Talk:Scientific consensus
Skepticism C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Medicine C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Scientific consensus on the non-danger of gsm use?
Can anybody help in this, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health#Scientific_consensus_or_not.3F Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Changes by IP
Nothing here about the article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
An IP editor has edited in three times now the same edit [1][2][3] and apparently refuses to come to the talk page even after he was reverted two times and WP:BRD pointed out clearly. I won't revert again but wouldn't mind if some other editor did. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Drama mode off. WP:FOC; I have prepped an ANI and am holding it in my sandbox pending the IP's choice about restoring vs discussing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Administrator note I have left a (hopefully) clear explanation of why his/her behavior is edit warring, along with a final warning, for anonymous editor 14.* on their talk page. If the edit warring continues, please notify me if I'm around or post at WP:ANEW. —Darkwind (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- ThanksNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Popper / Kuhn
I don't think
- Most models of scientific change rely on new data produced by scientific experiment. Karl Popper proposed that since no amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory, but a single experiment could disprove one, all scientific progress should be based on a process of falsification... Among the most influential challengers of this approach was Thomas Kuhn...
is right. Kuhn's theory is a theory of how science, actually in practice, changes. Popper's theory is a theory of the logical structure of scientific theory. I think its an error to believe they are in opposition. Kuhn might be said to challenge those who naively believe Popper's theory describes the actual evolution of science, but that's different William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- In his work Popper emphasised demarcating a scientific theory from pseudoscience/non-science based on the nature of the theories proposed. I don't remember him emphasising anything about scientific progress itself when discussing falsification (I can't recall off the top of my head anything from The Logic of Scientific Discovery, which is cited, that discusses it). Perhaps my reading of the material was off, or there is some specific work I didn't read (as I see the wikipedia article on popper discusses ideas on progress). Kuhn emphasised, in his work about demarcation, the importance of the culture the community adopted in their approach, while largely but no completely agreeing with Popper. If I recall I think Kuhn believed that Popper's type of reasoning, of rejecting something through the criteria of falsification, only really applied during paradigm shifts where the scientist became more like a philosopher, and most work was done as "normal science" in standard periods. So he didn't dismiss Popper, he just didn't think it was required for most work in practice. Thagard put emphasis on progress. Thagard combined both Popper and Kuhn's views about theory and culture while also emphasising that there should be a history of progress. I've written in more detail here with the sources given: Astrology_and_science#Philosophy_of_science (where Kuhn,Popper, Thagard use Astrology as the quintessential example of pseudoscience for demarcation). So it may be worth mentioning Thagard more so in relation to progress. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Clarification: Popper is not talking about the logical structure of scientific theories but rather the epistemology of theories. Kuhn's objection is that falsification does not work this way in actual science. Anomalies must accumulate during normal science that lead to revolutionary changes in science (i.e., theory replacement). So, Kuhn was a challenger of Popper's purely philosophical analysis.I am One of Many (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Revert by I am One of Many
The minor edit on the line "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." should be converted to "Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument, and it is not the scientific method." and it is an improvement for WP:CLARITY, which is also our rule on WP:MoS.
"Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument." is more clear and concise than "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument.", firstly, "by itself" is unnecessary. Secondly, the meaning is the same but the latter leaves the readers (and me) in doubt. "Scientific consensus is not by myself(?) scientific argument.", "Scientific consensus is not by yourself(?) scientific argument.", "Scientific consensus is not by science(?) a scientific argument." or "Scientific consensus is by science(?) a scientific argument." ..etc.
"it is not a scientific method." is more clear and concise than "it is not part of the scientific method.", firstly, if X is not part of Y, then X is just not (part of all parts of) Y. Secondly, given X is not Y, when you put "part of" in the sentence, you leave the readers (and me) in doubt on "which part?" "Can X be Y?" ..etc.
Next, I have to clarify that it seems that I am One of Many didn't assume good faith and falsely claim my edit "good faith edit" and ninja-reverted my edit. Anyone with poor writing style can make obscure sentences, unnecessary words, and maybe distort the original meaning(aka. weasel words).
His counterargument, "descriptive of the relationship between consensus and scientific methods" as explained clearly above is "unnecessarily descriptive" to distort the original meaning, and violates our rule and usual practice as stated in WP:MoS --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see those as weasel words. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument for a claim, but it is certainly part of a general argument. For example, in climate change, scientific consensus is part of the argument but is not by itself a scientific argument for climate changes. Scientific consensus is not a scientific method, but scientific consensus is crucial for determining which methods are acceptable. So you see, these issues are not as black and white as you with to make them.I am One of Many (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Then? Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument? And scientific consensus is not a scientific method? So you see, these issues are not as blackwhite as you with to make them. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- To show that I did respond to your argument, my response "Then?" questions that you didn't respond to my argument (and my edit). I ended the response with clear and concise argument that "Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument? And scientific consensus is not a scientific method?" in respond to your confusion, which also appears exactly the same as my edit, so it also justifies my edit as a clear and concise improvement. To show that, I quote and address your words, so you can see for yourself:
- "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument for a claim, but it is certainly part of a general argument."
