[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

Tue Dec 20 05:29:40 UTC 2005

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:29AM +0000, Sam Korn wrote:
> The problem is that "pseudoscience" is a subjective term.  Whether a
> topic is pseudoscience is not a black-and-white thing. 

When someone says "it's not a black-and-white thing", they are usually
correct that there exist *some* "gray" or undecided cases ... but there
usually are also many cases that are definitely "black" or "white".

The existence of vague boundaries doesn't rule out that some things are
definitely on one side and others definitely on the other.

> Who determines whether the scientific method has been followed?  Not
> us! 

Who's talking about "the scientific method" here?  There isn't *one*
scientific method, and nobody here is claiming that there is.  What's at
issue are fields that don't do anything even remotely resembling
scientific work, yet the practitioners call their ideas "scientific".

We're not talking about string theory or cold fusion.  We're not even
talking about zero-point energy or acupuncture or orgonomy.

We're talking about "scientific astrology", "creation science", and
other fields that do nothing resembling scientific work, and yet call
themselves "science".

> The proponents of these theories will never be of the opinion that
> they are pseudoscience, and that they fail to conform to the
> scientific method!

Of course not.  But many people likewise reject unflattering facts
about them.  Scientologists would prefer we don't talk about Xenu.  That
a person who falsely claims "science" doesn't like it talked about that
they have not done any experiments or observations, simply doesn't enter
into the issue.  There exists a fact of the matter, and we are bound to
report it as such.

If someone comes up with a new conjecture -- call it the Moo Principle
-- and claims that it is "scientific", then we are correct to seek out
the citations for scientific research on the subject.  If there actually
is not any research -- they simply chose to call it "scientific" because
"religious" wouldn't get their Moo Principle into the public schools --
then calling their work "para-science" or "alternate science" would be
simply false.  "Pseudoscience" is simply the correct term.

> Wikipedia often has the problem of falling into pushing a relativist
> point of view.  This is one of those occasions.

It sounds to me like you are simultaneously decrying and advocating
"relativism".  Can you clarify?

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>