Misplaced Pages

Talk:Creation science: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:20, 25 July 2005 editBensaccount (talk | contribs)8,584 edits →Current intro← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:44, 1 December 2024 edit undoLenderthrond (talk | contribs)27 edits →Scientific Consensus.: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
{{TrollWarning}}
{{controversial}}
<!-- Instructions for Janitorial Staff: Trolls may live here. Unsheath TrollSlayer +6, pack plenty of anti-troll ammo -->
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=Mid|Young Earth creationism=yes|Young Earth creationism-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}}
}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{delistedGA|April 27, 2006|oldid=50302632}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{archivebox|auto=long|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90|index=Talk:Creation_science/Archives index
|
*]
*] (article was merged into this)
{{hidden begin|title=It has been suggested in these archives...}}
:<small>The following statements were discussed, not the result of the discussion.</small>
# '''that creation science claims creation is directly observable;'''
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
# '''that creation science is not a creationist ploy'''
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
# '''that creation science is not ''];'''''
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
# '''that science cannot allow for the supernatural'''
#:<small>]</small>
# '''that the title is POV, as it suggests CS is science'''
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
#:<small>]</small>
# '''that criticism should be relegated to a seperate article or section;'''
#:<small>]</small>
# '''that since evolution is not heavily criticised in its article, neither should CS be;'''
#:<small>]</small>
# '''that since no-one is trained to be a ''creation scientist'', the term does not, should not exist'''
#:<small>]</small>
# '''that the term ''peer-review'' is used incorrectly'''
#:<small>]</small>
{{hidden end}}}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 21
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Creation science/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Creation_science/Archives index|mask=Talk:Creation_science/Archive <#>|mask1=Talk:Scientific creationism|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Naturalization vs. supernaturalization) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Naturalization vs. supernaturalization","appear":{"revid":6928666,"parentid":6831424,"timestamp":"2004-10-24T19:29:38Z","replaced_anchors":{"The Supernatural as sovereign over nature":"The supernatural as sovereign over nature","The Supernatural as manifested through nature":"The supernatural as manifested through nature","The Supernatural as a human coping mechanism":"The supernatural as a human coping mechanism","The Supernatural as a higher nature":"The supernatural as a higher nature","Arguments in Favor of Supernaturality":"Arguments in favor of supernaturality","Naturalization vs. Supernaturalization":"Naturalization vs. supernaturalization"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":386598847,"parentid":386597522,"timestamp":"2010-09-23T19:27:01Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}}


== Archives == == Fallacy ==
:::<small>Still relevant discussions are linked to as well.</small>
] -
(])


"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"
] -
(])


Appeal to consensus, followed by other claims about empiricism, which at basic level is mislabeled given the positions counter point also has no observable evolution.
] -
(])


More of why I no longer donate. ] (]) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
] -
:See ]. Evolution has notably been observed in Lenski's ''E. coli'' long-term experiment, and earlier, in peppered moth coloration during (and after) the Industrial Revolution. I expect this section will soon be deleted as inappropriate forum-style argumentation; I am entirely OK with such deletion. ] (]) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
(])
:Not a fallacy, except within the motivated reasoning of pseudoscience fans. By your reasoning, we would also have to dismiss the round Earth and the Periodic System of the elements, because both are consensus. --] (]) 06:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages is not in need of your sad allowance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. ] (]) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:Explained at ]: for Misplaced Pages it's not a fallacy to appeal to authority. ] (]) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


== Which of these six categories does creation science belong to? ==
]
{{Collapse|{{Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience}}}}
Which does creation science belong to? ] (]) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:That's not a list of six categories. Maybe read the article lede; creation science is pseudoscience. ] ] 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


==Changing the word "claims" in the lede to "endeavors"==
]
The current opening sentence states: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible." I argue that the word "claims" should be replaced with "endeavors". Reasons:


#. Its not precisely accurate. It implies that those who practice Creation Science have already completed what they set out to do. Creation Science practitioners are working towards that goal. As an analogy, the wikipedia page for ] also uses the word "endeavor".
]
#. "Claim" is a word to use with extreme care because of the dismissive insinuations that come along with it(see ]). We should avoid even the appearance of POV on Misplaced Pages.
#. The word "endeavor" in no way gives Creation Science a sense that it is correct. Nobody is going to come away reading the sentence with the word "endeavor" and think "wow, this might actually be real science"! But with "claim" they might be more likely to come away thinking, "Wow, this was written by a bunch of atheists with a grudge." ] (]) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


