Talk:Antiscience/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Section removed from article

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sock puppetry confirmed

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

Peter morrell

• Peter morrell (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 194.82.139.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Cameronrose (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 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)

This report has to be a mistake. He did edit unlogged from that IP, as he says so himself, but the other two accounts have to be a checkuser mistake.

Willirennen is also listed as a sock on other checkuser Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove. Willirennen's interests are coherent with those of that sockmaster, and don't look at all like Peter's interests. Cameronrose's only contrib is for a band music, while Peter has never edited band music stuff. They don't pass the WP:DUCK test at all.

The IP is shared by all users on a college, with frequent teenage vandals who will of course be interested on music bands, so I think that the checkuser simply mixed them up. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think that Young Earth Creationists are true antiscience representatives not only in terms of biology, but physics (geological datation, astronomy, cosmology etc). The connection with R-wing and L-wing antiscience is Romanticism, that is, the rejection of Reason and the emphasis about intuition, and also a rejection of philosophical Materialism. It is not clear to me how a true leftist can reject historical materialism, but anyway... And it is not clear to me if New Age movements, whose main public is the middle class and upper class (see Fritjof Capra) is really representative of left: remember, the first ecological laws have been implemented by the vegetarian and antiscientis (romantic artist) Adolf Hitler. osame 14:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osame (talk • contribs)

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)

=========================

I would like to suggest a small change to the opening sentence: "Antiscience is a position critical of science and the scientific method." Because science may refer to material not based on the scientific method (as the Science Page indicates), I would make the following modification: "Antiscience is a position critical of science and/or the scientific method." That is, change "and" to inclusive-or. [This is my first post as a new member; I hope this is not considered nitpicking. I think it is important. Cordially,Mjadam00 (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)mjadam00]

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)

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)

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)

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).

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) I hope that by now this section is more NPOV. 189.5.236.171 (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC) It seems to me that the appeal to conspiration theories is a better criterium to detect antiscience, be it L or R. osame 15:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osame (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

Biased approach

The article presents a strongly biased approach. Instead of describing Antiscience as a encyclopedia topic or philosophical movement, it seems to be an antiscience panflet. I am working to give a more balanced view, trying to be faithfull both to antiscience writers and critics of antiscientism. Any comment is welcome. osame 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, having cleaned up some of the 'mess' you left behind you I have to disagree. The article describes antiscience views rather well but feel free to add citation-supported material to flesh it out. It is not a topic that induces balanced responses from even mildly pro-science people who disagree violently with the antiscience position; thus, in such a polarised climate of opinion it is pretty hard to maintain a decent NPOV take on this topic. But one tries. thanks Peter morrell 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I will try to contribute with a more NPOV view, and not to perform main edits without previous discussion here (however I am trying to do some scholar small edits). Sorry for the previous incomplete editing, which really was messy. Should we describe the views of Theodore Roszak and also from antipsychiatry? osame 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osame (talk • contribs)

Thanks, it's quite OK I have no problem with your edits, just go ahead and do them. I just like to tidy things up now and then that's all. Such as spellings and grammar. Not a bigdeal. Yes, those folks do need adding. The modern antiscience 'movement' can be largely traced back to the late 1960s and early 1970s hippy/counterculture movement as can green politics and a few other things. Some mention of them here seems fine to me. thanks Peter morrell 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My observation about Feyrabend being attracted to national socialism (or etnic romanticism) seems to be POV, althought he express explicitly this position in his autobiography and do not claim any change of mind from his young ideals... It is know that several anarchists, due to influence of romanticism, migrated to facism, and of course Feyrabend could be an exemplar of anarco romantic with (nonconcious?) rightwing agenda. Is there some references about Feyrabend and National Socialism in the same sense of Heidegger and Nazism? If not, this seems to be only particular research and I will delet it. osame 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osame (talk • contribs)

If it is a true statement then it's OK. A page number might help. Peter morrell 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I will provide the page number, let me have some time... 189.5.236.171 (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rousseau, anti-science

