Talk:Antiscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Contents

[edit] Neutrality tag

I've added this while I work on balancing the references and removing some of the more emotive terms. Sophia 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The alleged 'emotive terms' are perceived only by a person who does not hold the views of antiscience. This is an article about antiscience and must be steadfastly and scrupulolously neutral in its depiction NOT of science but of the views of antiscience. In that sense, I would maintain that what i have written is an absolutely neutral and faithful account of the subject: antiscience. The agenda of wikipedia is to neutrally present the subject in hand. Peter morrell 21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


For the emotive words to stay they have to be attributed to a particular source and used in a direct quote or paraphrase. WP is NPOV as it reports what others say on issues and we must be careful to write in such a way that we do not make it seems as if WP is endorsing a particular view. I'll read up on this as I've found some good academic sources that give it a global perspective - a paper charting the rise of antiscience in Russia for example so it's not a matter of supressing the article content but properly presenting it. I'll also spend some time working out the appropriate categories so that it properly integrates into WP and is more likely to be found by interested readers. Sophia 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "postmodernism" is notable in its absence (although it is named in one of the links). Al 22:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK fine. Perhaps you can specify what words you regard as "emotive?" Peter morrell 04:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to purge the piece of "emotive terms" and have cleaned it up more generally and added some points of clarification. I have also added many new links and a few other relevant publications. I agree that it needs some examples and I intend to add more as soon as time permits. Peter morrell 07:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical to criticizes

I've change "critical" to "criticizes" as antiscience is finding fault with the current scientific dominance not providing a critique of it. Sophia 12:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have reversed this because it does exactly what you say it doesn't do: it does indeed propose a deep intellectual critique of science. It does not simply criticise or 'find fault with' science, it offers a critique and adopts a critical view of it. Sorry, but I disagree with your preference for 'criticise' to 'critical view.' Peter morrell 12:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest does it have anything positive to say about modern science? From what I've read so far I haven't found anything? Sophia 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there inherently any reason why antiscience should have anything good to say about science? As the text expands in a day or so, I think you will find more of interest. Peter morrell 05:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
A truely critical approach does not start with an axe to grind. An art critic may not like a particular artists work but they will analyse it on the basis of it's techniques and achievements, admiting it's strengths and stating their preferences as a POV. That is why I disagree with the use of the word "critical" and prefer "criticize" as all that I have read on antiscience so far has been scathing of science and it's achievements. The scientific method has it's good and bad points - a critical view would evaluate all of these. Sophia 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup tag

that section needs it's references fixed... check WP:CITE/ES and WP:FOOT for how to properly use the <ref> tags... - Adolphus79 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't re-do the Berlin quotes or wikify them...help would be welcome. Peter morrell 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt to clean up some of the worst parts, but the article is still very far from NPOV. Al 03:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you have done a very good job and you have removed sound things & added debateable things I probably disagree with. I will try to improve it further but there is still much new stuff to be added to it. I would prefer a clean up at a later stage when the article becomes more complete. Peter morrell 05:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your insertion of the terms 'religious' and 'anti-intellectual' are quite clearly inappropriate ways to describe antiscience. That is putting it politely. Do you really know anything at all about this subject? in which case, why are you editing it? Meanwhile, I have revised the references and added a new section. There is much more to be added and I would please appreciate more sensitive edits or let's discuss them here first, seeing as you claim to prefer balance and to avoid edit wars. thank you Peter morrell 11:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter, don't be sorry, be right. Your changes were wrong, very wrong, so I reverted them. You are not allowed to violate [{WP:NPOV]] under any circumstances, so your versiion will not be permitted to remain. Thank you for understanding. Al 12:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

that's your idea of a discussion is it: I am right and you are wrong? you sound like a scientist. You are in an edit war thanks for that. answer my questions and discuss your POV Peter morrell 13:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't ask any questions: you insulted me repeatedly. This puts in violation of WP:NPA as well as WP:CIVIL. And now that you've declared an edit war, you are begging to violate WP:3RR. The version you would like to keep is in violation of WP:NPOV, and this is not a negotiable matter. Al 17:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

