Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This is the original talk archive of the pre-merged proposal on Wikipedia:Notability (science) [1]

Contains much material cribbed from places like Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Notability (music), and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed decision.

--EngineerScotty 19:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

clear?

I'm not clear on this: "A scientific hypothesis is any hypothesis ... which ... contradicts any established scientific hypotheis". Is something missing or mistated? Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• That is meant to include extra-scientific claims which nonetheless contradict the claims of science. "The moon is made of green cheese", even though it is absurd as a scientific claim itself, contradicts current scientific thinking concerning the physical composition of the moon. Thus, it is covered by the proposal. --EngineerScotty 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

to me, it still seems to read that a "scientifiy hypothesis contracdicts established scientific hypotheses". Bubba73 (talk), 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, I think "theorem" and probably "law" should be taken out of the sentence. Bubba73 (talk), 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The wording is a bit confusing. The idea is you can't say "The philosophy of famous person XYZ is that the moon is made of green cheese" and expect to escape scientific criticism of that idea just because it doesn't call itself science.--Art Carlson 20:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be rewritten, because it seems to define a scientific hypothesis as a hypothesis which contradicts established scientific hypotheses. Bubba73 (talk), 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is why must a scientific hypothesis contradict established scientific hypotheses (by definition)? I think that most scientific hypotheses build on established hypotheses rather than contradict it. Bubba73 (talk), 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Art Carlson

Great! We definitely need something like this as an end product of the current RfArb, and this is an excellent start.

it should be assumed that the hypothesis has not received consideration or acceptance by the scientific community: This needs a more operational definition. Should there be a presumption of non-acceptance unless evidence to the contrary has been presented? Should a negative literature search be the standard of non-acceptance? Is verifiable proclamation of non-acceptance by the adherents (see, for example, Plasma_cosmology#note-1) a sufficient alternative?

the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "debunk" notable hypotheses: It is, however, important to clearly present the case of the establishment against the hypothesis (without endorsing that case). I would also like to see the principle made explicit, that the opinion of the majority about a minority hypothesis is always relevant, whereas the opinion of a minority about a majority hypothesis is subject to WP:Notability and WP:Neutral Point of View#Undue weight. (Of course, I am thinking here of Tommysun's attempts to establish a symmetry between Big Bang and Plasma cosmology.)

Art Carlson 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

notable because of absurdity?

This does not look like a good criterium for inclusion. There are infinitely more absurd theories out there than real scientific theories. I've come across a person who believes the speed of light is zero and "proves" that by math like 1 km + 1 sec = 1 km/sec. Do we really want to include those theories, or do we rather want to protect these people from themselves and not include them?

Furthermore, some theories can be harmful or even insulting. Take a look at this theory. Imagine that you are diagnosed with cancer, and someone like this editor comes along and claims that established treatments are doomed to fail. How would you feel?

I suggest that alternative theories should not be included unless a theory has attracted considerable media or scientific attention. This should of course be proven by providing sources. Errabee 11:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Absurd theories are often not notable, but flat earth and perpetual motion machine are. Fred Bauder 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they would fit in with Errabe's criterion. I also think that the criterion involving recognition by "part" of the scientific community needs better defintion. If one other person says an idea might have some merit that shouldn't constitute part of the scientific community. Also, will this apply to mathematics? Since math doesn't have an issue of something being accepted or not this might lead to all correct math being included which would I think be over-inclusive. JoshuaZ 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposed ArbCom decision states that by simply being absurd a scientific theory would already be notable. I don't think that is really what you want. Errabee 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There has to be a history of it being noted because it is absurd, like flat earth. Fred Bauder 20:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of critical review as a marker for non-notability

When an idea lacks critical review, it is inappropriate to call it a significant minority (to use the term from undue weight). Ideas that are significant minorities in science are those that have been subject to critical review. For example, punctuated equilibrium is a minority view because it is not held to by the majority of evolutionary biologists, but it is significant because it is subject to critical review in the journals by those evoluationary biologists who dispute it. This represents a legitimate scientific controversy.

A controversy that is not scientific would be the one regarding plasma cosmology. Try as the might, advocates for this idea do not have any critical review published for their ideas. This is because the scientific community ignores their ideas. Therefore, plasma cosmology does not represent a minority scientific view because it has received no critical reviews.

The lack of critical reviews is a good editorial guideline for determining whether a topic is dealt with by the scientific community or whether it is marginalized. Such marginalization should be mimicked by Wikipedia in articles about mainstream scientific subjects. To do otherwise would be imposing something other than WP:NPOV.

--ScienceApologist 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference, in your mind, between being ignored and being marginalized? To me, being ignored means that nobody bothers to listen to or respond to your claims. This is obviously not the case with plasma cosmology. Marginalization, to me, is an active process by those in the "mainstream" (the middle of the belief Bell curve) to distance themselves from those not in the mainstream. ScienceApologist, as a self-proclaimed member of the scientific mainstream, marginalizes plasma cosmology and its adherents. Saying that it is a controversy that is not scientific is incorrect. Critical reviews are important, especially in the mainstream, but science is not a popularity contest, as Mendel and Brahe demonstrate. ABlake 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, to accurately describe a non-mainstream subject is not a violation of NPOV. Forcing the non-inclusion or marginalization of a non-mainstream subject is. There is the fundamental difference that I hope you recognize. Notability is a relative measure that should be used with caution and in light of all other facts. ABlake 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no difference between being ignored and being marginalized. Plasma cosmology is ignored because nobody in the mainstream community publishes critical reviews of the subject. Ned Wright publishes popular critical reviews but doesn't find it worth his while to submit them for peer review because plasma cosmology is ignored in the mainstream community.