:MOS:CLAIM doesn't say that we disregard what sources say. If the Creation scientists are CLAIMING that their arguments are scientific when those arguments are not, than the word claim is appropriate. If they are trying to find real scientific arguments that support their beliefs, than you would be correct. We should use what the sources describe this as. ---''']]''' 22:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
]
:::I want to be clear that my contention has ZERO to do with whether creation science is a valid field of study (its not). Can you point to a source that uses the word "claim"? I'm dubious that's what the sources actually say. ] (]) 23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not familiar with the sources in this article; but if you want to change this, you should find what the sources say. ---''']]''' 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::you wrote: "We should use what the sources describe this." That's what I was referring to ] (]) 11:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
:::We do not even know whether they really endeavor to do that. We do know that they claim to do it. For all we know, they are fully aware that all their reasoning is bogus.
:::] does not say we should not use the word "claim". It says, {{tq|To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question}}. And that is exactly what we should be doing because the consensus in science is that all creationist reasoning is crap. Every reason they give is easy to refute for those who know what they are talking about. See . --] (]) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
::::To be clear, I am not stating that creationist reasoning is good, that is truly not my point. My #1 point, is that the sentence as it currently stands is inaccurate. Creation Science itself is not a claim. Creationism is a claim. Creation Science is an activity trying to prove the claim with pseudoscience. Creation Science is more accurately worded as an endeavor. ] (]) 05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::I see your point, but to change to "endeavor" would also then require rewording the rest of the sentence. They don't endeavor to offer SCIENTIFIC arguments, they endeavor to create and offer scientific SOUNDING or scientific APPEARING arguments.
:::::I think that there is sometimes a balance between explicit, 100% accurate statements and concise statements, and for the first sentence of the lead, is is better to lean toward concision. ---''']]''' 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


== Insufficient information ==
] (article was merged into this)


The article says that certain theories are rejected by mainstream science, but doesn’t explain why. It’s simply states that Whitehole cosmology doesn’t correspond to observed evidence. I’d like to know what the observed evidence is And how Whitehole cosmology would be different if it were true. Just simply stating that you disagree with a theory is not doing your homework in a scientific investigation. I want to know why the theory is wrong. I want a theory that explains how the universe should look if the theory were true And why that evidence is contraindicated from a proper peer reviewed reference, journal if possible. If this is attempting to be scientific and not just arguing back-and-forth. “No, you’re wrong.” The information in this article does an insufficient job of explaining why current theory is accepted by Science are right and the other theory is wrong. Peer reviewed sources Should be included, please
=="Introduction"==
O.K. Brian, if it can be shown that evidence HAS been provided, then will the previous wording be applicable? ] 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:Will this be ]? ] 02:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


] (]) elrondaragorn ] (]) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:I would argue no, on the basis that any theory (concerning such a wide domain) under the sun can muster at least some evidence supporting it. It would be utterly misleading to state that Creation science provides evidence for creationism. As an encyclopedia we must not only try to stick to verifiable fact but also try to avoid misleading people. ] 10:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
: Have you read this about ? Have you read the sources in the article where White hole is mentioned? We can't do your work for you. As a ], it doesn't have enough ] for anything but short mention. Those are the rules here. Our content is based on reliable sources, not on fringe and unreliable sources. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::It appears that your position is equivalent to "Let's not let facts clutter a simple explanation. Someone might look at them." ] 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:when did ostensibly historical written accounts stop being viable scientific evidence which can be viewed as potentially accurate until falsified by the physical evidence? ] 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::You mean like the way 6-day creation and the global flood are falsified? ] 13:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Is the Iliad is scientific evidence of Zeus? ] 13:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::::if the accounts have been falsified, then the article should reflect it with facts. if the accounts are unfalsifiable, then the article should reflect it with facts. instead, a small number of editors who apparently never studied epistemology seem to think that calling it pseudoscience holds some profound meaning and will lead creationists out of their pits of deception. they also seem to think they can call it both unfalsifiable and falsified, which i find ceaselessly amusing:). and yes, bensaccount, the iliad is evidence for the existence of Zeus. The only question left is how reliable you think the evidence is. nobody seems to be arguing for the existence of Zeus anymore, but creationism is just growing and growing. genesis holds some credibility which you've as yet been unable to address. ] 13:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::Since when does science accept anecdotal accounts as evidence? Sure, in some fields (such as archaeology), it provides a starting point, but it's never assumed to be correct until falsified by evidence. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 15:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone think I should explain to Ungtss how we don't have any scientific evidence of Zeus? (I don't want to waste my time). The accounts are neither falsified or falsifiable. I don't expect to dig you out of your pit of deception; only to prevent you from dragging others in with you. ] 13:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:When creation science advocates claim that there was a vapor canopy, parts of this claim are falsifiable and parts are unfalsifiable. If we take the perspective that a vapor canopy would have very well-understood physical effects that would make life impossible on Earth, then we have falsified this idea. However, creation scientists don't mind positing miracles and completely unfalsifiable points about whether high pressure boilers can sustain large animal life by means of divine intervention. That part of the vapor canopy cannot be falsified just like the Omphalos hypothesis. It really is very simple. Creation science tries to use scientific argumentation which, when subjected to the rigor of scientific inquiry, is shown to be lacking, falsified, etc. However, creation science also tries to use completely separate positions that wherever science contradicts their ideas one can always hold out hope that the Deus ex machina screwed up our limitted human understanding. ] 14:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


