Talk:Scientific dissent

Good luck

I realize I am opening a can of worms, stepping into a snake pit, and letting a genie is out of the bottle by creating this article. This is because the term "scientific dissent" is used and abuses quite differently by mainstream scientists, pseudoscience kooks and fringe theorists. Conservatives and progressniks may use the same rhetoric, but apply it to different sides. And so on. I have no idea how to handle this, so I am simply throwing a stone into a bog and running away. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And not having that material, properly sourced, in this article is a huge NPOV problem. Likely violating FRINGE and related ArbCom decisions as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• • And what is exactly not properly sourced in my stub? All directly taken from scholarly authors from reputable publishers. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Kristen Intemann:
    • PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2004
    • Award for Excellence, MSU Alumni Foundation and Bozeman Chamber of Commerce (2012)
    • President’s Excellent in Teaching Award, Montana State University (2009)
    • Best Paper by an Untenured Faculty Member, “How Do Disclosure Policies Fail? Let Us Count the Ways,” co-authored with Inmaculada de Melo-Martín, awarded by the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (2009)
    • Alison Wylie:
    • Professor University of Washington Department of Philosophy
    • Ph.D., Philosophy, from SUNY-Binghamton, 1982
    • M.A., Philosophy and Anthropology, from SUNY-Binghamton 1979
    • B.A. Hons, Philosophy and Sociology, from Mt. Allison University 1976
  • Miriam Solomon
  • Johannes Urpelainen
    • Associate Professor , Department of Political Science, Columbia University,
    • 2015 Outstanding Paper Award given by Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy for “Solar Products for Poor Rural Communities as a Business: Lessons from a Successful Project in Uttar Pradesh, India”
    • Ph.D. Political Science, University of Michigan, 2009
    • M.Soc.Sc. International Relations, University of Tampere, 2006
    • B.Soc.Sc. International Relations, University of Tampere, 2005

All are experts in the area. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

See related discussion at Talk:Dissident. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing interesting. Well-meaning, but original research. There are sources cited but IMO they don't specifically discuss the concept of "scientific dissent". Also I am not sure that scientific dissenters are called "dissidents". Definitely none of the name listed was called so. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Galileo

I added an then removed the following piece:

• The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610, culminating with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism, on the basis of its apparent contradiction with the Bible.

The remark of StAnselm (talk · contribs) cast doubts on my judgement how to classify it whether it was scientific dissent or religious dissent. Superficially it looks like suppressed science which contradicted the established theory. But it was suppressed not because it contradicted the established theory, but because it contradicted the Bible. There are quite a few refs which put the words "Galileo" and "dissent" together, but I was lazy and failed to find ones which describe his dissent as scientific. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

References

I've restored an edited version of the Galileo section. As with the imprisoned Soviet geneticists, (1) he was a scientist, (2) he was teaching against an official (but wrong) scientific pov (the geocentric model in Galileo's case), (3) political and religious factors allowed his (largely Jesuit) scientific opponents to escalate the disagreement to official punishment, and (4) those political and religious factors were linked to the scientific issue in ways which kept the (wrong) consensus alive. In cases where the dissenters are right and a wrong consensus hangs on for a long time, political and religious factors are often in play, so Galileo actually does make a good example. -- 120.17.23.114 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You've not addressed the concerns above. The content and rationale for it appears to be original research to further a pov not in the sources, but please quote from the sources if I'm overlooking something. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that Galileo's observations and conclusions amounted to "scientific dissent" when they followed on from theories of Copernicus and, then, Kepler (who started to quantify solar-system dynamics). Wasn't the heliocentric theory pretty well established within the astronomical community by the time Galileo came along? If so, then the dissent, as I understand it, was mostly with some people within the church, and that, again to my understanding, does not constitute "scientific dissent". Just asking. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're correct on all counts. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The heliocentric model was not "pretty well established within the astronomical community." Following Galileo, the Tychonic system was pretty much the consensus in Catholic countries post-Galileo, partly for religious reasons and partly because the heliocentric model predicted stellar parallax, but no such parallax was observed until 1838. Protestant countries were more friendly to the heliocentric model. -- 120.19.166.194 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Religiously-imposed philosophy. Thanks for agreeing on that.

You've changed the subject to the religiously imposed model post-Galileo. Please keep on topic.