I believe that the statement "Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, is noted for claiming science leads to morality's corruption." is incorrect. Rousseau didn't say that science in itself is a bad thing, but rather that the development of science led to the corruption of peoples. For some proof, check the final pages of the discourse, where he praises both Bacon and Descartes. (It's the only one I remember, but perhaps it's enough) --Tyrman (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added a bit more on this but we need the exact quote you are referring to in order to clarify further his views on science. Maybe you can provide them? It is no use saying he praised Bacon and Descartes as that just proves nothing about his view of science; it certainly does not prove that he did or didn't regard science as corrupting of morals, which he clearly states in the Discourse. You can't have it both ways. As to the specific reasons for his rejection of science, then like William Blake and William Morris, he appears to have been driven by the romantic notion that nature is pure in itself and should not be analysed and dissected too much. In this respect much more needs adding about Blake and Morris both of whom rejected what they saw as the dehumanising technological aspects of scientific progress more than having issues with science theory or as a growing body of knowledge. Blake's strong antiscience views on Isaac Newton and John Hunter both need including, for example. I will find and add in more on this aspect in due course as time permits. thanks Peter morrell 14:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter is right, Rousseau is a romantic (see reference to Rousseau in the article Romantic Nationalism. He is a true representative of antiscience philosopher. osame 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osame (talk • contribs)

Well, my text isn't in english, and such a text is readily available on the internet, so I googled for it and found it here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=638&chapter=71083&layout=html&Itemid=27 (which is also linked to the wikipedia). When possible, read the five last paragraphs of the second part (just above "A DISCOURSE on a subject proposed by the academy of dijon: what is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorised by natural law?"). Also, I believe that calling Rousseau "romantic" can be quite misleading (which is not the same thing as "false"). Just to make sure things are clear, it was no other than Kant who said that Rousseau is the "Newton of the moral". I'm editing this again to make sure I'm not being unclear (which happens often). It looks to me that Rousseau said that there are those who should cultivate the sciences, and those that shouldn't. When the ones who aren't supposed to do so do it, bad "things" happen. "If nobody more than Socrates had philosophical pretensions in Athens, the blood of a just wouldn't have claimed vengeance against the land of the sciences and the arts" Cheers --Tyrman (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The point you are trying to make still seems rather unclear. I have the text and will check it as you say. However, if you are simply saying that Rousseau says some good (you say) and many bad things (we already know this) about science, then that is still not sufficient to change what is said about him in the article. The balance of his view is still very clearly against science; he was clearly a romantic thinker opposed to science as a form of meddling with nature. How anyone can derive an alternative meaning from his writings seems unclear and requires proof from your side before the wording can be changed -- and even then only slightly. The onus is upon you personally to put the proofs here, until which time your view remains in the minority. thanks Peter morrell 08:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do my best to organizate:

Putting it bluntly, looks to me that Rousseau says: the problems doesn't occur when science itself is in question: if that was the case, no matter who dealt with science, problems would be generated. It is not the case, there are those ("Bacon, Descartes and Newton")which did NOT generate decadence (this is clear in the 5th last paragraph).
So why science made more evil than good? It looks like society, central in Rousseau theory, come into play here :"But so long as power alone is on one side , and knowledge and understanding alone on the other , the learned will seldom make great objects their study, princes will still more rarely do great actions, and the peoples will continue to be, as they are, mean, corrupt and miserable."
Which could lead to: But so long as power alone is on not one side, and knowledge and understanding alone is not on the other, the learned will not seldom make great objects their study, princes will still less rarely do great actions, and the peoples will not continue to be, as they are, mean, corrupt and miserable." Also, those who cultivated science correctly, did it out of society bounds: "Bacon, Descartes and Newton, those teachers of mankind, had themselves no teachers.
Hence: how should we cope with this?: "As for us, ordinary men, on whom Heaven has not been pleased to bestow such great talents; as we are not destined to reap such glory , let us remain in our obscurity. Let us not covet a reputation we should never attain, and which, in the present state of things, would never make up to us for the trouble it would have cost us, even if we were fully qualified to obtain it. Why should we build our happiness on the opinions of others , when we can find it in our own hearts? "
This last phrase shows (again) how is vital to Rousseau the society problematic, as shown further in the second discourse.
And to finish my argument, here is how Rousseau closes his discourse: "Let us, instead of envying them, endeavour to make, between them and us, that honourable distinction which was formerly seen to exist between two great peoples, that the one knew how to speak, and the other how to act, aright."
Sciences and arts led by the society are the problem, not the arts (somewhere in the middle of the text, Rousseau points how an good artist was scorned by the rest of the artists (society artists) or the sciences in themselves. Cheers.--Tyrman (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for those extracts. It still seems pretty confusing and ambiguous to me! Here are some extracts I have made myself from the same text. Hopefully any reader can grasp the main points. I have added bold here and there to emphasize a point.

