Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pathological science/archive1

Pathological science

I just stumbled on this article and was impressed at its comprehensiveness and neutrality, considering that the topic is potentially controvercial. Aside from the fact that it has no images, I think it's almost ready to be a Featured Article as-is. --Doradus 02:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• nominate and support. --Doradus 02:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I should have known that comprehensiveness and neutrality aren't enough per se.
• Object, yes the article does not have an image among other problems. Phoenix2 03:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A featured article doesn't need images, and "other problems" is not a specific rationale that can be addressed, so you risk having your objection ignored unless you can be more specific. --Doradus 06:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not having an image is a valid criticism, but it's not enough to stop a nomination; "Other problems" is so vague it's inherently inactionable. →Raul654 19:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Wish I could agree, because there ought to be a good article on the subject; but it's too much of a hodge-podge and seems to be doomed to stay that way. It argues with itself, and that shouldn't be featured. The cold fusion section, for instance, is an argument, not an illustration of the idea of pathological science. And the last paragraph and its list are hopeless. To be sure, these criticisms should be in the talk page (and are), but it suggests why I'm objecting. Maybe put it up for Peer Review and then try again? --Dandrake 07:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. How is "Pathological Science" different from "Pseudoscience" and "Junk Science"? The Pathological Science article seems to consist of two things: (1) Langmuir's definition of the term, and (2) examples of bad science. The examples of bad science seem like they should go in either Pseudoscience or Junk Science. (I also don't see why we need separate articles on Pseudoscience, Junk science, Bad science, Cargo cult science and others, but they're not FA nominees.) As for Langmuir's views, from what I can see, the term has had only limited impact. I think several articles, including this one, should be merged into say Pseudoscience, and Langmuir's views should be a paragraph (or maybe a section) in that article. I also agree with Dandrake above that this acticle is a hodge-podge. Zashaw 21:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As to the question of how it is different -- my understanding of Langmuir is that it is supposed to be limited to theories which enjoy support from reputable scientists which do not have evidence for them (or have much evidence against them). This would differ from pseudoscience, which is a term used usually to designate activities outside the realm of science masquerading as scientific, and junk science, which to my knowledge has no attempted philosophical definition (is used in a strict pejorative sense). These differences could be commented on in the article, of course.
• Oppose. I don't think the article is very clear. I would appreciate more direct quotes from Langmuir, and any discussions of the term in the philosophy of science literature. I don't think more space should be devoted to Cold Fusion than is to N-Rays, Langmuir's initial example. I don't understand the section "Scientific theories which are not pathological science" -- clearly a whole lot of things could be listed under such a heading, and I'm not sure there's any reason to call Lysenkoism out from all of those possibilities specifically, for example (which is not to say I have any opinion over whether Lysenkoism would fit into the definition or not. If it was going to be mentioned at all, it would be most interesting if presented as a problematizing force -- what do national politics and incentives do to notions of pathological science? Is science transnational? etc.). I'm sure we could scrounge up some N-Rays pictures if we hunt around a bit.. --Fastfission 05:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)