Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:32, 11 January 2009

Revision as of 00:03, 12 January 2009

Line 154:

:::''The scariest part to me is the statement, "Mention of homeopathy violates NPOV... This is one of the most outrageous cases of censorship that I've run across in a while."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Plants&diff=186761439&oldid=186747413]

AClark yearhas later, Clarknow confirmed his opinion:

:::''"Science fundamentalism" is a pseudoscience at worst, and a political phenomenon at best, because it assumes that examination of evidence, experimentation, falsification, and the other tools of scientists are insufficient to discredit specific ideas, and that those ideas must be suppressed, or "debunked" in a manner beyond application of the tools of science... As a political movement, IMO science fundamentalism has done great harm to science, leading the gullible to believe that science is nothing more than a belief system.... Homeopathy as a science is bunk.... ScienceApologist is an irritating editor, who in my view does more harm than good....I don't see SA zealously trying to represent fringe ideas at all; I see him zealously trying to suppress them (I have no diffs any different from all those already presented elsewhere). I'm no newbie when it comes to fringe science; I taught evolution for a number of years... demonstrating the unsupportability of a proposition through citations of reliable sources definitely has a place in Wikipedia; debunking, being necessarily POV, doesn't.'' (excerpted from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Evidence#Hi_there.21 this thread])

MrDarwin, another mainstream scientist with excellent credentials '''who left Wikipedia mainly over the same situation''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrDarwin] said:

:::''(1) a small group of editors who have demonstrated no knowledge, expertise, or even a particular interest in botany have been editing, more or less by fiat, several plant species articles to expunge ''any and all'' references to homeopathy, without seeking or even considering consensus or compromise from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants]] project editors, many of whom have been working on these articles for several years (and ''none'' of whom are attempting to promote homeopathy); (2) this group of editors continues to mischaracterize other editors as "pro-homeopathy" when what those editors are trying to do is to ''acknowledge'' the well-documented ''use'' of several plant species in homeopathy; and (3) that it has become apparent that ''no'' source will be admitted as "reliable" by this group of editors, not even publications by professional botanists in the peer-reviewed botanical literature.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=187479160]