== Scientific Consensus. ==
:Would an account of multiple bristlecone pine ring growths in a year's time count as ] if it included a detailed description of the conditions used to do it? ] 15:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in ] that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority."
::I'll bite. How does that provide evidence for creation according to Genesis? --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! ] (]) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It's a nonstarter . Old hat, not even close to being "evidence" for creation science. ] 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


:Mind providing a specific quote for {{tq|we must not make statements of whether it is true or false}}? I do not believe the section you linked supports that claim, and the relevant policy page clearly states {{tq|Avoid stating facts as opinions.}} ] (] • ]) 00:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Not true. It is controversial, but it IS evidence that such chronologies MAY be wrong. ] 18:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::It says, in section "giving equal validity" That "Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly ''does not'' state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. ''It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers'', but that does not stop us from describing the majority views ''as such'' and using the words of ] to present strong criticisms" ] (]) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:::By definition, sources supporting creation science are not ]. See ]. ] (]) 18:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It isn't evidence that such chronologies may be wrong since they are calibrated using other methods such as C-14 dating. Scientific measurements all have threshholds for error, +/- error bars that are reported. The +/- error bars reported for tree-ring analyses take into account multiple and sometimes no growth ring per year scenarios. Stating that it is "controvesial" is quite an understatement. It is incorrect. ] 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Makes sense. ] (]) 18:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::*Please do not take the bait. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 02:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:Also note, we don't make statements in the article of whether it is true or false, though we do describe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. To comply with ] policy, the fringe or pseudoscientific view is clearly described as such, and an explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views is prominently included. Which includes noting that professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences. . . ], ] 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::*I thought that the C-14 calibration used the tree-ring chronology. Was I mistaken? ] 02:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::;They calibrate each other. Think of it in terms of parameter fitting. Whatever model fits both the C-14 and the tree-rings the best is the model that's accepted (with error bars). It's quite easy to figure out. ] 11:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::It is easy to figure out. If Dendrochronology and C-14 measurements are both inputs to a single model, then they are no longer independent measures, and should not be touted as such. ] 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

::::::] states "A benefit of dendrochronology is that it makes available specimens of once-living material ... used as a calibration and check of radiocarbon dating. The bristlecone pine ... has been used for this purpose ...." What "other methods" of calibration did you mean Joshua? ] 18:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Don't confuse calibration with verification. The physics and assumptions behind radiometric dating while criticized heavily by many creationists who don't actually look at how it is done, is not in dispute. ] 11:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

