Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific myth

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Since the article I afd'd has been effectively deleted anyway there is no real reason for this to continue. Jac16888 Talk 12:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific myth[edit]

Scientific myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely intelligible OR filled essay article, sourced mainly to non reliable sources such as blogs and other essays Jac16888 Talk 12:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Science Myth
  2. The Social Reality of Scientific Myth, Science and Social Change
  3. Metaphor and Myth in Science and Religion
  4. The Psychoanalysis Of Science: The Role Of Metaphor, Paraprax, Lacunae And Myth

The topic seems to be structuralist and so is likely to be difficult and fractious. But this just puts it in with other fuzzy topic areas like philosophy and sociology and so it goes... Warden (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a very big difference between an article which is imperfect and an article like this which is virtually unintelligible. Perhaps a decent article could be written on this topic, but having this mess as a starting point would be more of a hindrance than a help - any editor wanting to write about this would just be put off by the daunting task of having to deal with the content already there--Jac16888 Talk 17:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easier to rewrite an existing article, than start from scratch. Why is no one to me it does not start, having English sources? Now there is an anchor. Remove and no one will start. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. As it currently stands the article is so bad that any attempting at improving it would be extremely difficult. After many years of working with badly translated articles that somebody will create and then leave for somebody else to fix I can assure you that nobody does - it is just too much work (hence the 400+ similarly poor articles found at Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation, a huge backlog which you're just adding to). Much better for the project overall to allow someone to start again from scratch--Jac16888 Talk 18:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll look after 5 years as you create this article. especially since no one would think to look well-done made ​​a version in Russian Wikipedia. To quote my favorite expression: I always thought that "supporters of quality" - those who are trying finish writing the Wikipedia article to the quality of the level, but not those who removes all articles, except quality. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry but I have no idea what you just said. Please understand that I mean no offence when I say this, but English is obviously not your native language and that you would be better off contributing to the Russian language Wikipedia where your edits would have actual value--Jac16888 Talk 18:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No problem. The English Wikipedia is a project of translators? Quote original Мне всегда казалось, что "качественники" - это те, кто пытается дополнить статьи Википедии до качественного уровня, а не те кто удаляет все статьи, кроме качественных. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have rewritten the article using English language sources. The Russian language sources may be relevant but I have no fluency in the language and think it is better to stick to English at this stage in the article's development. Warden (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise you. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more accurate to say that you have written a new article replacing the old one - would I be correct in assuming that you used absolutely none of the previous content, and also that you would most likely not have done so were it not for this AFD. And it seems to me the article now is little more than article about Urban legends--Jac16888 Talk 19:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my version was the academic sources, and quite strong. It could be better to fix the style. I can go to the Russian in the discussion? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your version is retained in the edit history. Your sources might go into the Further Reading section but I can't vouch for them myself. While we're debating the very existence of the topic, it seems prudent to minimise the Russian language content as few AFD regulars will be able to understand it. I retained the interwiki link to the Russian version of the article. When I click on that then Google offers me a translation which seems useful in suggesting further ideas for development. I am pleased to see that Newton appears in that version too as this indicates that we're on the same track. Warden (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All right. Many thanks for the revision. And my sources in the literature section can be set aside? Sorry we can not freely because of the language barrier obschatsya. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have alerted some other editors who tried to help you with the article earlier. Let's see if they can help further. We have seven days for this discussion and then an eternity in which to develop and polish the topic. Rome Wasn't Built in a Day. Warden (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article now, although interesting, is not about what I (at least) would expect the expression "scientific myth" to mean. I'm not sure if what we have here is a notable topic. It is certainly not under the correct title. BigJim707 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Mythology (which "myth" redirects to) says: "In folkloristics, a myth is a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form, although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story." I expected this article to be about how the scientific explanation of the Universe serves as a myth for modern people. BigJim707 (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that "myth" is being used here in the very broad sense of any traditional story. There is precedent; Mythbusters study urban and scientific myths that rarely have any religious connotations. A folklorist may declare this folklore rather than myth. But it really depends on the sources for the article--do they call these stories myths or something else? Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. --Mark viking (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I love the Mythbusters. However their sense of the word "myth" seems to be kind of like "something that lots of people believe that may or may not be true." This article is going by the same concept. A more scholarly use of the word would be more like: "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." That's from the Oxford Dictionary online. BigJim707 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Folklore of science" sounds right to me. That gives a much more clear picture of what the article is about. BigJim707 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with user Vyacheslav84 and others. The notability is evident.