ScienceApologist

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:24 am

There's something fucked up going on with this guy.
Dennis Brown, the social climber, is pissed off and they've unvanished SA's old account with hat looks like outing in the history...

This discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... eApologist

The history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history
Apparently, a real name...

13:05, 24 March 2011‎ Xeno (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (132 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved User:Joshua P. Schroeder to User:VanishedUser314159: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Joshua P. Schroeder" to "VanishedUser314159") (undo)

07:25, 30 November 2010‎ Nihonjoe (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,061 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved User:ScienceApologist to User:Joshua P. Schroeder: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "ScienceApologist" to "Joshua P. Schroeder") (undo)

What's the big dealio with SA?

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:02 am

If memory serves, he has an account here, so perhaps he'll explain.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:30 am

He's a major, high-level troll. All those nitwits came out of the woodwork to vote for his return
because he supported them in climate-change and quack-science battles. Everyone knows
his real name by now so "outing" is not really correct.

Mr. Brown may be doing a "good thing" by letting SA return, but I can guarantee that SA will go
right back to attacking and harassing people. The Martinphi arbitration? That was just one.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... on/Reddi_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... on/Terryeo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... eApologist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... udoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... Paranormal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... old_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ge_science

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:50 am

Yeah, they moved his account back to its original name as punishment for violating RTV, but then they courtesy blanked his userpage. Typical en-wiki schizophrenia. The haters want to punish and the toadies want to protect. Each side protects its own trench. So they end up with a confused mess and a bunch of uninvolved people scratching their heads, wondering what the hell is going on.

isaan · Unread post by **isaan** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:44 am

EricBarbour wrote:He's a major, high-level troll.

I disagree, he is not a troll, though he has certainly bought into the gaming aspect of the site. He may well be misguided in the amount of effort he's put into arguing about article content, but he is honestly passionate in his promotion of serious science.The viewpoints presented by ScienceApologist are standard mainstream and he has done a great deal to combat the idiocy of various promoters of woo.

Many people may not appreciate how detrimental the true-believer fringers can be to having halfway decent science articles. It requires constant vigilance to keep the nonsense out, given that anyone can edit. I do understand the valid concerns of those who say that anti-fringe zealots can hamper a neutral presentation of science topics, but the fringers would gladly obliterate any semblance of reasonable and worthwhile science topics. Wikipedia has generally decent science articles, for sure with some serious problems here and there, and this to a large extent due to people being diligent about keeping the aggressive fringers at bay.

The reason ScienceApologist gets away with antics that others aren't allowed to is that many people know he is generally correct about the science. So he's banned, big deal, they can play their games and so can he. I would much rather have his biases (or even those of other aggressive pro-science anti-fringe folks like Connelly or the hated JzG) in articles than the biases of myopic nutters like Abd.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:05 am

If he really wanted to support science on Wikipedia, he would start a campaign to make them change
their miserable, incoherent policies on content wars, to make a pro-science official stance an inherent
part of Wikipedia. The "system" they have now rewards abuse and editwarring.

Obviously he likes to fight with the cranks. (What encyclopedia?)

Many other areas of WP editwarring could also benefit from such policies. Equal treatment for all religions,
equal treatment for political concepts, real BLP neutrality, on and on and on. But no, the war comes first.
The lulz come first.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:53 am

Also, SA and others like him refuse to compromise. If they would only include a small section in each article explaining the alternative views, then it would end much of the edit-warring and rudeness that takes place with many of the science articles. It seems to me that SA and other editors have control issues. They feel they need to control the debate on the topics in question. Wikipedia's current model doesn't support that approach, instead promoting endless battles.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:42 am

That sounds like Biology lessons on evolution saying "There is an alternative view ...", or Geography lessons on the age of the earth stating "but it could be just some 6000 years old, and it might be flat."

I don't think that one should suppress such views, but they should be the section clearly marked and not referenced from the main articles.

Ceoil · Unread post by **Ceoil** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:18 am

In fairness to SA, what ever about his methods and hyperbolics, wiki does needs people like him. In science and especially with medicines, people do turn these pages and a small number are self diagnosing and taking courses based on what they read. Fringe or quack "theories" need to be clearly labeled as such; NPOV and CIV be damned.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:21 am

I think the trouble is that the framework of dishonesty and pretend civility means that it is impossible to have sane discussions. Add that to the continual wave of new accounts where you think you have resolved the issue and 6 months later it starts all over again. If you had editorial oversight, fringe crap would never get a foot in the door and you wouldn't need the Rottweiller approach to civility.

Ceoil · Unread post by **Ceoil** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:25 am

Sure, thats patently apparent. What get me is that SA was pushed into his position and he is now deamonised and pushed aside by children rule checkers, who have no substantive openion, just tick boxes that need to be checked. On to the next one. Where as the more collect lunaticks; who have learned the game....

