[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

Wed Dec 14 19:55:08 UTC 2005

stevertigo wrote:

>-- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>  
>
>>So what term do you suggest for the thing that is
>>currently usefully described by the word 
>>"pseudoscience"?
>>    
>>
>I dunno- "quasiscientific," maybe. Because 'pseudo'
>carries a prejudicial connotation of 'falseness,'
>while 'quasi' carries a perhaps more accurate
>connotation of "almost" or "partly" being something;
>in this case, as something being based in science.
>
"Parascience" or "alternate science" are often used, and do not carry 
the same emotional baggage as pseudoscience.  I have also seen 
"traditional science" in relation to subjects like astrology or alchemy 
that predate the development of the modern scientific method.

When you look at the abortion debate there seems to be somewhat of a 
truce in that the primary name for the two sides are "pro-life" and 
"pro-choice".  Each of these is a term that the respective sides feel as 
acceptably representing what they stand for.  If the pro-life people 
start by calling the other side "baby killers" there is no room for 
dialogue.

Whatever term we choose for what saome call "pseudoscience" must be 
acceptable to both sides, but especially to the side so named.

>The term "pseudoscientific," to be fair, seems like a
>natural one to use in cases where non-scientific
>claims are asserted as if there was established
>scientific proof. Its probably more accurate to just
>call certain specific outlandish claims as plain
>scientific 'fraud,' though my guess would be that that
>would probably be considered POV. 'Pseudoscience' is
>not much different than calling something 'fraud,'
>though 'fraud' seems to imply deliberate deception
>rather than an honest claim, written in religionese,
>and borne of intellectual confusion (SPOV) or
>'ecstatic inspiration' (RPOV).
>
"Fraud" would be worse because of the implications of criminality.  The 
profit motive is often totally absent in the minds of most believers in 
a "pseudoscience".  The people who develop these ideas are usually doing 
so in good faith, and they were effectively applying GFDL long before it 
was invented.  They, no more than Wikipedia, could not control 
commercial applications by downstream users..

>There are claims which are best described as being
>from the POV of the domain to which they belong:
>religion, philosophy, or metaphysics, etc. (ie.
>'pseudoscience' is naturally in the domain of
>science). That alone should satisfy in almost any case
>I can think of. Whether String Theory should also be
>called "quasiscientific" of course stands out as an
>interesting fulcrum for Wikipediology.
>
Many of these subjects are like comets from a mental Oort Cloud.  Like 
many ideas, they show up and disappear almost as quickly.  A few are 
puzzlingly persistent and leave the germ of an idea that may be quite 
indirect and different from the original formulation.  The inhabitants 
of Flatland found it difficult to understand the impact of a three 
dimensional object on their world.  Newton depended on a set of 
immutable "facts" to develop his notions; he was right as far as he 
went, and it took two centuries before anyone seriously questioned his 
premises.

Ec