Wikipedia talk:NPOV (Comparison of views in science)

proposed new guidelines:

several different approaches may be taken to comparison:

1) a parallel approach, in which different models are compared on their own terms and merits, side by side.

2) an evidentiary approach, in which evidence is provided which leads to two different conclusions.

3) an explanatory approach, in which neutral facts are provided, and the respective interpretations of those facts are given side by side.

obviously the last one has become a point of contention. why is it pov? Ungtss 13:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

problems with this proposal

The biggest problem with this proposal is that "side-by-side" debates don't make any sense in the context of providing a truly NPOV environment. This is the old "false dichotomy" problem. For example, if a group of people believe that evidence points to homoeopathy being correct and another group points to distance healing, both groups are making testable claims that counter each other. In other words, it's not just science that disagrees with homeopathy, for example, it's also distance healing. To make it out to be a "debate" is to give unwarranted legitimacy to groups that think they are the only alternative way to approach the subject.

The fact is that science is done as a collective, worldwide endeavor and that the majority of "debates" about it have no place in an article that proports to take an NPOV stance since by setting up the "debate" in the first place, the POV stance is taken that the debate has legimate merit in the first place. Joshuaschroeder 05:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If an article is on the topic of an individual debate then it is perfectly reasonable to present only those sides of the debate. For instance if we have a disagreement between two adherents of evolution (say Gould and Dawkins) then it would be perfectly acceptable in an article commenting on their debate to present just their viewpoints. It should be made clear what other opinions exist.
  • On the other hand you may query the existence of the article in the first place. If the topic is sufficiently obscure or the adherents are both extreme minority positions then the article should not exist. If the positions are minorities in the scientific community but not so amongst the general public then this should be made clear in the introduction to the article and elsewhere in the article where appropriate.
• It is not POV to cover important debates. We may not consider a position to be scientifically tenable but if a large group of the population does then it qualifies for comment.
• You have a point with the side by side issue. However there is no reason that more than one viewpoint can't go into a column. The columns are there mearly to help keep track of how much material each side has on each topic in order to help keep NPOV. A page on alternative medicine vs. mainstream science would be very silly because alternative medicine isn't a theory. Alternative medicine is a set a procedures some of which are beneficial (acupuncture because of endorphine release) and some of which are not. On the other hand a page comparing moon landing deniers viewpoints to those of mainstream historians could be usefull.
• Responding to point on wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared If a viewpoint is put down on one side of the debate then it ought to be of encyclopedic status. Hence it will take time before new tacks taken by minority viewpoints are worthy for inclusion in wikipedia. It would be reasonable to argue against new information submitted on the either side on the basis that it is does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. If NPOV is being violated because of the amount of editing occuring on one side then that would probably violate the point on fact flooding.
• We can argue based on issues of wikipedia:style that the size of a page not exceed certain limits or that only the main points of disagreement be covered. It would be silly to cover every single minor disagreement between two viewpoints in an article comparing them. The main points only should be covered.

Perhaps you could give possible modifications of the guidelines here that you think would be necessary to ensure NPOV and discuss them with others. Barnaby dawson 10:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This policy is a license to abuse by idiots and cranks

What will happen is that every detail of science with sufficient crankery will abuse this article to push their grossly minority POV, even if you try to limit its scope as you have - David Gerard 01:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think this? The article was created in response to the NPOV problems encountered in articles relating to Creationism. Do you disagree with the suggested guidelines? What do you think might be misinterpreted?

How about having a section describing how wikipedia:Notability applies to topics in science? I would think that once an article comparing viewpoints has passed the test of notability (unlikely for most minority positions) that we need guidelines as to how NPOV applies in such cases. Barnaby dawson 15:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability is not a policy either, and is highly disputable - it was basically created so people could use it as a bludgeon on WP:VFD. That's why it's got a big "THIS IS NOT IN FACT POLICY AT ALL" notice on the top. Also, it was written to apply only on the article level - beware functionality creep.

For creationist topics, creationist hypotheses are socially important (lots of people, including ones with political power, want them treated as scientifically valid) but can't be seriously be regarded as science ('cos they really just aren't at all - truth is not in fact relative on that level). Surely NPOV doesn't mean "someone says this should be mentioned every time someone else mentions this" - just because creationists want a mention every time evolution is mentioned doesn't mean they deserve one.