It's long past due for sources demonstrating this religiously imposed philosophy is equivalent to scientific consensus. IDHT appears to be the response instead. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to move the Galileo affair paragraph back to the "False scientific dissent" if no sources are offered demonstrating we should treat Galileo's work as dissent against the scientific consensus of the day rather than religiously=imposed dogma, and that the scientific consensus of his day is equivalent to that of today rather than him being a leading figure in the development of science. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Give it some time, there is no reason to rush into an edit war. The discussion is still ongoing and productive. This is an important topic in the article and something readers expect to see covered, let's get it right. To say Galileo was not a leading figure in the development of science is a pretty outrageous claim. Pretty much everyone that makes it past the 6th grade knows his name. Is that some sort of conspiracy perpetrated by the education systems of the world? Lipsquid (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Please express your concern in specific detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This is because the term "scientific dissent" is used and abused quite differently by mainstream scientists, pseudoscience kooks and fringe theorists. Conservatives and progressniks may use the same rhetoric, but apply it to different sides. And so on. I have no idea how to handle this Until we do handle it, we cannot possibly have a neutral article on the subject. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and WP:RS is our guide against kooks & WP:UNDUE. We will also probably have no problem to cover historical context. However I do see issues with handling modern politicized things like Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. We have to find sources which carefully classify who uses the term for what. An example would be whatever is written in our SDFD article: "Robert T. Pennock says that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to..." . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Also I am not sure that scientific dissenters are called "dissidents" That's a WP:V and NPOV problem. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not used in this article. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I think deletion as a pov-fork is the best solution. --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

POV-fork of what? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Should be obvious by your own comments, or the history of this article. That said, I think editors are making some attempts to rectify the situation. --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. I created this article from scratch after accidentally reading one scholarly article, as obvious from history of this article, and I have no idea what you are talking about. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

[1] to start. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not the answer to my question. Please answer directly, what wikipedia article, in your opinion, is "scientific dissent" page a POV fork of? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

An article is identified in the diff. You want an article identified, you got it. I don't see the problem. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. the article identified in the diff has not a single piece of information which is discussed in the current article. Therefore I fail to see how it is a POV fork. Please show which information is covered differently in the two, and we will fix this. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph on Albert Szent-Györgyi's viewpoints is sourced only by his works. Why are any of his viewpoints deserving of any presentation at all? --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? Szent-Györgyi is one of the best scientists who ever lived. He discovered vitamin c (for which he won the Nobel Prize), discovered the muscle protein actin, and the importance of antioxidants in keeping cells healthy. He wrote numerous scientific papers and books as well as papers and books on how the scientific establishment works, which from his view, is nothing like what is included in this Wikipedia entry now. Ralph Moss wrote a biography of Szent-Györgyi entitled free radical, in part because Szent-Györgyi had to fight the scientific establishment to do creative and Dionysian science that opposed the status quo. I cited one of his papers on the subject. There are many. Every scientist would be bettered by getting acquainted with the words and work of Szent-Györgyi. Indeed Szent-Györgyi went against the status quo in every aspect of his life--which is why Hitler put a bounty on his head! Szent--Györgyi as a model scientist is discussed here: http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/pdfs/modelscientists.pdf

BinaryPhoton (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)BinaryPhoton

Looking at the article Albert Szent-Györgyi, it seems that Hitler put a bounty on his head, not because he was a scientist, but because he was a leader within the Hungarian resistance. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Szent-Gyorgyi, like Michael Faraday, was a born dissident or nonconformist--a very valuable trait for making scientific discoveries. We need more nonconformists to make discoveries that are at variance with current knowledge!!!!

BinaryPhoton (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)BinaryPhoton

Looking at the article Albert Szent-Györgyi, he started his research on vitamin C in 1930. Just seven years later, he received a Nobel prize for this work. Doesn't this mean that his work was appreciated for what it was, that is good science? This aspect of his work is, perhaps, not "dissident science"? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but it is not so true when it comes to his work on antioxidants--Most scientists are conformists who almost never non-conform....most non-conforming scientists conform and non-conform--to coin a phrase...Read his paper that I cited...he tells you in his own words how he does science and how he makes discoveries!

