From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Falsifiability template and tag 1.1 Resources 1.2 Problem 1.3 Solution 1.3.1 Example 1.3.2 Format of the tag 1.4 See also 1.5 Notes 1.6 Relevant links

[edit] Falsifiability template and tag

[edit] Resources

• User:Fyslee/Sandbox/Falsifiability tag

• Template:Falsifiability

• {{falsifiability}}

Example (best - tag within refs):

"....easily falsifiable statement...."^[1]

[edit] Problem

In keeping with the purpose of editing at Wikipedia (production of an encyclopedia on practically every imaginable subject), the NPOV policy wisely requires that we produce articles which present all significant POV in a neutral manner. While this is an interesting and enriching experience, it also means that Wikipedia is a target for crackpots, scammers, quacks, and more or less imaginative (or delusional!) persons, organizations, and corporations who wish to use it to spread their odd or deceptive claims, or to wrongfully borrow some type of legitimacy for those claims by getting their claims established in an article fully devoted to the claim.

This places editors capable of critical thinking in a dilemma. How should they -- in an NPOV manner -- deal with obvious lies, deceptions, delusions, etc.? How are they to apply principles related to weighting of subject matter when other editors who support and believe these delusions will fight them all the way, if they even begin to expose the errors of these ideas. How are they to collaborate with these editors who are possibly true believers, or even sellers of a service or product?

While such problems can be dealt with in most controversial articles such as Electroconvulsive therapy, Chiropractic, or Euthanasia, by presenting the POV of critics and the existing research, the situation is fundamentally different when the subject of the article is a nonexistent entity that is claimed to exist, such as Biofields, Acupuncture points, Ghosts, and Auras. If the subject were openly and obviously fiction, fantasy, or strictly limited itself to religious belief, it would be a different matter, but there are many articles about nonexistent entities that are believed by proponents to exist. The very existence of the article title can often be taken by readers to be a tacit endorsement for the existence of the subject as a reality. They fail to realize that Wikipedia is presenting the subject because it is notable, and that its notability is often created by the dubious fact that true believers believe in it, and that critics dispute its very existence. Unless readers find the dispute clearly stated in the lead, they may continue to read the article in the false belief that they are reading facts about a real subject. By the time they get to the Criticisms section, they are already convinced, and the criticisms can get shrugged off as the disgruntled musings of unfortunates who don't really understand the subject.

In such cases there may not exist any scientific research that conclusively "proves" the non-existence of the subject as a reality, simply because no scientist worth their salt will waste their time on obvious nonsense, flights of fancy, and delusional thinking. It is likewise normally considered futile effort to attempt to "prove a negative". How then can the little bit of evidence from verifiable and reliable sources be presented convincingly, especially if a majority of editors on the article have taken it hostage and continually engage in edit warring, deletions, and reversions of any hint of skepticism or criticism? That's reality on many controversial articles, including articles that should be presentations of the skeptical and scientific POV, such as Pseudoscience and Quackery.

Here is where the scientific concept of falsifiability comes into the picture.

[edit] Solution

The proponents of article subjects of a preposterous and extraordinary nature have an extraordinarily large burden to provide very reliable evidence for their claims, so I propose the creation of a special "falsifiability" tag connected to [[Category:Falsifiability disputes]] for use in limited situations. The reference should accompany statements that are only used in articles that fulfill at least two conditions, and by using the reference it will automatically be listed in the category that lists all articles so tagged ([[Category:Falsifiability disputes]]):

1. The article is related to scientific and medical matters. Once a subject is claimed to be verifiable reality, it becomes vulnerable to falsifiability challenges:

Scientific and medical matters are normally the subject of verifiable research and documentation, so we can reasonably demand that extraordinary claims be well-documented. The falsifiability reference accompanies challenges to such unusual claims. The burden of proof for such claims is on the claimant, and the tag is a standing falsifiability challenge which proponents of weird ideas can attempt to meet with good evidence. If they succeed, they can justifiably remove or revise the statement and replace the falsifiability reference with the new references. If they fail to do so, the statement and tag must remain.

2. The article is listed as a controversial one: [1]

Such articles are often associated with extraordinary claims that are not based on objectively verifiable reality, and this creates controversy and contention. (Uncontroversial articles are irrelevant targets for the falsifiability tag.)

[edit] Example

Here is an illustration of its appropriate use. The title and subject of the Acupuncture point article are misleading, since acupuncture points do not exist in anatomical reality, but are based on a prescientific belief system. As a consequence, the lead in the article contains the following unsourced statement of fact as a falsifiability challenge:

• "There is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for their existence."

Such a statement cannot easily be sourced because there is no evidence. No one has yet found such points, and proving a negative is a bit of a problem.....;-)!. It is a statement based in the concept of falsifiability, and it can be very easily disproved (and therefore removed) by the simple production of verifiable and reliable scientific sources proving it wrong.

[edit] Format of the tag

The tag should be unobtrusive and accompanied by an explanation which all can read. It should be in an embedded reference format so the explanation and link to the policy page are found in the Notes/References section (if the section doesn't exist, it should be created immediately).

Here is a suggested format:

• <ref>{{falsifiability}}</ref>

produces the following in the Notes section:

This falsifiable statement must not be significantly altered or deleted unless it can be countered with a well-referenced statement that proves its falsity. It can be very easily disproved (and therefore removed) by the simple production of verifiable and reliable scientific sources in the body of the article which prove it to be wrong. See: [[Category:Falsifiability disputes]]

[edit] See also

Jimbo Wales on NPOV:

Well, it's against my role as 'the Jimbo' around here to call people crackpots, so I'll avoid that word here. But you'll all know what I mean anyway.  ;-)

It has been my long experience, too, that there are many, uh, creative minds, who are drawn to theorizing about the puzzles and mysteries of physics. Their struggles against the tyranny of the mainstream are romantic and lonely; they are voices of reason, crying out in the wilderness.

I think this presents challenges for our NPOV policy, but not "special" challenges. As with any controversial subject, and many uncontroversial ones, there are mainstream views, minority views, and singular views.

NPOV does not require us to present all these views as if they are equal! This is one of the things that's hardest to remember about NPOV. If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too.

The reason we can do all of that is that, usually, those statements are not controversial to any of the parties in the debate. We could have a problem if someone insists that their peculiar views are shared by all scientists, but that's usually not the case. Usually the creative alternative-physics types will readily agree that virtually no mainstream physicists would agree.

And we can use all of that as a reasonable grounds for dividing up articles. Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.

There's a popular view of bias in journalism, held more in practice out of laziness I think than held as an actual theory of bias, that the way to be unbiased is to present both sides of an argument without prejudicing the discussion for or against either one. "Some say that the earth is round, others say that it is flat."

Our approach is more sophisticated, I think.

--Jimbo

[edit] Notes

[edit] Relevant links

• Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles

• Category:Controversies

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_controversial_topics

• Wikipedia:List of controversial issues

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

• Undue weight