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:06 pm

Ceoil wrote: In fairness to SA, what ever about his methods and hyperbolics, wiki does needs people like him. In science and especially with medicines, people do turn these pages and a small number are self diagnosing and taking courses based on what they read. Fringe or quack "theories" need to be clearly labeled as such; NPOV and CIV be damned.

People turn to the websites with pastel green and blue coloured banners. They are getting their medical 'science' from Mercola, Naturalnews, and other woo sites, and hey are getting the physics from David Icke. They aren't looking at wikipedia because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.

Ceoil · Unread post by **Ceoil** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:28 pm

If you really think that, that a quack like that who believes reptilians rule the world, is actually responible for poor medical treatment, and wiki can absovle itself, then well, I dont know what to say to you. Maybe you need to read up on your own condition.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:38 pm

Ceoil wrote:If you really think that, that a quack like that who believes reptilians rule the world, is actually responible for poor medical treatment, and wiki can absovle itself, then well, I dont know what to say to you. Maybe you need to read up on your own condition.

You are misunderstanding his point. He is not absolving anyone or anything, he is observing that there is a popularity of what is essentially "conspiracy theory" philosophy, that anything that is rational and scientific, or is put forward by Government is lies and there is a more attractive truth out there. There is no greater proof of this than the silly amounts of money spent on Health Farm alternative medicine, Reiki being the most blatant scam.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:56 pm

Ceoil wrote:If you really think that, that a quack like that who believes reptilians rule the world, is actually responible for poor medical treatment, and wiki can absovle itself, then well, I dont know what to say to you. Maybe you need to read up on your own condition.

Dogbiscuit has pointed out my position. But just to emphasise: Those that are self diagnosing are not looking for rational arguments, besides they have a woeful understanding of science, or mathematics, and of risk. The last 'discussion' I had with the self diagnosing was a week ago when they were promoting Lavender Oil because it was not-tested on Animals, Forgetting that, whilst the particular company that was selling the product might not conduct animal tests, Lavender oil was extensively tested on Animals in the 60s and 70s and that tests were still being carried out in research facilities today. But of course I'm a shill for big-pharma for saying that.

The majority of the population has almost zero capacity to research a subject, or to assess competing claims. When the claims of science are dismissed as cover-up and conspiracy, all that is left is the woo.

Ceoil · Unread post by **Ceoil** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:08 pm

Ok Lilbure, thats fair enough, my apologies. In this I think WP:MERDS is one of the most important projects on wiki, but its severly understaffed and an uphill struggle. There are some good wiki people out there, same basic worries as you have but its a loosing and never ending battle.

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:32 pm

lilburne wrote:
Cla68 wrote: Also, SA and others like him refuse to compromise. If they would only include a small section in each article explaining the alternative views, then it would end much of the edit-warring and rudeness that takes place with many of the science articles. It seems to me that SA and other editors have control issues. They feel they need to control the debate on the topics in question. Wikipedia's current model doesn't support that approach, instead promoting endless battles.
That sounds like Biology lessons on evolution saying "There is an alternative view ...", or Geography lessons on the age of the earth stating "but it could be just some 6000 years old, and it might be flat."

No, it doesn't. In science, there will always be unresolved controversies. It is bad for science to demand unanimous adherence to one particular view; if that were the accepted practice, we would still be demanding allegiance to (to extend the oversimplified analogies) a geocentric model of the solar system. It should be possible to differentiate between a quack theory, which should have basically zero notable adherents, and a minority view, which will have many notable adherents and may possibly prove to be correct in the long run (for example, heliocentrism seems to have won out over the geocentric model.)

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:35 pm

Ceoil wrote:Ok Lilbure, thats fair enough, my apologies. In this I think WP:MERDS is one of the most important projects on wiki, but its severly understaffed and an uphill struggle. There are some good wiki people out there, same basic worries as you have but its a loosing and never ending battle.

No problem. The issue I think is that WP too often adds a 'controversy' when there is no such thing, just a bunch of stupids. It ends up with flabby articles that are unreadable, and the promulgation of crap into the woo advocates bios and also into the bios of anyone that might have shared a taxi with them. The result is endless drama. Meanwhile those that one would want to disabuse aren't coming to WP in the first place as there aren't enough articles on how the US government blew up the WTT, the effects of chemtrails, or how Bittersweet will cure all forms of cancer.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:47 pm

Hersch wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Cla68 wrote: Also, SA and others like him refuse to compromise. If they would only include a small section in each article explaining the alternative views, then it would end much of the edit-warring and rudeness that takes place with many of the science articles. It seems to me that SA and other editors have control issues. They feel they need to control the debate on the topics in question. Wikipedia's current model doesn't support that approach, instead promoting endless battles.
That sounds like Biology lessons on evolution saying "There is an alternative view ...", or Geography lessons on the age of the earth stating "but it could be just some 6000 years old, and it might be flat."
No, it doesn't. In science, there will always be unresolved controversies. It is bad for science to demand unanimous adherence to one particular view; if that were the accepted practice, we would still be demanding allegiance to (to extend the oversimplified analogies) a geocentric model of the solar system. It should be possible to differentiate between a quack theory, which should have basically zero notable adherents, and a minority view, which will have many notable adherents and may possibly prove to be correct in the long run (for example, heliocentrism seems to have won out over the geocentric model.)

