Talk:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

Original cover
A copy of the original cover, substantiating Mooney's description, can be found here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes?
We need some quotes for the Praise section. Lolinder (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? All of the praisers are ideological supporters rather than scientific experts -- so should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Um... so calling someone "an ultra-conservative, right-wing religious zealot" isn't ideological?
 * In my opinion, there should be roughly equal quote space given to both sides of any issue. But regardless of your personal feelings on that matter, you have to remember that this isn't an article about the subject, but about a book on the subject, and it should be treated as such.  I'm not arguing for quotes advocating the science (or lack thereof) behind the book, I'm looking for positive reviews, as should be included for any article on any book.
 * Lolinder (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I would suggest the quote as attempting to find an ideological basis for a book that appears to have no basis in science.
 * 2) Your opinion would appear to violate WP:DUE & WP:GEVAL. We do not give equal weight or validity to non-experts as to experts.
 * 3) It is a purported "Guide to Science" so surely should be evaluated predominately on its scientific merits, by scientific experts.
 * 4) You are arguing in favour of giving weight to reviewers who are not in a position to evaluate the science in the book, so are presumably saying positive things about it simply because its position agrees with their ideological views.


 * 1) This is not about the science within the book.
 * 2) Reviews for a book - positive or negative - ought to be given equal weight. None of the links to Wikipedia policies that you have given address reviews of books.
 * 3) The title is tongue-in-cheek, and should be treated as such.
 * 4) And there is a problem with giving quotes on Wikipedia from people who agree with the author of a book? It doesn't matter the reasons given for the review, as I have repeatedly stated, this is not an article on an idea, theory, subject, whatever.  It's about a book, and with books, positive and negative reviews should both be quoted if they can be found, regardless of what subject the book purports to be covering.  See  American Fascists,  Merchants of Doubt.  Even  The Republican War on Science manages to include both positive and negative reviews in its minuscule Reception section.
 * Lolinder (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Argument by assertion -- a logical fallacy
 * 2) Argumentum ad nauseum -- also a fallacy, and both WP:DUE & WP:GEVAL are directly relevant.
 * 3) If it is not meant to be "treated" as a "Guide to Science" then what is it meant to treated as?
 * 4) "There is a problem with ... Wikipedia" giving equal weight or validity to the opinions of people who have no particular expertise in science on the subject of a book explicitly purporting to be about science. We would likewise not give equal weight or validity to the opinions of Nobel Physics or Chemistry Prize winners, if the subject was a new artwork or play. Can you point to any review being given more than a bare mention when it is based solely on partisan (dis)agreement with a book's thesis?

Also I would further point out that neither LewRockwell.com,American Thinker, nor William Rusher count as "significant viewpoints" (per WP:DUE), even if we ignored their lack of scientific credibility. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How does one define a "expertise in science" or "scientific credibility"? If one disagrees with the popular, scientific consensus, does that disqualify them as an expert in science? There are actually quite a lot of scientists (with credible degrees from credible institutions) who do not agree with the popular consensus (in fact, that is how many scientific advances are made). Likewise, there are a number of so-called credible scientists making a mockery of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.163.255.25 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "How does one define a 'expertise in science' or 'scientific credibility'?" Training in science and/or experience doing scientific research. Just like we'd define 'expertise in plumbing' or 'credibility on the topic of plumbing' as 'training in plumbing and/or experience as a plumber'.
 * 2) "There are actually quite a lot of scientists (with credible degrees from credible institutions) who do not agree with the popular consensus (in fact, that is how many scientific advances are made)." WP:Complete bollocks! The largest list of dissenters currently only includes 0.023% of scientists.
 * 3) "Likewise, there are a number of so-called credible scientists making a mockery of science." But not nearly as large a proportion of 'mockers' as there is in the 'incredible science'/creationism community.

Lol, I wouldn't change a thing. It's actually hilarious. The sheer grudging mention of praise, and the sizeable compensation for it, is amusing. It's informative all by itself.

SuperMudz (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Examples?
Regardless of praise or criticism, and without overt promotion of the book, can one or more examples be cited? Without it, this article lacks depth.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Examples of what exactly? The article already lists topics that the book covers. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

False Balance
This article is too fringey. It follows the relatist frame "some say yes, some say no" when one side has the facts on their side and the other has just crackpottery. It pretends that ignoramuses are are good sources as scientists who actually know what they are talking about, and does not follow WP:LUNATIC. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The art of politicizing science while accusing others of conspiring the same way (my comment is not about yours, BTW)... — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Broken link in references
The link to the article by Lisa Simpson Strange appears to be redirecting; when I try to open it, it takes me to the home page of a media corporation, rather than to the article itself. It looks like the newspaper that originally published the article is now defunct, and their website no longer exists, so we may need to see if the Internet Archive has a copy of the page we can link to instead. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)