the questions are there maybe you don't want to read them. you insulted me maybe you had better make a fresh start. in essence this is a good article except to a person who dislikes what it is saying...or disagrees with its core points. like you. what do you suggest? Peter morrell 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter you need to get the hang of WP:NPOV and what a POV fork is. This article is in danger of falling foul of these rules unless balance is maintained and a neutral tone employed.
It is never helpful to talk of edit wars and insults so lets keep on topic here. There seems to be lots of good info about this subject that can be reported which always makes for an interesting article. Cites are very important here to stop this being original research. Sophia 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
can i ask that you stop savagely mashing this article because I shall just keep reverting back to the original. edit war ok keep going. that is a pathetic infantile approach and I shall just pull the whole article. 194.82.139.5 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that it seems like I am wrecking your work but if it wasn't me or Al it would be others as your version is very POV whether you realise it or not. This is not a personal blog it is an encyclopedia entry, and as such can only report, in a balanced way, what others have to say on this subject in a neutral tone. Please read the policies I pointed you to above as they are good guides and very helpful. I have been on your side of this process and appreciate that it can feel like you are being attacked but this is just the cut and thrust of intellectual debate in an open forum. There is a danger in life that we surround ourselves with people who agree with us so it can come as a shock to have our heart felt views "challenged". Let me asure you that in no way am I trying to do this - what I and you think of this subject is irrelevant, all that matters is what other reliable sources have to say. Our only job is to report these in an NPOV way. If you are unhappy with what is happening here then you can file a request for comment to ask other editors to look at this article and make suggestions. If you need any help with this then I will happily file it for you. Please work with us on this one as it is a valuable article with alot of potential. Sophia 19:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

There is reason to believe that 194.82.139.5 is acting as a sockpuppet of Peter morrell. I am following up on this now. Al 18:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made a checkuser request at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Peter_morrell Al 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
its not that i just forgot to log in - why are you so obsessed by rules? its not worth the hassle i shall withdraw the article who needs morons like you? Peter morrell 19:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiping an article is itself a form of vandalism. If you think it deserves to be deleted, there is a process for that. Al


Peter - one very important policy is no personal attacks. If you wish to be treated with respect you must respect other editors even if you heartily disagree with them. I have given you nothing but help and encouragement even though I knew from the begining that we had very different views on subjects that are important to us both. Wikipedia benefits from different viewpoints as long as the rules of civility and respect are observed by everyone. I hope you can extend the openmindedness I have shown you to the other editors you work with. The only way we ever learn something new is by listening to a point we have not heard before. This does not mean you have to accept that point as valid but if you expect to be heard you must expect to listen too. Sophia 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think accusing someone of sockpuppetry when they simply may have forgotten to log in is needlessly inflammatory. However, blanking the article when you don't get your way does not make a good impression. Even if not logging in was accidental, that was your third revert and blanking the article is close enough to a fourth revert in the context as makes no nevermind. I think you all need a nice lie down for a bit. Thatcher131 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful Link

Scientific fraud and the power structure of science

^^James^^ 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - looks a good link. Any help here is very welcome so please add more! Sophia 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
how about putting the reductionism section back in? Peter morrell 13:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you've got some good sources linking scientific reductionism and antiscience then of course they should be added. Sophia 16:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
they were removed by you know who! last night...a whole sction - please check the old version. Reputable sources? do you really think Isaiah Berlin is a disreputable source? like you questioned sources about Sorel above. Do you really imagine one of the most brilliant academic minds of the last century [Berlin's] does not know the views of Sorel on science? think about it. the reductionism stuff was highly relevant. Peter morrell 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sophia, I would appreciate your response to the above paragraph. thanks 213.40.131.66 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it as much because it was over the top POV as it was uncited. To restore it, you'd need good citations and moderate, reasonable text. Al 16:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

so you think Berlin is over the top do you? what compared to you? it is not uncited it gives quotes from Crooked Timber of Humanity. How can someone who knows absolutely nothing about this subject YOU choose to edit this? you have ruined the entire article. let us hope others will step up to challenge your appalling arrogance Peter morrell 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The Sorel confirmation we need is a quote from someone reputable to say that his views are antiscience otherwise we are guilty of original research. Since Sorel was writing well before the political movement of article was defined, we also need to show his relevance via citations (again from reliable sources). I've pasted the reductionism stuff below here so we can look at it and work on it.

[edit] Section removed from article

[edit] Opposition to reductionism and positivism

The limitations of the quantitative scientific approach are especially apparent when it steps into the social and human sphere with its simplistic mathematical and reductionist approach. The pretty formulas of mathematical models are "artificial constructions, logical figments with no necessary relation to the outside world." [Berlin, 2000, 123] These models always "leave out the richest and most important part of human experience...daily life, history, human laws and institutions, the modes of human self- expression." [Berlin, 2000, 110] A failure to appreciate the subtle complexity of social worlds, means they get excluded from the formulas, even though, “no easy reductionism will do justice to the material.” [Coleman] This approach often fails to concentrate “on social structures, processes, and actions in a specific sense (inequality, mobility, classes, strata, ethnicity, gender relations, urbanization, work and life of different types of people, not just elites),” [Kocka] and so tends to generate mostly meaningless oversimplifications.