- In my edit, the line (in both version), "Scientific consensus is not (by itself) a scientific argument.", the subject is "scientific argument" instead of "general argument" and it is not objectionable for anyone with a pair of eyes. Therefore, you didn't respond to the edit and show that you hardly pay attention to my edit and also ninja-reverted my edit. You are not showing a positive learning curve.
- "For example, in climate change, scientific consensus is part of the argument but is not by itself a scientific argument for climate changes."
- How about,
- "For example, in climate change, scientific consensus is part of the (general) argument but is not a scientific argument for climate changes."
- First, I can't see how does the meaning differ. Second, it doesn't matter whether it differs or not, you have to compare the two in respond to my argument.
- You did show your interest in using the weasel(or noise) words, but you didn't respond to the deletion of the noise words "by itself".
- "Scientific consensus is not a scientific method, but scientific consensus is crucial for determining which methods are acceptable."
- I agree with you on the former, but the latter doesn't serve as justification to how "part of" should be added to confuse the reader(?). So you see, you still didn't respond to my argument except that you also used my line. Please show us how the deletion of "part of" and "by itself" don't make the sentence more clear and concise, and address my arguments on my first post. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- To show that I did respond to your argument, my response "Then?" questions that you didn't respond to my argument (and my edit). I ended the response with clear and concise argument that "Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument? And scientific consensus is not a scientific method?" in respond to your confusion, which also appears exactly the same as my edit, so it also justifies my edit as a clear and concise improvement. To show that, I quote and address your words, so you can see for yourself:
- IP 14, you also changed from
- "not part of the scientific method"
- to
- "not a scientific method"
- with two objectionable results. First the usual expression, I thought, is "the scientific method". If you wish to say "a scientific method" first please show us RSs that identify the group of scientific methods of which consensus is not, according to you, "a" member. Second, regarding the words "by itself" I agree with I am One of Many (talk · contribs), and I don't believe your response really addressed his argument. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy, you are not responding to my argument. It is also not the first time you revert my edit and avoid discussion, you are not showing a positive learning curve.
- First the unnecessarily definite quantification "the", I thought, refers to this scientific method. If you wish to say some other "scientific method" first please show us RSs that identify the group of scientific methods of which consensus is not, according to you, "the" and "a" differs. Second, regarding the words "by itself" you drop only an agreement, and I don't believe your response really addressed my argument. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- IP 14, you also changed from
- I agree. The edit was not an improvement, and it was not a "minor" edit. The revert was proper. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree. I don't think your agreement serves any value to the discussion, you came drop an agreement without even a response on why my edit is not an improvement. Please WP:FOC. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. The edit was not an improvement, and it was not a "minor" edit. The revert was proper. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
14.198.220.253 (talk · contribs), will you agree to go with me (and anyone else who wishes) to WP:THIRD? Or is this thread a bit of disruptive obfuscation? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- You decide, because it looks like you refuse or give up discussion unless we go through either one of the process, yet I responded to everyone's arguments, meaning I am waiting for response from you. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
First of all, thank you, 14.* for explaining in more detail your rationale for the changes you want to make. That is helpful. Regarding the first one, the removal of "by itself" -- I can see how "by itself" looks unnecessary and confusing, but on the other hand, I can see how it is important to make it clear that "scientific consensus" is a legitimate piece of evidence in various arguments, and "by itself" is an attempt to do that. 14.* -- do you have a suggestion about how that could be conveyed more clearly than using "by itself"? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- "scientific consensus" is a legitimate piece of evidence in various arguments, and "by itself" is an attempt to do that.
- First, I have either no opinion or just don't agree on the first half. The first half has a lot of words which need to be clarified and I can't understand what you are talking about exactly, "legitimate" and "various" in particular. Second, I cant see how "by itself" can attempt to do "that". Please show us how you interpret the line "scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument." and "scientific consensus is not a scientific argument.", step-by-step preferably. Third, given that the line "scientific consensus is not (by itself) a scientific argument." has subject "scientific argument", I can't see how your argument on "a legitimate piece of evidence in various arguments" relevant to the discussion. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- You don't understand how pointing out what the scientific consensus is on a particular topic can be an important part of a good argument? If you don't yet understand this, I suggest that such lack of understanding should disqualify you from attempting to improve the wording of an article that is trying to make that point, at least until you do understand it. Hopefully that should resolve the discussion of the first proposed change. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think you acknowledge that "by itself" is there to emphasize the object, but my point is that the object is there. "Apple is red." "Apple is by itself red.", which is better? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- You don't understand how pointing out what the scientific consensus is on a particular topic can be an important part of a good argument? If you don't yet understand this, I suggest that such lack of understanding should disqualify you from attempting to improve the wording of an article that is trying to make that point, at least until you do understand it. Hopefully that should resolve the discussion of the first proposed change. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the second proposed change, the replacement of "not part of the" with "not a" -- I do not see 14.*'s explanation as accurately representing the effect of the change. The original phrasing treats "scientific method" as a singular concept, while the new phrasing treats it as a group of concepts. While I can see justifications for both views of the phrase "scientific method", switching from one to the other is quite a significant change, and certainly not simply a minor wording clarification. Something can be not a part of X (considered as a singular concept), without also not being an instance of X (considered as a group of concepts). For example, a tricycle can be not a part of a vehicle, while still being an instance of a vehicle. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Before anything, let me ask you one question, is scientific consensus an instance of a scientific method? I don't think it is. At least not what I understand from scientific method.