::::<<''Since when does science accept anecdotal accounts as evidence? Sure, in some fields (such as archaeology), it provides a starting point, but it's never assumed to be correct until falsified by evidence. ''>>
:::::since when are anecdotal accounts seen as evidence? in a little field known as "history." we base our understanding of many events on anecdotal accounts, which we attempt to fit together with the remaining available evidence. and when we have an account that doesn't directly conflict with any physical evidence, we call that account, "possibly accurate" until such time as there is hard evidence inconsistent with the account. the modern tendency to reject ancient accounts out of hand is deeply, deeply anti-scientific. a rational mind sees them as plausible until falsified. only a dogmatist sees them as inadmissible out of hand. ] 17:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. They shouldn't be outright rejected. In history they act as guidance for finding evidence when no other evidence is currently available. They are not accepted as "correct until proven incorrect" however, otherwise for example the legendary founding of Rome wouldn't be considered "legend". There is probably truth in the stories around the founding and the seven original kings as recorded by Livy, such as the Etruscan domination of the city, but it is not generally accepted that the traditional dates of reign and the names and number of the kings are correct, just that they may have been generally representative of a given period. The further back you go, the less likely anecdotal evidence is representative of the truth, especially when no other physical evidence exists. That is why anecdotal evidence is neither considered definitive evidence nor "accurate until evidence proves otherwise". --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 17:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I agree 100% with your conclusion. nothing is definitive unless it can be directly observed or repeated. the question is, as you noted, credibility. however, you also said that "the further back you go, the less likely to be true." why? shouldn't our criteria be based more on the physical evidence and the quality of the text than the date at which it was written? seems to me that if texts were written by eyewitnesses and accurately transcribed, the oldest texts would be the ''best'' sources, wouldn't you say? ] 17:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Who were the eyewitnesses of the creation related in Genesis that then wrote down what they saw? --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 17:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:that's an excellent question, and i'd like to pursue it in a minute. first things first, tho. would you agree that if a text shows signs of being intended as hard history rather than mythology, legend or fiction (high textual quality), and the events of the text have not been falsified by physical evidence, that those events can reasonably be seen as ''possibly'' historical? ] 18:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::No objective standard for determining when something is "intended" as "hard history rather than mythology" exists. If you want to do some original research and make that up, be my guest. You haven't shown that a 6-day creation week and a global flood are not falsified by physical evidence in any case. This is basically amounting to a wild goose chase in Ungtss' fantasies. ] 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

History is not science. ] 18:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:yet somehow it still goes on. ] 18:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

::if we concede that the events recorded in genesis are at least conceivably historical as recorded, then it seems to me that the question turns on the consistency of the physical evidence with one historical vision or the other. which which story does the evidence more closely align? is the evidence inconsistent with either story? that, to me, is a historical/scientific inquiry. excluding creation science from scientific discourse, on the other hand, is mere fundamentalist ideological garbage. the creationists have a historical vision. falsify it if you can, but don't play nonsense games of politics and name-calling ("pseudoscience! you're pseudoscience! the majority of scientists think you're wrong!! nah nah!! poo poo!"). those games just betray a fear that the creationists might be right after all. and i firmly believe they are. ] 18:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Whats ironic is that you use the term "fundamentalist ideological garbage". Whats hypocritical is that you use the term "history/science" after agreeing that history is not science. ] 19:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:::No one is conceding that events recorded in Genesis are at least "conceivably" historical any more than the Illiad. You are welcome to believe anything you want to believe, Ungtss. We aren't writing an article to try to convince you or anyone else of a particular belief system. We are trying to describe a belief system (which you happen to ascribe to) within the guidelines of this encyclopedia. I know you think that the cards are stacked against you at Misplaced Pages, but you can go over to the creation wiki and edit there if you want. ] 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Creation science isn't science because it doesn't follow scientific method. Rather than use Genesis as a basis for starting to explore and figure out what actually happened (which may actually coincide in part with what Genesis actually says), they are interpreting Genesis as correct and infallible, and choosing their explorations such that they can interpret results to coincide exactly with Genesis. Going back to the traditional Roman founding, instead of starting out by saying "it is likely that there were kings in the past, and at least some of them were Etruscan", they are saying "there were exactly 7 kings and they lived... and they were... and any evidence to the contrary is incorrect by definition." --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 19:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::::(disregarding bensaccount's and schroeder's usual drivel, bensaccount's because it is bizarre and nonsensical as always, and schroeder's because it fundamentally disregards wikipedia policy which does not permit him to state his own opinions as fact, despite his chronic inability to distinguish between the two and hope against hope that all who disagree with him will either go write for an irrelevent wiki or realize that he's a demigod of knowledge.) brian: you've dodged my comments entirely. if you'd like to dialogue further, please address my comments about the nature of historical inquiry, and the idea that ostensibly historical accounts can reasonably be viewed as historical until such time as they are falsified by physical evidence. your comments relate to bias and ideology in practice, and that is a valid critique of creationists as scientists, but is also a valid critique of evolutionists as scientists, as mr. gould made very clear. bias in practice does not invalidate either enterprise in their entirety. only contrary evidence can do so with any degree of substance. ] 20:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::Actually, I did answer your question, but it appears the submission didn't go through on Misplaced Pages. I basically said the same thing Jschroeder did. There is a difference between having a bias one way or another and refusing all evidence contrary to your bias. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 21:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Eyewitness testimony, no matter who makes it, is not scientific evidence. Plenty of contrary evidence to creation science is available and presented. That's the end of the matter. ] 21:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:brian: sorry i missed the answer. would you agree that there is an important difference between "rejecting all contrary evidence" and "consistently interpretting evidence in accord with one particular paradigm?" i have never heard a creationist deny a single observable fact under any circumstances. but they do rather persistently refuse to interpret the evidence in a way contrary to their paradigm. can you provide either an instance of creationists denying hard facts, or agree that they simply interpret the evidence according to different assumptions?
:schroeder: all scientific knowledge is eyewitness testimony to those who don't observe it first hand. how do you know that pluto exists? eyewitness testimony from those who observed it first hand. think before writing. thanks. ] 03:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
::]. ] 11:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:::when the observations themselves are unrepeatable, peer review is only of the reports and findings of the scientists making the observations to check for procedure, error, and reasoning in interpretation. it's simply a critical reading of eyewitness accounts. ] 14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Systematic observation. They state the method for observing pluto so that anyone can repeat the experiment and get the same results. Now you know what science is. Please limit the personal insults Ungtss. ] 03:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:so then by your latest criterion for science, the common ancestry of men and apes is not scientific because it cannot be repeated by experiment or systematically observed, because it happened a long time ago. excellent. please limit your nonsense, bensaccount. ] 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
::People have repeated the observations related to common ancestry through ]. ] 11:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:::apparently you're unable to distinguish between "repeated observation," which is paradigm-neutral, and "repeated interpretation," which is paradigm-dependent. from this error springs ]. ] 14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

