Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 00:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 12 delete, 4 merge, 10 keep.

[edit] Consensus science

srlasky I did not vote to keep it, however I did write the note that you don't disprove hypotheses in response to an error I made in the statement below. I feel strongly that consensus science should be deleted. Science is done by showing a preponderence of evidence for a given hypothesis, not by scientist voting on a question. srlasky 12:38, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)


note, you don't disprove a hypothesis. Negative evidence is not finally acceptable. Sorry about that.

  • keep - -- Definitely keep it. It is spot on!

srlasky 18:18, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

    • Comment. The above vote was inserted on Jan 25 by an anonymous user at 24.157.13.198. (diff). Can't say if it was Srlasky or not, but it doesn't look good given his delete vote which follows. --TenOfAllTrades 23:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete = srlasky 18:15, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC) As a scientist, I have never even heard of consensus science. You do not do science by asking what people think as a whole, you do it by setting up experiments that prove or disprove a hypothesis. Then other people repeat those experiments and show that you're methods and results were valid or not. This is not a consensus, it is experimental proof, and until a hypothesis is tested in this way, it is not thought to be valid, no matter how many people "believe" it to be true (unless you are talking about "creation science" with is an oxymoron.
"You do not do science by asking what people think as a whole, you do it by setting up experiments that prove or disprove a hypothesis." That's the entire point. Please read the article carefully and then reconsider your vote. — Cortonin | Talk 03:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)) This page is a POV disaster area and little more than an attempt to provoke an edit war. It ignores the existence of scientific consensus which is not great but not nearly so bad.