Algebra may seem like some "unshakeable deductive edifice, but it cannot give us factual information, any more than a game or a piece of fiction, which we have made up can, as such, describe the world to us. Mathematics is not determined by reality outside itself, to which it has to conform, but only by our own fancy or creative imagination, which moulds the material as it pleases." [Berlin, 2000, 36] Mathematics and logic "are not forms of discovery at all but of invention." [Berlin, 2000, 41] There thus exists an irreconcilable "logical gulf between mathematical truths and those of fact," [Berlin, 2000, 198] or, as Goethe said, mathematics "can achieve nothing in the moral sphere." [Berlin, 2000, 287 footnote]

This basically comes down to the issue of positivism, which is "the view that all true knowledge is scientific," [Bullock & Trombley] and that all things are ultimately measurable. Because of its "close association with reductionism," [ibid] it is worth saying that positivism and reductionism involve the view that "entities of one kind...are reducible to entities of another," [ibid] such as societies to numbers, or mental events to chemical events. It also involves the contention that "processes are reducible to physiological, physical or chemical events," [ibid] and even that "social processes are reducible to relationships between and actions of individuals," [ibid] or that "biological organisms are reducible to physical systems." [ibid] This is precisely where many social and environmental thinkers, historians, philosophers and ecofeminists, for example, part company with science and roundly condemn the simplistic approach of science when it is inappropriately applied in the inherently more complex social sphere. In doing so, they adopt an essentially antiscience stance.

End of removed section

Sophia 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with the first sentence:
The limitations of the quantitative scientific approach are especially apparent when it steps into the social and human sphere with its simplistic mathematical and reductionist approach.
Besides being overwritten and highly POV, it's entirely uncited. It claims, without attribution, that science is visibly limited when applies to social and human matters, glossing over the social sciences entirely. It also accuses science of being simplistic due to being mathematical and "reductionist", which is so far from reality that I'm not even sure where to begin criticizing it.
What's worse is that the rest of this text is no better. I made an attempt at salvaging it once, but I gave up and wiped the whole thing. Al 03:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I just brought it here so we could look at it as Peter was asking for it to be replaced. Certainly in the current research I've been reading it's our concept of self determination that seems to be disappearing fast as it's shown that all behaviour is capable of mathematical and scientific modeling - even things like love and empathy have been shown to have an evolutionary advantage [1] which would explain their devlopment. I have no time for the "it's only wonderful if there is some mystery about it" school of thought myself as it seems an attempt to turn the scientific process into some sort of religion.
However it seems that this is part of the antiscience mentality so something should be here, also Peter has provided references but not in the usual wiki way so no one can check them. What we need is maybe a section on common "antiscience" positions with proper cites or online reliable sources. Reductionism doesn't seem to be the major argument that I have read - the seeming power of science in the modern world seems to be the biggest "problem". Peter what do you think? Sophia 06:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought it here, because I had forgotten just how POV it was. Pomo science-bashing often uses "reductionistic" as a generic swear-word, on the basis that science dares to explain things in terms of other things, hence reducing qualities to patterns of quantities. This violates their intuition that some things should be, even in principle, mysterious and special.
However, as you suggested, the chief objection to science is that it works and is more respected than any other claimant to truth. This offends their epistemological and cultural relativism, and is further politicized as academic imperialism.
Sure, this is all nonsense, but if Morell wants to quote and paraphrase notable antiscience proponents with proper attribution and NPOV language, I'm fine with that. However, the section you moved here is a fine example of what not to do. Al 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Sophia, I am happy to chip in and supply examples where possible. Its a pity I did not do that before placing the article. I do not think Alienus is capable of editing this material dispassionately as he disagrees with it so violently. We should not be agreeing or disagreeing with any of it, but just presenting it neutrally. Regarding your point, then I will come back to you on that point. For example, antiscience does have historical precursors, such as Romantics, but theirs was a less clearly articulated response. antiscience today includes a bunch of posiitons against both science and technology. Maybe you can explain why the above is more POV than saying that antisciecne is populist, conservative and religious or anti-intellectual. That is plain lies. It has no such positions. They are totally inaccurate statements. It is none of those things. Why are they included? if that is NPOV then forget it we are wasting our time on this item.