So, what's your response then?
Teach the controversy?

On what:
* Natural Selection/creation theory?
* Genetic theory/spontaneous creation?
* Planetary geology/young earth?
* Big bang theory/creationism?
* Chemistry/homeopathy?

The list is extensive and filled with whack-a-moles.
Do you see any scientific theories that are supported with the willful ignorance of geocentrism?
Do you suppose that 2012 is anything like 1530?
Is there any young scientist in the world who would balk at publishing a paper which overturned a fundamental theory? Nobel prize anyone?

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:39 pm

lilburne wrote:
Ceoil wrote:Ok Lilbure, thats fair enough, my apologies. In this I think WP:MERDS is one of the most important projects on wiki, but its severly understaffed and an uphill struggle. There are some good wiki people out there, same basic worries as you have but its a loosing and never ending battle.
No problem. The issue I think is that WP too often adds a 'controversy' when there is no such thing, just a bunch of stupids. It ends up with flabby articles that are unreadable, and the promulgation of crap into the woo advocates bios and also into the bios of anyone that might have shared a taxi with them. The result is endless drama. Meanwhile those that one would want to disabuse aren't coming to WP in the first place as there aren't enough articles on how the US government blew up the WTT, the effects of chemtrails, or how Bittersweet will cure all forms of cancer.

A rational encyclopedia would have a note on flat earth theory as an interesting and entertaining anecdote which would read something along the lines of "There are some people who still claim that the Earth is flat but this was disproven many years ago and with modern air and space travel this can readily be observed to be false." The danger of Wikipedia is that it would feel obliged to just write "There is an alternative theory that the world is flat."

If you read the Reiki article on Wikipedia, I get a sense that this is something to be taken seriously as it gives the spurious science in some detail, even though it is interspersed with some "science not proven" comments, when it should say it is a heap of shit performed by New Age rouchy-feely con-women.

I was always amazed that an otherwise rational girl at Manchester Uni once proclaimed that poltergeists existed and I couldn't say that they didn't until I'd seen them myself.

Everyone knows that seances are fake but people still are allowed to run commercial organisations and fleece people out of money for contacting the other side. It just seems in our nature that we want to be conned and if you are a party pooper, you are somehow at fault.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:09 pm

Vigilant wrote: So, what's your response then?
Teach the controversy?

Whether people today believe that the sun goes around the Earth, is of little consequence. Neither does it really matter if someone writes a whole bunch of stuff about Cold Fusion. The chances that what they write will have any widespread detrimental effect is zilch. But other bits of crap like polio immunisation is designed to make Muslim children infertile isn't so benign.

Oh and 20 years ago you could still get be lead to believe that tobacco smoking was a risk free activity.

Angela Kennedy · Unread post by **Angela Kennedy** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:27 pm

Science Apologist's problem (and all the other self-proclaimed 'quackbusters' is that they don't understand issues around philosophy of science, but instead rely on irrational appeals to authority and certainty, and ad hominem attacks on anyone questioning their version of 'the facts' as 'quacks' and 'pseudo-sciencers' and 'fringe'.

I say this as someone who, even as a social scientist, has a good grasp (and support) of the scientific method (having background in science related disciplines as well as social science research methodology, and philosophy of science), and as someone whose 'natural home' would be in skepticism, if it wasn't for the damn pseudo-skeptics who now over-run the domain.

These people don't understand 'science' as such. They have this naive, simplistic view of themselves as warriors fighting for 'the truth' (which makes them as dangerous as 'true believers' as any fundamentalist faith follower), and just do not understand the complexities of 'science'. It's impossible to debate with them because they will just throw shit at you if they don't get their way. in order not to have to face their own cognitive dissonance.

We're still mired in the 'science wars', where anyone who DARES question the dogma and orthodoxy and rhetoric of self-proclaimed arbiters of 'the scientific truth' are decried as 'anti-science'. It's ludicrous we are still in this quagmire, and can't move forward towards intelligence debates on what 'science' actually is and how it affects and is affected by human actions, social structures, etc. etc.

So wikipedians' beliefs that 'the truth' and 'the facts' can be established beyond doubt is itself wholly unscientific, ironically!

Some of the answers here are a bit "so you want to teach children creationism is valid then?" which presents a false choice, which doesn't help the discussion.

