[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

Thu Dec 15 05:40:20 UTC 2005

Because it assumes standards of evidence and even standards of what
"science" is, how to define it, and whether or not all of what is generally
considered "science" fits into these normalized molds (they don't).

There are also things like string theory, psychoanalysis, SETI, and eugenics
for which the "is it science?" question is continually in debate.

Put another way, the standards of how to determine "right" and "wrong" are
exactly what are at the crux of the debate. So taking one side can easily be
argued as POV, especially when we are talking about pejorative terms which
imply deceit (at the very best, self-deceit) along with falseness.

There are good reasons, though, for leaning towards the "scientific" point
of view *when leaning is required* -- that is, not just going that direction
by default, but for sorting out the little situations where it is a question
of what gets listed first and things of that nature. The primary one is
credibility and with whom -- if Wikipedia is seen as a totally uncredible
source by scientists and academics, that's a problem, since this is the
community whose norms usually define these sorts of standards. If Wikipedia
is seen as uncredible by the Creationists, UFOlogists, and so forth -- not
as big a problem in my mind; they're a relatively small audience (whether or
not most Americans reject evolution, most are not what one would call
"Creationists" -- they are not activists about the issue) and their disdain
will not harm Wikipedia in the slightest. Again -- I think this only should
come up in a matter of emphasis, not a matter of substantive content, and
should be done very carefully in all instances.

FF

On 12/14/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> >
> >> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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]].
> >>
> >>
> >> I never made such an assertion (that all non-science is
> >> pseudoscience). I said that pseudoscience is often wrong. So could you
> >> give me an example of a pseudoscience which is actually 'right'?
> >
> >
> > Your request is illogical.  It asks for something right  when it is
> > wrong by definition.  If I see something as "right" I would not call it
> > pseudoscience.
>
> Exactly - so how is it POV to demonstrate in an article why a
> pseudoscience is wrong?
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>