Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the above infobox, I would argue that this statement is both uncivil and deliberately provocative. DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the clerks have already been informed. Mathsci (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Truth hurts. Sceptre (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of having a tendency to call people trolls may be wildly inaccurate, and unsupported by evidence at this time, but it's his opinion and not a personal attack in this context. If he called you a troll, then yes, but he's stating that you do something, rather than are something. I'm inclined to leave it and monitor it the situation, although I urge Sceptre to provide some diffs for the accusation (and submit them into evidence) or the comment may be struck in a few days. Daniel (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * is one of the most notable cases. Yes, I know, ID. But it's germane. I'll try and find some more of SA. It's a tendency of at least two or three people. Sceptre (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How does that diff concern me? Possibly you've confused me with another editor. Mathsci (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * People like you. Sceptre (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "like me"? Directeurs de recherche in the CNRS who have received a Junior Whitehead Prize. People who edit articles on mathematics, music, history and French culture. That kind of person? Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Science editors. The more vocal ones. Sceptre (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good lord... being uncivil to someone and trying to justify it by accusing them of being "a vocal science editor"? That's even more "uncivil and deliberately provocative" statement than the original one. DreamGuy (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, there is no guilt by association. Please show specific examples of the editors you named in your accusation doing those things, or else strike your allegation. I ask that you do this within the next 24-36 hours, or I will strike it myself to keep the peace. Daniel (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh, fuck this for a game of soldiers. Strike it. I'm having no further part in this case. (Incidentally, it's a bit foolish to reply to a complaint about conduct by exhibiting the exact same behaviour in the complaint.) Sceptre (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck as no evidence forthcoming for (what now appears to be a baseless) allegation, link provided to this discussion, discussion archived, lets move on. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Science
I have a verifiable graduate degree in science from a respectable university and consider myself extremely pro-science. Nevertheless, it does no good to treat editors as "the enemy", nor does it help to turn science articles into a battlefield. Could folks please turn down the rhetoric and make their own proposals if they don't like the ones that have been mooted. Jehochman Talk 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My view of the natural world:
 * Science (B-class) - That which has been measured, tested and widely accepted.
 * Protoscience (start) - That which can be measured, but has not yet been widely accepted.
 * Fringe science (start) - That which can be measured, but is widely rejected because data does not support the hypothesis.
 * Pseudoscience (start) - That which cannot be measured. It is unfalsifiable.  E.g. a supreme being created the Earth, but we cannot find evidence of this because the supreme being does not want us to find it.

These areas overlap and we have trouble when people cannot agree on how to classify a subject. I think it would be a useful exercise to improve the quality of these four articles so we as a community have a common understanding of what they mean. Jehochman Talk 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this is not a classification system most scientists would recognize or subscribe to, especially the distinction between fringe science and pseudoscience that you draw here, or your definition of pseudoscience, which is so singular that although I've studied pseudoscience for most of my scholarly career, I've never seen it defined this way before. If we're going to use such distinctions and classifications (which frankly I don't think is a good idea, because it represents a departure from core Wikipedia policy of using RS and NPOV to arrive at an accurate representation of a subject and adds a step of deciding which category a subject belongs in, a step that would be unnecessarily complicating and add more opportunity for argument without buying anything useful as far as the content of the article)  at least we should use widely accepted classifications and widely accepted definitions. Woonpton (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we have trouble when we can't agree how to classify something, but Jehochman's proposed classifications bear no resemblence to the real world use of the term pseudoscience. His definition of "debunking" on the Workshop page is also quite unrealistic. We're not going to get anywhere if we do not at least stick to the definitions as used by those in the field in question and not some personal quirky meaning. By redefining pseudoscience to something that the rest of the world doesn't mean, he's made it difficult to take any actions under the guidelines already imposed by ArbCom for pseudoscience articles. In actual practice, the things defined as fringe science above are universally considered pseudoscience. Fringe would be a hazy border between that and what he labels protoscience. DreamGuy (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's all science. That is, we should hold article on all of these subjects to the same standards. We don't get to inject some nonsense uncritically into an article just because somebody has decided that, despite the scientific language and the clear implications, it isn't real science and therefore doesn't need to be verifiable. --TS 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Example diff
This is an enlightening diff:. It is a fine example of argumentation that does not belong in an article. Our purpose in writing cold fusion is not to prove how stupid and pathological cold fusion is as a science. The verifiable facts speak well enough for themselves. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Without further context (sentence not added by SA, person who removed it is anonymous, so what side is which?) I'm not sure if you are objecting to the sentence that was removed or the removal of that sentence. The sentiment expressed in it is certainly accurate, and it did not call anyone "stupid" or "pathological." You seem to be reading things into statements far beyond what they actually say. The wording could have been improved, but the idea behind it is not only valuable but practically necessary for understanding any subject in which people try to pick and choose evidence to support their side. The primary sentiment of most scientists is that cold fusion was not real science, and pointing out why they say that is an absolute necessity in any article on the topic. If we report that scientists are hostile to cold fusion, that's not us being hostile to anyone, that's simply stating facts. DreamGuy (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement removed is core scientific method and was referenced. I'm not sure whether it belonged where it was placed, or indeed whether it belonged in the article.  I find it puzzling rather than enlightening--it's certainly something that should be understood by anyone investigating the field, but it's not clear whether it added anything to the article in context.


