Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/23 September 2011/List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Deletion_of_creation_science_related_studies_from_list

• User:Barwick
• User:SteveBaker

I presented a case for removal of select topics from the list commonly characterized as pseudoscience. I presented my reasoning, which at first solely included the fact that "a statement by an organization of scientists does not *make* something pseudoscience". It progressed to my being forced to defend and debate those positions themselves, which was not the original intent.

User:SteveBaker contends that based on his evaluation of these topics, they are still pseudoscience. At this point, I began to discuss these topics themselves, stating how they are based on the scientific method, and while some practitioners may be "poor" scientists, that doesn't mean the entire field is "pseudoscience", nor does it make the rest of them "poor" scientists.

The topic isn't really getting anywhere at this point, and as I rarely have time to edit on wikipedia more than once a day (normally less), I don't want it to continue going in the direction it's going, and would like to get it resolved based on my original point that "just because someone says something (even if they're respected), that doesn't make it true".

It's on the talk page, at the link provided

The dispute has degenerated into a debate on the validity of the science behind each topic themselves, which is not being disputed here (there are other forums, and I've mentioned that). Again, my point being "Just because someone says something, does not make it true".

Let me know if I'm completely out of line in what I'm saying, or if my points are valid, and the article should be modified to reflect what I am saying.

In the "discussion" section below, I'd like to hear the opinion of other involved parties. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that there is much to discuss. The list/article in question is about topics that are characterized as pseudoscience. As such the long-established consensus is that we include topics on the list if we have a reliable source that characterizes that field as pseudoscience. We do indeed have not one, but many such sources for each of the topics that User:Barwick wishes removed from the list. I explained this to User:Barwick more than once - so that ought to be an end to the discussion.

That said, I was prepared to defend the claim that such fringe hypotheses such as "flood geology" (the claim that the Noah's ark story is the literal truth) are 'pseudoscience'. One might argue that this is a slight mis-use of a Talk: page - but it is not uncommon to have to explain to people exactly why their pet fringe topic is on the list - even though (as I have already explained), this is not "List of pseudosciences" but "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience".

One might also argue that the list should really be "List of pseudosciences" in order that mere characterization by some reliable source should not suffice for the topic to make it onto the list - but that too has been debated and no consensus for change emerged.

I don't see what User:Barwick has to complain about here.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:I basically agree, and have said as much on the article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:: As I've said before, I don't have much time to get on here, what with being a productive scientist in the real world, but I was requested to at least come on here and participate. Here's my two cents: If we want to debate whether something IS pseudoscience or not, all well and fine, whenever I get time I'll respond as time goes by. But that's not what this is for.

:: The mere fact that Wikipedia has a section called "List of topics *characterized* as pseudoscience" lends credence to Wikipedia *agreeing* with each and every single one of those *being* a pseudoscience. When in fact, Wikipedia has not made any proofs to this, it has simply repeated the claims made by groups of (biased) scientists.

:: If you're willing to take a "statement by a group of scientists"...

::: "article on the website of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List (Version 3.0; August 2003)"

::: "statement from the California Academy of Sciences.[1]"

::: "statement from the Iowa Academy of Science.[2]"

::: "statement from the International Council for Science.ICSU Insight"

::: "National Academy of Science (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition. National Academy Press. p. 48."

:: If you're willing to take those as reliable sources, then I'll go get a bunch of signatures from biologists, geologists, archaeologists, physicists, chemists, etc... all of whom believe in and follow creation science... stating that evolutionary biology is no more scientific than creation science, because that's *exactly* what they believe.

:: I mean, you're taking "an article on the website of...", "a statement from...", and one peer-reviewed article titled "A View..."

:: It certainly portrays the *views* of a group of biased scientists, but doesn't prove anything. And like I said before, the existence of this page lends credence to Wikipedia actually *calling* those pseudoscience.

:: Barwick (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Well they are pseudoscience. For every biologist, geologist, archaeologist, physicist and chemist you find to support your assertion, there will be 100 who do not. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

::: As I explained before, I'm not entirely happy with this being "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" rather than simply "List of pseudosciences". I've debated this in the past and I was clearly unable to obtain a consensus to change the title of the list. Since we operate by consensus around here - there isn't much more to say about that. The name of the article is what it is and changing it would be difficult.

::: However, given that the name is what it is, we are following Wikipedia rules and guidelines to 100% of the spirit and letter when we say that we should include topics for which we have reliable sources (under WP:RS and WP:FRINGE guidelines) that state "such-and-such topic is a pseudoscience". This may produce undesirable consequences - but in the face of that consensus to retain the current title, we have no choice in the matter given Wikipedia's rules.

::: There is a subtle distinction between what would be in "List of pseudosciences" versus what is actually in "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" - that being that in the former list, we could weigh the evidence as to the number and reliability of sources that say that some topic is a pseudoscience versus those that might state that it is not. We could remove topics that were once characterized as pseudoscience yet are not considered mainsteam. But with the current list title, we must include all topics for which any reasonable reliable source says "this topic is a pseudoscience" because that is a characterization - be it a correct characterization or not.

::: Sadly, in the case of these various creation science topics, they'd be on the list no matter which title because there are few (if any) reliable sources saying that they are not pseudoscience and the weight of evidence would result in them remaining on the list.

::: Your comment: "The mere fact that Wikipedia has a section called "List of topics *characterized* as pseudoscience" lends credence to Wikipedia *agreeing* with each and every single one of those *being* a pseudoscience. When in fact, Wikipedia has not made any proofs to this, it has simply repeated the claims made by groups of (biased) scientists." shows a lack of understanding about how things work around here. Wikipedia neither agrees nor disagrees on any topic - it merely reports what the reliable sources say. Any "bias" as there is (or even any bias that is perceived) comes about from those very basic rules about what constitutes a reliable source, what happens when sources disagree, etc. The encyclopedia does indeed have some strong preferences ("biasses" if you prefer) for the mainstream view in scientific matters. We say as much in several of our guidelines. This could certainly be argued to be "The Wrong Thing" for writing an encyclopedia - but they are rather firmly imbedded in our systems of rules and guidelines and changing those rules would be impossibly difficult.

::: Wikipedia is what it is - it's an encyclopedia that predominantly takes mainstream science as truth. Changing that to being one that reports fringe sciences such as creation science as if they were on an equal footing with (say) evolution would require fundamental changes that simply won't happen. This goes beyond pursuading a few editors on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. You'd have to change the basic rules and guidelines, get ArbCom to reverse their many decisions on this matter, and probably would need to get Jimmy Whales himself to change his mind about this. That is so not going to happen.

::: What you're looking for is a different kind of encyclopedia.

::: SteveBaker (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

::::I agree with pretty much everything there. If the filing party wishes to take this matter further, I recommend WP:MEDCOM. I'm closing this now. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)