Portal talk:Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured portal The Science Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.
December 16, 2006 Featured portal candidate Promoted
WikiProject Science (Rated Portal-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

"Did you know?" section issue[edit]

I'll start by saying that I'm a relatively infrequent and inexperienced editor, so I'm not sure that this is even the correct place to post this issue, but here goes anyways.

When the "Coloration" hyperlink is clicked, it directs the user to a disambiguation page. First of all, that seems a bit out of place for something featured on the front page of a portal, and secondly, nothing on the disambiguation page seems to fit the context of the word as it used in the DYK section.

As I said, I'm not sure this is the correct forum for discussing this issue, but I'd like to see someone either direct the hyperlinked word to the correct page, or if there is in fact not a page for the given usage of the word "coloration", remove the item from the DYK box as there is no information to support it. Illini407 talk 03:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Illini407: Thank you for catching this. After a bit of searching, I've edited the "coloration" link at Portal:Science/Did you know/7 to point to Loudspeaker measurement#Colouration analysis. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo- vs. Cargo Cult Science[edit]

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

"Cargo cult science refers to practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but do not in fact follow the scientific method."

I doubt that these introductions are suitable to distinguish the two concepts from each other and believe that Cargo cult science should be revised. Other points in the examples:

  • I do understand why the wrong methodology in the oil drop experiments is considered to be cargo cult science, and neither "true" science, nor pseudoscience. Ok.
  • I do not understand it in the case of Jaques Lacan:

"He became obsessed by a particular mathematical figure called a Borromean knot, in which he saw the key to the unconscious, to sexuality and to the ontological situation of mankind. His quasi-mathematical, pseudological fantasies—the culmination of the cargo cult science of his school..."

—Raymond Tallis
... if Lacan stated things like that, this is pure pseudoscience; I really don't see why we need the concept of cargo cult science here and suspect that Tallis simply confused them or was not aware of their differences?
  • About the Aircraft Cabin Air Sampling Study... without further details this seems to impose the conclusion "Any scientific activity with any fault in method is cargo cult science." Is that so?

--KnightMove (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely good points there. I think none these examples make sense. On the other hand, this might also mean that the term just is inaccurately applied to different kinds of pseudo scientific papers. While this may not be corrected with a Wikipedia article, the vagueness of definition should be made clear in the examples section - or the section should possibly be removed.

-- (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)