 * It would be an error if we permitted readers to leave our articles without a clear understanding of why the cold fusion people don't find many takers in mainstream science. How one conveys the information appropriately is a matter for debate. --TS 19:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The deleted statement is a good example of the misrepresentation of the 1989 DOE report by CF skeptics like SA. Here is the actual quote : "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons." Pcarbonn (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The deleted statement said "Any conclusion drawn from experimental data is unreliable if experiments can be indiscriminately discounted as not working for unknown reasons." This seems to follow from the quotation you have presented.  In fact it was precisely to highlight the inability to definitively confirm or rule out the achievement of cold fusion that the 1989 DOE investigators made that statement in its executive summary.  --TS 07:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Community consensus should always beat local talk page consensus
(As stated by DreamGuy.)

We can't let the majority rule on article talk pages, because on fringe topics there may tend to be a disproportionate representation of supporters of the fringe view.

I don't think it works well, either, to simply discount the opinions of fringe view supporters. The more an article leans towards presenting only the majority POV, the more different editors will say things like "But shouldn't the minority POV be mentioned too?" If they are therefore labelled as fringe supporters and their opinion discounted, the article will shift even more towards presenting only the majority view, to the detriment of NPOV. There may be a chilling effect against suggesting including minority viewpoints in articles, to avoid being stigmatized as "fringe" or "anti-science".

A way out is to rely more on the results of article-content RfCs, noticeboard discussions and other ways of seeking broad community consensus. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are describing is a theoretical slippery slope scenario that, to my knowledge anyway, has never been a problem on Wikipedia anywhere. We need to spend less time focusing on theoretical future problems and more on actual current problems. If we make a change and it goes too far towards science (which, based upon the open nature of the project and the number of fringe believers in society as a whole versus those with a even a basic understanding of sound scientific principles, will probably never happen) then we can fix it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there's such a thing as going "too far towards science". The problem is going too far towards presenting only what is seen as a consensus among most scientists, rather than a range of opinions; there is also exaggeration, where the Wikipedia article states things in more categorical terms, while citing scientists who hedged their statements more carefully in acknowledgement of alternative possibilities. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Question, could have missed this but.
The project page is quite lengthy so I may have missed a proposal of this type so I am mentioning my concerns/question here. I hope this is ok for me to do. A problem I see quite frequently on fringe articles and actually many aricles that I watch is the article be held hostage by a group of editors who want or do not want certain aspects in the article. The best article I can think of is Chiropractic. It has a pretty clear division of the pro and con editors there. Overall most of the editors work very hard on the talk page to try to come to a consensus before adding to the main article. But at this article there is a group that collectively refuse to accept things that are being proposed using everything in the book to stall any improvement to the article. This is being addressed a bit more though lately with some uninvolved administrators that are watching the article. User_talk:Shell_Kinney has been very active with a mediation page there and active to help with the problems of WP:EW, WP:TE and other policies there. She is doing a good and fair job in my opinions so I want to make it clear I am not at all complaining about her actions. But still, it seems that when certain editors edit the article it is immediately reverted with comments like WP:COI, No consensus and so on. So may I suggest a motion of some kind to address this type of problem that seems to go on quite frequently. The type of behaviors of preventing editing to the article because of civil POV pushing, well not always civil but I think you all understand what I mean. Something like a motion that holding an article hostage is taken care quickly so it might be useful to stop these kinds of disruptions. I hope I am saying this clearly. I am trying to help everyone get this subject fully discussed to cover areas of contentions so that maybe the future will hold less problems in this area. I've never written a motion before and not really sure how to but the way I am writing this now, I suspect I am not the right person to even try to write this kind of proposal. :) I would like to close with saying I hope this topic can resolve some of the problems going on which I believe if done correctly will stop a lot of the uncivil behavior going on and allow the project to move forward in a better working environment.  Thank you for listening, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I edit the chiropractic article too, and while there are serious difficulties, I'm not sure that there are any simple answers. I consider it normal and OK on articles marked with the "controversial" talk page template to revert new edits; the next step is for the original editor to start discussing the changes on the talk page.  A lot of discussion occurs there and some progress gradually gets made. There is difficult behaviour from editors on both sides of the issue. Having an admin such as Shell close a discussion can help avoid very long, repetitive discussions. I'm not sure what specifically you would like to propose. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Coppertwig, Shell has been doing a good job trying to end the endless dramas and the foot dragging on the talk page. But I think at this point, editors who have commented to death their opinions which is denied by the majority needs to be handled quickly to stop the repeating appearances of the same claims and calls for a start to at least ban the article from the editors who are continually highjacking threads to make things stall out.  I have to admit that there are editors their with patience to continue answering the same questions usually asked in many different ways with the same answer.  But I also think the article could become an FA article if the disruptions were stopped.  The article is actually pretty good, at least to me which I admit I use the article for my own personal use, with the help of a very kind editor who is a chiropractor.  So I would just like to see the article be able to move forward with less resistance.  I hope this answers your question.  :) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat
See below. As a student of informal logic and logical fallacies I am continually intrigued by the arguments that people come up with. Incidentally, shouldn't there be a manual or section of WP:FRINGE that explicitly deals with these kinds of fallacies, with examples, and which shows how to deal with them effectively? I am sure many of editors here have come across similar arguments before.


