Pathological science is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
I'm impressed that Irving Langmuir managed to co-author a paper published in 1989 despite being dead since 1957. How did he manage this astonishing feat ? Did he write his bit in 1956 and then send it to his co-author who took his time over the rest ? Or is it someone else of the same name -- in which case the beginning of the article needs changing. -- Derek Ross 03:01 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
I saw that someone removed mention of Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" from this article. I had originally placed mention of it in the pseudoscience article, but someone suggested that it did not really belong there because ANKOS does not really have any following (adherents who believe in the path being preached by Wolfram), and a field must have some kind of following to qualify as a psuedoscience. Fields with just one adherent (the author in this case) would more properly belong to an article on "crank science" or "pathological science" or "junk science" or some other descriptive term.
All the reviews that I have read to date of ANKOS have been, frankly, scathing, though all the reviewers have been too polite (or more likely, too afraid of lawsuits) to call it pseudoscience. Yet the article on ANKOS has been rewritten recently to remove any hint of what seems to be universally critical opinion regarding the work. So someone please tell me, where is the proper place on the Wikipedia to point out that in the opinion of many, Wolfram has gone off the deep end. -- Grizzly 06:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Geez-uss! What an article!
Ok, I have removed the entirety of the "Criticisms" section. Not a single example offered had ever been referred to as "pathological science". Hell, with the possible exception of Mpemba effect and Halton Arp, they all predate the invention of the term.
Oh sure, people didn't believe the examples, but that's not even remotely the same thing. If someone can offer examples of things that were called pathological science and later turned out not to be, put it in there.
For the record: just because people say you are full of crap doesn't mean they say you're involved in pathological science. read the &^%$%^ definitions people!!! -- Maury
The current list of examples of stuff that allegedly has been misclassified as pathological science is not, in its present form, worth retention in the article.
Two of the five are so obscure that one can't even find out what they are in Wikipedia. One other (freezing hot water) is scientifically trivial, not involving any alleged scientific breakthrough in the first place. None of the non-trivial four is something that has won out over the pig-headed opposition of the Establishment and thus serves a clear example of how useless the PS concept is. (Certainly, we all understand that the key to "pathological science" is not whether it turned out right or wrong, but how the claimed discovery was handled by its proponents; but something that has turned out to be right still makes a much more convincing example.)
The list as given in this article does not show evidence that any of the items has been called pathological; nor are there apparent grounds for calling them so.
The Wikipedia articles on two non-trivial items show criticisms, but no accusations of pathological science, or allegations that such accusations have been made. They also show no good reason, under Langmuir's rules, for applying the term.
Somebody who considers the list to be valid will want to make emendations. It ain't me, babe. -- Dandrake 20:24, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Pathological science is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
I'm impressed that Irving Langmuir managed to co-author a paper published in 1989 despite being dead since 1957. How did he manage this astonishing feat ? Did he write his bit in 1956 and then send it to his co-author who took his time over the rest ? Or is it someone else of the same name -- in which case the beginning of the article needs changing. -- Derek Ross 03:01 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
I saw that someone removed mention of Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" from this article. I had originally placed mention of it in the pseudoscience article, but someone suggested that it did not really belong there because ANKOS does not really have any following (adherents who believe in the path being preached by Wolfram), and a field must have some kind of following to qualify as a psuedoscience. Fields with just one adherent (the author in this case) would more properly belong to an article on "crank science" or "pathological science" or "junk science" or some other descriptive term.
All the reviews that I have read to date of ANKOS have been, frankly, scathing, though all the reviewers have been too polite (or more likely, too afraid of lawsuits) to call it pseudoscience. Yet the article on ANKOS has been rewritten recently to remove any hint of what seems to be universally critical opinion regarding the work. So someone please tell me, where is the proper place on the Wikipedia to point out that in the opinion of many, Wolfram has gone off the deep end. -- Grizzly 06:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Geez-uss! What an article!
Ok, I have removed the entirety of the "Criticisms" section. Not a single example offered had ever been referred to as "pathological science". Hell, with the possible exception of Mpemba effect and Halton Arp, they all predate the invention of the term.
Oh sure, people didn't believe the examples, but that's not even remotely the same thing. If someone can offer examples of things that were called pathological science and later turned out not to be, put it in there.
For the record: just because people say you are full of crap doesn't mean they say you're involved in pathological science. read the &^%$%^ definitions people!!! -- Maury
The current list of examples of stuff that allegedly has been misclassified as pathological science is not, in its present form, worth retention in the article.
Two of the five are so obscure that one can't even find out what they are in Wikipedia. One other (freezing hot water) is scientifically trivial, not involving any alleged scientific breakthrough in the first place. None of the non-trivial four is something that has won out over the pig-headed opposition of the Establishment and thus serves a clear example of how useless the PS concept is. (Certainly, we all understand that the key to "pathological science" is not whether it turned out right or wrong, but how the claimed discovery was handled by its proponents; but something that has turned out to be right still makes a much more convincing example.)
The list as given in this article does not show evidence that any of the items has been called pathological; nor are there apparent grounds for calling them so.
The Wikipedia articles on two non-trivial items show criticisms, but no accusations of pathological science, or allegations that such accusations have been made. They also show no good reason, under Langmuir's rules, for applying the term.
Somebody who considers the list to be valid will want to make emendations. It ain't me, babe. -- Dandrake 20:24, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)