User:Zvika/Interview

This is the page for coordinating the upcoming interview of User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist concerning science-related articles on Wikipedia.

Ground rules

There will be two parallel interviews of ScienceApologist and Martinphi, discussing issues which surround the community debate over how to present fringe topics on Wikipedia. User:Zvika will be the interviewer.

Questions can be proposed below by any interested party. Of these, 6-7 questions will be selected by Zvika and placed in a subpage of this page. The interviewees will be given ample time (say, 3-4 days?) to post their responses on that subpage. The interviewees are asked to respond in a polite and peaceful manner. Subsequently, Zvika may ask some clarification questions, and may edit the answers for length (the goal is that each interview will be approximately 1500 words long). When the interview is complete, it will be published in the Signpost or some similar public location. Discussion concerning the interview can take place in the matching talk page, but the interview itself will not be further modified.

Martinphi and ScienceApologist, if you agree, please sign here to indicate your acceptance of the procedure:

• ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed questions

Anybody with an interest in this interview may propose questions for the interview here. Please sign your name.
We will accept questions until Thursday, 17:00 UTC.
The current time is Wednesday, 05:23 UTC.

Questions for both interviewees

• What are your jobs and affiliations in real life? What degrees do you have from which institutions? Why did you get involved with Wikipedia? What drew you to controversial topics related to science/pseudoscience/the paranormal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 10 March 2008, 18:44 (UTC)

WP policies give editors absolute anonymity if they so desire, and says that edits should be judged based on merit, not on who posted them. Therefore, I would pose this an an open question such as "Please introduce yourself. Who are you? Why did you get involved with Wikipedia? What drew you to controversial topics related to science/pseudoscience/the paranormal?" This will let each interviewee decide how much to reveal. --Zvika (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• What are the origins and underlying causes of the so-called 'fringe wars' on Wikipedia?
• What is pseudoscience? How should Wikipedia report on it?
• Is WP:CIV being emphasized - at the expense of NPOV?
• What makes a source reliable and verifiable when dealing with extraordinary claims?
• How is NPOV applied when describing subjects that run counter to scientific explanations of reality?
• Is there an existing Wikipedia article which you feel serves as a 'model' example of correct (re FRINGE, NPOV, WEIGHT, etc) treatment of a fringe subject?

66.30.77.62 (talk)

---

• What is your interpretation of NPOV and specifically WEIGHT in cases where POVs departing from the scientific mainstream have many proponents? For example, in your opinion, what would be the correct structure of the article on Young Earth creationism? --Zvika (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• In a recent AN/I thread, east.718 commented that: "[A]dmins will enforce civility with blocks, which is good - however they hit and run: they take no action with regards to the violations of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE, TE, DE, SOCK, etc. that led to the incivil outburst. I am guilty of this too. It would be more helpful if we struck the root of the problem, squashing the civility issue as ancillary." To what extent (if any) does this comment apply to the contentious areas of WP in which you edit? Jay*Jay (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• ArbCom have made decisions which relate to some of the problem areas under discussion, in cases including (but not limited to) Pseudoscience, Paranormal, Martinphi-ScienceApologist, and Matthew Hoffman. Comment on the role of ArbCom decisions and actions or inactions in ameliorating or exacerbating the problems relating to contentious articles. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• What methods do you use to distinguish between accurate summarization and cherry-picking in a heterogeneous body of literature? That is, if some studies say X but others say Y, how do you assure yourself that your edits fairly represent the field as a whole? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---