If I sound like I have a downer on the Science Apologists of this world, yes I do. and the Guy Chapmans. That person has personally attacked me in various ways on places like Bad Science, Wikipedia, his own website etc. (because he has never been able to rationally argue against my points). Rational argument is not part of his m.o. and his behaviour is helping to keep science and rationality AWAY from the field where I want (and my daughter needs) it most.

Yes I do have a (partially) emotional response to the pseudo-skeptics, because of the damage they are doing to public understanding of so many things. Everyone else also has at least partially emotional responses to stuff as well by the way, even those who THINK they are so much more 'objective' and 'scientific' than everybody else.

Stan Dixon · Unread post by **Stan Dixon** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:42 pm

Angela Kennedy wrote:
Science Apologist's problem (and all the other self-proclaimed 'quackbusters' is that they don't understand issues around philosophy of science, but instead rely on irrational appeals to authority and certainty, and ad hominem attacks on anyone questioning their version of 'the facts' as 'quacks' and 'pseudo-sciencers' and 'fringe'.

snipped

Absolutely nailed it!

piku · Unread post by **piku** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:31 pm

Angela Kennedy wrote:Science Apologist's problem (and all the other self-proclaimed 'quackbusters' is that they don't understand issues around philosophy of science, but instead rely on irrational appeals to authority and certainty, and ad hominem attacks on anyone questioning their version of 'the facts' as 'quacks' and 'pseudo-sciencers' and 'fringe'.

Every insider knows what the consensus on some topic is in his field. That is not an appeal to authority. Often one can even quote the quacks for the established position.

Of course, the established position can be wrong. And it can change. The current consensus is that Jesus was a historical person. That is the consensus amongst New Testament scholars at theology departments. But that was not really true a century ago. The reasons for the change are mainly sociological, I think.

So I wrote a few biographical articles about some theologians of the Dutch radical school. Such bios are uncontroversial, but their opinions are now "fringe".

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:53 pm

Vigilant wrote:
On what:
* Natural Selection/creation theory?
* Genetic theory/spontaneous creation?
* Planetary geology/young earth?
* Big bang theory/creationism?
* Chemistry/homeopathy?

The list is extensive and filled with whack-a-moles.

My response is that you are presenting a number of false dichotomies. For example, serious questions have been raised about both the Big Bang and Natural Selection, but the serious questioners are not proposing ignorant superstition as an alternative.

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:55 pm

Stan Dixon wrote:
Angela Kennedy wrote:
Science Apologist's problem (and all the other self-proclaimed 'quackbusters' is that they don't understand issues around philosophy of science, but instead rely on irrational appeals to authority and certainty, and ad hominem attacks on anyone questioning their version of 'the facts' as 'quacks' and 'pseudo-sciencers' and 'fringe'.

snipped

Absolutely nailed it!

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:03 pm

Angela Kennedy wrote: We're still mired in the 'science wars', where anyone who DARES question the dogma and orthodoxy and rhetoric of self-proclaimed arbiters of 'the scientific truth' are decried as 'anti-science'. It's ludicrous we are still in this quagmire, and can't move forward towards intelligence debates on what 'science' actually is and how it affects and is affected by human actions, social structures, etc. etc.

There are established views and orthodoxies in science and those ought to be in an encyclopaedia. The rest should be in there under sufferance. I do not think that an encyclopaedia should be being used as a vehicle for some one's pet theory on a subject, and especially when that theory is opposed by the vast majority of practitioners in the field. There is absolutely no point in such stuff polluting the main subject, because adding the material to a WP article does not impart one iota of additional credibility to the theory. No practitioner in the field is going change tack simply because some anonymous person added whatever fringe view it is to the article.

It is in my opinion lunacy to think that WP ought to be a lay person's debating chamber as to what the science on any subject is. The proper place for that is within the science journals, and conferences.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:21 pm

piku wrote:Of course, the established position can be wrong. And it can change. The current consensus is that Jesus was a historical person. That is the consensus amongst New Testament scholars at theology departments. But that was not really true a century ago. The reasons for the change are mainly sociological, I think.

That is one of the pseudo-science techniques. Science generally understands that there is a current understanding. The fact that the current understanding is well understood, reliable and a working premise does not stop alternate rational theories being postulated and adopted over time. That does not make them fringe theories.

People usually mean bad science when they call it a fringe theory - they are usually demonstrably wrong - typically something that requires a contradiction of a well proven established theory rather than a refinement. Similarly in history, it is quite easy to tell solid interpretation from well established documentation and evidence from wild speculation. An example would be evolution, where we have a pretty good idea that evolution is a correct theory, there are too many data points to dismiss it, but we can also be unsure of the mechanism without contradicting the fundamental idea of evolution. With evolution, we can imagine that in the future there might be a genetic modelling discovery that shows there is a fundamentally different way of evolution occurring other than natural selection without needing to believe that either natural selection is a crackpot theory nor that natural selection is unassailable - it is the best model we have at the moment.