I am happy to try and clean up the article and will try to find some online citations which can be built into the text. is that a good idea? thanks Peter morrell 07:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's because I disagree with it that I am capable of recognizing where you cross the line in partisanship. Your job here is reporting, not endorsement. Al 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, you restored this section, despite the severe POV and quality problems it has. While I understand your reasoning, I'm not sure that the article is better off this way. And I really do wish you'd come here, read what we've discussed previously and join in the debate, rather than simply restore or delete material. Al 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antireductionism

As can be seen e.g. [2] the objections to reductionism include areas such as history, sociology, psychology, medicine, biology and ecology. This is termed antireductionism in which the objection is to a complex phenomenon being reduced to simplistic models that are ill-fitting or which do not deliver much inisght about the matter in hand. see also [3] More generally, the objection to reductionism involves the view that reductionism is per se a flawed approach in every case. Clearly then, there is a spectrum of positions on this issue even within the above disciplines. Generally speaking reductionism has only had partial success in sociology, history and ecology and there is a strong scepticism in those fields that mathematical and quantitative approaches can yield much sense or insight. The alleged reason for this is that descriptive approaches are more useful than quantitative. Does this now partially clarify this aspect? Peter morrell 09:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New citation material

As promised, here is some new citation material about antireductionism. Please feel free to use it as required. "The final section employs this ontology of events to provide an anti-reductionist answer to the mind/matter debate that Davidson labels ‘anomalous monism’....the impossibility of intertranslating the two idioms by means of psychophysical laws blocks any analytically reductive relation between them. The mental and the physical would thus disintegrate were it not for causality, which is operative in both realms through a shared ontology of events." from Davidson, Donald, Essays on Actions and Events, OUP, 2001, ISBN-10: 0-19-924627-0, seen at [4]

see also: Alex Rosenberg and D. M. Kaplan, How to Reconcile Physicalism and Antireductionism about Biology, Philosophy of Science, Volume 72.1, January 2005, pp.43-68, abstract: "Physicalism and antireductionism are the ruling orthodoxy in the philosophy of biology. But these two theses are difficult to reconcile. Merely embracing an epistemic antireductionism will not suffice, as both reductionists and antireductionists accept that given our cognitive interests and limitations, non-molecular explanations may not be improved, corrected or grounded in molecular ones. Moreover, antireductionists themselves view their claim as a metaphysical or ontological one about the existence of facts molecular biology cannot identify, express or explain. However, this is tantamount to a rejection of physicalism and so causes the antireductionist discomfort. In this paper we argue that vindicating physicalism requires a physicalistic account of the principle of natural selection, and we provide such an account. The most important payoff to the account is that it provides for the very sort of autonomy from the physical that antireductionists need without threatening their commitment to physicalism." [5]

see also Psychoneural Reduction The New Wave, John Bickle, Bradford Books, March 1998, ISBN 0-262-02432-2 Abstract: "One of the central problems in the philosophy of psychology is an updated version of the old mind-body problem: how levels of theories in the behavioral and brain sciences relate to one another. Many contemporary philosophers of mind believe that cognitive-psychological theories are not reducible to neurological theories. However, this antireductionism has not spawned a revival of dualism. Instead, most nonreductive physicalists prefer the idea of a one-way dependence of the mental on the physical. In Psychoneural Reduction, John Bickle presents a new type of reductionism, one that is stronger than one-way dependency yet sidesteps the arguments that sank classical reductionism. Although he makes some concessions to classical antireductionism, he argues for a relationship between psychology and neurobiology that shares some of the key aims, features, and consequences of classical reductionism. Parts of Bickle's "new wave" reductionism have emerged piecemeal over the past two decades; this is his first comprehensive statement and defense of it to appear." [6]

see also: Laubichler, M.D./Wagner, G.P. 2001. How molecular is molecular developmental biology? A reply to (Rosenberg 1997). Biology and Philosophy 16: 53—68 Rosenberg, A. 1997. Reductionism redux: Computing the embryo. Biology and Philosophy 12: 445—470...and..Bolender, John (1995) Is Multiple Realizability Compatible with Antireductionism?. The Southern Journal of Philosophy XXXIII:pp. 129-142. [7]

As can be seen from the above citation material antiscience has nothing to do with religion, it is purely a critique of science. However, in USA this may not be the case. A focus there on creationism, may be a source of some confusion in these exchanges. Regardless, the focus in the above citations prediminantly concerns reductionist problems in psychology and biology. Equally, one can find rich seams of similar scepticism/critique of reductionist science in sociology, medicine and history. Thus, to claim it is populist or anti-intellectual is quite ludicrous. Peter morrell 14:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antiscience from traditional sources, not postmodern ones.