"it sets out from the badness, immorality and misery of modern nations, traces all these ills to the departure from a “natural” state, and then credits the progress of the arts and sciences with being the cause of that departure." [p.5]

"How can I presume to belittle the sciences before one of the most learned assemblies in Europe," [p.73]

"It is not science, I said to myself, that I am attacking" [p.73]

"suppose an inhabitant of some distant country should endeavour to form an idea of European morals from the state of the sciences, the perfection of the arts, the propriety of our public entertainments, the politeness of our behaviour, the affability of our conversation, our constant professions of benevolence, and from those tumultuous assemblies of people of all ranks, who seem, from morning till night, to have no other care than to oblige one another. Such a stranger, I maintain, would arrive at a totally false view of our morality." [p.75]

"our minds have been corrupted in proportion as the arts and sciences have improved." [p.75]

"but the progress of the sciences soon produced a dissoluteness of manners, and the imposition of the Macedonian yoke:" [p.75]

'eternal proof of the vanity of science," [p.76]

"that honest man would still persist in despising our vain sciences." [p.76]

"Let men learn for once that nature would have preserved them from science, as a mother snatches a dangerous weapon from the hands of her child." [p.77]

"Thus the arts and sciences owe their birth to our vices; we should be less doubtful of their advantages, if they had sprung from our virtues." [p.77]

"If our sciences are futile in the objects they propose, they are no less dangerous in the effects they produce." [p.78]

"If the cultivation of the sciences is prejudicial to military qualities, it is still more so to moral qualities." [p.80]

"if the progress of the arts and sciences has added nothing to our real happiness; if it has corrupted our morals" [p.81]

"Let us therefore judge, with less vanity, on which side the real misery is found. On the other hand, nothing could be more unhappy than savage man, dazzled by science, tormented by his passions, and reasoning about a state different from his own. It appears that Providence most wisely determined that the faculties, which he potentially possessed, should develop themselves only as occasion offered to exercise them, in order that they might not be superfluous or perplexing to him, by appearing before their time, nor slow and useless when the need for them arose. In instinct alone, he had all he required for living in the state of nature; and with a developed understanding he has only just enough to support life in society." [p.98]

"But without deviating from the ordinary sense of the words, it will be proper to suspend the judgment we might be led to form on such a state, and be on our guard against our prejudices, till we have weighed the matter in the scales of impartiality, and seen whether virtues or vices preponderate among civilised men; and whether their virtues do them more good than their vices do harm; till we have discovered, whether the progress of the sciences sufficiently indemnifies them for the mischiefs they do one another, in proportion as they are better informed of the good they ought to do; or whether they would not be, on the whole, in a much happier condition if they had nothing to fear or to hope from any one, than as they are, subjected to universal dependence, and obliged to take everything from those who engage to give them nothing in return." [p.98]

"I could show that it is to this desire of being talked about, and this unremitting rage of distinguishing ourselves, that we owe the best and the worst things we possess, both our virtues and our vices, our science and our errors, our conquerors and our philosophers; that is to say, a great many bad things, and a very few good ones. In a word, I could prove that, if we have a few rich and powerful men on the pinnacle of fortune and grandeur, while the crowd grovels in want and obscurity, it is because the former prize what they enjoy only in so far as others are destitute of it; and because, without changing their condition, they would cease to be happy the moment the people ceased to be wretched." [p.113]

"From great inequality of fortunes and conditions, from the vast variety of passions and of talents, of useless and pernicious arts, of vain sciences, would arise a multitude of prejudices equally contrary to reason, happiness and virtue. We should see the magistrates fomenting everything that might weaken men united in society, by promoting dissension among them; everything that might sow in it the seeds of actual division, while it gave society the air of harmony; everything that might inspire the different ranks of people with mutual hatred and distrust, by setting the rights and interests of one against those of another, and so strengthen the power which comprehended them all." [p.113]

The only conclusion I can make to all this is what I said before: yes he makes some good and bad comments about science but overall his view of science seems far more negative than positive. In which case I can't see how the wording could be changed. You can suggest that yourself and maybe we can implement an improvement to the wording. At the very least we can allude to the confusion and ambiguity in his Discourses. thanks Peter morrell 15:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be very confusing indeed, hmmm...