==Introduction 2==
I have been watching this discussion concerning the introduction with considerable interest. When the discussion came up I dutifully looked up the definition of pseudoscience wikipedia gave and agreed with Joshuaschroeder that this definition did leave no room for point of view. This definition was:

*] refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method.

Since then this page no longer holds a definition that ties the concept down to a group's POV. Having looked online for other definitions I have been completely unable to find a definition that does tie the concept down to the viewpoint of the scientific community. As such I have changed my view and I now think that the status of creation science as pseudoscience is a viewpoint and needs to be attributed. Of course we might argue that the viewpoint is not a serious one and so does not merit consideration and this might hold water concerning the article on ]. However, the creationist viewpoint must be taken seriously if only in the context of an article on creation science.

I suggest we attribute the view to the scientific community and mention the amicus curiae brief of ] where 72 nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific organizations expressed their opinion that creation science is merely religious dogma. I will change the introduction accordingly. ] 09:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

:Are you having trouble telling fact from opinion? It doesn't depend on biased minority groups. If something is a fact, it should not be falsely represented as an opinion. ] 13:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:I've also been following the discussion with interest, but I don't really see the problem here. The ] article has a very well defined list of attributes that classifies pseudosciences, and creation "science" falls easly on most on them. Why do we need a group's POV when we can be objective ans stick to a clear definition? ] 13:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:If creation science isn't science, then it is also pseudoscience (since it is presented as science). We've established that it isn't science, so it is pseudoscience. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 13:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

::I was under the impression that ] policy requires us to only state things that are not seriously disputed. This is not the same as stating what is true. In the context of "creation science" there is a serious dispute as to whether it is pseudoscience. I regard "creation science" as pseudoscience too and I think we should make it clear that so do a lot of distinguished scientists and commentators. However, the statement as it stands is clearly POV. I shall change it back.

:::If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

::Before there are retorts along the lines of "But what if we aplied this principle to the moon landings hoax theories..." I should like to say that I ''do'' think that this principle should be applied to other pseudosciences. Have a look at ], ], ] and ]. I note that ] has geocentrism down as a pseudoscience without attribution however, I should add that it was Joshuaschroder who added this statement so it cannot be used as a precendent here. I also note that there are ''some'' articles where a subject is described as a pseudoscience (] for instance). However even amongst those who believe in astrology few regard it as scientific. This is not the case here. Believers in creation science do regard their enterprise as scientific. ] 14:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And do you propose that we no longer clearly state the facts when there are obviosly biased alternatives? Should we pretend that reality no longer exists? ] 16:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages operates on the basis of NPOV not on the basis of what is true. There are good reasons for this including the following: People disagree on what is true and many people edit wikipedia.