BinaryPhoton (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)BinaryPhoton

@BinaryPhoton: Please change your signature so that it does not disrupt the sequence of indents in threaded discussions. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Testing BinaryPhoton (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Answer: Why not? the article is not about Szent-Györgyi, therefore it would not constitute primary source. But of course, this answer is reading your mind. Once again, please, please state your objections in a way which makes a meaningful discussion possible. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Now, regardless the paragraph, per se I am deleting it because it constitites original research: Szent-Györgyi did not use term "scientific dissent", and "fringes of science" does not mean necesarily dissent. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not? WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. We had no sources demonstrating those viewpoints were encyclopedic and noteworthy. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand you. The subject of the article is "scientific dissent", not viewpoints of Szent-Györgyi. Szent-Györgyi is a reference for the subject of this article. If you are questioning whether this reference is noteworthy, then the correct policy is WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to be clearer: We had no sources demonstrating it is something other than WP:NOT. We had no sources that demonstrate that the viewpoints are WP:DUE. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have objections, you have to be specific, namely how his views contradict the overwhelming majority (this is what WP:UNDUE is, right?). Otherwise I fail to understand why viewpoints of a mainstream scientist have problems with WP:DUE. All articles in politics, culture, or philosophy are composed basically of viewpoints of scholars. We don't add into articles references about credentials of persons cited and about their weight. In any case, the issue is moot now: the text is no longer in the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

My specific concern was the absence of sources that demonstrate NOT and POV are being held to. There were none. Without such sources, we're violating both. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources cited in a wikipedia article support the statements made in the article. If a scholar X says "A" and nobody says "not A" and the scholar is of mainstream repute, then I don't think it is possible for each and every "A" to find sources which say 'X says "A"' and this is mainstream", and I don't think such references are required in wikipedia articles. There is such thing as "implicit agreement". Therefore IMO it is your job to provide reasons why you doubt that "A" is fringe. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think such references are required in wikipedia articles. They are, for NOT and POV, less so for OR and V. --Ronz (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that I am mistaken, for my education and resolving the disagreement, please point me to the corresponding specific rule from Wikipedia policies, and I will be acquiescing your request, because currently I am at a loss how to do this; IMO this is an issue of WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, there is no one rule. Rather there are many in multiple policies, as well as a few ArbCom decisions. I've been wanting to identify them all and make sure they are clearly identified in Wikipedia:Third-party sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources, but haven't gotten around to it. (I can provide more info later if you want - bit busy at the moment.) --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In this case, do you think it would be a good idea to start a discussion about this in WP:NPOV about interpretation of WP:DUE when citing opinions of scholars? (In any case our discussion is out of place here). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Is he a scholar of the philosophy or history of science? Scholars working outside their area of expertise don't have special status that I'm aware. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That's my point I am trying to convey: the issue is WP:RS: a major criterion for a reliable source is the recognized expertise of the author in the research area to which the statement belong. WP:DUE is different: one may be an expert in the area, but still his opinion may be UNDUE for various reasons. While it is easy to check a scholar for WP:RS (credential check is almost always sufficient), but to judge UNDUE of a WP:RS-confirmed expert is murky waters. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. I'm offering a solution: third party sources are needed to determine if any of the material should be included. Are we agreeing and I'm just stepping ahead and focusing on the solution? Are we just focusing on different policies? --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think a good deal of confusion is because we are talking in general terms and quite possible we are talking about different things. So, in context of this article, which statement is questioned and what would be a solution to retain it? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. For comparison, a case from other article (Islamophobia) I've just looked at: "Davina Bhandar writes that ...<quote> . She views this as an ontological trap <... etc.>" Now, do we need 3rd party sources to determine if her views are no be included there and how to proceed with that (both with determining and putting this into wikipedia)? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. I don't see them as remotely similar though. The weight given Bhandar might use discussion to be sure it's appropriate given the source. I wouldn't contest it's use though. In contrast, the letter by Szent-Györgyi requires third-party source to demonstrate it's worth any mention at all. Without such sources, they're simply the opinions of one person who appears to have been added as a false authority. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see why Bhangar does not require "third-party source to demonstrate it's worth". Also My English skills are insufficient to parse your sentence: "The weight given Bhandar might use discussion to be sure it's appropriate given the source." Staszek Lem (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bhandar ref is a article in a reviewed journal. Szent-Györgyi's is a letter. They're not remotely similar.