It looks like that if we asked: "Rousseau, do you think that science was bad to humanity?" he would say "yes", we would be better without science then.
But if we asked: "Rousseau, do you think science is bad to humanity?" he would say "It can be(1) or not(2)"
So it looks like that until now science is in the category (1).
Hum, it can be tricky to put this into the article, and I'm without ideas :/, I can only suggest the following:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, is noted for claiming science led [very important!] to morality's corruption.

I would remove the quotation you put, I think it can be misleading, or perhaps keep it and add the following addition: "Nevertheless, while potentially confusing, Rousseau does NOT state in the Discourse that sciences are necessarily bad, as he states how high in regard figures like Descartes, Bacon and Newton should be held. As stated in the very end of the discourse, Rousseau says that there are those(aforementioned) that can cultivate sciences to great benefit, and those that, cultivating science (mostly because of society's bad influence) , lead to morality's corruption. [source indication of the link of the book here]"

Perhaps some things should be added though, I'm open for suggestions and happy for the constructive debate!
Cheers --Tyrman (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we can change the wording in that case. It needs thinking over but what you suggest sounds OK to me. There is another point though and that concerns what Rousseau actually meant when he used the term 'science.' Is it right for us today to believe he meant the same thing we mean when we use that term? I don't think so. Firstly, science has changed immensely since his day and its dominance in our lives is massive compared to his day. Second, the distinction between science and technology was not so clear then as it is today. Anyway, we can change the wording at some point along the lines you suggest. thanks for the fertile exchange of ideas! Peter morrell 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! True, and this can be tricky...but I think that essentially is not very different...but yes this can be hard to exact... I can only think of a vague add, such as "It should be noted however that Rousseau's lived in the 18th century, and while the term "science" is not essentially different, this should be held in mind". It's poorly written, but you got the idea. Perhaps and link to any wiki article could be used as well. Regards --Tyrman (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your para got initially deleted...I have restored it partly revised but it really needs some cites and maybe a few examples of what Rousseau actually says...we can take those from the sources above on this page...to illustrate the confusion in his writings about science; I will try and do this tomorrow. Then we need more on William Morris. thanks Peter morrell 16:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Section deleted

Text here:

From reductionism to positivism

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

Because of its "close association with reductionism", it is worth saying that positivism and reductionism involve the view that "entities of one kind...are reducible to entities of another", 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", and even that "social processes are reducible to relationships between and actions of individuals", or that "biological organisms are reducible to physical systems".

---

- This is pure opinion: a POV essay and unsourced. All that is sourced is the definition of positivism. I replicate the text here in case anyone wants to source it, un-POV it and salvage. DHooke1973 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

This is a very good article, but it desperately needs a "criticism" section. ask123 (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarity?

I'm a little uncertain as to the legitimacy of this statement: "Recent biographers of Newton[8] consider him more as a renaissance alchemist, natural philosopher, and magician rather than a true representative of scientific illuminism, as popularized by Voltaire and other illuminist Newtonians."

It seems to be of somewhat dubious accuracy, it's completely unclear as to meaning, the "Recent biographers" is vage, and even if it were corrected to be clear, comprehensible, accurate, and properly cited, its relevance is still questionable.

No? 76.208.66.120 (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the problem here. This is a completely clear and comprehensible point that requires no correction. How can it be of dubious accuracy when it is an actual quote from a recent Newton biography? It is also relevant and accurate. The point is that while Newton is generally viewed (and quite rightly) within mainstream science as a great hero figure of materialism, mathematics and the empirical scientific method, yet research has shown that he was personally a far more complex figure, highly religious, who dabbled in astrology, magic and the occult as well as being a brilliant mathematical genius famous for the enduring contributions he made to mechanics, astronomy, etc. In other words, the castigation heaped upon him as a fiendish materialist by people like Blake was misdirected because they were both highly religious men, absorbed by mystical pursuits and were united in their opposition to a completely rational interpretation of the world. Therefore, as stated, Newton is interpreted by one section of intellectuals as a pure scientist and by others as a mystic. In truth, he was both. It is relevant to this article because it shows how even a 'colossus of science' like Newton had antiscientific interests that ran counter to the way he is normally depicted by the scientific mainstream. Peter morrell 06:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Romanticism in right-wing section

