Talk:Scientific imperialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20/3/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Proposed deletion

I have removed the "prod" tag as it is quite inappropriate for this article. As you can see above it has already been proposed to AfD for deletion and was kept. This article has been around for months, has had several editors and is referenced. It should only be deleted if the discussion at AfD supports deletion. So, if you want it deleted, take it back to AfD. --Bduke 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree and furthermore at that time (some months back) there was an extensive cleanup of the article by an admin. Peter morrell 07:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, this page just popped up on my watchlist after lying dormant for months. You're thinking of fragmentalism, which was cleaned up by Tim Vickers during its AFD. This page has had very little work done since its AFD, and remains a POV rant. Skinwalker 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  1. There is too much direct quotation, with the final paragraph being almost entirely quoted. Describe what people say, this will also help avoid the article coming across as an argument for the idea.
  2. There is no critical assessment in this article, the article should describe what other viewpoints exist - what were the main strands of thought in the reception this idea has received in the media and academic literature? Does everybody agree that "Scientific imperialism" exists?
  3. If this point of view is advocated by scientists, and is not simply a strawman description, it would be preferable to quote a few prominent advocates of science holding this position in culture - perhaps Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World is a less extreme example of this?

Tim Vickers 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim I will have another look at this article to see how it can be improved. One point of course is that this view of science is an outsiders view, mostly deriving from sociologists of science who regard it as an elite class of people who try to extend their territory and their empire as much as they can, especially ewhen it tries to annexe territories lying beyond the normally accepted confines of the sciences. Such is regarded as imperialistic behaviour. It is a view of science rather than a critique, although clearly it contains some critical elements. I will see how the tone and language might be improved. regards Peter morrell 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Another idea that came to me is that this article might note Stephen Jay Gould's idea of science and religion being "non-overlapping magisteria", put forth in his book Rocks of Ages. A useful scientific viewpoint on the boundaries of science? Tim Vickers 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking some more along these lines I think there is a core problem with this article. This article seems to be about the proper limits of scientific enquiry. This is an important topic and has been extensively discussed by religious groups, philosophers and scientists - back well before Galileo! However, by putting the description of this debate under the heading used by one extreme view of the question causes immediate NPOV problems. The best solution if a page on this topic does not exist is to create one with a neutral title - like Boundaries of scientific enquiry This topic is touched on at Philosophy_of_science#Scientific_Openness, but I can't find any existing pages on this topic. Perhaps asking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy might turn something up? Tim Vickers 23:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Tim but I don't think you fully grasp this topic. It is NOT an insiders view of science, it is the view of science taken by historians and sociologists and by historians and philosophers of science. In certain ways science has behaved, and continues to behave imperialistically, that is extending its power and authority and its own empire of knowledge. This article, still being revised and extended, discusses this theme in its varied aspects. It is not a POV rant against science or the scientific worldview, merely some observations about the behaviour and attitudes implicit in scientific endeavour now today and in its past. I hope this clarifies. I have some good new citation material soon to add. thanks Peter morrell 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter, this article should definitely contain some alternative views, and at the very least some references and information about those contesting the topic. And this may sound cheeky - but do you not think it is patronising to say "I don't think you fully grasp..." - that is also some intellectual imperialism going on right there - as well as statements that lead me to question your neutrality on the subject. This article is unbalanced and should either be balanced or removed. I would advocate mentions of other forms of intellectual imperialism, including the fact that the rise of scientific imperialism could be perceived as taking the flame from many thousands of years of religious imperialism. Thanks 82.153.19.100 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free of course to add new material backed with citations. All you did before was that golden hammer stuff which is frankly tangential or irrelevant. The main point here is that science has patently become an empire of its own and it dominates and has power these are certainly features of imperialism and so the article is well justified. The article does not seek to judge but to describe. Your final point about religious imperialism is bang on correct. The dominance of science in this age has indeed replaced the dominance by religious imperialism in past ages. I entirely agree with you. Maybe you can add something about that to the article with refs? that would be a useful addition. thanks Peter morrell 10:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)