1. Practical: Do you feel editor groups (cabals) at Wikipedia prevent you from expressing your point of view in articles?
2. Wiki-Cultural: If one editor group or cabal had more members who shared a point of view than another (more fringe editors vs. science editors for example) would that popularity difference a) be considered reflective of society as a whole, and b) be relevant to WP:WEIGHT?
3. A recent study from Rice University found that about two-thirds of scientists believe in God.[1] Granted that scientific models of existence do not support God, how would you interpret that study as a source if you were editing the God article and had to state the scientific consensus on whether God exists? Is it a fringe theory in science that God exists?
4. The study also found that 38 percent of natural scientists said they do not believe in God, while only 31 percent of social scientists do not believe. Not related to the study necessarily, but which group, natural or social scientists, have more weight in statements concerning science in general, and why?
5. Same as the previous question, but adding an assumption that there are more social scientists than natural scientists (assumption because I don't know the actual ratio), would a bigger number of social scientists mean they have more weight in statements concerning science in general?
6. There are more non-scientists than scientists in the world. 73 percent of the US population[2] holds some sort of paranormal belief. Are paranormal beliefs therefore not fringe? If defined as fringe because science doesn't support these beliefs[3], which group holds more weight at Wikipedia, scientists or the general population?
7. Is there a difference between the skeptical point of view and the scientific point of view? Please describe the differences, if any.
8. When editing "fringe" articles, which is more important to you, preventing pov-pushing or well-written prose?
9. Do you believe WP:IAR is valid in content disputes?
10. What one rule (existing or your own) would you impose to accomplish your goals at Wikipedia? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• What is the role of mainstream science in responding to/investigating fantastic, fringe, paranormal, or other claims that run counter to current scientific explanations of reality? 66.30.77.62 (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a definable boundary between what is and what is not truly scientific, and if so can you define it? Is this boundary culturally determined and thus moveable as time and discoveries progress, or rather is it fixed, absolute and objective? Peter morrell 12:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• You have both been blocked several times. Why do you think this happened? Do you think your blocks were justified? If you could turn back time, would you act differently? --Zvika (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is not to be a battleground or debate forum for conflicting worldviews, but to produce a respectable and useful reference work. An overly credulous presentation of fringe or pseudoscientific topics hinders progress toward this goal, as does an overly rigid insistence on excluding minoritarian views. Where do you see the balance between these poles at present, and how can it be improved without overcompensating in the opposite direction? MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "an overly rigid insistence on including minoritarian views," don't you? --Zvika (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant to emphasize that neither extreme is desirable, and that rigidly excluding fringe or minoritarian views on general principles actually makes the encyclopedia less... encyclopedic. The goal, in my mind at least, should be a balance where we cover fringe/minority views proportionately and without hostility, but also without the promotional or extremely credulous tone which many such entries acquire. Am I making sense? MastCell ^Talk 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for both. On the ‘Expert Withdrawal’ page [4], the main problem being discussed has been characterized by the majority of editors there as pro-science versus anti-science. The “pro-science” editors arguing that they are trying to defend Wiki against a rising tide of pseudoscience and anti-science POV pushers (thus the call for a strike and such like). In a recent dispute which took place on the Wiki Project Plants page [5], however, a number of not-previously involved scientists (botanists) were highly critical of these same “pro-science” editors, and some went as far as to call them “fundamentalists”[6]. How do you account for what happened in this case, and what, if anything, does it say about the pro/anti-science dichotomy that is said to lie behind this whole dispute.SixHorseParley (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) — sockpuppet of banned User:Davkal.

What you're getting at here is rather dangerous, as it would require talking about the difference betwee scientists, skeptics, and pseudoskeptics and maybe debunkers and scientism. It would require taking a position on whether SA's group falls into any of these categories. I would hope that a question along these lines would at least use those words, so I would not have to be the one to bring them up. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