In the first paragraph of right wing anti-science, Romanticism is discussed. I always thought of Romanticism as generally left leaning. Am I missing something or should this be changed? I'm certainly no expert on the subject but if anyone knowledgeable agrees, please change it because it's unlikely i'll be back any time soon to act upon the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerikson (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's cite sources that describe antiscience

I just added an {{original research}} tag. As of [this version], all but one of the sources is from critics of science and critics of critics of science, not from sources that talk about antiscience. The exception is <ref>[http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/30/climate_act/index.html Joseph Romm, "Anti-science conservatives must be stopped", Salon.com, June 30, 2008]</ref><ref>, which is an opinion piece, not a reliable source.

Citing the writings of people critical of science to document antiscience is original research if there are no reliable sources connecting those writings with antiscience. It might be very worthy research and the conclusions might be correct and even obvious, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. We don't need to remove, say, the mention of William Blake, since he's surely one of the best representatives of opposition to science; but we need to do so within the framework of well-established scholarly research on something actually called "antiscience". If there is no existing body of research on opposition to science, then the topic just isn't ready for Wikipedia. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you really checked all the references on whether they refer to antiscience? There is certainly more than one such reference. E.g., in The Republican War on Science, the author explicitly refers to antiscience. The book is widely cited among scholars and thus definitely a reliable source. However, I agree that there are passages in this article which certainly have to be considered original research.--Hall9595Hall (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hobbes

Inclusion of Hobbes [10] seems very contrived to me William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't seem much like an explanation. Please be more detailed and specific. You have expressed your POV about your removal of well sourced text but have still given no explanation so far. You were invited to explain not to just say you found it "contrived." Please expand on your points. Are you an expert on Thomas Hobbes? How is it contrived? thank you. Peter morrell 18:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If it helps to show I will be entirely neutral on this matter you have raised, I have now acquired six large academic texts about Hobbes and his work and I will check the paragraph here carefully against what they say about him. If it does indeed seem like 'contrived tosh,' then of course we can remove it, but if it seems OK or needs some adjustments, then that also can be done. Hopefully it can be bolstered with some fresh quotation material, but if that is not possible, then it can be amended or deleted. I hope this satisfies your requirements on this issue. thanks Peter morrell 04:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion to restore antiscience as part of definition in Alternative medicine article, using sources Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Journal of Academic Medicine, etc.

A discussion involving retoring content from sources describing alternative medicine as being based on pseudoscience, antiscience, tradition, and bad science, including the first 14 sources of this version, such as Journal of the Association of Medical Colleges, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Academic Medicine, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Medical Journal of Australia, Nature Medicine, etc., to the Alternative medicine article is now going on here. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Right-Wing Section

I wouldn't say most conservatives are antiscience on embryonic stem cells or contraception. They don't say that the science is false, just that the usage is immoral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.134.53 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Bias

The "Left-wing Antiscience" section has some problems. I'm a radical leftist and quite scientifically minded, if that matters. That being said, I have a view issues. I don't like that an responses to anti-scientific positions are in the same section and - in this case - longer than the actual arguments in favor of the view. It's also interesting that the "pro-science" response displays thorough knowledge of certain antiscientific philosophies, and they simply have no interest in explaining the other side.

What are the more specific problems? The first paragraph contains quotes from someone who has no Wikipedia article, a non-functioning website, and hardly can be taken as a representative of leftist antiscience. It seems like a blatant attempt to promote a blog. I could not find any credentials on that blog, either. This makes the second paragraph somewhat suspect. Leftists do criticize science as being "used" by the political right. And another quote, which I would argue is racist.

The "New Left" refers to the first portion of the article, but the first portion does not specify this when talking about leftist. This is potentially misleading. Implying critical theory caused antiscience with no elaboration. Horkheimer contributes nothing to the article. Inserting religion and theology into the article is damaging the credibility of a criticism of science. Religion being mentioned is going to bias a scientifically minded person. Romantic fascist antiscience? The philosophers being cited as following naturally from their romantic views? Argument for that is missing, and I somewhat doubt that claim as I'm vaguely familiar with the philosophers. And "master" is a term that has negative connotations and doesn't belong there. The New Left would not criticize anti-Christian viewpoints. They hold many themselves. This is a random interjection to demean the points. And Nazism? Really. That's totally overboard. Just because people flirted around with some bad ideas doesn't mean they didn't have good ones, and it doesn't mean the ideas are related in any way.