  • delete - William M. Connolley 18:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete -Vsmith 19:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) OK, further pertinent comments. This page was created by user JonGwynne and immediately utilized by him in a deceptive way by disguising a link to it as Scientific consensus in the Global warming article and switching a link to scientific consensus to it in the Michael Crichton page. He was quite aware of the scientific consensus page despite his comment below. Therefore it appears to have been created for questionable purposes. -Vsmith 01:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - --JonGwynne 19:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (His point about scientific consensus is well-taken and I will address this in edits to the page)
  • Author's Rebuttal I believe this subject is appropriate for inclusion in the wikipedia for the following reasons:
    • The concept of "consensus science" is well-establised; a Google search turned up "about 5,800" results for the phrase.
    • The term is in mainstrem usage and has a specific meaning.
    • The term and concept are referred to in other articles on wikipedia.
    • While the term may cause a certain amount of controverty, there are arguably more controversial topics under discussion here. For example, the term partial birth abortion.
In addition, I'll point out that WMC has failed to list the criteria he feels the article has violated according to wikipedia policies for vfd and ask they either he do so or else retract his request for deletion.
Finally, I request that WMC either quantify the following allegations or retract them.
  • "This page is a POV disaster area" - what does that mean exactly? It may be a controversial topic (in his opinion) but the concept of "consensus science" does exist and therefore warrants a page on wikipedia. If WMC finds the contents objectionable or troubling, he is certain free to either modify the page in an appropriate manner or, as an alternative, not visit the page.
  • "little more than an attempt to provoke an edit war" - I'd like WMC to explain exactly how he is able to divine my intent in creating this page. Is this purely his personal opinion or does he have some factual basis for this claim? If this is his personal opinion, I would dispute its relevance with regard to his request that this page be deleted.
  • Delete It's a thinly disguised critique of scientific consensus being proof of anything. There's an article to be written about that critique, but this isn't it. -- Dtcdthingy 20:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "Consensus science" is a term in theories of the philosophy of science which question and analyze the magnitude of the role consensus should play in science. Development in the philosophy of science helps keep the progress of science productive. This term is different from "scientific consensus", which simply refers to majority opinion among scientists, while "consensus science" instead refers to the usage of consensus to form assessments of truth (thus placing it at a different level of usage). The term is widely enough used that it's certainly worth addressing in a Wikipedia article. We don't delete articles here just because we think they are controversial topics. — Cortonin | Talk 21:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not a good article, but the subject is worth an article. DJ Clayworth 21:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to scientific consensus. --fvw* 22:56, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only if the article is cleaned up for POV. --Zarquon 01:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 02:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --L33tminion | (talk) 04:33, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge if possible to scientific consensus. The two ideas are closely enough related; the content of consensus science describes potential pitfalls of scientific consensus. A separate article isn't necessary, and in this case seems to be edging towards being a POV fork. --TenOfAllTrades 04:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and if possible merge. Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete scientific consensus covers the topic clearly and concisely whereas this one muddies the field. ping 07:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: seems like a reasonable article subject, with very little overlap with scientific consensus.Ben Standeven 16:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you opposed the content more than the concept of such an article, please reexamine the article after my recent edits and reconsider your votes if appropriate. Thank you. — Cortonin | Talk 09:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. IANAS. GRider\talk 19:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm still unclear on what the term actually is supposed to mean. Is consensus science just one form of fallacious appeal to authority, or is it an example of the bandwagon fallacy? Is it what happens when someone misrepresents facts where an actual scientific consensus exists? Is it all (or none) of the above? And is it still not best addressed within scientific consensus, as a pitfall to the unwary? --TenOfAllTrades 19:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The idea is that you can dismiss a new theory as "consensus science" by claiming it hasn't actually been "proved", but instead scientists have been somehow manipulated to give the appearance of consensus. Of course, I'm not aware of any real forms of non-consensus science, so it's kind of a useless concept. Still delete, and add a discussion of this to scientific consensus --20:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that is the idea at all. The term "consensus science" refers to a tendency to substitute consensus for science. It has nothing to do with scientific consensus and is, in some ways, the polar opposite. Depending on the context, "consensus science" can be more or less similar to appeal to authority, appeal to the majority or a variation of the bandwagon fallacy... but that isn't really an adequate description of it.--JonGwynne 20:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A quote from the article reads, "Most scientific theories which are supported by a scientific consensus are supported because there is conclusive evidence supporting those theories. Such theories would not be consensus science, because a supporting argument can be easily formulated using the existing conclusive evidence." So a field which supports its tenets primarilly by evidence is not consensus science. The term "consensus science" does not refer to "fields which have a consensus", it refers to fields which "primarilly use" consensus as supporting evidence. — Cortonin | Talk 03:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How else can evidence be conclusive other than by consensus? The one non-trivial example of non-consensus science (re:salt) differs only from those of "consensus science" by not having been disproved yet. The article is bullshit. --Dtcdthingy 03:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Repeat vote for Delete Having read the revised version I now know why I didn't agree with the article. Scientific Facts are not established by voting which appears to be the implication of "Consencus Science". "Scientific Concensus" is a different concept because it boils down to the acceptance that scientific facts are not and never can be totally established. Sorry Cortonin,I can't agree with you, nice try though. ping 06:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem is (and the point of there existing a term like "consensus science") is that sometimes consensus itself is TREATED like a scientific fact. The article does not, nor does it intend to, imply that scientific facts are actually obtained from consensus. — Cortonin | Talk 07:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't delete I've looked through Mr Crichton's speech and done some major editing to make it NPOV and encyclopaedic. There seem to be several slightly different defs in use so I chose the most general one. I deleted a couple of the examples because they were crap. Cortonin, please stick to the NPOV tone when making further edits. This especially means not stating the beliefs of cs-ers as fact. --Dtcdthingy 18:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now The new version is good and certainly addresses the issues I raised. ping 06:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, misleading neologism. Wyss 08:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge anything useful into scientific consensus and/or scientific method. Rd232 16:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Had another look. Still don't see a justification for an article under this "concept". The useful material currently there can be moved elsewhere. Rd232 00:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Scientific consensus. Saforrest 07:35, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe a dictionary should mention 'consensus science', explain its current meanings, and offer some links. Cleon Teunissen 12:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The term "consensus science" refers to a tendency to substitute consensus for science. It has nothing to do with scientific consensus and is, in some ways, the polar opposite. Depending on the context, "consensus science" can be more or less similar to appeal to authority, appeal to the majority or a variation of the bandwagon fallacy... but that isn't really an adequate description of it.--JonGwynne 20:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I gather that you take 'consensus science' to be the same kind of expression as 'cargo cult science'. I gather that you take 'consensus science' as referring to a scientific community slipping towards pseudo-science, retaining the characteristic of appreciating consensus, but losing its standards of quality.