I'll ask you to show me where I "self-proclaimed" myself a "member" of the scientific community also. I'm not aware I have ever done this.

Finally, no one is saying that non-mainstream subjects should not be described on their own pages. We are saying, though, that mainstream subjects which are ignored/marginalized may not be described on mainstream pages.

--ScienceApologist 14:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, since your third point about non-inclusion in the mainstream article clarifies the argument, I have no need to argue. Good. I still maintain that there is a difference between being passively ignored and being actively marginalized. As for my statement about you being a self-proclaimed member of the scientific community, I believe that came from somebody else's statement about you that I vaguely remember reading in the past, so I apologize. Are you not a member of the mainstream scientific community? ABlake 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really because my research is very much on hold. However, I still keep up with the literature. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

addition of criteria

I have added several criteria to notability. I also corrected the grammar. ANYTHING “may be” X. What we are talking about is what IS X.

Peer-reviewed critical assessments are not the only way the scientist community reacts to significant minority views. Verifiable information on this also includes: funding support from major institutions, invited seminars and presentations at major institutions, discussions in textbooks and discussions outside of peer-reviewer journal if by experts in the field.

Plasma cosmology certainly qualified as being discussed in these ways. I personally have been invited to give presentations on plasma cosmology at the European Southern Observatory, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Princeton University, the University of Pavia (Italy), The University of Buenos Aires, Argentina and the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Plasma cosmology is discussed, and criticized in standard cosmology textbooks such as Peebles Principles of Physical Cosmology. And of course Ned Wright devoted a long critique to my work on his website.

ScienceApologist has always been eager to remove this information from Wiki articles, since it contradicts his assertion that these theories are totally ignored.Elerner 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that presenting something at an institution may make your idea "notable", but it does not make it significant to the mainstream. What is significant to the mainstream are those ideas which mainstream scientists believe are worthy of critique and therefore do not ignore. --ScienceApologist 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's little doubt that plasma cosmology is sufficiently "notable" to be covered on Wikipedia; the debate is how much weight it ought to receive. --EngineerScotty 19:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Or to clarify, the debate is over whether it should be mentioned in mainstream articles and how much weight its marginalization by the mainstream should be covered in the article about plasma cosmology. --ScienceApologist 19:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

removed criterion 11

I removed this criterion:

11. It is notable because it is widely considered to be pseudoscience or absurd.

Simply being considered to be pseudoscience or absurd is in itself not enough to warrant notability. At least one of the other 10 reasons should also be present. I know of a person who believes that atoms are made of space ships, that are inhabited by micro-beings, who are themselves composed of even smaller space ships (ad infinitum). I think we can generally call this absurd, but also that this does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia unless one of the other criteria is met. Note also that in the ArbCom case the absurdity clause has been removed. Errabee 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. --EngineerScotty 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

... on a related topic...

What are the notability criteria for scientific journals? This question was instigated by an ongoing AfD about an undergraduate scientific journal. What's the lowest level of impact we can consider? riana_dzasta 04:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-notability for a scientific journal means there are problems with adequate attribute-ability and neutrality because there are too few sources about it without a conflict of interest. WAS 4.250 18:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What to do with this?

Hi.

I noticed this item:

"It is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher."

What if it is only one researcher who developed the theory, but other papers involving it significantly exist, but were written by someone else?

Also, I noticed this too:

"Hypotheses which are of borderline or minimal notability may be documented in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight."

How does writing an article on them give them "undue weight"? If the article is exclusively about the theory, what would give it "undue weight"?

170.215.83.212 00:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

on paradigm shifts

While talking about the possible future rejection of hypotheses in terms of "paradigm shifts" seems straightforward, the very notion of paradigm shifts in science is one that has been, and continues to be, contested by many science studies scholars. While I personally find Kuhn's ideas to be a useful way to look at scientific change, using that language in WP policy seems to implicitly endorse a particular philosophy of science... I think that section should be reworded into more neutral language.--ragesoss 00:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Steven Weinberg who said that there hasn't been a paradigm shift in science since Copernicus. Bubba73 (talk), 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

He talks about it here, but he doesn't say what I recall him saying (above). Bubba73 (talk), 03:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

We've been working on this for a couple of months now → User:Trialsanderrors/SCIENCE. A couple of comments on this version:

1. I don't like the idea of a notability guideline as a laundry list. NCG's are aides for editors to make up their own minds about a subject, not prescriptions, so the first thing a NCG should do is couch the subject in context.
2. Pretty much none of the bullet points make the decision more tanglible.
3. I like the section on hypotheses, but shouldn't it really be about theories? Hypotheses should never be stand-alone notable.
4. I like the attempt to draw the line between science and non-science topics. This might deserve its own section and be fleshed out.