This is the most biased section (that one, not the whole article) I've ever read in years of reading Wikipedia. I don't know what to do with it, but I had to point out these problems. I don't know how to track who wrote it, but they should probably be checked up on. They probably have good intentions, but if you can't be unbiased you shouldn't be writing on Wikipedia, I think.

Not only that, the other sources in the section are 20-30 year old research papers which have nothing to do with political ideologies. I don't think it is considered leftist to think of science as masculine, or even bourgeois. Does "right-wing antiscience" only go back to the counter-enlightenment (late 18th century)? I recommend removing the political anti-science section completely, saving perhaps the religious section which, IMO belongs under "3 Areas of Antiscience". Which, by the way, do we have a source confirming there are indeed exactly three "areas"? The Sociology section seems based entirely on the views of a single sociologist claiming other sociologists are anti-socience. As it is, half the article is useful historical information, while the other half is mostly cobbled bits of selectively-quoted tracts from randos, making it read more like a college essay than an encyclopedic article. If no-one objects, I will attempt to remedy as described. The article still needs much more trimming down and relevant sourcing than I'll be able to provide. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there definitely is antiscience that has been described as "left-wing" - Higher Superstition comes to mind as a source. That book focuses on postmodernism-related antiscience (including among sociologists) but I'm sure it's easy to find sources about how e.g. anti-nuclear activism and New Age philosophy are predominantly phenomena from the "left." I don't see anything immediately wrong about the types of sources being used in the political section, so I think a better approach would be to just break down the left-right dichotomy, which lends itself to false balance in any case. The religion section could be moved out since it's only really in the USA that the religious antiscience gets tied to politics.

As a brief comment about the OP's first paragraph, I would note that non-mainstream viewpoints must be explicitly identified as such and placed in the context of the mainstream view - this is mandated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, e.g. neutral point of view and fringe theories. In general, a scientific consensus will simply be reported as fact, which is why we describe climate change and evolution as factual. Antiscience in the context of any individual topic will almost by definition be opposed to a scientific consensus about that topic. Sunrise (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence appears to be discussing an epistemological debate regarding positivism and research, and the second directly refers to the Sokal Affair. From my limited knowledge of the incident, it suggests that certain academics with left-wing views accepted a paper of dubious quality, which turned out to be a hoax. If we accept that as an example of evidence of anti-science tendencies on the left, we're going to need more than just Higher Superstition as a (primary) source, as this would be WP:UNDUE At the very least we might mention Sokal and/or the Science Wars to put it in perspective. I still think the 1st sentence of the Right Wing section is dubious. Certainly there are examples of anti-science ideals among intellectual conservatives pre-dating the enlightenment, but we'll be hard-pressed to find any source describing them as right/left since those political labels were still developing at the time. I might mention that only in the US is climate change as heavily politicized as it is, not unlike religion. Speaking of, what about intelligent design? That seems like a big omission.

The decent examples you mentioned - anti-nuclear, new-age philosophy - I think we need more than the editorials currently sourcing that. For us to say "well that's left-wing anti-science" is original research. There are certainly scientists who argue nuclear policy is flawed, vis-a-vis waste storage, proliferation and safety, esp. after Fukushima. For us to say new-age philosophy is generally leftist (and inherently anti-science) we need a decent source saying so - it might seem self-evident, but there are also many neopagan groups with politically neutral or conservative outlooks, as well as groups with holistic attitudes towards science.

I'll abstain from hacking this thing to pieces, and I do agree that the left-right dichotomy should be broken down as you suggest. I found some great sources for "anti-science" at Google Scholar, some old, some fairly new. Perhaps more on JSTOR. I can't speak for the anon OP, but it looks like the section has changed a bit since they posted - I think they were concerned with misleading language which seems to have been partially cleaned up. <>Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Higher Superstition is largely a literature review, so most statements sourced from it will be secondary. I can't say whether the counter-enlightenment statement can be supported, though my understanding is that intelligent design is a relatively modern phenomenon (the basic proposition derives from Paley's watchmaker argument). I've seen arguments that it's older at Talk:Intelligent design and consensus seems to be against them. That said, I'd agree that ID should be discussed more, as well as global warming denial etc. They're discussed more in RS and probably deserve considerably more weight than they currently have - I encourage you to go ahead and edit. :-) IIRC I've never made major edits to this page, so I don't feel attached to any particular text. Politicization of science might be a good article to draw material from.

