Wikipedia:Scientific point of view
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should ask for broader input, for instance at the village pump. |
Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view (NPOV). According to Jimbo, this is non-negotiable. NPOV works best when applied to the social sciences such as articles on history, and to controversial subjects. NPOV works less well when applied to the natural sciences, when a scientific point of view (SPOV) is sometimes more appropriate (e.g. as employed by the Evowiki [1]). Nevertheless, NPOV can and needs to be applied to scientific articles as well, while SPOV shouldn't be applied to other articles. This is a discussion on the differences between NPOV and SPOV and how to write a scientific article in a NPOV-style.
Contents |
[edit] Definition
An SPOV must be based on the philosophy of science, which is somewhat complex. Science consists of facts, theories and hypotheses. In accordance with the no original research policy, an SPOV reports the consensus of the scientific community.
SPOV holds that scientific views are correct, since they are defined by logic and reason. Defining SPOV in this context now becomes more difficult however, two possibilities exist:
- SPOV should be written to the exclusion of all others.
- SPOV should be written prioritised over all others.
#1 violates the policy of including all knowledge, as it deliberately leaves out all others. #2 is clearly better, and although each individual article must be taken into account, the SPOV is generally held to be the most important POV in NPOV. Where there are no other views NPOV is, of course, SPOV.
Note however, all secondary POVs must be held by a substantial enough number of individuals to be significant and verifiable (this includes pseudoscience).
[edit] Types of article
There is a continuum of the amount of difference in POVs for different scientific subjects. There are three broad types of subject, identified here as "Uncontroversial", "pseudo-controversial" and "controversial".
- Uncontroversial; boring, bog standard subjects
- Pseudo-controversial; uncontroversial subjects within the scientific community that are nevertheless controversial outside of it (e.g. evolution)
- Controversial; controversial subjects within the scientific community, e.g. nature-nurture controversy.
[edit] Paradigms, alternatives and pseudoscience
Some concepts are more widely held than others, in fact there is a hierarchy of accepted ideas. The most widely held view (the paradigm) should be explained first, followed by alternative scientific theories, in turn followed by pseudoscientific nonsense.
Explanations should also be proportional to the level of acceptance, and if necessary split off into a Wikipedia:sub-article.
Pseudoscience is difficult to write about in an objective way because it is difficult to explain nonsense and most pseudoscience defies logical understanding.
As Wikipedia is reactive, not proactive, any paradigm shifts should be documented after they occur.
[edit] See also
[edit] Hints and tips
- Cite your sources: credit concepts to their conceptualiser. Either do this in the main body or include a separate history section (especially if the concept is old). A history section should also contain historical criticisms within the scientific community that are no longer accepted.