- First, quoting from you,
- the replacement of "not part of the" with "not a" -- I do not see 14.*'s explanation as accurately representing the effect of the change.
- For WP:CLARITY, quoting from you again,
- I think your example is perfect. The line "Scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method." leaves us in doubt if scientific consensus can be not part of a scientific method, while still being an instance of a scientific method, so there is an ambiguity we all agree but I haven't seen any proposed change so far. Since scientific consensus is not (an instance of) a scientific method, "part of" should be removed for WP:CLARITY.
- Second, regarding "the" and "a", they are irrelevant to the edit as I responded and explained earlier. "The" is a definite quantification, meaning there is an implied concept which can be something else, depends on previous context. Therefore, you have to show us that "the scientific method" does not refer to this scientific method to justify its necessity. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad you liked my example. To answer your first question, scientific consensus, like any other "collective judgment, position, and opinion", is not an instance of any method, scientific or otherwise. Judgments are not methods. Judgments can be evidence. This should hopefully be obvious, no? I don't think I would object to adding a sentence, somewhere in the article, explicitly making that point, if you think it would be helpful.
- My understanding of the clause you are proposing to change: "[scientific consensus] is not part of the scientific method", is that scientific consensus (as a type of evidence) cannot substitute for evidence gathered from experiments when doing "the scientific method". Your proposed change removes that meaning, and replaces it with a confusing statement confirming that a type of judgement (scientific consensus) is not a type of method (a scientific method). This is not an improvement in clarity, or even an equivalent statement. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, now we truly have consensus. I think you made a very good point and I agree that the deletion on "part of" is unnecessary. Initially, I made such change because I don't think "consensus is not a method" is immediately obvious. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Feyerabend
This:
- Lastly, some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained that scientific consensus is purely idiosyncratic and maintains no relationship to any outside truth.[1]
doesn't belong in the "Change over time section". Its seems to trivial for the lede, and there's nowhere else to put it. Personally I think his stuff is bollocks anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. As far as I can see Feyerabend occupies a very small minority position in the extent of his conclusions, with Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy referring to him as an "imaginative maverick" [4]. I also couldn't find where consensus is mentioned in the book, google comes up empty: [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikignome topic.... categorization under "scientific method"
This thread relates to edits by 14.198.220.253 (talk · contribs) that would delist a couple pages from the WP:CATEGORY for . His reason seems to be that scientific consensus is not the scientific method; also that peer review is not the scientific method. I thought categories were to facillitate rapid navigation among related topics, and these are all certainly related topics even if one is not entirely defined as a subcomponent of the other. It's small potatoes until the issue is applied in a big way across lots of articles. What do others think?
Examples
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling me that, I've taken a look on WP:CATEGORY and now that I discover that you are right. According to your revert though, "by your reasoning LOTS of articles would be removed from that category" this is not a legitimate reason, so I reverted it and invited you to talk. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, actually, according to WP:Overcategorization, the first section WP:NOTDEFINING, it says that if a category isn't its defining characteristics, then it shouldn't be categorized. I understand that scientific method is in some way related to scientific consensus, but scientific method is not scientific consensus's defining characteristic, as stated on the line "scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method." The problem when you add scientific method on this page is that it gives the reader an impression that scientific consensus is part of scientific method, clearly not the case. Therefore, I disagree now.
- For peer review, I also disagree but it doesn't seem relevant to this page. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Could be, I've never dealt with the technical side of categorization; always believed broad "related" net is more important factor in reaching goal of speedy-user-navigation than narrow gnomish technical specs for the template.
- What do others think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I definitely agree with IP editor. Scientific consensus is only related to peer review in that both are heuristic methods of assessing quality with limited knowledge (and as a result should share a parent category if anything). Scientific consensus is related to scientific method only in that both relate to science. Unless there's some compelling reason for them to be categorized under these inappropriate headings, I'm going to remove the inappropriate categories. 0x0077BE (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Greenfacts "consensus" glossary reference
The text of the Greenfacts reference seems to have been pretty much the same since 2002, according to the Wayback Machine. The text is: "The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field. / Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that: / all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress, / the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions. / Therefore, Scientific Consensus is / NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth". / / But when the scientific expertise / to judge a scientific position is lacking, / the best choice is to rely on the Consensus." This does not provide a source for the text currently being argued over. While I do think the argued over text is reasonable, it should be possible to find a source that states it -- otherwise, I do have some sympathy for the idea that it is not important enough to be included in the article. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)