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2006/janfeb/whatley.php

this quote proves nothing and is actually irrelevant to this subject. It has nothing to do with antiscience; in fact, it is an anti-religious rant by some science obsessed doctors. Big deal. It is completely irrelevant to this article and supports no argument thusfar presented. Peter morrell 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you read the entire article. It's short, but contains paragraphs like this:

The influence of the Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists on the White House is apparent when we consider Bush's attitude on stem cell research, "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the teaching of evolution, the Ten Commandments, and physician's aid in dying--all antiscience. The heavy sectarian hand of votes is being played.

As you can see, religious conservativism has been antiscience for a long time now, before postmodernism came to be. Just like the previous citation, this one alone is sufficient to justify the statement it's backing. Al 23:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I did read the whole article and it is not supporting your case. in no way does it justify "hostile, populist, conservative and anti-intellectual." It is an anti-religious rant by some doctors NOT about antiscience. Try harder! Peter morrell 05:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry confirmed

( From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Peter_morrell )

[edit] Peter morrell

The user has stated the intention to edit war over antiscience and appears to have admitted to sockpuppetry on that article's talk page. So far, they have executed reverts against consensus using both the account and the IP, with the likely intent of avoiding detection for WP:3RR violation. Al 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

correction I did not threaten edit war what I said was this will become an edit war if you carry on in this way hacking away at what had the makings of a good article if Alienus would have simply exercised a little give and take patience and fairplay, which he has not demonstrated thusfar. As for checking up on me then I think he should find better ways to spend his time...such as finding some decent quotes to support his feeble views on this topic. Peter morrell 16:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. Also appears to be Willirennen (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) and Cameronrose (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll copy this to the antiscience talk page. Al 14:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is total rubbish I had forgotten to log in as I stated at the time. Peter morrell 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New material

If you can exercise a little patience, I have now collected together some useful and diverse citation material on this topic and will present it in a day or two, once I have converted it into a more manageable form. thanks Peter morrell 13:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-intellectual

Here is a free quote that DOES use the word anti-intellectual but I don't agree with the comment but if Alienus wishes to use it I will not object, primarily to show fair play: "Epstein finds a constructive engagement between outsider and insider that improves science and scientific policy at the same time that it makes science more democratic. He sometimes overstates these beneficial effects and does not distinguish clearly between the instances of constructive engagement and the often self-defeating antiscience, essentially anti-intellectual, rhetoric of many activists. Most scientists hold deeply felt beliefs, whether true or not, about the "purity" of their work." [8] Basically, while there are pretty mindless forms of antiscience that are anti-intellectual, but most forms are not of that low quality. Peter morrell 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring this article Peter - I have been doing some reading around before I change anything so bear with me and in a couple of days I should be able to help. Sophia 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping that the presence of a third editor might keep Morrell from repeatedly reverting well-cited changes, but this has proven not to be the case. He seems entirely unwilling to accept evidence, to compromise or to just leave things alone. I'm going to see if I can drag more people into this. Al 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am applying the same rules as he asked for when he started butchering the original article. What compromise did he show then? None at all. He needs to produce a valid reference for his claim that antiscience is populist, that it is anti-intellectual and that it is traditionally conservative and religious. So far he has failed to produce ANY evidence to support any of these claims. Not one. So by your own rules, you will continue to be asked for solid evidence for your feeble views. Peter morrell 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I was just passing by...

