User:Michaelbusch

Editorially Relevant Information

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

fr-1Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Cyrl-1
ДThis user has a basic understanding of the Cyrillic script.

Michael W. Busch

I am a graduate student in Planetary Science at Caltech. I also work with the Asteroid Radar Group at JPL.

Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudo-Science

I've been involved with removing various unsupported speculation from Wikipedia, in the form of pseudo-scientific 'far out physics'. In removing this content, I have encountered support from many editors, but there is always someone who objects. The objections follow a standard pattern, so I will try and address them here so that I don't have to keep adding material to talk pages. I am quite aware that the people who do the objecting consider their cases to be different, but when I (or any other editors) reference the following I hope it will be clear beyond reasonable doubt that it applies.

Objection 0: Wikipedia is not the arbiter of scientific truth.

There is no single arbiter of science, by definition. But Wikipedia has become such a commonly used reference that whatever science it contains must correspond to present understanding. To do otherwise is as bad as putting in the JFK article one of the numerous conspiracy theories that surround that event and presenting such bollocks as true. So additions that mis-represent general relativity or describe alleged anti-gravity machines should be evaluated as harshly as possible; as harshly as the ideas that make up modern science have been tested. It is not coincidence that science succeeds and pseudo-science tends to fail.

Objection 1: Insert name of interest group has been suppressing science for insert monetary/political/religious reason.

Science has been constructed to be as resilient as possible to abuse. This is not to say that scientists are perfect (e.g. Hwang Woo Suk), but to say that anyone who is trying to pull a fast one will be found out. As part of my research, I predict where asteroids will be. If I am wrong, it becomes obvious. Similarly, it would be obvious if masses of alien spacecraft were visiting Earth or if a prototype antigravity device had flown off towards Mars.

Invoking suppression of evidence also holds no water. Science is both cut-throat and collaborative. Saying 'American Academia' as a single unit is as meaningless as saying 'Russian Academia' or 'Room 156 in the South Mudd Building at Caltech Academia'. If I had evidence available that convinced me of any of the ideas people of doubtful sanity have sent me, I would hardly suppress it. Similarly, if Mikko Kaasalainen had evidence to disprove my values for the spin state of an asteroid, he would not suppress it. The same applies to every scientist worthy of the name.

Objection 2: This works, but it is covered under insert name of government secrecy

Forgive me, but this sounds too much like the X-files. Historically, any attempt to confine a technology or idea has led to it being even more widely known. Also, it is far too convienent that anything proving something can't be accessed. If you are publicly making grand claims, they need to be supported down the line. To do otherwise is like the hacker who claimed in his trial to have seen pictures of UFO-derived technology when he hacked US Army computers, but couldn't be bothered to copy the data or even make a screen grab.

Objection 3: You personally have a grudge against insert words and don't want it to succeed (often coupled to reference to the Wright brothers, Einstein, Goddard, Tesla, or Alfred Wegener )

To this there can be no answer, because anyone who would use it would dismiss denial. But see Objection 1 above. I do make mistakes, but I try not to hold grudges or suppress anyone. I will listen to any idea, but I also almost instinctively apply filters to rapidly throw out ideas that don't work.

The references above are favorites, of people who allegedly succeeded despite naysayers or where all others had failed. Einstein is often held up as the paragon of the latter, but this is flawed because he would have been unable to do what he did without all of the experimental and mathematical knowledge he gathered from others. Tesla is held up because of his fascination with dubious ideas late in life, but this is flawed because he had numerous legitimate accomplishments before that, which are what he is known for in science. Wegener did get a lot of flak when he proposed continental drift, but he had also proven himself as a meteorologist. His background probably explains the flawed physics in his drift model. That he read the evidence for drift correctly is what he is now known for, because it took another fifty years of work to demonstrate the actual process.

The Wright brothers and Goddard are held up because of people saying that what they did could not be done. But there is a difference here: no-one disagreed that flight was physically impossible, just that it was beyond the engineering abilities of civilization, as it was until light-weight combustion engines became available. Similarly, despite the infamous New York Times editorial, science knew about rockets working in vaccum well before Goddard. None of the above is a justification for claims of faster-than-light travel, anti-gravity, or someone suddenly solving unified field theory. In fact, one of my filters for bad ideas is to search for such justification.

Objection 4: insert flawed statistical argument

These arguments are the easiest to debunk, because the math is trivial, but they are also often the hardest to explain. Statistics is messy. Despite Mark Twain's maxim, it is valid, but only if it is treated properly. Explaining the proper treatment of chi-square or correlation tests always loses someone.

I have no desire to be labeled as as irascible as James Randi, nor to make myself a target, but pseudo-science must be purged from Wikipedia if this is ever to become a reliable reference. Michaelbusch 03:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award you this barnstar for some hard anti-vandal work :). ¤~Persian Poet Gal 03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)