In response to the more general issues: I definitely wouldn't say any antiscience argument is made exclusively among one political group. To take one example, in the US the Gallup polls found that ~40% of Democrats are young-earth creationists; similar views occur in other countries though I'm not sure how those break down politically. Likewise there are valid critiques of nuclear power (though AFAIK, not on subjects such as its relative safety compared to fossil fuels and its ability to mitigate climate change), and so forth. There are a couple of editorials among the sources, but also a number of stronger sources - I did a few searches in Google and Google Scholar as well, and it seems likely the weaker ones could be replaced if necessary. I found it useful to search for both "antiscience" and "anti-science" to get more results. Of course, if we can't find any RS that actually refer to these as examples of antiscience then I'll have no objection to removing them, though e.g. this Scientific American article applies the term by implication (citing Science Left Behind). I also recommend reading C.P. Snow's The Two Cultures (text; expanded into book form here; cited as discussing antiscience in the humanities by [11] pg 45 and [12] pg 2). Sunrise (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, to link to a policy you can just write the shortcut inside the double square brackets: [[WP:UNDUE]] which appears as WP:UNDUE. If you want to link a different word to the policy then you can use a piped link: [[WP:UNDUE|your text]] which appears as your text. Sunrise (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's not saying that leftism equals antiscience, no more than being right-wing equals being anti-science. It just notes antiscience views of left-wing and right-wing groups. Leftists attack industrial agriculture, GMOs and nuclear power, while the right-wing says global warming isn't real and that evolution was made up by atheists. It's not a reflection on all left-wingers or right-wingers, it just so happens that this is the antiscience that some people on the left and some people on the right happen to believe in. 74.42.44.222 (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Antiscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216024037/http://www.salon.com:80/news/feature/2008/06/30/climate_act/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/30/climate_act/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929202018/http://www.alliance1.org/Conferences/NLCCWI2006post/materials/80-4Gambrill.pdf to http://alliance1.org/Conferences/NLCCWI2006post/materials/80-4Gambrill.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619191036/http://www.csupomona.edu:80/~pwross/Sensibility%20Theory%20and%20Conservative%20Complacency.DOC to http://www.csupomona.edu/~pwross/Sensibility%20Theory%20and%20Conservative%20Complacency.DOC
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621154845/http://usabig.com:80/autonomist/science.html to http://usabig.com/autonomist/science.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907203049/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7434 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7434

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Antiscience vs. Antiscientism

Is there a difference between antiscience and antiscientism in English? There are problem in interwiki links, because in Russian and Ukrainian they are two very different terms, where antiscientism is just a scholar criticism of radical scientism and reductionism (usually from social science point of view), and completely unrelated to critism of science in general. As for now this article if connected to antiscientism in Russian and to antiscience in Ukrainian, but there no antiscientism in English to correct this problem.--Demetrios (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

'Political' Section - why populism?

The link between 'political' motivations for antiscience and populist politics is unclear to me, and the article doesn't make this link any clearer! With all due respect to whoever added it there, I suggest removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-Plantinga (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.46.177.89 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2007‎ (UTC)

Yes, Paul Feyerabend needs to be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.225.130 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Science article

I would like to see a whole article on Modern Anti-Science with lots of sections and explaining multiple points of view, to show why people are believing the way they do. Who are the sources and authorities and what motivates them? If science is a reliable method for verifying fact, why do some people not trust it or want to use it? How do individuals in modern society test their perceptions of reality? I tend to think some of the reason is a lack of understanding about science, but maybe what people need more than science class is logic and philosophy. Eemstewart (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Confusion between antiscience and critical approach to science

The title states my main problem with the current article, a problematic confusion between antiscience, the rejection of scientific knowledge and methodologies (there is not one method), and critical approach to sciense and technology from philosophy, activism, social sciences and humanities and basic sciences themselves.

Not being an expert in the subject (I came to the article looking fore some initial references to the subject for a work in a different subject) nor having much time I don't feel like editing the article myself (also, I'm not a native speaker son I could make some mistakes that ay be OK for the talk but not for the article), but I wanted to state the issue and point some examples.