After reading some of the history on the talk page, it strikes me that you, Peter Morell and you too, Alienus, are talking about totally different things. No wonder you can't agree. It seems Peter is talking about a movement, mostly philosphical, that started from the political left (I would dare to venture possibly as a by-product of the New Age culture - go right ahead and correct me outright if I'm wrong). All the while, Alienus is talking about a movement which started from the political right, is mostly religious (when it doesn't paradoxically deny it is) and is possibly much closer to the Luddite movement (of the 19th century) than the one started from the left. These, in my view are two totally separate matters. Maybe they both deserve an article, or to coexist in a single article. But trying to make this into a single article with a single definition for both, that I don't think will work. What I would suggest is that you both work on the article separately, keeping in mind this one word may have two radically different meanings (which can intersect at some points, but not necessarily). And please, there is no need for uncivility or escalations, and I believe this article could use self-restraint regarding those two points, at least in the foreseeable future. --Ramdrake 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right that there's more than one antiscience movement. As I've said in the lead, this article is about the postmodernist (leftist) antiscience movement, which is based largely on epistemological relativism. However, I thought it would be confusing if we didn't at least mention the older, antiscience movement, which is religious and conservative (rightist), even if we didn't delve into it too deeply.
For some reason, Morrell disagrees with this and has edit-warred constantly to get his way, ignoring citations of evidence to the contrary. Frankly, he's new to Wikipedia and doesn't have much experience working with others, so it's not entirely his fault.
Anyhow, as you say, there is room for an article on both types. This leads to a few possibilities:
  • Making this into a disambiguation page for "antiscience (religious)" and "antiscience (postmodern)".
  • Having the article mention both types in the lead and offer a pair of sections to summarize each but point to forks.
  • Putting a disambig notice on top of the article in small text, directing the reader to the other article.
What do you think? Al 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I should add that the right-wing group does not usually label itself "anti-science". Not sure about the other group. :) --Ramdrake 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's another good point: I'm not sure that either self-identifies as antiscience. As you hinted earlier, the rightists often pretend that their beliefs are not religiously based, for the purpose of gaining credibility. Likewise, as much as the leftist group attacks science, they may well see themselves in other terms. This is important because it affects WP:NPOV. Al 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is really important to point out whether "antiscience" is a self-identified term or whether it is something pasted onto others. Robert M. Young would not think of himself as "antiscience" at all, for example, but mostly argues for reforming science along more humanistic lines, if I recall his work correctly. There are very few serious academics who would agree to being "antiscience" in any sort of strong form (Feyerabend is one of the few who comes to mind, and I imagine you could find some of the goofier postcolonial people who argue such things), and we should be careful in distinguishing between people who actually claim to be "antiscience" and those who a few uptight scientists label as "antiscience". --Fastfission 18:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

For more on the postmodern antiscience movement, a great starting point is Gross and Levitt's Higher Superstition. A brief, amusing but solid start would be to investigate the Sokal hoax and its consequences. Sokal and Bricmont also have a book on the topic. All of these books, of course, are written by scientists and are pro-science. However, they extensively reference and quote antiscience postmodernists, so they can be used to find material from the opposing side. Al 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The article now sems vastly improved. I have added a citation to support the anti-intellectual claim but it still requires citations to support any outright POV statement. These are not acts of intolerance but will merely serve to improve the artcle further. It is a bit rich of Alienus to accuse me of "edit warring to get his way," which is precisely what he has done from the start, in a highly biased and arrogant manner, while knowing very little about this subject. However, maybe we now have a better article. Let us hope we can now build on the present good version without further artguing. Peter morrell 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sokal and Bricmont are not quoting the "opposite side" in good faith, nor are they even representing correctly what others are saying. I wouldn't use their book for anything other than quoting from them about their side. To use them as a way of seeing the other side is to fall into a very bad POV trap. --Fastfission 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources that use the term "antiscience"

Of the cited sources, two use "antiscience" in the title as a noun: Levins 1996 and Vining 1999. Is this term more widely established in this sense? I am more familiar with expressions such as "anti-rationalism" and "opposition to science" than with the term "antiscience". Aside from English-language sources, is this term perhaps used in another language (compare negationism, a term adapted from French)? --FOo 08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New material added

At risk of it being promptly butchered or removed, I have added some material I have been working on. I hope it can be accepted as useful material that enriches the article further. I also hope that future changes to it can be negotiated in the spirit of fairplay via discussion and that peace can at last prevail. Or is that asking too much? Peter morrell 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gieryn