 * 1) X's paper on 'scientific fallacies' contains only passing reference to the 'flat earth fallacy'. WP:NPOV says "Even with well-sourced material ... if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research."
 * 2) The flat-earth theory is not amenable to scientific approaches and methods.
 * 3) Flat-earth theorists are pragmatic. They are not interested in what is 'true', they are interested in 'what works'.
 * 4) Scientist X, who claimed the flat-earth theory was nonsense, clearly had not read the literature on the flat-earth theory.
 * 5) Scientist X was not trained in flat-earth theory, and therefore could not make an expert judgment.
 * 6) The criticisms made by scientist X were valid only against Rosencrantz' version of the flat-earth theory, long since outmoded. They fail to address Guildernstein's improved version of the theory.
 * 7) You must not say 'the earth is not flat' but 'according to critics of the flat-earth theory, the earth is not flat'.
 * 8) X Y and Z are hard-line skeptics about flat-earthism. They often publish in skeptics magazines and take a hard line with any approach to any theory which is not empirically verified.
 * 9) There is no reliable source for the statement that 'flat-earthism has entirely been ignored by reliable sources'
 * 10) The statement 'there is no scientific consensus for the flat-earth view' has no scientific consensus.
 * 11) X's statement "Informal soundings amongst scientists revealed an almost total absence of awareness of the flat earth theory" is mere opinion. X is using personal experience as evidence. This is not a scientific evidence and is therefore mere opinion.
 * 12) The statement 'The earth is round' has reliable sources in scientific literature. The statement 'If the X is round, X is not flat' is a valid inference that can be sourced from any reliable logic textbook.  But 'The earth is not flat', while a conclusion validly yielded by these two reliably-sourced premisses, is a violation of WP:SYNTH: "Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research".
 * 13) There has been no serious study of whether the earth is flat since 1493. Therefore we cannot claim in Wikipedia that earth is not flat, only that a study in 1493 came to this conclusion.

Peter Damian (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Washington Irving wrote fiction, but it seems that meme will never die.  There hasn't been a serious study on the subject since the 3rd century BC or so, after which pretty much all educated people knew the Earth was spherical.  Columbus was wrong, he used an incorrectly small estimate for the radius of the earth- his crew would have starved before they would have ever reached Asia.  What neither Columbus nor his skeptics knew was that there was land in the middle, so Columbus and crew lucked out and lived.  --Noren (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, this is really brilliant. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 06:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * as a high school student once, i defied my friends to convince me that the sun shined on the earth. When they finally took me outside rather roughly to show me by direct observation, it happened that the day was totally overcast. I've been waiting for years to use this (true) story. DGG (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter, that's a pretty remarkable compendium - nice work. I was able to come up with actual examples of these fallacies that I've seen on Wikipedia, off the top of my head, for 8 of the 13, and I'm convinced that with a bit of digging I could provide examples of each one. Of course, you forgot #14, which is the one I most commonly encounter: "Any scientist who tried to study flat-earth theory would lose his research funding - thus, dissent is being suppressed by the scientific establishment." MastCell Talk 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, those so called fallacies sometimes aren't - "the existence of objective morality is not amenable to scientific approaches and methods" is a statement I am content to have inscribed on my tombstone. Science is useful when applied to things that claim to be science - as well as material claims (X exists)- but it has its limits even when divining facts. "The existence of Julius Ceasar is not amenable to scientific approaches and methods" - history, archaeology and other sorts of rational inquiry work great there, but not science. --Tznkai (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure... they're fallacies when applied on Wikipedia as arguments for sympathetic coverage of fringe-scientific claims. Most people would probably agree that morality and religious belief are not amenable to scientific approaches - almost by definition - but the shape of the Earth or the existence of ghosts as a real, reproducible physical phenomenon would be different kettles of fish. MastCell Talk 18:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm trying to focus in on the essence of the problem - its when ideas claim to be science. You can't claim to be science and not be tested by science. Its really that simple.--Tznkai (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14. Geophysicists routinely use flat-earth models, for example here (note the phrase "half-space"). ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course. I use a flat-earth model every time I walk from my house to the neighborhood bar, or I'd never get there. But the Earth is still round. :) MastCell Talk 03:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its kinda bumpy. Its is also flatter then it used to be apparently.--Tznkai (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to what model you use on the way home. ☺
 * Wait a second – we do say the Earth is "in fact" flat! (Well, "flattened slightly at the poles".) ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