:I think that "Creation science is regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community" is a strong enough comment. Whilst I agree with you that "creation science" is a pseudoscience and that this needs to be made clear in the first paragraph I also think that this is achieved in the current version and that the version I reverted was POV. ] 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

:Please also note that I do think that outside of the context of pages on the topic of "]" we should be able to describe "creation science" as a ] because outside of that context there is no ''serious'' dispute. However, it is always going to be the case that a minorities characterization of their viewpoint should be taken seriously when discussing the minorities viewpoint. ] 17:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
::You're starting to sound fairly apologetic to this minority. There is no ''serious'' dispute. It is a fact that creation science is unscientific and therefore pseudoscience, so stating that some specific group (the scientific community) believes such is incorrect. The standards of the scientific community determine what is science, and so stating that the scientific community thinks it's unscientific is redundant. It is unscientific. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:::a quick glance at npov rules will reveal that wikipedia maintains a policy of n(eutral)pov, rather than s(cientific)pov. attributing conclusions to the scientific community is not only appropriate but absolutely necessary according to the rules of the game. ] 03:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop twisting the rules Ungtss. NPOV says no bias. CS is bias. CS is the problem--not stating facts. ] 03:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:mark this down, everyone. bensaccount says the topic itself is bias, and the problem itself. obviously, then, the entire article should be deleted. thanks for clearing that up for us, bensaccount. you've helped me see that it's impossible to describe creation science in an npov article, because creation science itself is bias and the problem! ] 06:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you will not let it be described fairly by stating the facts.] 13:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

===another entry===


When Creationism is referred to as "pseudoscience" in this article I think this reflects poorly upon Misplaced Pages . You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature. I think it should be changed.

7/24/05 kdbuffalo

:my POV is that CS is pseudoscience. I think CS is an abomination. I agree that a fringe minority opinion should not necesarily render everything POV. Yet, in this case the POV argument becomes quickly circular. When you narrow the iterested parties to CS advocates and scientific community, then the use of the term "pseudoscience" as a fact is basically POV. It is CS advocates' POV that it IS science, and scientists POV that it's not. Each makes their argument "by definiation". Thus the way it's stated now, that the designation of pseudoscience being the opinion of the scientific community is fine, and not POV. To change it to the previous where "pseudoscience" was presented as fact is IMHO POV in this particular case. ] 19:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
::So we're supposed to deny scientific method/reasoning/evidence because a minority chooses to define their contrary ways as science? How can we state any facts in the entire encyclopedia? --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 19:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


:::Firstly context is important. Whether or not a viewpoint should be taken seriously is partly dependent on context. We are writing an article on "creation science" and as such we should treat the viewpoints of adherents of "creation science" seriously. This should not in any way detract from our ability to write a neutral article on the subject. On the other hand I would agree it is the case that elsewhere in wikipedia (where the context is not creationist) we should quite freely refer to "creation science" as pseudoscience.

:::Secondly science is ''not'' universally regarded as that which scientists do (or even what they would like to think they are doing). You say "the standards of the scientific community determine what is ]". This is your POV and certainly not one I share. I would say that those outside the scientific community have influence over what is regarded as science. For instance I do not regard government funded research as proper science.

:::If you look at the pages on pseudosciences that I mentioned earlier (], ], ] and ]) you will find that all manage quite well without stating outright that these subjects are pseudoscience (or pseudohistory). The original basis for using the word pseudoscience has been shown to be flawed. ] 21:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Those beliefs aren't held by a significant part of the public, though. In that case, it is easy to get away with not stating that they are unscientific. Also, none of those subjects have "science" in their name (a method of further presenting your ideas as science). Neutrality is fine, but confusing the public by withholding facts is not. The lead section is supposed to '''summarize''' the whole article, not act as an introduction. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 03:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

:::We don't need to pretend facts are opinions to look professional. ] 21:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
::::quote of the year. ] 03:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for your invaluable contributions. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 03:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::if that was to me, i learned months ago that valuable contributions are instantly reverted on this page, in favor of pov, and have been attempting to find ways around the endless nonsense by discussing and deliberating on talkpages, to preempt stupid edit wars:(. if your comment was to bensaccount, then i'm curious which contributions you're referring to. ] 06:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome--the empty rhetoric of Dawson and Buffalo needed to be summarized--so I did. ] 03:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:we need to address the fundamental issue here, gentlemen. bensaccount, schroeder, and brian see "creation science is pseudoscience" as a fact beyond dispute, and everyone who disagrees with them as wrong. barnaby, synaptidude, and kdbuffalo see "creation science is pseudoscience" as a strongly justified pov held by them as well as the vast majority of professional scientists, and which ought to be well represented on the page, and attributed to those who hold it. then there are a few creationists around, heads full of nonsense, bile, and other wicked things, who actually think creation science holds merit. now we all know that npov requires that disputed conclusions and facts be attributed. but a small number of us seem to think that rule doesn't apply, because "creation science is IN FACT pseudoscience," and the fact that the subjects of the article disagree fundamentally with that assertion is totally irrelevent, and thus no reason to attribute the fundamentally disputed conclusion. they seem to think it's very important not to attribute this conclusion, despite the facts that attribution would be factual, would increase the credibility of the statement by throwing the authority of professional scientists behind it, and would preempt this endless and rather stupid discussion. i'm at a loss as to the importance of stating "creation science is pseudoscience" as fact rather than conclusion attributed to a credible source, but any alternative fails to last more than 10 minutes on this page. so what are we to do about this situation? ] 06:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
::While I have seen citations that indicate CS is a pseudoscience, I have yet to see a citation that indicates it isn't. ] 11:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:::you've obviously not read any CS literature. ] 13:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