Just as a note, the bit which follows the Gieryn, "Thus, they do show inherent biases in their work.", is not what Gieryn is trying to say. The fact that scientists do not follow Mertonian norms is not a statement about bias, it is a statement about how the values which are generally held out to be defining of science are not actually played out in practice. It doesn't say anything about inherent bias; it just says that the norms of communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality, and skepticism are not actually the protocols for day-to-day scientific activity. That does not imply "inherent bias", it just implies that scientific work is messier and less idealistic than Merton's description of it. (Which is interesting, and important, but not the same thing as being antiscientific or even saying that scientists have inherent biases.) --Fastfission 17:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it doesn't much matter if it is or is not what *Gieryn* is trying to say, when he says "Scientists do get passionate about pet theories; they do rely on reputation in judging a scientist's work; they do pursue fame and gain via research," then *I say* that clearly these most certainly do constitute innate & fundamental biases in the work of scientists, because they reveal sometimes quite wide deviations from the accepted 'pure image' of scientists as detached, objective, emotionally neutral etc. In that respect, these deviations dilute the pure image and reveal that scientists are not as dispassionate and detached as many people think. That is a tangential point to the notion of antiscience, but it is a relevant point to the discussion, is it not? Peter morrell 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter what Gieryn is trying to say if we are citing him as the source of a sentiment. As for what you conclude from that, it is not relevant here at all (see Wikipedia:No original research). Gieryn, and most sociologists who follow the "Mertonian norms are not norms of practice but norms of ideal", is decidedly not saying what is concluded from his work, and would probably take issue with that formulation of it. People don't trash Mertonian norms because they think it shows that science is wrong, they trash them because they are always trotted out to defend ideal practices that do not exist (i.e. people use them to say that secrecy among scientists is "anti-scientific" because science is about openness, pace Merton. But in reality many scientists are quite secretive about their data in the short term because it is vital for their own career needs to do so, viz Bourdieu. None of this is a statement about bias, objectivity, or neutrality). --Fastfission 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
OK I happen to disagree with your interpretation of what Gieryn is saying, but maybe a better quote will come to mind; I will try and find one in a day or so. Peter morrell 17:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus said above : "He seems entirely unwilling to accept evidence, to compromise or to just leave things alone." well you do exactly the same only worse. why don't you leave the item alone for a while and let others have their say? You have the gall to ask others to discuss things first before changing them but do not apply such strictures and self-restraint to your own butchery of the article. Peter morrell 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring by Peter

I recently went through and made a number of changes with the goal of improving the article. I fixed some language and added attributions to some controversial statements so as to avoid asserting their unambiguous truth. Just now, Peter reverted the whole thing under the false claim that I need to negotiate changes in advance. Clearly, this is not a standard being applied here to others, nor should it be. Rather, it is his way to justify reverting without explaining specifically what he objects to.

If there are genuine problems with my changes, this is the place to bring it up. Simply reverting them under an umbrella claim is indistinguishable from edit-warring, and is therefore not acceptable. Al 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

correction what you accuse me of is exactly the way you have behaved from the start so what makes you any different? if you want to see ciivlised behaviour from people you musty start to be civil yourself. look at yourself Peter morrell 19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you actually read Brian Martin's brilliant critique [9] of the feeble-minded Gross & Levitt book, you will see that the headings left wing and right wing are inaccurate non-existent indeed ficitonal categories and so are unacceptable and I am changing them. Also 'highly critical' is not acceptable either. These are changing too. Peter morrell 08:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, having said that it is now too complicated to do as meantime a good spell-check and clean up has been implemented. I am not happy with left wing and right wing but they will have to stay for now. Peter morrell 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything you change against consensus, I can change right back. You need to gain support for your changes here before making them, unless you like edit wars. Al 18:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Gieryn

I have emailed Professor Gieryn and will ask him the points in question. I will let you know what he says.Peter morrell 12:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter it doesn't matter what he says as we can't use it - it's from an unverifiable source. Private e-mails can't be confirmed by others so can't be used. Sophia 16:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
of course it matters what he says because he can confirm who he agrees with, my interpretation or that of fastfission...I guess he will say we are both right in different ways which of course reflects the agenda of academics not wnating to insult anyone if they can help it, which is probably why their words are so incomprehensible anyway, whether Merton or Gieryn; neither would wish to say what they really think about the inherent bias in science now would they? I will report back anyway. Peter morrell 16:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathological science

Maybe editors need to look at the wiki article called Pathological science as there might be some overlap. Peter morrell 12:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Taken from linked page: "Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation"
This explicitly states that there is a scientific method, that this method is ideal and that pathological science is the deviation from it. This is, in fact, contrary to the views of anti-science which would hold that even the scientific method is erroneous (pathological science assumes that a non-pathological form of science exists and - by the significantly low frequency of examples - that the non-pathological form is the dominate in the field of science).--Sirmacbain 08:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Gieryn

I had a reply to my email from Professor Tom Gieryn and I sent him the entire section of this article titled Three Forms of Antiscience. I asked him if he disagreed with any of it or thought I was misinterpreting or over-interpreting his words and he said no he did not and that as far as he is concerned the entire piece "looks OK." I did promise to let people know what he said. So there you have it. Peter morrell 09:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As Sophia explained, this is unverifiable, hence worthless to Wikipedia. Al 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
yeah it is completely worthless to bigots who have no intention of ever changing their views. Peter morrell 14:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no such people are involved in editing this article. Al 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationists?

