138:
269:), but to say that anyone who is trying to pull a fast one will be found out. As part of my research, I predict where asteroids will be. If I am wrong, it becomes obvious. Similarly, it would be obvious if masses of alien spacecraft were visiting Earth or if a prototype antigravity device had flown off towards Mars.
398:
would understand and accept would have required delivering the equivalent of an entire introductory college astronomy, physics, and general scientific methods course. There I draw the line. I am human; I can't explain such complicated things quickly. Fortunately, Knowledge serves its purpose in this regard, as may
413:
272:
Invoking suppression of evidence also holds no water. Science is both cut-throat and collaborative. Saying 'American
Academia' as a single unit is as meaningless as saying 'Russian Academia' or 'Room 156 in the South Mudd Building at Caltech Academia'. If I had evidence available that convinced me
397:
Related to removing pseudoscience is explaining science, and when I make large changes, I do try to explain the science behind the change. However, there are limits. In several cases I've dealt with, explaining to someone who has been adding pseudoscience that they are incorrect in a way that they
207:
As a preemptive measure, you will note that I have chosen to avoid anonymity. Various other editors have not, so, you'll need to trust me when I say that this is the only account I have used to make edits (other than edits made while not logged in). This should be obvious from my edit history, but
354:
The Wright brothers and
Goddard are held up because of people saying that what they did could not be done. But there is a difference here: no-one disagreed that powered flight was physically impossible, just that it was beyond the engineering abilities of civilization, as it was until light-weight
348:
when he proposed continental drift, but he had also proven himself as a meteorologist. His background probably explains the flawed physics in his drift model. That he read the evidence for drift correctly is what he is now known for, because it took another fifty years of work to demonstrate the
216:
I've been involved with removing various unsupported speculation from
Knowledge. In removing this content, I have encountered support from many editors, but there is always someone who objects. The objections follow a standard pattern, so I will try and address them here so that I don't have to
343:
The references above are favorites, of people who allegedly succeeded despite naysayers or where all others had failed. Einstein is often held up as the paragon of the latter, but this is flawed because he would have been unable to do what he did without all of the experimental and mathematical
312:
To this there can be no answer, because anyone who would use it would dismiss denial. But see
Objection 1 above. I do make mistakes, but I try not to hold grudges or suppress anyone. I will listen to any idea, but I also almost instinctively apply filters to rapidly throw out ideas that don't
450:
359:
editorial, science knew about rockets working in vaccuum well before
Goddard. None of the above is a justification for claims of faster-than-light travel, anti-gravity, or someone suddenly solving unified field theory. In fact, one of my filters for bad ideas is to search for such attempted
294:. Historically, any attempt to confine a technology or idea has led to it being even more widely known. It is also very convenient that anything proving something can't be accessed. If you are publicly making grand claims, they need to be supported down the line. To do otherwise is like
482:
344:
knowledge he gathered from others. Tesla is held up because of his fascination with dubious ideas late in life, but this is flawed because he had numerous legitimate accomplishments before that, which are what he is known for in science. Wegener did get a lot of
234:
There is no single arbiter of science, by definition. But
Knowledge has become such a commonly used reference that whatever science it contains must correspond to present understanding. To do otherwise is as bad as putting in the
247:
machines should be evaluated as harshly as possible; as harshly as the ideas that make up modern science have been tested. It is not coincidence that science succeeds and pseudo-science tends to fail.
298:, who claimed in a hearing to have seen pictures of UFO-derived technology when he hacked US Army computers, but couldn't be bothered to copy the data or even make a screen grab.
373:
These arguments are the easiest to debunk, because the math is relatively simple, but they are also often the hardest to explain. Statistics is messy. Despite
277:
had evidence to disprove my values for the spin state of an asteroid, he would not suppress it. The same applies to every scientist worthy of the name.
381:), it is valid, but only if it is treated properly. Explaining the proper treatment of chi-square or correlation tests always loses someone.
360:
justification. If an idea requires a comparison to
Einstein to satisfy the author's ego, it is likely to have not been critically studied.
317:
251:
265:
Science has been constructed to be as resilient as possible to abuse. This is not to say that scientists are perfect (e.g. consider
389:, nor to make myself a target, but pseudo-science must be purged from Knowledge if this is ever to become a reliable reference.
193:
185:
217:
keep adding material to talk pages. I am quite aware that the people who do the objecting consider their cases to be
378:
345:
302:
313:
work. These filters are usually based on fundamental physics, observational evidence, or prior debunking.
225:
that it applies. Incidentally, all of the examples given below have happened on
Knowledge at least once.
505:
281:
273:
of any of the unsupported claims people have sent me, I would hardly suppress it. Conversely, if
501:
432:
239:
article one of the numerous conspiracy theories that surround that event and presenting such
427:
I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award you this barnstar for some hard anti-vandal work :).
533:
497:
104:
8:
162:
528:
523:
496:
This barnstar is awarded for working diligently to get
Knowledge to properly report on
240:
100:
77:
46:
327:
274:
221:, but when I (or any other editors) reference the following I hope it will be clear
137:
83:
52:
39:
319:
243:
as true. So additions that mis-represent general relativity or describe alleged
228:
222:
121:
67:
356:
335:
197:
517:
469:
295:
266:
331:
244:
412:
399:
386:
465:
374:
355:
combustion engines became available. Similarly, despite the infamous
449:
323:
144:
364:
481:
291:
229:
Objection 0: Knowledge is not the arbiter of scientific truth.
