Template:Did you know nominations/Philosophy of Science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by sst✈ 04:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
ALT10b promoted

DYK toolbox

Philosophy of science[edit]

(
)
  • ... that there is no way to distinguish science from non-science that is widely accepted among philosophers of science?

Improved to Good Article status by Hugetim (talk). Self-nominated at 22:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC).

The link would make more sense if the hook ended with "among philosophers of science," but I thought leaving off "of science" made it more concise. -hugeTim (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I shortened the hook. This is my first time doing so, so please feel free to revert if I've messed up. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I've restored the original version, from Rotideypoc41352's shortened: "... that no way to distinguish science from non-science is widely accepted..." The original "there is no way to distinguish science from non-science" is more hook-y, I think, and the added verbiage is worth the extra clarity. Philosophy is complicated by nature and requires precision. -hugeTim (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (alt1) ... that philosophers of science widely accept that there is no way to distinguish science from non-science?
I can't parse the main hook - I have rephrased it. However I would playfully like to ask whether this is a scientific fact or a non-scientific fact??? Victuallers (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The alt doesn't work. <strikethrough>"Philosophy" (of any sort) does not "accept" things.</strikethrough> However, I recognize that the original wording is awkward.-hugeTim (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I have changed Alt1 although I think your point about whether philosophers or philosophy is a small one. Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Alt1 is still not accurate, though, and it is actually not a small point. Most philosophers of science accept that there is some way to distinguish science from non-science, but they just don't agree on how to do it. ("[Kuhn's] and Popper's criteria of demarcation are profoundly different... Philosophers and other theoreticians of science differ widely in their views on what science is. ...almost complete disagreement on the general criteria that these judgments should presumably be based upon." [1]) So the accurate statement is that there is no way to distinguish science from non-science that is widely accepted among philosophers of science. -hugeTim (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (alt2) ... that there is no way to clearly distinguish science from pseudoscience or other non-science, no criterion that is widely accepted among philosophers of science?
-hugeTim (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I don't understand Alt2. Maybe someone else can resolve this. I have tagged this for someone else to assist. Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. Can you say more about what it is you don't understand about the wording in Alt2? Here's another alternative -hugeTim (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This one is not very hook-y, to my mind. The interesting thing is not that a few philosophers happen to disagree slightly with the consensus (as this wording might suggest), but rather that there is widespread, complete disagreement on such a fundamental question. -hugeTim (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Alt4 is fine, it is hooky and it is a lot easier to understand than other hooks. Victuallers (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you please respond specifically to my concern that "The interesting thing is not that a few philosophers happen to disagree slightly with the consensus (as this wording might suggest), but rather that there is widespread, complete disagreement on such a fundamental question"? The thing is that philosophers disagree on pretty much everything, so naming one specific thing they disagree is uninteresting. How about adding one word, so it reads, "philosophers of science completely disagree"? -hugeTim (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (alt5) ... that there are no criteria for distinguishing science from non-science that are widely accepted among philosophers of science?
I initially rejected this wording less concise but maybe it is clearer? -hugeTim (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Alt5 I think is meant to start "that there is no agreed criteria..." Victuallers (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
No, that is not what I intended for Alt5. -hugeTim (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
OK I give in.... I'll leave it to someone else to guess what it means. Does "Did You know that no criteria for" mean something? Sorry for trying to work it out. Victuallers (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I do appreciate your efforts, but I would also appreciate more constructive engagement rather what I perceive as disdain and dismissal. You have a point about the awkwardness of "did you know that no criteria for." That phrase gets exactly zero hits on Google. On the other hand, the phrase "that no criteria for" has around 85 unique results, so such wording is not unheard of. I changed alt5 to use the more common "there are no criteria for" wording, akin to the original hook I suggested but with "criteria" in place of "way to distinguish." -hugeTim (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

