Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)/Archive 2

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  to me, it still seems to read that a "scientifiy hypothesis contracdicts established scientific hypotheses".  Bubba73 (talk), 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At any rate, I think "theorem" and probably "law" should be taken out of the sentence.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  clear? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments by Art Carlson 

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  notable because of absurdity? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: addition of criteria

message: 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)
thread_title:  removed criterion 11 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ... on a related topic...  

message: 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)
thread_title:  What to do with this? 

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

message: We've been working on this for a couple of months now → User:Trialsanderrors/SCIENCE. A couple of comments on this version:
#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.
#Pretty much none of the bullet points make the decision more tanglible.
#I like the section on hypotheses, but shouldn't it really be about theories? Hypotheses should never be stand-alone notable.
#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)
thread_title: Hmm...