[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

Sat Dec 17 10:42:12 UTC 2005

David Gerard wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>    * Homeopathic preparations made according to Hahnemann's method
>>>      contain none of the "potentized" substance.
>>>      
>>>
>>Hahnemann needs to be viewed in the context of his own time.  He didn't
>>know about bacteria and virusus because they weren't discovered yet, but
>>unwittingly his thinking foreshadows the discovery of vaccines.
>>    
>>
>I think that's far too generous, akin to claiming that the thinking of
>alchemists who wanted to turn lead into gold unwittingly foreshadowed
>the work of [[Ernest Rutherford]].
>
Which particular alchemist were you thinking of?  Or are you just 
drawing on stereotypes about what alchemists did.

>> Your
>>comment is still phrased negatively.  Burdens of proof remain with the
>>person making the claim; requiring proof that something does not exist
>>can be an impossible task.  If it doesn't exist you won't find it; if it
>>does exist you may not find it.
>>    
>>
>The burden of proof is on the pseudoscientist asserting the
>respectability of "science" to show this apparent non-science works for
>any verifiable definition of "works" - theirs is the outrageous claim.
>
I don't know what the "respectability" of science has to do with 
anything; no-one is arguing that science is not respectable.

When you begin from the premise that the person making is a 
pseudoscientist you prejudice the argument.  Why not just say,  "the 
person asserting..."?  The burden of proof for a theory or process is 
certainly upon the person asserting it.

Similarly the burden of proof for the assertion that the person is a 
pseudoscientist is upon the person making that assertion.  Otherwise 
there's no difference between that and the libel in the Seigenthaler case.

>>The astrological example is a question of definition.  Astrologers will
>>say that the sun is in a sign rather than a constellation.  These signs
>>are predetermined 30 degree segments which need not correspond with the
>>constellations of the same name.  The real issues in astrology are quite
>>different, and have more to do about the relationship of planetary
>>positions to what happens here on earth.
>>    
>>
>I have yet to see an advocate of astrology asked for some
>[[falsifiable]] prediction even understand the question.
>
No definition is falsifiable.  If he doesn't understand your question, 
that says nothing for or against the validity of the theories he 
supports.  But I wouldn't expect the local drafter of charts to 
understand that question anymore than the local lab technician.  Both 
are more likely to understand it as an accusation of cooking the 
results, or deviating from what their respective textbooks tell them to do.

>>>Consider also the related case of the law, which -- like science -- has
>>>some kind of standards of evidence.  We start the article on [[Ted
>>>Bundy]] with the claim that he _was_ a serial killer and rapist ... not
>>>merely that the court _claimed_ that he was a serial killer and rapist.
>>>We don't apply this standard uncritically; there are certainly courts
>>>whose opinions we would not take in evidence.  But where we do, we are
>>>generally not wrong to do so.
>>>      
>>>
>>I essentially agree, but there will still be a problem with deciding
>>which court decisions can be used as valid evidence.  We can doubt the
>>validity of Trotsky's conviction by Stalin's show trials, but even
>>countries with suspect governments will need to deal with common criminals.
>>    
>>
>This is really not relevant to the issue of the word "pseudoscience".
>
But I wasn't the one to mention Ted Bundy, or make an analogy with law.

>>>I certainly agree that we need to refrain from epithets.  I'm not sure
>>>where the term "pseudoscience" falls, though.  I personally would use it
>>>very narrowly, to refer to fields whose practitioners make a point of
>>>calling the field scientific, but where nothing like scientific practice
>>>is being done ... or, perhaps by extension, where there are not actually
>>>any data upon which to do scientfic study.
>>>      
>>>
>>I too prefer a narrow usage, tending to not at all.  "Nothing like" and
>>"not any data" both depend on negative findings.
>>    
>>
>"Where's the science?" is a reasonable question that pseudoscience fails.
>
That's an empty generality.  Science is in the process, not the results.

>>>In short, you can't be doing pseudoscience if you don't claim to be
>>>doing science, or more generally try to adopt the mantle of science.  If
>>>you teach dance and tell your students that it's good for their souls,
>>>this isn't a claim to science -- so it can't be pseudoscientific.
>>>      
>>>
>>Some people in the dance community might dispute your findings.  I sit
>>as a parent member on a stakeholders' committee of our local school
>>board, and we heard a recent presentation on learning and the arts. 
>>Their point was that dance activity can help to improve student
>>achievement iover a range of more traditional subjects.
>>    
>>
>Did they have numbers? Did you examine the methodology?
>
They did refer to studies on the effect of the arts on student 
achievement done education faculties of universities.

>>>I'm not so sure this makes sense.  There are lots of labels that we are
>>>willing to apply to people who do not themselves accept the labels.  The
>>>most obvious are those drawn from fields such as science and law, which
>>>have reasonably credible standards of verifiability.
>>>      
>>>
>>When it comes to naming issues I tend to favour proponents rather than
>>opponents.  In our situation there is no dispute about the naming of
>>most individual fields, only about what we call them collectively.  It's
>>important that the term which we choose carry no implication about the
>>truth or falsity of the contents, or carry in anyway that something is
>>personally wrong with the practitioners.  To me "alternat[iv]e" only
>>suggests that it's different.
>>    
>>
>The thing is that it isn't just "different", it's qualitatively
>defective as the thing it's pretending to be.
>
And how would that statement be verifiable.

>I'm coming across as much more strident in this thread than I mean to
>be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not
>science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the
>subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same
>connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
>
Pseudoscience can very well be characterized as bullshit.  However, the 
process whereby certain studies and practices are classified as 
pseudoscience is also bullshit.

Ec