New and long enough, QPQ not needed. Many paragraphs lack references. The hooks proposed above are all just too vague; maybe frame the hook around what the different positions about pseudoscience actually are, rather than just saying there is disagreement. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, how about
  • ALT6: ... that philosophers of science completely disagree on how to tell science from pseudoscience, with some arguing it is impossible to establish generally applicable criteria for determining that, for instance, astronomy is science whereas astrology is pseudoscience?
Does every paragraph in the article need a reference to proceed, or do I need to respond to that somehow? -hugeTim (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
At least once cite per paragraph is the generally accepted rule of thumb. I'm a bit surprised this wasn't brought up at GA review, but it should be easy enough to fix now.
The hook needs to be a specific fact that appears explicitly in the article, rather than a summary of the whole article. Astrology isn't mentioned anywhere in the article right now. The following would be good hooks:
These are just from the "Defining science" subsection; there are many more good possibilities for hooks elsewhere in the article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Alt6 is a fact cited in the article (in the very section you highlight: "However, no unified account of the problem has won acceptance among philosophers, and some regard the problem as unsolvable or uninteresting." What problem? "Distinguishing between science and non-science"), and it's not even close to a summary of the article. I think I'm probably done participating in this process. Do with this DYK as you wish, whoever else. -hugeTim (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
ALT6 is also 262 characters, including spaces, far above the 200 maximum for a DYK hook, so I've struck it. Since hugeTim hasn't liked any of the hooks others have proposed, and his hooks have not met DYK criteria or received reviewer approbation, perhaps this nomination should be closed. Antony-22, I'll leave the decision to you on what to do next. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The fact "astronomy is science whereas astrology is pseudoscience" is not in the article. Sorry for the runaround you've gotten, but we're particular about verifying the information in hooks since it's going on the main page. If the extra cites are added for each paragraph, this will pass quickly. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, no progress has been made on this article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Reopening nomination per consensus at WT:DYK#Philosophy of science DYK opposition. New reviewer needed. Yoninah (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not clear whether there remain any objections to alt5. If not, I would like to re-propose it for the hook. -hugeTim (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
ALT5, to me, is interesting because I know the background, but I'm not sure about its interest more broadly. I wonder about something like:
@Hugetim: There are still a few paragraphs with no references. EdChem (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I've lowercased "philosophy" in these three hooks, and would like to suggest deleting "and"; "so" is sufficient after the comma. Also, the article seems to use American English spelling, including "recognizing" in the sentence the hook is taken from, so I'd use "recognize" rather than "recognise". BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have looked more closely. I've struck ALT10a, which is over the 200-character maximum, and deleted the extra question mark at the end of the hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
"z" and "and" changes made, as suggested. EdChem (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Quibble... ALT10a is exactly 200 characters following your suggested change, and could be 198 if the quotation marks were removed. As I added the ref with Potter Stewart in it to the article, I can only make comments, so a reviewer is still needed, plus the extra refs in unreferenced paragraphs. EdChem (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC) PS: Would "separating" be better than "distinguishing" in these hooks - it would shorten them? EdChem (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I've unstruck ALT10a because it isn't too long with the deletion of "and"; as for the rest, I think it's important to hear from hugeTim before changing further, to see whether he is okay with the ALT10 hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I like the Alt10 approach and personally favor Alt10b most (because I've never heard of Potter Stewart personally and adding that name seems extraneous to me).
@EdChem:, please point me to specific paragraphs which contravene the relevant guideline, "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content" (which, anyway, is primarily intended as a quality filter for new articles, not articles that have recently passed GA review!). I don't see any myself. -hugeTim (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I will not be the reviewer, fyi, as I've proposed hooks... I just want to see this promoted and uncited paragraphs can be a problem. On Potter Stewart, his comment is one of the most quoted from the US Supreme Court, so I included his name to trigger interest in those knowing of him. Which hook is used won't be up to me, of course.  :) EdChem (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, @EdChem:. I'm not sure how I missed though on my recent review--I guess I've been looking at this article too long! None seem likely to be challenged or particularly urgent needs, but I agree that inline cites would be good, especially in the second two cases. Thank you, again, everyone, for your help with this. -hugeTim (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Review Good to go! Promoted to GA, timely nominated, long enough. Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. Every paragraph is cited. No copyright violations or too close paraphrasing. Earwig's copy violation detector: Philosophy of Science report gives it a clean bill. The high value comparisons are quotes of the wikipedia article. I prefer ALT10A or ALT10B. (I have a bias. As a lawyer, Potter Stewart resonates with me). The article states: As Martin Gardner has argued for the use of a Potter Stewart standard ("I know it when I see it") for recognizing pseudoscience. Gordin, Michael D. (2012). The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. University of Chicago Press. pp. 12–13. ISBN 9780226304427. But for general readers ALT10B will suffice. Hooks are hooky enough, I think, and relate directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how the process works--is this too late?--but for what it's worth, it's more common to refer to philosophy of science without a "the" in front (in both British and American English, I believe), so I've suggested this last tweak, above. Also, not a big deal, but "Potter Stewart" is not a common way to refer to this idea within philosophy, to my knowledge. (e.g. [2]) The reference in the article was added within the past week, and my own sense is that it (and perhaps Martin Gardner's views in general) are given WP:UNDUE prominence by their inclusion. For a philosopher, appealing to "I know it when I see it" is no different from saying the problem is unsolved, because the whole point of philosophy is articulating things everyone can agree on. Actually, to that end, I also want to propose a more substantial revision, which refers to the most famous attempt at demarcation, which many readers familiar with discussions of science will be familiar with. -hugeTim (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Philosophy_of_Science&oldid=698935240"