[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

Fri Dec 16 20:31:12 UTC 2005

On 12/16/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Are we prepared to enforce a strict definition of the word "science".
> Searching on Wikipedia tells me that we have 50,211 articles with the
> word "science" We have an article called [[Icelandology]] which says
> "Icelandology comprises the wide range of scientific problems and topics
> concerning this specific insular country."  And later: "Icelandology
> also covers tourism".  If we are going to be strict about using the term
> "science" what do we do about this sort of article?  What do we do about
> the broad area of social sciences where many of us would agree that
> there is very little hard science involved

We should enforce a methodological/strict definition of the term when
it is being used to define methodological/strict issues, which it is
in this case.

> I agree, and many of the mainstream scientists who are quick to attach
> the "pseudoscience" label have likely done little or no study of the
> field that they want to label.  In doing so they are themselves acting
> pseudoscientifically.  In one of my earlier go-rounds with this topic
> when it was about the [[List ...]] of such topics there were some
> editors who would strongly support the idea of the list, but would balk
> at putting cryptozoölogy, exobiology, and the SETI Project on the list.
> If someone wants to apply the term "pseudoscience" he should carry the
> burden of verifiability in a manner consistent with what that term means.

But this result is one in which Wikipedians will be arguing with each
other about the methodology and whether something like Creationism
counts as a science. However this is not a problem that even
philosophers have been able to work out to any satisfaction. Aside
from that, it ends up violating NOR. This is what inevitably happens,
anyway. Is Intelligence Design a science? Someone says, "not
falsifiable," someone else points out that there are ways in which ID
thinks it can be falsified, and start pulling out complicated
arguments on the subject, and also notes that evolution might not be
falsifiable, etc. etc. etc.

Hence, I have long argued that we should try to adopt a sociological
definition for the purposes of categorization. If we had a neat way to
say, "Considering to not actually be scientific by mainstream
science", that would be the best example of it. Because that is really
what people expect when they look at a pseudoscience category -- not
some idiosyncratic application of the term which is Wikipedia-specific
and based on who on Wikipedia is the best debater or has the most
support behind them.

FF