Talk:Criticism of science

Philosophy: Science Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of science

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): [[meaning]] For help fixing these links, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

I want to merge the Criticism of Science article with the Antiscience article because they are both highly critical of the scientific method, scientism, reductionism, listing philosophical as well as political reasons. Both articles as far as content and source material go are almost entirely different, but I feel they compliment each other very well. I also feel that when merged, the 'antiscience' article should be moved into the "Criticisms" article because not all attitudes that are expressed are 100% anti science (even in the antiscience article itself) most are just fairly critical of science. If we merge into the criticism article were not confusing scientific criticism or philosophical reform with anti-scientific attitudes. ProductofSociety (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not have strong views, but I think a merge is likely to be difficult to do. Both articles need a lot of work, to make them more coherent and have a better flow. When that is done, it might be clearer whether merging is a good idea or not. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have no problem taking all the time necessary to merge the articles the best i can. Even if the two articles need work, there of the same nature and I feel that merging them together may in fact do them both some good in terms of quality.ProductofSociety (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm for this, the pages go together really well and if they were refined a little bit when merged they would both be in 10 times a better condition then they are now. Part of the reason that either article is a little loose is because they're missing complementary material, or bad wording. This can be easily fixed. Murderd2death (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose the merger. The two articles explore and describe different things. A science supporter or enthusiast may criticize some scientific issues but still recognize the merits of science - it is a constructive criticism. Antiscience refers to people or ideologies that do not recognize any merit on science - it is a vilification of science. Unobjectionable (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd have to weigh in as apposed to a merger. I am not Anti-science at all, yet there are true and certain limits to the knowledge that science can discover, IMO. To criticize something is not to be against something. TDurden1937 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937[reply]

• Oppose I believe that the two viewpoints address the issue from two different perspectives and are best left separated. By combining the two, I believe it would cloud the distinction between the two. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Tiggerjay. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Merge removed from page as per the consensus on this page. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am personally opposed to merging, I am not sure we have a clear consensus here. It seems we still have the exact opposite. I'd suggest instead, (at the very least) leaving this topic un-archived and not marked as resolved while a clear consensus forms. As for the tag itself, as it's designed to attract attention to this, perhaps it should be reinstated. Also, perhaps those editors who indicated a level of ambivalence dependent on the ability to properly merge the articles can be requested to come back to see if other opinions here have swayed them to one side or the other. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Having thought about this again after being asked to do so on my talk page, I agree with Tiggerjay and Unobjectionable. However, both articles need work, to present the points in a cohesive way. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary:

• 2 supports
• 5 opposes
• 0 undecided at this time

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BatteryIncluded posted an alert at the top of the page that says:

"This article relies extensively on quotes that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2011)"

I don't exactly get what this is supposed to mean. I'm a bit flattered that someone would mistake this as group work but all in all I did a lot of the research, compiling, and editing by myself. I am not a group, and I'm not necessarily advocating anything in particular. Some of the views within the article itself are widely divorced from each other (for example, the final paragraph about the military industrial complex has little to do with the section about divination or ecophenomenology, aside from the fact that they're science related). I just compiled many perspectives that related to each other under the same section in the science article, and made it an article unto itself when it got too big.

He also added it to the category of "Anti-Intellectualism". I find that a bit crass. While these views are not held in the mainstay of scientific philosophy, none of the writers/sources in question have ever labeled themselves 'anti-intellectual', and (for the most part) have not been labeled anti-intellectual by anyone else (the exception being Paul Feyerabend's and his misattributed title as an 'enemy of Science'- misattributed because he's a philosopher of science and a science advocate).

I feel this category is being attached to this article as a pejorative, and through it, is suggesting that criticizing certain aspects of scientific method or philosophy is not an intellectual pursuit- or can not be pursued via the intellect. That The 'Anti-Intellectualism' article is part of the 'discrimination' portal on wikipedia doesn't help lessen my suspicion. (ProductofSociety (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• I have to agree with ProductofSociety here. He has explained the sources he used, and how he compiled this page. What is the problem. Anyone have any evidence that ProductofSociety is the proxy of some special interest group? If not take that "This article relies extensively on quotes that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2011)" notice down.

TDurden1937 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937[reply]

This page is listed under Anti-Intellectualism, and this is not proper. It is pro-intellectual in that it helps understand the limits of scientific knowledge.

