Talk:Scientific authority

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1666 suggests some questions to ask scientific authority. I wonder if this can help us make an article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You might try "Scientific X" for your next effort? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not using random words - despite Hrafn's speculation. Here is some items from my list, which is a short one:
 * scientific conflict
 * scientific debate
 * scientific controversy
 * scientific authority - particularly, deference toward scientific authority

You see the pattern? No snakes were harmed in the creation of this list. It all has to do with how well something has been proven (or not), and then how this is presented to the public. I see Wikipedia as (potentially) helping the public to understand enough about science to make informed decisions.

If we contributors can report objectively on scientific issues, then our reader will be able to trust us to summarize available scientific information. If they think someone is giving them junk science, they can stop here to find out the pros and cons. Then they can dig into it deeper and form a conclusion.

Not every scientific question is cut and dried, at least in the initial stages of research. There is often a lengthy period of scientific uncertainty. During that period, should we tell readers that a certain side is correct? Or should we present both sides as having equal validity and leave them guessing? Or should we adhere to NPOV and simply describe both sides fairly while informing them as to how much WP:WEIGHT each side carries? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)