O yeah, that is most definately Davkal in his "Number 48" mode. Shot info (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have studied the 'expert withdrawal' page carefully, and have participated in that discussion occasionally, and I can't agree with the characterization that the problem has been framed by the majority there as pro-science vs anti-science. I just skimmed through the entire discussion again; it's very long (60 pages printed) and found only a few occurrences of "pro-science" or "anti-science." In my contributions I have referred to a rational/scientific worldview vs an anti-rational worldview. Among the many contributors to that discussion from the rational/scientific worldview, I don't see a unified view; I disagree with as many as I agree with. As for "SA's group" I have no idea what that means. SA has not been very visible on that page, if he's contributed there at all, and if he has a "group" I'm not aware of it. My point here is that I hope Zvika will avoid questions that attempt to divide and polarize and to rehash old arguments, in favor of questions that attempt to get at the root of the problem in a neutral manner, because I think this is a fundamental question whose answer will determine Wikipedia's ultimate success or failure: when rationality and irrationality collide, which side will Wikipedia choose to back? I hope the questions and answers here will lay out the positions well enough that the community can make an informed decision on the question. Thank you.Woonpton (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• What evidence would another editor need to show you to convince you that a source, which backs your position, is not actually reliable enough to use as a citation? Antelan ^talk 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

---

An editor recently commented that those arguing for civility are not as intelligent as those who may ignore the policies…can both editors comment on this idea.

Einstein's strength was thinking out side the boundaries of conventional science as noted by Steven Hawking in a recent interview, as was Galileo. The history of science is a history of imagination and invention for example as in medicine. Is it possible that the so-called fringe sciences today are tomorrow’s conventional sciences? How does one distinguish today what is mainline tomorrow, and are attempts to delineate science, fringe science, and pseudoscience in Wikipedia, artificial and problematic given this history of science, and given what we don’t know about the future.Comment from both editors.(olive (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

• Given an effect or theory that is not currently accepted by most scientists, but has some proponents, the WP article on the subject often attracts both "believers" and "skeptics". It seems to me that as a general rule the former stick with articles more steadily and persistently, while the latter contribute more sporadically. Do you agree that such an asymmetry exists? If so, do you think it presents a problem? Rracecarr (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Martinphi

• Do you feel your reputation as a fringe advocate is inaccurate or unfair? 66.30.77.62 (talk)

• If no acceptable sources can be found for the scientific objections to a claim which is important in a pseudoscience fringe / pseudoscience field (for example, because the application of accepted scientific principles results in the claim being considered unworthy of investigation), how should the claim be described in the wiki-article on that field? NB: I think the sense of this question is what I want to propose, but I'm not sure it is yet formulated as a neutral question. Suggestions for alternative wordings welcome. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean, but can you give an example? --Zvika (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Zvika, no I can't, for two reasons. I am certain that I have seen this come up, but I can't remember where it was. It was a case with a pseudoscientific claim that I thougt was absurd, but no one had been able to find an acceptable source that explained the flaws in the claim from a scientific perspective - and there was an on-going talk page debate about how this problem should be handled. The more I thought about, the more I realised that I could easily explain why the claim would not be consider worth testing, and why it was flawed, but that I could only do so by bringing together a couple of fundamental scientific laws / principles - which is prohibited on-wiki under WP:SYNTH. As such, the only WP:RS that is ever likely to emerge is something written to refute pseudoscientific claims. I don't know how this sort of situation should be handled on-wiki, which is my motivation for asking the question. My second reason is that I don't want to direct the question to any specific example - and thus to focus it on the merits in that single case - but rather to the general problem of NPOV discussion of claims which would be dismissed by scientists as unworthy of investigation and thus where acceptable source material for the scientific view may be lacking. Does this make it clearer? Jay*Jay (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me somewhat of the claims regarding Electronic voice phenomena. Might that be what you were thinking of? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... I will see if I can formulate this so that people understand what it's about, but without referring to anything too specific. --Zvika (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Water memory might be a good example. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Or geopathic theory. Hal peridol (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I know EVP, and this question does apply. It's a good question, though it would save me some words (and thus give me more space to say interesting things) if you'd say "fringe" instead of "pseudoscience." Saying pseudoscience like that means I either have to ignore the issue, or go and discuss demarcation. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if I do ultimately recall the specific talk page which prompted this question, I will not identify it here, because it would draw attention away from the importsnt issue - the general case - and instead onto the specifics of that single case.