It can be. To my way of thinking, it is simply a term used to describe a situation when traditional scientific research techniques has given way to consensus. How or what that happened is beside the point.--JonGwynne 18:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I retract my earlier remarks. I still vote delete though. I have views and opinions on these subjects (I wrote the synopsis-section of the current article on the Structure of Scientific revolutions by Thomas Kuhn). But to me, this subject feels like a fine subject for a column in a magazine dedicated to opinions. Cleon Teunissen 20:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete the stupid thing 1. It's a neologism. 2. It doesn't seem to mean anything specific. 3. It only exists in certain people's heads. 4. The editors of the article are using it as a platform for propaganda, systematically removing NPOV and criticisms others have edited in. While I thought it was plausible to have an article about the concept, I've since decided it's not-notable and not-definable. Us supplying a definition of something apparently in flux would constitute primary research. --Dtcdthingy 19:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Calling for the deletion of an article because your edits were modified is not within the Wikipedia deletion policy. In fact, it's well outside of the Wikipedia deletion policy. How about instead we try to work together to make the article into something which contains good quality and good NPOV through the gradual Wikipedia editing process, just like every other article. — Cortonin | Talk 20:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
1. No, it isn't a neologisn. It is a widely-used term - as I established in my rebuttal to the delete claim. 2. It means something specific. As I also estblished in the "author's rebuttal". If you have questions, ask them and I, for one, will be happy to answer. Just because you don't understand the term doesn't mean it is meaningless. 3. It not only exists in certain people's heads, it is also in mainstream use. 4. Provide examples of NPOV that have been removed. Until and unless you do, your complaints carry no weight. They're like WMC's baseless complaints; a waste of bandwidth. While we're on the subject of proper wikipedia conduct, is "stupid" really a word that contriubutes to progressive communication?--JonGwynne 22:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I no longer think it has any meaning outside science by consensus. Common sense combinations of words don't get wikipedia articles. I'm also starting to think that different people coincidentally putting those words together aren't using it in reference to a common concept. --Dtcdthingy 23:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's fair and you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But with all respect, I'll ask to you consider the possibility that your opinion isn't necessarily the core of the issue here. The fact remains that the term "consensus science" exists and it is in general use to describe a specific thing. As a result, it surely warrants an article here. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my original article wasn't the best thing I ever wrote and with the much appreciated help of others, the article is now much better than it originally was. I think that's probably how this whole wikipedia deal is supposed to work. Wouldn't you agree? Leaving aside our opinions of "consensus science" as well as what may or may not be thus labelled, can we agree that there should be an article discussing it? It isn't just two random words after all.--JonGwynne 23:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If it weren't for the fact that the term "consensus science" is sometimes used against topics like global warming, which a lot of people are rather religiously emotional about, then this VfD never would have arisen in the first place. It would be nice if people could see the existence of the term without considering it through the lense of how it affects their favorite topics. — Cortonin | Talk 07:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See Kolmogorov's zero-one law for examples of statements which cannot be proven by consensus. In these zero-one law statements, one side or the other has to be wrong, and one side cannot claim victory by majority vote, or consensus, because the statements are imponderables, but not undecidables. Thus, the consensus science article's premise is ill-founded. Just like an early King of England, who commanded the sea to retreat, to show that even a King's power has limits. In other words, labelling something as science does not automatically produce truth. Ancheta Wis 11:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Scientific consensus. Useful content from this page can easily be added to the scientific consensus article, where it fits quite nicely. As other users have noted above, the present article basically deals with the pitfalls of taking the consensus of scientists as scientific fact without explicit appeal to empirical evidence. Although the term seems to be gaining some currency ('only' about two fifths of google hits also mention Crichton), it would still fit better within the aforementioned article on scientific consensus. Crichton's new book and crusade bring to mind a number of colourful colloquialisms, but the pitfalls of so-called 'consensus science' are real, well-documented... and belong in the article, scientific consensus. Ben Cairns 12:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Additional: surely it is a neologism (Crichton 2003) for bad science / junk science / pathological science. Rd232 16:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Scientific consensus. Merging would be pointless at this point: this article is just a copy of Scientific consensus with added POV content that more properly belongs on the Global warming controversy page so as to avoid spreading the POV. --Axon 18:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't redirect, don't merge, don't pass go. Delete. BlankVerse 12:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The underlaying argument is valid. There tends to be a lot of appeal to authority, appeal to consequences and appeal to popularity in use by organizations wishing to utilized scientific research to suit their own agenda. Neologism or not, it appears to be entering the popular lexicon and deleting the article will not stop people from using the term. However, a propertly written article will help people avoid miss using the term. A discussion of how logical fallacies are used to control public opinion would improve it greatly. Furthermore, there needs to be a disclaimer at the start of the article that explains the difference between 'Scientific Consensus' and the topic. --Denise Norris 16:28, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion policy

I'd just like to remind everyone of the contents of the Wikipedia deletion policy, which if you'll note the chart "Problems that don't require deletion", you'll find most of the reasons given as reasons in support of deletion here. — Cortonin | Talk 13:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've had a brief look through the votes for deletion, and I can't find a single one that provides a valid (i.e. not on the "Problems that don't require deletion" list) reason for deleting it. Maybe it is time to put an end to this ridiculous VfD and move on. Aren't they only supposed to hang around for five days or so? This one is coming up on double that. The article looks like a keeper, I think. --JonGwynne 17:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Looks like delete to me. But it does seem to be hanging around; I'll put a note on t:VFD and see if that wakes anyone up :-)
Deletion doesn't require a simple majority, it requires a two-thirds consensus. This is part of Wikipedia policy in order to protect controversial topics as part of the body of human knowledge. — Cortonin | Talk 01:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.