====Possible alternative====
In short: CS is based upon religious beliefs that can't be tested scientifically; therefore it is not science. CS does (however) use the scientific method to pick holes in evolution and other mainstream science. ] 09:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:Problematic because CS fundamentally does not use the scientific method as shown by the citations we already have in the article. ] 11:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

==Current intro==
'''Creation science''' (also known as '''scientific creationism''' or '''CS'''), which is regarded by the ] as ] and a ], is an effort to provide arguments and evidence supporting the account of the ] of the universe related in the ]. It is primarily concerned with providing alternatives to the scientific views on the ], the ], ], a ] and the ]. Creation science as an organised movement is primarily centered within the ], although creation science organisations are not unknown in other countries.

I see no problem with Barnaby Dawson's current incarnation of the intro. It may be a bit redundant but since pseudoscience itself no longer states where the judgement arises, here it stands. Are there any substantive (that is, factual) disputes with the current form? If not, I wonder where the problem is. ] 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
*The current version is fine. I wasn't fine with the previous version because it added a sentence that made CS sound like it had provided scientific evidence. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 13:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
**The current version attempts to discredit the subject matter before defining it (analogous to "Racism is an attitude regarded by the majority of clerics as evil and irrational, which,") and then defines it in a way no creation scientist would define it:(. i'm not aware of any other articles that follow this approach. ] 13:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss is right. We must define before we discredit. ] 14:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:shall we provide both definitions? ] 14:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
::"Both"? ] 14:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:44, 1 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation science article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconReligion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCreationism: Young Earth creationism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Creation science was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: April 27, 2006. (Reviewed version).
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
It has been suggested in these archives...
The following statements were discussed, not the result of the discussion.
  1. that creation science claims creation is directly observable;
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#CS assumes Creation is observable
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#CS does not argue that Creation is observable
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Dan's unexplained reversions
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#observed
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Fallacy in intro
  2. that creation science is not a creationist ploy
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 8
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Creation Science as propaganda
  3. that creation science is not science;
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#'Creation science is not science'; Fact or View
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Yet another vague interpretation of NPOV?
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Creation Science advocates disagree whether CS is science
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 8#another entry
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 5#What is the story of creation?
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 4#Creation 'science'
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 3#Science and empiricism - Pseudoscience
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 3#Creation science is not natural science or social science
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 2#Pseudoscience
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Disbelieve
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 1#Creationism is not science
  4. that science cannot allow for the supernatural
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 5#supernatural
  5. that the title is POV, as it suggests CS is science
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Incorrect title?
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Oh Puleeeeze!
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 9#Request for comments: What's in a name? POV or SPOV?
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 11#Non-science disclaimer
  6. that criticism should be relegated to a seperate article or section;
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 10#Separate Page for Criticisms?
  7. that since evolution is not heavily criticised in its article, neither should CS be;
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 9
  8. that since no-one is trained to be a creation scientist, the term does not, should not exist
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 9
  9. that the term peer-review is used incorrectly
    Talk:Creation science/Archive 13#Peer_review

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ] The anchor (#Naturalization vs. supernaturalization) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Fallacy

"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community"

Appeal to consensus, followed by other claims about empiricism, which at basic level is mislabeled given the positions counter point also has no observable evolution.

More of why I no longer donate. 98.4.89.168 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

See Fallacy fallacy. Evolution has notably been observed in Lenski's E. coli long-term experiment, and earlier, in peppered moth coloration during (and after) the Industrial Revolution. I expect this section will soon be deleted as inappropriate forum-style argumentation; I am entirely OK with such deletion. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Not a fallacy, except within the motivated reasoning of pseudoscience fans. By your reasoning, we would also have to dismiss the round Earth and the Periodic System of the elements, because both are consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not in need of your sad allowance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 47.44.49.171 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Explained at WP:VERECUNDIAM: for Misplaced Pages it's not a fallacy to appeal to authority. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Which of these six categories does creation science belong to?