Martin, I don't really believe that what you say is correct, because the question is formulated for the general case. Thus, it allows the supposition that there exists an article relating to a field which would be widely accepted to fall within the category of pseudoscience - it seems to me that this is only problematic if you dsipute that there is such a thing as pseudoscience. Having said that, I see no harm in the question being modified to refer to a "fringe / pseudoscience field" if such a modification would address your concern. Jay*Jay (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to below, carried to this section to keep things together: Jay Jay, I thought your question was very good, and at most needed a slight tweak. If I thought it was "similarly biased" it was probably because I didn't see my own questions as very biased, since SA has said these things in the past. I don't really mind loaded questions, but in this case I thought it might tighten the interview up if "fringe" were substituted for "pseudoscience." But it is a very good question. (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the bias in your question - because if I were Zvika, there would be no chance I would ask your question below. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to just above: Jay Jay, yes, I could answer the question on the assumption that it is pseudoscience, and that would be ok. Pseudoscience is a much narrower field than fringe, because it is confined to stuff which pretends to be science, and in this case it is restricted to "obvious pseudoscience" such as Time cube, per the ArbCom on Pseudoscience. So the question is very narrow in terms of the articles it applies to. If we had sources enough to say it was pseudoscience, we'd have scientific -or at least reliable- sources on it! (I think this explains things, but I'm tired...) Nevertheless, I doubt I should have a great deal of say over the questions other people ask, should I? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point on scope is reasonable. I would not base my views on what constitutes "pseudoscience" and "fringe" on ArbCom rulings, but for on-wiki purposes I now believe that the "fringe / psuedoscience" formulation is preferable, and I have made the relevant adjustment above. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As for having views on questions, it's a case-by-case issue. I'm actually feeling a little excited by the prospect that maybe one of *my* questions (or dare I say even more than one) might be chosen - not really sure why that is, but that's how I am feeling. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• What is your opinion of ScienceApologist?

Questions for ScienceApologist

-Do you feel your reputation as a science advocate is inaccurate or unfair? 66.30.77.62 (talk)

• What is your opinion of MartinPhi?

Questions by Martinphi

What is your main objection to the decision of the Paranormal ArbCom?

Many fringe topics, such as Remote viewing are under the auspices of the field of Parapsychology. You have argued that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. What is your reaction to the ArbCom decision which states:

Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor.[...] In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.