If you come up with theories that contradict observable truths, like to come up with a 6000 year old Earth you have to deconstruct so many other consistent observations then that is not really a Fringe Theory. The problem is that people need to understand that there is a difference between an exploration of new boundaries - so Higgs-Boson isn't a Fringe Theory it is a hypothetical which has not been proven - and if it is proved, then science goes in one direction, if it is disproved science goes in another. Similarly, it is postulated that there are more than 4 dimensions to the universe - that is not fringe theory, but scientific speculation and it is accorded appropriate weight, but is generally irrelevant to everyday life.

That is the key, that theories should be accorded appropriate weight - knowledge is being refined over time, and within the particular area of knowledge, people have a pretty good idea what is good and solid and what is not. The problem comes when people try and put forward bad work as sound knowledge.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:50 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:That is the key, that theories should be accorded appropriate weight - knowledge is being refined over time, and within the particular area of knowledge, people have a pretty good idea what is good and solid and what is not. The problem comes when people try and put forward bad work as sound knowledge.

Yes, in proper scientific debate amongst peers in the field. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about a general encyclopedia
that is supposed to be "reliable" and "unbiased". All that about relying on secondary sources is just crap, so long as Wikipedia runs as a
nerdy laser-tag game.

I see it as this: Wikipedia would not exist without advanced science, so it should reflect its origins and technical basis--
and that should be part of its official remit and policy. Instead, people are using it to re-fight wars dealing with quack medical
treatments that were debased in the 1930s.
Crackpots in other fields see this, and say "gee, Wikipedia must be open to my crackpot ideas, because they don't have
an official rule covering it!" So they go to town. People like Connolley, Mathsci, SA, etc. show up, not to reform the official
policies, but to have "fun" slapping down the crackpots, and helping to ruin Wikipedia's public image in the process.

isaan · Unread post by **isaan** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:38 am

Hersch wrote:In science, there will always be unresolved controversies. It is bad for science to demand unanimous adherence to one particular view; if that were the accepted practice, we would still be demanding allegiance to (to extend the oversimplified analogies) a geocentric model of the solar system. It should be possible to differentiate between a quack theory, which should have basically zero notable adherents, and a minority view, which will have many notable adherents and may possibly prove to be correct in the long run (for example, heliocentrism seems to have won out over the geocentric model.)

And there is even Modern geocentrism (T-H-L), which is a total mess.

The point is, nothing is too far out to have adherents, and there is a spectrum of alternate ideas. Yes, it is bad for science to demand unanimous adherence to one view, but it's also a strawman because science does not operate that way.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:20 am

An encyclopedia is not the place to have anything other than the state of the art from reputable sources in science.
If people want to read about or write about homeopathy, it should be in the fringe science category.

Natural selection aka evolution is, by far, the most well supported scientific theory in history.
Much more so than gravity or particle physics, etc
To put "alternative theories" in the natural selection article and espouse that as some sort of neutrality is akin to saying that eating lead paint chips might not harm you.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:54 am

Some of the attitudes here are the same problematic attitudes that make editing that topic area from a sympathetic perspective so difficult. I found the most telling experience was when I agreed with an editor who removed the category "denialism" from the article on Intelligent Design. Nine or so of the usual suspects stormed in to insist ID was denialism and therefore the category should be included, despite only being able to dig up a handful of sources suggesting this term was used to describe it, while ignoring my point that pseudoscience more than covers that it is not accepted science and the term "denial" is unduly inflammatory for an article with religious implications. Notably the article on Creationism also has this category and I faced the same kind of arguments there. When I started an RfC on the issue that same band of editors all angrily attacked me for disregarding the "consensus" they had reached, as though seeking unbiased outside opinions (opinions that overall favored my position over that of the local gang) was somehow against policy.

The fact is, you are far more likely to convince people of the falseness of a position if you treat that position and its advocates with a modicum of respect rather than constantly dragging them through the mud. Going at it with the latter approach is just going to drive people away to the "other side" and keep people from recognizing the possibility of the truth lying somewhere in between. It impedes open-mindedness and instills rigidity whether in the extreme fringe view or the unquestioning establishment view.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:18 am

Let's be honest. No respectable encyclopedia lets a gaggle of untrained teenagers set content for science articles.
Do you see Science magazine accepting articles on homeopathy, creation "science" or the "fact" that the moon landings were faked?

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:58 am

isaan wrote: And there is even Modern geocentrism (T-H-L), which is a total mess.

The point is, nothing is too far out to have adherents, and there is a spectrum of alternate ideas.

It probably should go with out saying that my point is as follows: Had there been a Wikipedia in the 16th Century, the dominant pack of editors would have militantly taken the geocentric position, on the grounds that it was the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Heliocentrism would have been pilloried as "fringe science." They would have mercilessly defamed Copernicus and Kepler.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:10 am

Hersch wrote:
isaan wrote: And there is even Modern geocentrism (T-H-L), which is a total mess.

The point is, nothing is too far out to have adherents, and there is a spectrum of alternate ideas.
It probably should go with out saying that my point is as follows: Had there been a Wikipedia in the 16th Century, the dominant pack of editors would have militantly taken the geocentric position, on the grounds that it was the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Heliocentrism would have been pilloried as "fringe science." They would have mercilessly defamed Copernicus and Kepler.

Well, it's a good thing you brought that little nugget up.
We can safely compare the current state of science to the 16th century and draw our rules of engagement for writing an encyclopedia from that comparison.

Are you retarded or is this an act?

Angela Kennedy · Unread post by **Angela Kennedy** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:56 am

piku wrote:
Angela Kennedy wrote:Science Apologist's problem (and all the other self-proclaimed 'quackbusters' is that they don't understand issues around philosophy of science, but instead rely on irrational appeals to authority and certainty, and ad hominem attacks on anyone questioning their version of 'the facts' as 'quacks' and 'pseudo-sciencers' and 'fringe'.
Every insider knows what the consensus on some topic is in his field. That is not an appeal to authority. Often one can even quote the quacks for the established position.

Of course, the established position can be wrong. And it can change. The current consensus is that Jesus was a historical person. That is the consensus amongst New Testament scholars at theology departments. But that was not really true a century ago. The reasons for the change are mainly sociological, I think.

So I wrote a few biographical articles about some theologians of the Dutch radical school. Such bios are uncontroversial, but their opinions are now "fringe".

What's an 'insider'? (Latour's categorisation was deliberately a problematic one, showing how such a status is ideologically and socially constructed). Even more, how do you verify one from all the anonymous wikipedians, for starters?

Angela Kennedy · Unread post by **Angela Kennedy** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:57 am

Hersch wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
On what:
* Natural Selection/creation theory?
* Genetic theory/spontaneous creation?
* Planetary geology/young earth?
* Big bang theory/creationism?
* Chemistry/homeopathy?

The list is extensive and filled with whack-a-moles.
My response is that you are presenting a number of false dichotomies. For example, serious questions have been raised about both the Big Bang and Natural Selection, but the serious questioners are not proposing ignorant superstition as an alternative.

Exactly.

Angela Kennedy · Unread post by **Angela Kennedy** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:05 am

lilburne wrote:
Angela Kennedy wrote: We're still mired in the 'science wars', where anyone who DARES question the dogma and orthodoxy and rhetoric of self-proclaimed arbiters of 'the scientific truth' are decried as 'anti-science'. It's ludicrous we are still in this quagmire, and can't move forward towards intelligence debates on what 'science' actually is and how it affects and is affected by human actions, social structures, etc. etc.
There are established views and orthodoxies in science and those ought to be in an encyclopaedia. The rest should be in there under sufferance. I do not think that an encyclopaedia should be being used as a vehicle for some one's pet theory on a subject, and especially when that theory is opposed by the vast majority of practitioners in the field. There is absolutely no point in such stuff polluting the main subject, because adding the material to a WP article does not impart one iota of additional credibility to the theory. No practitioner in the field is going change tack simply because some anonymous person added whatever fringe view it is to the article.

It is in my opinion lunacy to think that WP ought to be a lay person's debating chamber as to what the science on any subject is. The proper place for that is within the science journals, and conferences.

You have to define 'established' and 'orthodoxy' though. On Wikipedia, these things seem to be constructed according to who the shoutiest rhetorician and most active cabals are.

Unfortunately, many members of the public are NOT questioning and critical thinkers (it seems to need to be taught), but simply defer to appeals to authority. And these people follow wikipedia as if it were an authoritative source. And yes, I've seen 'practitioners' and even academics use wikipedia as such, which is VERY dangerous.

The other problem is that there is no 'proper place' to debate science. What you propose is exclusionary, so people end up on public places on wikipedia to try and debate issues of enormous importance. This is course is why there are SO MANY power struggles over subjects on wikipedia! Control of public 'knowledge'. It also explains the use of astroturfers, and organisations like Sense about Science.

Angela Kennedy · Unread post by **Angela Kennedy** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:09 am

Vigilant wrote:
Hersch wrote:
isaan wrote: And there is even Modern geocentrism (T-H-L), which is a total mess.

The point is, nothing is too far out to have adherents, and there is a spectrum of alternate ideas.
It probably should go with out saying that my point is as follows: Had there been a Wikipedia in the 16th Century, the dominant pack of editors would have militantly taken the geocentric position, on the grounds that it was the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Heliocentrism would have been pilloried as "fringe science." They would have mercilessly defamed Copernicus and Kepler.
Well, it's a good thing you brought that little nugget up.
We can safely compare the current state of science to the 16th century and draw our rules of engagement for writing an encyclopedia from that comparison.

Are you retarded or is this an act?

He's using an analogy, as was the poster of the fake conference. That's allowed!

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:43 am

Analogies can be useful in clarifying abstract concepts or serving as illustrative examples of a particular relationship. However, they can also be misused, as logical fallacies. In fact there's a very esoteric and complicated term for such instances: "false analogy". Vigilant's point is obviously that for every Copernicus or Galileo who bucked the established scientific view and in the end turned out to be right, there's been hundreds of thousands, millions, of folks who bucked the established scientific view and ... turned out to be just plain wrong. It's just that their stories don't make for good History channel programs. The hundreds of thousands, millions, who supported the established scientific view and turned out to be right also make for crappy sensationalism.

It's basically like saying "one time my uncle got drunk and drove home and he got there alright, therefore drunk driving's perfectly safe". Even if the story about the uncle is 100% true, it doesn't mean that the conclusion follows (ok, that analogy of an anlogy's a bit stretched too). While I may be old school about this, what separates the science from the non-science, whether mainstream or not, is simply the scientific method.

Btw, from what I understand, geocentrism, given the data and capability of measurement, as well as the existing theory of gravity (as function of distance to the center of the universe, rather than mass and distance) in the 16th century was a well founded, "scientific" theory. It's just that measurement improved, more data was collected, and view of gravity changed, so new theory replaced the old. These fringe, crank science things out there today are all too happy to skip the "improve measurment", "collect more data" steps and just jump right to their wacky (and pre-established) conclusions.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:38 am

Angela Kennedy wrote: You have to define 'established' and 'orthodoxy' though. On Wikipedia, these things seem to be constructed according to who the shoutiest rhetorician and most active cabals are.

I think we have pretty good dictionary definitions of 'established' and 'orthodoxy'. When the loudest are getting their way simply because they are the loudest then there is indeed a problem. When 'established' and 'orthodoxy' are used as a weapon to pile on and denigrate BLPs then that is a problem. When 'established' and 'orthodoxy' is used to marginalize a theory then that is what an encyclopaedia is for.

Angela Kennedy wrote:Unfortunately, many members of the public are NOT questioning and critical thinkers (it seems to need to be taught), but simply defer to appeals to authority. And these people follow wikipedia as if it were an authoritative source. And yes, I've seen 'practitioners' and even academics use wikipedia as such, which is VERY dangerous.

Isn't that the purpose of an encyclopaedia? An authoritative statement on the dominate view of a subject, along with some hat tips to credible alternatives theories.

Angela Kennedy wrote:The other problem is that there is no 'proper place' to debate science. What you propose is exclusionary, so people end up on public places on wikipedia to try and debate issues of enormous importance. This is course is why there are SO MANY power struggles over subjects on wikipedia! Control of public 'knowledge'. It also explains the use of astroturfers, and organisations like Sense about Science.

Why should an encyclopaedia be a place to debate science? Of course what I propose is exclusionary, it has to be otherwise you get debates about 15ft hominids running upright, at speed through forests. Or you get atrocities like these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ontroversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =104634552

Thiomersal in MMR is blamed for increased Autism rates, despite the fact that in the US it has never been used in MMR:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concer ... _faqs.html

and that in Japan they do not use MMR and yet the Autism rates are the same as elsewhere.

Despite the fact that back in 2002 it was known that there was no link, vast sums of money and researcher time, has been spent in the last decade or more reproving no link between MMR, Thiomersal, and Autism. Money and time totally wasted, money that could have been spent on developing treatments, or a better understanding of teh condition.

Yet still the anti-vaccination woo artists promulgate their fuckwit bullshit crap any which way they can.
http://www.naturalnews.com/MMR_vaccine.html

Behind all of this are arsehole, anti-health care Libertarians. Their concerns aren't with the safety of the vaccines, but with large scale government health care programs, which in the US are primarily vaccinations.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:12 pm

lilburne wrote:Behind all of this are arsehole, anti-health care Libertarians. Their concerns aren't with the safety of the vaccines, but with large scale government health care programs, which in the US are primarily vaccinations.

At least you can get MMR for your kids if you're sane. The same can't be said for Lyme disease (see the fuckwit comments at the bottom).

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:25 pm

Angela Kennedy wrote:
Hersch wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
On what:
* Natural Selection/creation theory?
* Genetic theory/spontaneous creation?
* Planetary geology/young earth?
* Big bang theory/creationism?
* Chemistry/homeopathy?

The list is extensive and filled with whack-a-moles.
My response is that you are presenting a number of false dichotomies. For example, serious questions have been raised about both the Big Bang and Natural Selection, but the serious questioners are not proposing ignorant superstition as an alternative.
Exactly.

Please expound on these theories that purport to overturn the big bang and natural selection.
Please quote/cite peer reviewed journals.

Or admit you are wrong and that this is a smoke blowing exercise.

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:38 pm

Halton Arp is a notable critic of the Big Bangers. Vladimir Vernadsky's evolutionary theory is better than Darwin's (although not according to Wikipedia, which says it "complements" Darwin's, to which some astute editor has helpfully added, "citation needed.")

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:49 pm

Hersch wrote:Halton Arp is a notable critic of the Big Bangers. Vladimir Vernadsky's evolutionary theory is better than Darwin's (although not according to Wikipedia, which says it "complements" Darwin's, to which some astute editor has helpfully added, "citation needed.")

"The principles of both life and cognition are essential features of the Earth's evolution, and must have been implicit in the earth all along." Wow. That's some A Grade bullshit right there. Hersh: If you think a better scientific explanation for variation is found lurking in there, you are mistaken.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:08 pm

Hersch wrote:Halton Arp is a notable critic of the Big Bangers. Vladimir Vernadsky's evolutionary theory is better than Darwin's (although not according to Wikipedia, which says it "complements" Darwin's, to which some astute editor has helpfully added, "citation needed.")

Again, you prove my point.
Your understanding of both of these theories is limited at best.
You want to tilt at windmills... fine.
You and others of your ilk want to portray the science as unsettled for the big bang and natural selection in an encyclopedia and you can go piss up a rope.

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:52 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
Hersch wrote: Vladimir Vernadsky's evolutionary theory is better than Darwin's (although not according to Wikipedia, which says it "complements" Darwin's, to which some astute editor has helpfully added, "citation needed.")
"The principles of both life and cognition are essential features of the Earth's evolution, and must have been implicit in the earth all along." Wow. That's some A Grade bullshit right there. Hersh: If you think a better scientific explanation for variation is found lurking in there, you are mistaken.

Of course, these are the Big Questions. But would you care to propose (bearing in mind the ever-present danger of going off-topic) a scenario whereby a collection of inanimate materials sitting around on the Lithosphere comes alive? I find nothing persuasive in the WP article on Abiogenesis, other than Pasteur's argument against it.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:52 pm

Hersch wrote:
isaan wrote: And there is even Modern geocentrism (T-H-L), which is a total mess.

The point is, nothing is too far out to have adherents, and there is a spectrum of alternate ideas.
It probably should go with out saying that my point is as follows: Had there been a Wikipedia in the 16th Century, the dominant pack of editors would have militantly taken the geocentric position, on the grounds that it was the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Heliocentrism would have been pilloried as "fringe science." They would have mercilessly defamed Copernicus and Kepler.

A real encyclopedia would have also majored on the wrong answer, and probably would have ignored Copernicus when the theory was first postulated, however, over the decades as the rationale of the new theory was understood, there would have come a point when the encyclopedia was changed.

I guess the test for this would be to research academic writings of the era, textbooks and so on and see how they evolved. You could do the same on something like tectonic plate theory over the past 100 years. What I find interesting about that subject is that I am sure I was not the only child who thought it was interesting that it looked like you could join the different land masses up, so I'd like to see how over many decades ideas like that evolved, and what the time line was for things like that to be accepted in the academic community and how much the public view trailed behind.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:04 pm

Hersch wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
Hersch wrote: Vladimir Vernadsky's evolutionary theory is better than Darwin's (although not according to Wikipedia, which says it "complements" Darwin's, to which some astute editor has helpfully added, "citation needed.")
"The principles of both life and cognition are essential features of the Earth's evolution, and must have been implicit in the earth all along." Wow. That's some A Grade bullshit right there. Hersh: If you think a better scientific explanation for variation is found lurking in there, you are mistaken.
Of course, these are the Big Questions. But would you care to propose (bearing in mind the ever-present danger of going off-topic) a scenario whereby a collection of inanimate materials sitting around on the Lithosphere comes alive? I find nothing persuasive in the WP article on Abiogenesis, other than Pasteur's argument against it.

I see.
One guy screeching into the wind against the vast majority of actual scientists.
Which side, which side?

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:03 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:
lilburne wrote:Behind all of this are arsehole, anti-health care Libertarians. Their concerns aren't with the safety of the vaccines, but with large scale government health care programs, which in the US are primarily vaccinations.
At least you can get MMR for your kids if you're sane. The same can't be said for Lyme disease (see the fuckwit comments at the bottom).

They are complete loonies, and it is impossible to have anything approaching a sane discussion with them. Typical is this sort of comment:

How about your reporter tell us the complete list of ingredients within this vaccine?
About all the additives, antibiotics, preservatives, adjuvants, etc.?

Give us the whole story please, not what Big Pharma tells you, even though they paid your bills.

which is side splittingly funny, as you'll see the same characters on other boards whining about forcing the suppliers of their favourite woo preparation list all the chemical components. Of course the paid for by big-pharma crap is just par for the course, otherwise you're duped sheeple, or an agent of the NWO. Poke a little further and its chemtrails, 911truth, and alien abductions. As they say in for a penny in for a pound, It appears that once you've accepted one piece of nonsense you might as well just accept the bloody lot.