Creationists are a prominant antiscience group; though their most obvious opponent is evolution, many oppose science in general. I often hear rhetoric about how it is against God and all that rot. Anyway, I think that it would be a good idea to include something about them; they'd fall under right-wing antiscience. I'm too tired to do it right now, but I'll consider finding some sources later this week if I have time. Titanium Dragon 09:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

great idea; bring it on! Peter morrell 14:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is antiscience?

The article barely defines the term: Antiscience is a position critical of science and the scientific method. This hardly seems antiscientific to me. Perhaps the article should be called Criticisms of Science. Or perhaps a more rigourous definition, and a distinction made between those who merely criticise (to put science in a larger philosophic perspective for example, or with an intent to improve upon it), vs. those who are genuinely "antiscience". It also seems that "antiscience" is often used pejoratively to summarily dismiss critics. ^^James^^ 18:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awkward sentence

Under Left-Wing Antiscience, is the sentence:

Another source is its preference for averaging that can be perceived, which is seen as a denial of the validity of individual experience.

Does this mean something like, "Another source is its preference for the averaging of many individual perceptions, which is seen as a denial of the validity of individual experience." ?

Also it might be nice to have some scientists' responses to antiscience views. This article just sort of assumes that antiscience is wrong or worse. --Wfaxon 10:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6 month old - High time to remove the tags

  • Short explain: Relatively to many other stuff the contents are mild and the damages (if any) are measurable.No need to start world war 3.
  • My experience with life taught me that there is pretty much nothing outside science as far as methodology goes. It all boils down to be asked $10 for Xmass and knowing if you are $10 richer or poorer. Obviously you can go the second way. And obviously you can be asked $10,000 for next Xmass and decide the other way round. All this can be studied in Science (with or without equations).
  • So, consider my slight corrections as a scientist answer.
  • A valid position is to consider Science as "everything". So science contains its own criticisms including "para science", "anti science" etc..
  • In the current article, i did not see any arguments which are based on bad faith. In fact, I dont mind saying that all arguments have some degrees of validity. In fact, authors of this kind should be encouraged.
  • However, what is really interesting is to reuse the same arguments against the author(s)of the article. Example,is the sub-section (titled by myself) "reductionism to positivism". It is obvious that it should have been called "reducing positivism to reductionism". Or the use of a single reference while arguing against the usage data.Etc..
  • Finally the Sorel translations are really poor.
  • Anyway, good luck to the next in line and happy new year.

Dilane 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge with Anti-science

It appears that this article was started without awareness of the earlier article. Anti-science was started in 2004, but now this article is much more complete. --George100 12:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merged. Bibliography will need cleanup for consistency --George100 23:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Don't you think it's a little strange to have such a very critical quote in the introduction section? Wouldn't it be better to have such a quote in an extre "Critics" section? Generally, I think most of the quotes in this article are from sources that are very much against antiscience. Maybe some supportive quotes would make the article more neutral. Ah, I mean that quote: "self-defeating...essentially anti-intellectual, rhetoric of many activists.". 62.46.177.89

[edit] Sorel Section

This section seems geared toward a specific antiscientist. Is is really needed in this article about the overall concept? Also, the sources need to be reformatted into wiki style, but I don't know how to do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.2.165.10 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Right-Wing Antiscience

The section on right wing antiscience claims that opposition to abortion and stem cell reasearch is against science. Right wing people arn't against stem cell research, they are against using embrionic stem cells in research. Abortion has nothing to do with rejecting the scientific method. Right wing people use their own science to try to disprove global warming(or just human responsibility for global warming). You can be a scientist and beleive abortion is wrong. And no, im not right wing I hate Republicans and Democrats. Don't hold my bad spelling against me.74.38.99.188 21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

I removed a moderately large amount of content today. My reasons are explained in each edit summary. In general, this article reads like a POV essay, has bad sources (like cite #1, which is some guy's blog), and misrepresents the sources it uses. I would appreciate if someone who is better at outline flow than I can go through the article and better organize the headings into intro, types of antiscience, general features of antiscience, etc. Comments welcome. Skinwalker 16:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

what citations are required? be specific. Peter morrell 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper citations

There are a number of improper citations in the "Opposition to reductionism and positivism" paragraph, which also looks like Original Research. for instance

This basically comes down to the issue of positivism, which is "the view that all true knowledge is scientific," [Bullock & Trombley] and that all things are ultimately measurable.

Nowhere do we have a "Bullock & Trombley" book cited. We need proper notes and references here. Rama 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the book, I will now try and find the quote: A Bullock & S Trombley [Eds.], The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, third edition, London: Harper Collins, 1999. It needs adding to the bibliography. Peter morrell 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)