The Bhandar ref is being given a great deal of weight. Being unfamiliar with the author and journal, if I were editing that article, I might ask for more information to be sure it's not being used too heavily. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, I agree with the judgement. But, as I keep saying, IMO this issue (and your resolution) , in absence of any opposite published opinions, is governed by the WP:RS policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The section on "Examples of scientific dissenters" seems to me to exaggerate things. Calling some standard scientific theories "dogma", then suggesting that those who develop new scientific theories are "dissenters" isn't really an accurate depiction of things. Scientists are always seeking new ways of looking at things, and if they withstand scrutiny and successfully predict data and observations, then they can find acceptance. This is how it works. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Regardless what seems to you, the major problem with this section is that it is "synthesis" of author's opinions about which persons are to be described as "scientific dissenters". In wikipedia, any article on any subject must be based on sources which directly touch the subject. In our case, the article must list only those persons which are directly called "scientific dissenter" or any self-evident synonym. This is the only way to resolve disagreements in wikipedia. Therefore I am moving this section into this talk page until required clarification. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Examples of scientific dissenters

Per discussion above, please provide quotes from reliable sources which describe the persons below as "scientific dissenters":

• Thomas Young questioned the dogma of those who narrowly followed Isaac Newton and developed the wave theory of light.. Young is an example of a scientific dissident in the field of optics.
• James Croll questioned the dogma that the ice ages were exclusively the result of geological process. Croll is an example of a scientific dissident in the field of geology.
  • The ref cited shows that Croll was in no way a dissenter against mainstream science. From the very beginnings his theory was discussed in mainstream with much interest and accepted in varying degrees. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Ilya Mechnikov countered "the followers of the humoral theories" and showed that white blood cells that took up germs by phagocytosis were an integral part of the body's natural resistance to disease. Mechnikov is an example of a scientific dissident in medicine.
• Hermann Staudinger countered "the spirit of the period" that high molecular mass polymers were just artifacts due to the aggregation of small molecules into colloids. Staudinger is an example of a scientific dissident in chemistry.

Why is this guy a "dissenter"? Reading the cited sources, he was clearly a very good scientist. His ideas took a while to be accepted, but in the end, he was right. This happens sometimes, but I don't see how Staudinger was a "dissenter". Is there a source that says he was? In some respects, all scientists shake things up a bit. If they do a good job at it, then they get a Nobel prize. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• James B. Sumner challenged the "inertia of men's ideas" that claimed that proteins could not be enzymes. Sumner, who isolated urease from jack bean and showed it was a protein is an example of a scientific dissident in biochemistry.
• Barbara McClintock questioned the dogma that the genome was stable. McClintock is an example of a dissident scientist in biology and genetics. She described the response to her work, for which she later earned the Nobel Prize, as "puzzlement, and, in some instances, hostility."
• Peter D. Mitchell questioned the dogma that ATP was formed by substrate-level phosphorylation and proposed the chemiosmotic mechanism of ATP synthesis. Mitchell is an example of a scientific dissident in the field of bioenergetics. After winning the Nobel Prize for his work, Mitchell repeated the observation first made my Max Planck, "a new scientific idea does not triumph by convincing its opponents, but rather because its opponents eventually die."
• Boris Ephrussi and Ruth Sager questioned the dogma that heredity could be accounted for exclusively by nuclear genes. They are further examples of scientific dissidents in the fields of biology and genetics.

References

Otherwise it is WP:SYNTH, no matter how right you are. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Original Research Issues

This comes across as far to much original research/over synthesis for an encyclopedia article. I think that the idea has some merit as something for serious people to say something about, but it doesn't appear to have happened. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't throw allegations without specifics, otherwise discussion is impossible. Re: "serious people to say about it" - the text is referenced to no-bullshit PhD people. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

And that original research is to further a pov that's been mentioned on this and other talk pages, but is lacking in the actual sources. Some efforts have now been made to address the issues. Looks like we're moving in the right direction. --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Have I provided enough references and quotes from those references to show a synthesis required for an encyclopedia article to show that it is not original research? BinaryPhoton (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Binary Photon

See section #Examples of scientific dissenters and the preceding talk. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added some additional references to support to the points being made, which are not particularly contentious ones in the history of science, I would think. 1.129.97.47 (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

This article has been proposed for a speedy deletion, but I don't see any of the criteria from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion listed. Please add a valid reason for speedy deletion or list this article at WP:AFD. (I have no opinion as to whether the article should be kept or removed; my only concern is that it be decided by the community, not by 73.38.255.229 alone deciding to remove it.) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Too late. The proposed deletion was rejected.[2] The lesson here is to read and follow the instructions when proposing deletions. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a PROD not a CSD tag. I missed that too and self reverted the tag removal for now. My guess is that this going to end up at AfD. But I think the PROD is an acceptable first step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ack! I made the same mistake![3] My apologies. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to scientific consensus

The previous AfD was closed as no consensus because it seems that the arguments explaining why this article should be deleted weren't fully formed. I hereby attempt to make the argument.