189:
236:
211:
201:
385:I have no desire to be labeled as as irascible as
303:Objection 3: You personally have a grudge against
282:Objection 2: This works, but it is covered under
184:I was a graduate student in Planetary Science at
515:
500:. We sure could use more editors like yourself.
200:. I also work with the Asteroid Radar Group at
75:Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau
290:Forgive me, but this sounds too much like the
392:
143:This user has a website, which can be found
73:
25:This user is no longer active on Knowledge.
258:insert monetary/political/religious reason
208:I've been accused of sockpuppetry anyway.
447:
410:
196:and am now a research scientist at the
516:
479:
212:Knowledge, Science, and Pseudo-Science
428:
194:National Radio Astronomy Observatory
154:
96:
63:
35:
27:
13:
367:insert flawed statistical argument
14:
545:
421:The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
379:Lies, damned lies, and statistics
338:, or other 'authoritative' person
284:insert name of government secrecy
256:has been suppressing science for
480:
448:
411:
136:
132:
32:Editorially Relevant Information
508:) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
429:
318:Objection 4: Reference to the
1:
439:03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
254:insert name of interest group
307:and don't want it to succeed
7:
10:
550:
393:Note on Explaining Science
486:
454:
417:
74:
161:This user page has been
223:beyond reasonable doubt
458:The Editor's Barnstar
119:understanding of the
53:English language
498:scientific consensus
188:, then a postdoc at
490:The E=mc² Barnstar
433:¤~Persian Poet Gal
512:
511:
475:
474:
468:for revisions to
443:
442:
275:Mikko Kaasalainen
181:Michael W. Busch
178:
177:
173:
172:
151:
150:
129:
128:
93:
92:
60:
59:
541:
502:ScienceApologist
484:
477:
476:
452:
445:
444:
438:
437:
415:
408:
407:
155:
140:
133:
115:This user has a
112:
111:
97:
89:
88:
64:
36:
28:
22:
21:
549:
548:
544:
543:
542:
540:
539:
538:
514:
513:
395:
377:'s maxim ( see
370:
349:actual process.
340:
320:Wright brothers
309:
287:
262:
231:
214:
180:
174:
152:
130:
122:Cyrillic script
109:
108:
107:
94:
61:
44:This user is a
33:
26:
23:
19:
18:
12:
11:
5:
547:
537:
536:
531:
526:
510:
509:
493:
492:
487:
485:
473:
472:
461:
460:
455:
453:
441:
440:
424:
423:
418:
416:
394:
391:
383:
382:
369:
363:
362:
361:
357:New York Times
351:
350:
339:
336:Alfred Wegener
316:
315:
314:
308:
301:
300:
299:
286:
280:
279:
278:
270:
261:
250:
249:
248:
230:
227:
213:
210:
198:SETI Institute
176:
175:
171:
170:
159:
153:
149:
148:
141:
131:
127:
126:
113:
95:
91:
90:
71:
62:
58:
57:
47:native speaker
42:
34:
31:
24:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
546:
535:
532:
530:
527:
525:
522:
521:
519:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:
491:
488:
483:
478:
471:
470:Gold standard
467:
463:
462:
459:
456:
451:
446:
436:
435:
434:
426:
425:
422:
419:
414:
409:
406:
405:
401:
390:
388:
380:
376:
372:
371:
368:
365:Objection 5:
358:
353:
352:
347:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
311:
310:
306:
297:
296:Gary McKinnon
293:
289:
288:
285:
276:
271:
268:
267:Hwang Woo Suk
264:
263:
259:
255:
252:Objection 1:
246:
242:
238:
233:
232:
226:
224:
220:
209:
205:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
182:
168:
164:
160:
157:
156:
146:
142:
139:
135:
134:
124:
123:
118:
114:
106:
102:
99:
98:
86:
85:
80:
79:
72:
69:
66:
65:
55:
54:
49:
48:
43:
41:
38:
37:
30:
29:
16:
489:
457:
431:
430:
420:
404:Michaelbusch
403:
402:eventually.
396:
384:
366:
305:insert words
304:
283:
257:
253:
245:anti-gravity
218:
215:
206:
183:
179:
166:
120:
116:
82:
76:
51:
45:
15:
534:User Cyrl-1
464:Awarded by
400:Wikiversity
387:James Randi
78:élémentaire
518:Categories
375:Mark Twain
163:vandalized
529:User fr-1
524:User en-N
219:different
324:Einstein
241:bollocks
192:and the
84:français
328:Goddard
292:X-files
186:Caltech
50:of the
20:Retired
169:times.
165:
332:Tesla
158:vn-35
117:basic
506:talk
346:flak
204:.
190:UCLA
145:here
101:Cyrl
466:Ben
237:JFK
202:JPL
81:de
520::
334:,
330:,
326:,
322:,
167:35
147:.
70:-1
68:fr
40:en
504:(
260:.
125:.
110:Đ”
105:1
103:-
87:.
56:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