It seems to me, that as Marcello Truzzi, one of the founders of CSICOP/CSI stated, science must investigate claims before rejecting them. Indeed, this is one of the fundamental principles of scientific skepticism. You have rejected this principle on your userpage [7]. However, this principle is even in CSI's charter: “[do] not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examine them objectively and carefully.”[8] Would you like to explain your rejection of this principle of scientific skepticism? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, these questions are argumentative, not to mention long. Please try to keep the questions simple and to phrase them so that someone (like me) who does not know all about the previous discussions which took place can still understand what is being asked. --Zvika (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that such questions give much more room for productive answers. I would certainly welcome them in my own case. SA is right that in certain venues hard-hitting direct speech is much more productive, and if we only have 1500 words, I want to get as much said as possible, not to mention entertain the reader well. Anyway, people were describing this as a steel cage etc., so I thought the questions were pretty tame (: If you don't even want these questions in the running, feel free to remove them. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, the problem with this question is that you have answered it in asking it. You have stated that SA has criticised parapsychology as pseudoscience, which makes the overall direction of his response to the question obvious. It is an invitation to criticise ArbCom in general and the drafter of the quote in particular. The question is not open, in that it does not allow SA to respond to what he views as the important aspects of that case, but rather it forces him to respond along a pre-chosen path. In my view, it is a question that will generate a lot of heat, but not a lot of light. Having said that, I strongly agree that we need a question on the influence of ArbCom and its decisions. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What's more, this is just Martin parroting a banned user. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a follow-up question for ScienceApologist: have you stopped beating your wife? MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ech, you see what I have to put up with, even from admins. These are potential questions. I would think that the second question would be asked depending on how he answered the first (First = What is your main objection to the decision of the Paranormal ArbCom?). And Jay Jay, you asked a similar loaded question above, using the word "pseudoscience," though a good question overall. I was not parroting Davkal, rather, I put his two questions back in, because they are good ones to add to the pot, even if they aren't asked. And one of the main themes has been, that editors like SA both deeply criticize the Paranormal ArbCom decision and openly ignore it. So I would think that it would give him an opportunity he would be very happy to take. I could rephrase: "What is your opinion concerning the decision of the Paranormal ArbCom?" But I do think my own second qeustion is fair- SA and many others simply go against that, and they have told me that I "mis-interpret" it, and that parapsychology can't be treated as any sort of science. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I strongly disagree that my question is similarly loaded. When I originally posted it, I included a note welcoming suggestions for modifications to ensure neutrality. I have suggested (in response to your observation) that "fringe / pseudoscience field" might be a reasonable alternative formulation. Further, your loaded question presupposes the answer. If you believe that mine has this problem, I would appreciate an explanation of how I have done so. I will certainly offer a refactored form if you can explain to me the presupposition of your response that is implicit in my question - I do not want to be asking a loaded question. Jay*Jay (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked, in your first question: "Did [SA] deliberately misrepresent the central status this idea has within scientific skepticism, or did he genuinely not know about it?" That is a pretty obvious example of the fallacy of many questions, aka "have you stopped beating your wife?" It is closed-ended and frames only two possible answers, both of which reflect negatively on SA and explicitly preclude more rational explanations. It is therefore appropriately viewed as a rhetorical cudgel rather than a question intended to spur open-ended discussion. I'm not sure how I've victimized you here, or what abuse of mine you're having to put up with, but my intention was simply to point out that the manner in which the question is phrased invalidates it. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[Comment from sockpuppet of banned user redacted]

The difference is that SA has said certain things himself here at Wikipedia. The CSI embraces an idea which SA rejects, and I think that if SA has said something, as he has also said that parapsychology is pseudoscience, questions which assume that he still thinks these things are appropriate. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder why Martin is acting for Davkal here. I believe that we have policies against meatpuppetering...or does this only apply to uncivil puppeteers? Shot info (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sworn to uphold his ban. That is for WP technology. Davkal deserved his ban, but when he participates in a good way, his ideas should be incorporated. I won't insert anything of his I feel is disruptive, but I will incorporate those ideas of his which I feel are good, whether or not I put his name on them. The same goes for any other user. I welcome constructive participation. Any contributions which I previously inserted with his name may be seen as something whose non-disruptiveness I vouch for. I will stop putting his name on any ideas which I choose to insert, however. I am not afraid that I will be contaminated by association, as I trust that the quality of the ideas will speak for themselves. As I said before, I welcome the more hard-hitting questions in my own case, as I feel they give more breadth for response. I feel that such questions are opportunities, and -as SA is also the hard-hitting type and even welcomes incivility- I assume he also has this attitude. Therefore, I give him the honor I wish for myself, by giving him direct hard-hitting questions. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded to by Mastcell elsewhere, please cease acting as the banned user's proxy. Shot info (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• You state on your user page that "dysfunction [...] now prevails on Wikipedia." Would you explain what you mean by this, and how you think the situation could be remedied?
• You have recently stated that you think "Civility is arbitrary. ... [T]he entire concept needs to be trashed...." Please explain this opinion. --Zvika (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This practice of quote mining has been historically used as a weapon by both MP and SA against each other in numerous RfC's, Arbcoms, and AN/I incidents. As someone else said, it adds heat here, but not light. I suggest a ban on quote-mining during the interview. Elevate the discussion away from the personal. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)