--Soroboro (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the name is in dispute, the topic of scientific myth/folklore/legend seems a real one. Both Warden and Vyacheslav84 have shown reliable sources for the topic. Warden's rewrite made the article intelligible and short, but well cited. With a notable topic and the major article problems resolved, there is no reason to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - disingenous nomination. Even the original (before Colonel Warden rewrite) article had plenty of references from books and magazines, and not a single one from blogs, while "other essays" is just a derogatory opinion of the nominator about the references published in reliable sources. the nominator refused to address my request to discuss specific issues in article talk page. Therefore I am going to restore the original text (while keeping Colonel Warden's contributions.) - Altenmann >t 02:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little useful content. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • It has little useful context because the contrib of a Russian-speaking person was gutted because it was clumsy, barely readable English. HOwever it was supplied by references to multiple books. Tomorrow I will find some time to extract some "useful content" from the erased text. - Altenmann >t 04:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientific myth of scientific journal articles (I quote the original in Russian - in my paper). «Научный миф» — принявшее рационализированную форму пифическое знание, черпающее свой материал из науки, ее имиджей и апеллирующее к ним. Научный миф может быть «методологическим» либо «фактуальным». «Методологический» миф — генерализация единичного события, ложно принятого за представителя всего класса событий этого ряда. Он создается, если какая-то идеализация привела к яркому успеху так, что выработала ожидание обязательности такого же успеха во всех случаях, независимо от их природы. В качестве примера Г. Бонди приводит «полевой миф», когда высокая эффективность максвелловской теории породила миф о том, что все хорошие физические теории должны быть полевыми. Это стимулировало создание полевых теорий, но на долгие годы отучило физиков всерьез относиться к теориям иного типа (см.: Бонди Г.[.Гипотезы и мифы в физической теории. М., 1972). Помимо мифов, подобных отмеченным Бонди и обязанных своим существова¬нием генерализации случайного единичного обстоятельства, существуют и другие «методологические» мифы, основанные на создании таких идеализированных уста¬новок методологии, которые никогда строго не проводились, но тем не менее при¬знаны реализуемыми и даже единственно возможными. Таковы отмеченные авто¬рами «Бостонских исследований» мифы: «индуктивистский миф» (Дж. Агасси), «миф об абсолютных данных» (У. Селларс) и др. (см.: Структура и развитие нау¬ки. Из Бостонских исследований по философии науки. М., 1978). К таким же мифам относится и получивший ныне широкое распространение миф о существовании так называемой естественнонаучной картины мира (КМ). Этой мифологеме приписывается осуществление синтеза физического, химическо¬го, биологического и других видов естественнонаучного знания, чем якобы реали¬зуются интегративные тенденции современной науки. Конечно, интегративные тен¬денции в науке имеют место, но осуществляются они отнюдь не в форме «естествен¬нонаучной» КМ: такая картина попросту неосуществима, интегративные тенден¬ции не могут принять «картинной» формы. Действительно, интеграция научного знания, которое включало бы в себя [столь несовместимые идеализации (идею константности физических законов в 'единстве с идеей эволюционности законов биологических), не может не содержать • себе острого противоречия. Это имеющее место диалектическое противоречие и заслоняется мифом о существовании «естественнонаучной» КМ, объединяющей мазанные идеи чисто вербально. Мифичность этой КМ ярко обнаруживается на проблеме редукционизма. Редукция биологии к физике, зафиксированная в ка¬честве противоречия, вызывает потребность в методологическом исследовании итераций по переносу, их природы, возможностей и границ. Но тот же редук¬ционизм, обосновываемый посредством апелляции к «естественнонаучной» КМ, методологической озабоченности не вызывает: ведь естественнонаучное знание заранее признается единым, разворачивающимся в рамках одной «картины». Если 1нфункция НКМ заключается в выявлении и обострении специфических противо¬речий познания, то критикуемая мифологема их, напротив, затушевывает посред¬ством вербального снятия. Общая функция научного мифа — заглушить голос «гносеологической совес¬ти» ученого-специалиста, выдвигающей этические препятствия к заимствованию знания, которое он не в состоянии подвергнуть личному компетентному контролю. Осуществлять-же такой контроль за знанием, добытым не им да еще с помощью чуждых ему стандартов, он не может, и даже не столько в силу ограниченности | компетенции, сколько из-за давления сроков, массивов перерабатываемой ин¬формации-и других факторов разделения труда в науке. Если он возьмет на себя миссию контроля, он не сможет двинуть вперед свое исследование. В «научном мифе» он обретает инструментарий Для работы с «чужим» знанием, по видимости, не вступающий в противоречие с требованиями профессиональной этики. Стало быть, субъективно-психологическую природу имеет не метафорический, а именно мифический перенос. На определенных этапах он позволяет добиться практически значимых результатов, как-то организуя мыследеятельность специа¬листов, ибо в конечном счете он отражает некую реальность — реальное разделе¬ние труда в науке. Но эта реальность выступает в обличье, якобы отражающем совсем другую реальность — свойства исследуемого объекта. Это маска, личина, выдающая себя за реальность и тем скрывающая ее. «Методологический» миф, переходя из профессионально-научной сферы в не¬научную, рождает мифы «фактуальные»: методологические фикции принимаются за реальный, освященный авторитетом науки, «факт». Здесь пролегает область генезиса многочисленных «научных» мифов, бытующих в обществе: от натурализации п-мерных пространств до мифов паранауки. Сложны и многообразны формы трансляции знания в науке и- между наукой и обществом. В процессе трансляции рождаются и новые знания о реальности, и ложные образования — «кентавры» и «научные мифы». В них заложены и возможности приращения знания, и эффективно срабатывающие мифогенные ловуш¬ки. Без исследования всего этого многообразия вряд ли возможно управление трансляционными процессами. Source - http://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?hl=ru&q=%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%3A+%D0%BA+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B8+%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8+%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F.&btnG= uppermost .[статья|автор=к. ф. н. доцент Е. Д. Бляхер, к. ф. н. доцент Л. М. Волынская|заглавие=Научная метафора: к методологии исследования трансляции знания. Раздел № 3: метафорические переносы между наукой и обществом|издание=Философские науки|год=1989|выпуск=2 |страницы = 29-38] Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_myth&oldid=1136468850"