Cheers, trialsanderrors 08:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability by example

• I think it would be useful to assess the notability guidelines by applying them to two specific phenomena, one considered notable, the other not considered notable by just one editor. Since the Arbitration case is largely based on this example, it will give us the opportunity to check whether it is applied objectively. The two phenomena I have in mind are

1. Transverse redshift, a type of redshift, undisputedly notable, and paragraph included
2. Wolf effect, a redshift mechanism. Considered non notable, hence not mentioned as a redshift mechanism.

Would the first step be to apply the listed criteria to each phenomena, presumably in conjunction with reliable sources? --Iantresman 15:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of Ian gaming the system. I encourage other editors to ignore him. --ScienceApologist 16:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think you don't want other editors to consider this example, because you know it will demonstrate that the notability of the Transverse redshift compared to the Wolf effect, is not as you expect.
• If the guidelines for notability are to work as you want, then you would have no problem in carrying out such an assessment. Indeed, you would welcome it. --Iantresman 13:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So if you say "considered non-notable", does this mean the article is up for AfD? ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mention that the Wolf effect is a redshift has been continuously removed from the article on both the Wolf effect and the article on Redshift. --Iantresman 13:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Methinks you misunderstand the scope of notability guidelines. ~ trialsanderrors 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Criterion 1

"It is part of the corpus of generally accepted scientific knowledge." I believe that this point should be narrowed. The so-called corpus of generally accepted scientific knowledge is vast and concludes an infinite number of minor topics that might not be that notable in themselves. For instance it is possible to synthesize a myriad of chemical substances, but only few of them are important enough on their own to have a separate article. I am not sure how that point should best be re-written, maybe it should even be completely removed as any idea accepted by the scientific community would satisfy many of the other points as well. TSO1D 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just because a specialty subject is not notable to one group of people, doesn't mean that it's not notable to another.
• And by definition, a minority view is probably not generally accepted, yet may still be notable to a particular group. --Iantresman 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that notability is a subjective matter and its perception will differ from one group to another. That is the whole reason for general notability guidelines, to define a set of rules for defining what articles merit to be included in this encyclopedia, regardless of how distinct groups view the subject. In this case, however, what I mean is that there are some topics that are too minor to justify having their own article. For example, under the current draft of the guideline, "N,N-Dimethylaminophosphoryl dichloride", describing a real substance would fit the definition of being part of the "corpus of generally accepted scientific knowledge", so the creation of the article would be supported. Yet that substance has virtually no special prominence, and the article would likely remain a useless stub for all of its life. And you can find much more obscure examples than the one I provided. TSO1D 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's meaningless, because it doesn't attach "mainstream" to a tangible medium. If something is covered in a widely used textbook, it's mainstream science, but then we can also write "covered in a widely used textbook". I already criticized that problem above. ~ trialsanderrors 01:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not sure that I follow you. What's meaningless? I am not really disputing how to classify something as mainstream, but more narrowly, what should have a separate article. I agree with you that if a science textbook or a scientific paper covers a topic than that topic can be considered notable enough, however I believe that that topic must be a primary theme of the work rather than a supporting point. For instance, a scientific article briefly mentioning "N,N-Dimethylaminophosphoryl dichloride" would not in my view make that substance worthy of an independent article on Wikipedia. TSO1D 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Meaningless" means that it doesn't help in an AfD discussion because it does not link the "mainstream" label with something we can check. There is no database for "mainstream science", but we could potentially check if something is listed in textbook X, and then check on Amazon if textbook X is widely used. Those are usable tangible criteria. "Considered mainstream" is not. ~ trialsanderrors 02:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that N,N-Dimethylaminophosphoryl dichloride is a good example of an extreme minority notable subject. Most people won't give it a second glance, but a quick glance on Google shows [2] it as a chemical weapons precursor, and on export control, aside from its chemical properties, and some references on Google Scholar.[3] I could make a case for notability, and since Wikipedia is not paper based, and we're not short of space, I see no problem in its inclusion. --Iantresman 09:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has any intention to include chemical substances in this guideline. There might be a WikiProject that discusses how they're being covered. ~ trialsanderrors 09:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In my view even if chemical substances are not explicitly mention, the broad language of the text (at least under this draft) makes this guideline applicable to everything "scientific". I am not saying whether that's good or bad, just that I believe that chemicals would also fall within its scope. TSO1D 12:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As for "N,N-Dimethylaminophosphoryl", I guess I just had a deeper misunderstanding of the authors of this guideline. I thought that the inclusion of the substance I mentioned would only be supported by this guideline as an unwanted consequence, however I see that some believe that it should be included on principle. I can certainly understand that position, by my fear is that it will support the existence of a great number of new stubs that will rarely grow. But that might not be such a bad thing in itself. After all, Wikipedia is not paper, and those subjects can be worked on by interested parties over time. TSO1D 12:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess that would fall under a section "scientific discoveries", which no one has written yet. I wonder if we could write something that is comprehensive enough to also include e.g. celestial bodies and patents. ~ trialsanderrors 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)