Wikipedia talk:Scientific point of view

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

A previous version of this page was a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable amount of time. The page was later completely rewritten as an essay.

Discussion of the proposal[edit]

I'm not too thrilled by this policy. At best, it's a special case which is unnecessary if one is truly following NPOV. Several articles use phrases like "the vast majority of scientists" or "current scientific consensus". I think that's a fine way to do it. At worst, this policy will elevate incorrect statements beyond criticism. Many people throw around terms like "scientific fact" inappropriately. We have pretty short memories, and there's a tendency to forget that theories become outdated. Articles which are written to present each new scientific theory as fact quickly look silly. Especially in social sciences, people use the word "proof" too much. Rhobite 08:24, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rhobite- I can't see the point of the distinction between NPOV and SPOV for Wikipedia. What practical differences do the proposers of this policy think that it will make to any of the articles in Wikipedia? --G Rutter 12:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the background here, but I'm guessing that SPOV would be used to bring some sanity to evolution-related articles. There's nothing wrong with that goal, but I think it can be accomplished under the existing NPOV policy. Rhobite 15:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is an awful policy idea. I say this as someone who almost universally accepts the mainstream scientific view as the best version of the facts that we have. It is clearly written by someone who has no experience in the history or philosophy of science, and it would make Wikipedia considerably sterile. This particular version of a "scientific point of view" seems to mean "naive empiricist" point of view -- one which many thoughtful scientists would not support, either. I don't see this as being any more useful than NPOV (which would generally tend to favor the mainstream scientific community opinion in a reasonable application of it, anyway). Ugh. --Fastfission 00:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I especially disagree with SPOV over NPOV when it is used, for example, when talking about the history of scientific ideas: it makes what people believed at the time as reasonable (for example Kelper's Neo-Platonic mysticism) seem laughable. 211.30.222.214 05:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article point of view vs general Neutral point of view[edit]

It seems to me that some articles themselves, by definition, express a point of view, in which case a neutral point of view (NPOV), has a slightly different meaning. For example:

An article on cosmology (study of the Universe) should provide a balance of the different types of cosmology, eg. Big Bang Cosmology, Steady state theory, Plasma cosmology, etc.
But an article on, for example, the Big Bang Cosmology should present cosmology from the point of view the Big Bang theory? In which case, a NPOV might mention that there are other cosmologies, but the article would not need to balance each fact with counterpoints on each and every alternative cosmololgy?
In other words, an article's inherent point of view, ie. the subject of the article, takes precedence over a more general neutral point of view?
And using this particular example, the same point of view would apply to articles on Steady State theroy, and Plasma Cosmology.

--Iantresman 13:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Needs This[edit]

This needs to be brought back if Wikipedia is to leave the failing state it is in now....RPGLand2000 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it up on WP:VP then. Ashibaka tock 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific peer review[edit]

WP:SPR might be of interest for those still watching this page. Karol 23:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rehabilitating this article[edit]

I'm going to rehabilitate this article as an essay. that will require a good bit of rewriting and a restoration of the essay tag. does anyone have any specific objections to that effort? --Ludwigs2 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started, I'll upload a new version in a few days. Count Iblis (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but I think the scope in this essay is wrong. It should be scientific claims in all articles, not everything in scientific articles. It's probably what is meant anyway. WP:MEDRS used to have the same problem, until I drew attention to it in this discussion (now archived). Hans Adler 07:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, HA - I tried to clarify that.

I prefer WP:SCIRS for making this point, but then, I wrote most of it (drawing heavily on MEDRS). - 2/0 (cont.) 13:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new policy for science like we have for BLP?[edit]

During the discussions about "Not Truth" on the verifiability page, someone pointed out that for BLPs the "truth" is actually important as the BLP policy page points out. The BLP policy is quite new, I guess this this is a way to for the Wiki-community to push back a bit against "Not Truth" on matters they feel strongly about. I think the same should be done for science pages. Count Iblis (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet officially accepted but already de-facto policy[edit]

See here :) . Count Iblis (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]