Less popular cranks will claim there is a debate when there isn't one to get mentions. They do this already - this will be abused as a license to do it more - David Gerard 17:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<just because creationists want a mention every time evolution is mentioned doesn't mean they deserve one.>>

this is guide to developing "views compared" pages. it would be applicable in dawkins vs. gould evolution, or newtonian vs. einsteinian theories of gravity -- it allows one to clearly and concisely draw out the differences on views on any topic in science. cranks? cranks are always a problem. failing to provide a fair way to compare views won't get rid of cranks -- that's what votes for deletion is for. Ungtss 21:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heh. "Delete user."

This is a narrowly-intended policy, but it's horribly susceptible to functionality creep. That sort of thing happens to policies. c.f. Barnaby quoting the proposed notability policy as an example. All policies should be regarded as m:instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise - David Gerard 23:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard mounts a convincing argument. I think this article does need to made clear that it is not official policy (more strongly than is done on wikipedia:Notability). It is also necessary to clearly define the context which these proposals are meant to cover. Of course once it has been carefully developed we may want to try to promote it to official policy/guidelines by the standard channels.

Ungtss makes a valid point. However, its necessary imho to make it clear that these proposals do not support the existence of comparison articles but merely offer guidelines for any which already exist. Barnaby dawson 10:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it odd that its only Creationists supporting this

don't you? CheeseDreams 22:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

any interest in the facts? the page was written almost exclusively by barnaby dawson, who is definitely not a creationist. Ungtss 22:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

vfd discussion

This article was proposed for deletion January 2005. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NPOV (Comparison of views in science). Joyous 02:26, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

analogy

Perhaps some of the people here might want to look at the way Thomas Aquinas dealt with presenting opposing ideas in Summa.--There's a good PD edition at [1] --He set forth his view, encapsulated the opposing view in as strong a group of arguments as he could devise (often clearer than any actual argument to be found) and then explained why it was wrong point by point. It was his book, so he stopped there, but when he presented this material in oral debate there were several more rounds, and I'm sure things did not stay quite so controlled. But I suggest that the key to a useful debate is to limit the number of rounds, or it continues forever.

There is a problem however which was not applicable to his subject--the existence of verifiable facts (as contrasted with matters commonly agreed on.) If there is a difference in the standard of what constitutes validity, it is hard to make a direct argument on a point. Evolutionists normally do not do well in oral debate, because their opponents can attack the validity of any one scientific argument in the matrix, and claim that any doubt about any one of them destroys the evolutionist argument--and there are so many scientific theories to attack, as compared to what their opponents will find, where at the end there is nothing solid to attack, only the religious view of the universe and its purpose.

What is the point of pages such as this? To present the arguments in contrast as a summary? Yes. To present all the arguments? Impossible. To give the creationists a place to argue that will keep them off the evolution pages? Laughable. To keep the beginning skeptics from trolling on the religion pages? Equally laughable.

The problem is NPOV, which does not permit an argument on a particular point to develop its logic. More exactly, its NPOV as interpreted, which dictates that every biology article must contain a part for the arguments of those who doubt biology as an epistemological method. It should rather be NPOV for the encyclopedia as a whole. It should be sufficient to say that "This entire line of argument is not accepted by most biologists--to see their argument, see their pages such as X Y and Z," (deliberately worded as the inverse).

There remain some particular arguments, such as those based on entropy, or the validity of carbon dating, where the discussion is focused enough that a single article or group can contain it, but they are few.

To return now to the head of this talk page (Ungtss 13:14, 12 Jan 2005):

1. the parallel approach requires a broader canvas than a WP article
2. discussions based on a particular piece of evidence will fail because the evidence or its meaning is in most cases disputed
3. discussions based on neutral facts are obviously impossible, for there are no neutral facts.

In practice, the best defense of creationism is by the groups who for their own purposes simply ignore extra-biblical evidence as irrelevant to the meaning of the world. The best proof of evolution is the success in applying the scientific method to other undisputed areas, and the induction that it is valid here. It is much more satisfying to learn some biology, and some religion, rather than dispute between the two. You can then believe what you choose, and your choice will rarely be on purely rational grounds, but you will also have learned something about different methods of human discourse. DGG 05:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there is a lot here and it's very well presented. However, there is one fact that might be overlooked in a discussion like this, so I want to put it up front in bold letters:

• Article talkpages exist for editors to discuss improvements to the article. An article talkpage is, very specifically, NOT an appropriate venue for discussing opinions about the article or personal beliefs.

Of course, there will always be legitimate disagreements about what constitutes an "improvement" in any given situation. There are also reasonable challenges to material that has been (or might be) included in an article. Even firm policies can be subject to discussion and intrepretation...IF the goal of these discussions is to produce the best article possible. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)