First, I'm not a Nietzchean at all, but I find his identification as antiscience a bit problematic, specially when the fragment quoted is not antiscience at all. He may have some ideas about knowledge that could be argued and his writing style is sometimes grandiloquent and kind of shocking, but his critic is not (at least not mostly, he has some writings where he's a bit idealist of the will) to the science itself but to some attitudes towards scientific knowledge as some spotless trut. Instead, he and some other philosophers often stated as antiscience stress the social nature of scientific research and the knowledge that it produces, the impossibility for the researcher to separate himself from his sociality, and the biases that they may have in their research.

Second, in the political section there are some stuffs that make some noise. The left sections is completely biased, it states some things that are not relevant os misunderstand the ideas that criticizes. Because the article doesn't gives names of who are the ones who states the criticized things it is imposible to respond completely, but when a lot of left wing philosophers (eg: Foucault, Bourdieu, Derrida) write about sciences and power they are not saying that scientific knowledge is just bourgeoise BS but stressing in the socially and politically situation of scientific knowledge and science as a social institution. Their perspective is not the reject of science but a social analysis of it, arguable but in most cases very well based.

The critic towards evolutionary psychology and sociobiology (and some other theories such as linguistic innatism and adaptationist evolution) are in a lot of cases scientific and epistemic critics from some of the most respected scientists of their fields (eg: Christopher Robert Hallpike, Eugen Coșeriu or Stephen Ray Gopuld): internal contradictions, theoretical flaws, problems with the evidence (including evidence manipulating) have ben pointed in several cases (some of them are well stated in their Wikipedia entries) and the references has sometimes a clear bias (the ones in notes 29 and 30, where the sources has themselves been criticized as biased and making bad science). Finally, the critic of SR Gould made by Pinker could be perfectly reversed, actually, Gould is a strongly based biologist while Pinker have been pointes misrepresenting, cherry picking and manipulating evidence (See Douglas ] for a specific scientific matter, the critics about his social analysis are well known).

If this section will continue having this contents, it should also have the responses from the academics labeled as antiscience or some other academics which could ameliorate the bias. Third, there is no space for some real left (some may say leftish) antiscience movements such as the myriad of pseudoscientific or religiously based medicines legitimized by a specific trend in decolonialism.

Fourth, in general, I think there is no counterpoint, things are stated, a note with a link is added and that's all, even in very complex and arguable positions. In addition, some sources are not really legitimate to base the claims and other claims need better sourcing.

Finally, the article doesn't address the diversity of views about what science is and how it works. There are a lot of perspectives from basic science themselves (eg: the interpretations of quantum mechanics have embebed different epistemic and validation principles, different neurosciences conceptions have different considerations regarding the research and the subject of the discipline) and philosophy (neopositivism, Kuhn's historical approach, Feyerabend's pragmatism, Hacking's instrumentalism and a lot of socially based epistemology) and the article seems to asume a ontological approach as given.

I think the entry could be much better with a more complex approach that recognize that some of the claims are, at least, problematic. 2800:A4:330E:7800:5894:2703:8B4:5602 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Really?

Hi, "This is close to the Kantian view that reality is ultimately unknowable" ...? That is a shorthand that doesn't do justice to Kant's actual view. T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Religious antiscience

The first paragraph of this section makes little sense. Yes, there is religious opposition to science. Yes, there are groups which believe in ethnic nationalist ideas and counter-scientific racialism who fall into this group, and yes this includes white supremacists who identify as Christian. However, it says:

• In particular, the traditional and ethnic values emphasized are similar to those of white supremacist Christian Identity theology

But what is similar to white supremacist Christian Identity theology? You can't be saying white supremacist Christians are similar to themselves. And how is religious antiscience as a whole similar to this? If you mean to say that white supremacist Christian identity is the most common form of antiscience, then say that instead. But that's not what it's saying; it's saying that religious antiscience, in general, has traditional values that are similar to a subset of itself. Anyway, I don't think that's true: most of the Americans who are opposed to teaching evolution for religious reasons, for example, probably do not subscribe to any form of white supremacist Christian Identity theology. Nor do those advocates of Hindutva who oppose science have less belonging in the religious antiscience category, or the traditional and ethnic values category The point is that white supremacist Christian Identity theology is only one form of antiscience and should not be conflated with religious opposition to science. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)