Talk:Institute for Creation Research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles
Four groups


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Institute for Creation Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Institute for Creation Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, non-science, and philosophy of science[edit]

An edit of mine was reverted, and I here will argue for why I will revert that back to my version unless someone can substantiate a better compromise.
My concern here is not for any squabbles between worldviews of prehistory or origins of the universe. It is that the word “pseudoscience” is a so–called buzzword, as such has been claimed by a few persons notable enough to be mentioned on the linked article.
What pertinence does it have in the first paragraph of this page? If the name “creation science” irks some editors or readers as to the mention of the word ‘science’ in the name, then I suggest you review that page for suitable places to use the phrase “pseudoscience” or the like. The first paragraph here is concerns an organization, not an avenue of research thereof. Who or what is being served by all this? Not critical thought, as I see it.

It seems to me that the field of published opinion on the demarcation between scientific inquiry and nonscientific information, vis–à–vis beliefs in the supernatural or things out of reach of science, is severely polarized. It is unlikely that you will see any assessments on the state of either which are not denounced by the one of the sides: Need a scientist actively deny the existence of things beyond science, or should they simply refrain from couching their theories in a “god of the gaps”? Most people probably don't think like that — but, I digress.

Of course, people who disagree with something are going to describe it in phrases that highlight their claims to its fallacy. Putting such descriptions in the first part of an introduction to a page — especially a small niche page, at that — does nothing more than espouse what is at best an editorial selection bias, and at worst a vendetta, rather than help to describe a topic for the sake of knowledge.
I would like to thank the editor who did revert my edit for not simply hiding theirs as a minor revision— as I've seen done another time on this page. I hope we can continue to be rational about this. — JamesEG (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with your type of position on most topics, however, ArbCom has ruled that the labelling of pseudoscience as pseudoscience is correct within Wikipedia, and has gone to the trouble of defining pseudoscience, and 'creation science' falls squarely under one of their definitions. Wikipedia, per that decision, is not unbiased on the subject of pseudoscience, as Wikipedia in general, follows an explicitly proscientific agenda.
In this case the Institute for Creation Research has, by definition, a pseudoscientific agenda, and it is correct that this must be defined as early as possible in the article.GliderMaven (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with GliderMaven. ICR makes "scientific claims" which are simply pseudoscientific. Not labeling it as such in the lede would be misleading to readers. Jim1138 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for replying so soon. I still believe that my edit had better logical arrangement, but I will let the page be as–is for now. Eventually, perhaps, I shall compile enough information to amend the article so as to necessitate a restructuring of the lede paragraph. In the long run, that is a better outcome anyways. Cheers! — JamesEG (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
You need to show that ICR is actually doing real science. This seems far from the case. See Institute for Creation Research#Scientific criticism Jim1138 (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I oppose any removal of the simple statement of fact that ICR is trying to promote pseudoscientific creation 'science'. Creation science is itself a meaningless term. Having read the ICR self described aims and beliefs that are shown in citation 3 it is clear that pseudoscientific is the correct descriptive term. If some readers choose to take offense at this or believe it not to be true then they are the ones at odds with the accepted scientific consensus. Wikipedia cannot and must not pander to the sensibilities of people who believe in fringe theories (although they should be examined, reported and discussed). The sources say the sort of beliefs and aims of ICR are pseudoscientific and that is what it should state in Wikipedia. Robynthehode (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute for Creation Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"They claim to use scientific method"[edit]

@2600:1012:B12F:DF7F:7C01:8064:545C:F599: This is precisely why it is pseudoscience: claiming to do science while not adhering to the basic requirements of the scientific method, resulting in fringe views, contradicting the scientific consensus. Please also see the above discussion about the topic. Also of interest are WP:PSCI and WP:ARBPS: on Wikipedia we unambiguously specify when a practice is pseudoscience and adjust the weight of articles according to the mainstream and scientific views of relevant experts in the field, supported with reliable sources (WP:RS). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)