It should be removed from the Anti-Intellectualism index.TDurden527 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden527[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Science is the intellectual pursuit of a greater understanding of various subject matter. There are those who are opposed to gaining such an understanding, which means one category that can be applied is anti-intellectualism, since their criticism is based on them simply believing against humans' rights/wants to understand their surroundings and the universe. Please do not confuse certain criticism of science (ie: debating scientific principles or conclusions) with the criticism that science even exists because humans should be kept in the dark ages of understanding. They are both criticism of science, but one most definitely falls into anti-intellectualism. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section[1] pretty much states that the views against science based on dismissing the intellectualism of it based on the reasons given. By both definition of intellectualism and the contrary definitions of the reasons to dismiss science for non-intellectual reasons, one comes up with anti(non) intellectualism. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay . . . given that, then I propose to edit the page to remove it from the realm of anti-intellectualism. I am not anti-intellectual, nor am I anti-science. However, criticism as in Criticism of Art can be a constructive thing. I'm not sure what the creator of this page had in mind when he made it, but I will contact him. Does anyone have any objection to moving this page away from anti-intellectualism and anti-science to a constructive criticism of Science? Please comment. I read the reference to divination and I agree it is a stretch (the rolling bones is not a good analogy to Scientific Method, IMHO). I'm not sure that the creator of this page intended that but will ask him. If he is not willing to move this page in the direction of a rational and objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of Science, then there is nothing I can do. I noticed that under Philosophy of Science there is a subheading "Critiques of the Scientific Method." This may be a better place to add what I have in mind, i.e., examination of philosophic underpinnings and assumptions of Science in a way NOT to be confused with Anti-Science or Anti-Intellectualism.TDurden1937 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937[reply]

Why? You seem to be saying "Because I don't like it associated with such, let's pretend such things aren't reality". Please do not insert your POV into trying to decide what content gets included based on your opinions. That's not permitted. Anti-intellectualism is greatly related to this article. Entire, large sects of various religions and non-religions fit within that category. We cannot pretend such is not the case because we do not like the linkages such facts build. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, you can always go create the article that you are suggesting. But, it is against policy to lobotomize this one into that article simply because you don't like the content. You've already admitted it's a valid connection. That leaves nothing other than your dislike of the connection driving your motives. I am more than willing to entertain a (Wikipedia) valid reason for changing this article, but you have not presented one. On that note, as your rationale is solely POV, per the guidelines, your vote on the matter can simply be discarded. What you suggest is a POV fork, which is not consistent with guidelines[2]. As for the consensus part, and why your vote would hold little to no weight, the article on consensus states: "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority." - and your reasonings on the matter definitely do not fall within Wikipedia policy. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi once again. :-) Since I am not uninvolved and am actively participating in this discussion, in the efforts of ensuring both fairness and that I am not inserting any bias I may have into my explanation of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, I am asking two uninvolved admins to stop by here to view both this situation and my interpretations. Even though I try to separate my biases from all things policy (and I don't particularly have any real feelings on this matter), I do not think it otherwise fair for me to be explaining these policies without such explanations being reviewed on the off chance I've unintentionally allowed any bias I may have to slip into my interpretations. I have left a non-biased message on both admins' pages[3][4]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Durden contacted me through my page and has asked me about how I feel about the page when I created it (about two years ago now, funny how time flies), as if I was somehow inspired to make this out of some 'hate' for Science. This is simply untrue (as untrue as the statement that this article was made by a 'lobbying group'). Many of the sources I sited are very much Science Advocates. I'm going to repeat that one for effect. Many of the people I sourced in this article are advocates for Science. Paul Feyerabend was an advocate of Science. Robert Anton Wilson was an advocate of science. Peter Kropotkin was an advocate of Science. Alan Watts advocates Science. I Am a Science Advocate. But advocates of any system are allowed their criticisms as well. Science is built off of self criticism. The critiques in this article are more or less aimed at the philosophical and political foundations for Science rather then empirical data (indeed, many times has science philosophically criticized itself to come out as something new and different, otherwise people like Hume, Popper and Kuhn don't matter). These criticisms were not meant to be read as ant-intellectual/science propaganda. Virtually all of these sources (save a select few I had nothing to do with) I have in books on my bookshelves. There was no group effort to put this up, I am almost literally the only person who has added any content to this article, and I'm not doing it to be an anti-intellectual. I'm doing it to contribute to the wiki effort, by spreading and share a perspective on the philosophical and political criticisms of the sciences. And I've been able to shrug it off this far, but let it be known that I'm a little offended that my effort is being pigeonholed like this. Does this article need work? Yes. Does it need some more perspective? Yes. Does the lack of either make it anti-intellectual? No.(ProductofSociety (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]