comment to Martinphi
Martinphi, the issue that the ArbComm has to solve in this case is complex. To facilitate their work, could you refrain from posting sarcastic comments like this one ? Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless you think it was uncivil, I think it says what I had to say with more force and less words than some gobbledygook of intellect. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 01:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment
The cold fusion, homeopathy, Prem Rawat, 9/11 conspiracies, M-SA, COFS cases should be taken together to paint a picture of what happens to "fringe" areas (broadly speaking) on a semi-regular basis, with editors overlapping across a number of articles in broad topic areas. Obviously, the situations that reach ArbCom are often at their worst, but lower scale versions of these conflicts occur perpetually across the edges of the wiki. Parallel to these battlegrounds are regular walled gardens that are defended to widely varying degrees (as often seen at (WP:FTN). While six ArbCom cases are provided as examples, at least as many more involved fringe areas and/or claims. Examples of problems in those areas are evidenced back through to the early history of the Committee. The endemic nature of these fringe battlegrounds and gardens must be kept in mind in order to resolve the ongoing issues. (Note: I am recused. This is not an "abitrator comment", just a "Vassyana the editor" comment. You're welcome to some grains of salt.) Vassyana (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This case is surely not about 9-11 conspiracy theories or Prem Rawat, it is about fringe science. There is also a separate Scientology RfAr. To introduce general "fringe theories" at this stage, when the discussion so far has centered on fringe aspects of science, doesn't seem advisable. Mathsci (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking that ArbCom review all fringe theories in an obscene mega-case. I am simply asking that the context of the area and the problems apparent there are kept in mind. Context and social trends are very important to note. The behavior and cycles in the fringe science area are part of a larger pattern of disruption. Even the content issues are the same tune with different lyrics. There are continual disputes across all of them about presenting the mainstream view and source reliability that echo the same patterns and argument types found in fringe science articles. (Also notably related to the content issues, walled gardens sprout up in much the same way, with similar defenses by advocates, across the broad range of "fringe" interests.) By all means, ArbCom should exclusively focus on areas impacted by fringe science in crafting the decision of this case. Still, it only makes sense to place the area in context, rather than examining it in a vacuum. Vassyana (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have put for your finger on a real problem and one that is not easy either to describe or solve, but must surely be at the back of many contributors' minds, Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I do think my suggestion here should be thought of.  I actually think it is the kind of thing that works in other areas of human life, so why not here? People who enter a contest have been conditioned to lose with dignity.  If it's going to be a contest, and it is, why not have rules and make it work for the good of the encyclopedia? —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean your suggestion to invite and encourage subject matter experts? Sure, but then we'd get into further arguments with some editors trying to restrict the field of experts in fringe science to the point that only adherents of the fringe theory qualify.  It is this problem in fringe science articles that Proposed Principle 9, "Relevant comparisons", is attempting to address.  The notion that in writing about the scientific consensus we must give special weight to the opinions of experts in a fringe field such as parapsychology and (to a lesser extent) cold fusion, is a problematic one.  I get the impression from your repeated pushing of the notion of subject matter experts, that you are deliberately ignoring or glossing over this problem.  Please show me that my concerns are misplaced. --TS 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add, ditto proposed principle 13, Scientific focus, which emphasizes that the context should be the best available scientific knowledge. Critiques of cold fusion based on established scientific principles, for instance, should not be underplayed simply because they are ignored or insufficiently addressed by cold fusion researchers.   Any fringe field may one day make a breakthrough that overturns much of what we think we know  about the natural world--that has happened frequently in the past--but we shouldn't sweep such objections under the carpet simply because, in their enthusiasm, the researchers set such concerns to one side.  In science, we think we know what we think we know because it has been tested many times before.  --TS 15:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)