what is "scientific truth" on WP needs to come to terms with just how
primitive the state of science still is (and we should be glad for that). In
other words, humility has to be a central value.

The editors of the article on Pseudoscience, Quackery, and other articles
that seek to make these distinctions are constantly struggling with the
issue; I think they will only succeed if they concentrate on making it an
honest dialectic rather than an attempt at arriving at the truth.

All science, and I think it's safe to be that categorical, is tentative; the
conceptual models are based on available information. Some models (the earth
is round) do a better job of describing reality and predicting what will
happen next; but it is safe to say that they will in time be overtaken by
others.  Add to that the difficulty of achieving a consensus among
scientists on anything but the most basic concepts, and we are arrogant
indeed to think that we are in a position to pronounce what is
scientifically true on issues that are controversial in the real world.