Extended content
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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Which does creation science belong to? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not a list of six categories. Maybe read the article lede; creation science is pseudoscience. PepperBeast (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing the word "claims" in the lede to "endeavors"

The current opening sentence states: "Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible." I argue that the word "claims" should be replaced with "endeavors". Reasons:

  1. . Its not precisely accurate. It implies that those who practice Creation Science have already completed what they set out to do. Creation Science practitioners are working towards that goal. As an analogy, the wikipedia page for Science also uses the word "endeavor".
  2. . "Claim" is a word to use with extreme care because of the dismissive insinuations that come along with it(see MOS:CLAIM). We should avoid even the appearance of POV on Misplaced Pages.
  3. . The word "endeavor" in no way gives Creation Science a sense that it is correct. Nobody is going to come away reading the sentence with the word "endeavor" and think "wow, this might actually be real science"! But with "claim" they might be more likely to come away thinking, "Wow, this was written by a bunch of atheists with a grudge." Epachamo (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
MOS:CLAIM doesn't say that we disregard what sources say. If the Creation scientists are CLAIMING that their arguments are scientific when those arguments are not, than the word claim is appropriate. If they are trying to find real scientific arguments that support their beliefs, than you would be correct. We should use what the sources describe this as. ---Avatar317 22:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I want to be clear that my contention has ZERO to do with whether creation science is a valid field of study (its not). Can you point to a source that uses the word "claim"? I'm dubious that's what the sources actually say. Epachamo (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the sources in this article; but if you want to change this, you should find what the sources say. ---Avatar317 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
you wrote: "We should use what the sources describe this." That's what I was referring to Epachamo (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
We do not even know whether they really endeavor to do that. We do know that they claim to do it. For all we know, they are fully aware that all their reasoning is bogus.
MOS:CLAIM does not say we should not use the word "claim". It says, To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. And that is exactly what we should be doing because the consensus in science is that all creationist reasoning is crap. Every reason they give is easy to refute for those who know what they are talking about. See An Index to Creationist Claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not stating that creationist reasoning is good, that is truly not my point. My #1 point, is that the sentence as it currently stands is inaccurate. Creation Science itself is not a claim. Creationism is a claim. Creation Science is an activity trying to prove the claim with pseudoscience. Creation Science is more accurately worded as an endeavor. Epachamo (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I see your point, but to change to "endeavor" would also then require rewording the rest of the sentence. They don't endeavor to offer SCIENTIFIC arguments, they endeavor to create and offer scientific SOUNDING or scientific APPEARING arguments.
I think that there is sometimes a balance between explicit, 100% accurate statements and concise statements, and for the first sentence of the lead, is is better to lean toward concision. ---Avatar317 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Insufficient information

The article says that certain theories are rejected by mainstream science, but doesn’t explain why. It’s simply states that Whitehole cosmology doesn’t correspond to observed evidence. I’d like to know what the observed evidence is And how Whitehole cosmology would be different if it were true. Just simply stating that you disagree with a theory is not doing your homework in a scientific investigation. I want to know why the theory is wrong. I want a theory that explains how the universe should look if the theory were true And why that evidence is contraindicated from a proper peer reviewed reference, journal if possible. If this is attempting to be scientific and not just arguing back-and-forth. “No, you’re wrong.” The information in this article does an insufficient job of explaining why current theory is accepted by Science are right and the other theory is wrong. Peer reviewed sources Should be included, please

elrondaragorn (talk) elrondaragorn elrondaragorn (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you read this about White hole cosmology? Have you read the sources in the article where White hole is mentioned? We can't do your work for you. As a fringe theory, it doesn't have enough due weight for anything but short mention. Those are the rules here. Our content is based on reliable sources, not on fringe and unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus.

I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in here that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority."

Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! Lenderthrond (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Mind providing a specific quote for we must not make statements of whether it is true or false? I do not believe the section you linked supports that claim, and the relevant policy page clearly states Avoid stating facts as opinions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It says, in section "giving equal validity" That "Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms" Lenderthrond (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
By definition, sources supporting creation science are not WP:RS. See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. Lenderthrond (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Also note, we don't make statements in the article of whether it is true or false, though we do describe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. To comply with WP:PSCI policy, the fringe or pseudoscientific view is clearly described as such, and an explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views is prominently included. Which includes noting that professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: