Talk:Antiscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Introduction[edit]

Don't you think it's a little strange to have such a very critical quote in the introduction section? Wouldn't it be better to have such a quote in an extre "Critics" section? Generally, I think most of the quotes in this article are from sources that are very much against antiscience. Maybe some supportive quotes would make the article more neutral. Ah, I mean that quote: "self-defeating...essentially anti-intellectual, rhetoric of many activists.". 62.46.177.89

Bias[edit]

The "Left-wing Antiscience" section has some problems. I'm a radical leftist and quite scientifically minded, if that matters. That being said, I have a view issues. I don't like that an responses to anti-scientific positions are in the same section and - in this case - longer than the actual arguments in favor of the view. It's also interesting that the "pro-science" response displays thorough knowledge of certain antiscientific philosophies, and they simply have no interest in explaining the other side.

What are the more specific problems? The first paragraph contains quotes from someone who has no Wikipedia article, a non-functioning website, and hardly can be taken as a representative of leftist antiscience. It seems like a blatant attempt to promote a blog. I could not find any credentials on that blog, either. This makes the second paragraph somewhat suspect. Leftists do criticize science as being "used" by the political right. And another quote, which I would argue is racist.

The "New Left" refers to the first portion of the article, but the first portion does not specify this when talking about leftist. This is potentially misleading. Implying critical theory caused antiscience with no elaboration. Horkheimer contributes nothing to the article. Inserting religion and theology into the article is damaging the credibility of a criticism of science. Religion being mentioned is going to bias a scientifically minded person. Romantic fascist antiscience? The philosophers being cited as following naturally from their romantic views? Argument for that is missing, and I somewhat doubt that claim as I'm vaguely familiar with the philosophers. And "master" is a term that has negative connotations and doesn't belong there. The New Left would not criticize anti-Christian viewpoints. They hold many themselves. This is a random interjection to demean the points. And Nazism? Really. That's totally overboard. Just because people flirted around with some bad ideas doesn't mean they didn't have good ones, and it doesn't mean the ideas are related in any way.

This is the most biased section (that one, not the whole article) I've ever read in years of reading Wikipedia. I don't know what to do with it, but I had to point out these problems. I don't know how to track who wrote it, but they should probably be checked up on. They probably have good intentions, but if you can't be unbiased you shouldn't be writing on Wikipedia, I think.