Aside from the idea of scientific consensus which has lately become a very popular concept in the field of science and technology studies, the particular idea of scientific dissent has found rigorous treatment in precisely one journal article: that of Kristen Intemann Inmaculada de Melo-Martín. Essentially no one else has identified this phenomenon as a separate and worthy-to-discuss idea outside of this one source. It is irresponsible for Wikipedia to promote such an idea with such a limited source background.

The proper home for a WP:WEIGHTed discussion of Inmaculada de Melo-Martín's work would be at scientific consensus. The ideas found in the article can be safely incorporated there, though it is doubtful to me that much discussion is necessary over there, nor do I see an absolute need to use this source at that page.

jps (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

While I support deletion, it seems like a flagrant disregard for procedure to proactively delete the entire article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you WP:WIKIHOUNDing me? jps (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: As a purely procedural note, redirects are considered to be different from deletion. They're treated as regular editorial actions and e.g. can be done boldly, and (unless things have changed recently) AfD discussions do not directly affect decisions about redirecting. Sunrise (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[4], [5] and [6] were articles I found in a quick couple of minutes looking for scholarly papers on the topic of scientific dissent. Though the vast majority were Intelligent Design garbage, there were quite a few "real" papers. I don't really have an opinion on the redirect of this article other than to say that scientific consensus does not currently contain enough information about scientific dissent for me to support the merger without some prose merge to also take place. If that were to occur, I think I would support, but I feel that maybe this is a knee jerk reaction to the incessant use of this article by idiots talking about Darwinism or Climate Change. Just because an article is an idiot magnet, doesn't mean that the article is not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. Lipsquid (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

re:"use of this article by idiots talking about Darwinism or Climate Change" - where??? I don't see the abuse neither of this article nor in this article. Let me tell you my little dirty secret: when I created this page and posted the very fist message in the talk page ( "I am opening a can of worms" etc.), I did not mean creationists and climate-change-deniers will flock and cry their "scientific dissent". I meant that this article will generate a panic expectation that creationists and climate-change-deniers will flock and cry their "scientific dissent", and therefore otherwise smart people will not spare any effort to kill this page regardless its merits. And for that reason I stopped working on this subject waiting for a couple more enthusiasts, because surely me alone cannot fend off the pagekiller squad. So at this moment I am only shrugging Don't Panic, creationists will not come and get you here. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Needless to say, I oppose the merge. -- 120.17.184.166 (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Lysenkoism synthesis.

The section on Suppressed scientific dissent contains discussion on Lysenkoism that appears to me to be synthesis or similar. Staszek Lem has asserted, [7], that this material is about "dissent". Note that the only cited support for this label is the Guadian newspaper article, cited in the first sentence of the paragraph, where Lysenkoism is mentioned only once and then in passing. My understanding of Lysenkoism is that it was a political development that promoted misguided theories that contradicted the mainstream theories of Darwinism and genetics, and, as such it was not about suppressing "dissent" per se. Bad, wrong, harmful, yes, Lysenkoism was lots of things, but not about suppressing "dissent". In this respect, it appears to me that this material is not really supported well by cited sources or, even, standard vocabulary. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's OR to further a POV not in the sources, and coatracking. This is not an example of "dissent from scientific consensus" that I see. If it is "scientific dissent" as used in this article, it needs to be clear which type and properly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There is masses of source material on Lysenkoism. For complex reasons, it became the mainstream biological consensus in the Soviet Union, so that geneticists, while mainstream elsewhere, were dissenters under Stalin, and they were certainly very much suppressed. -- 120.17.23.114 (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

So far, it's just an opinion not backed by the necessary sources. Most importantly, the issue of the specific type of dissent and proper context remains unaddressed. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It was not "mainstream biological consensus in the Soviet Union". It was politically imposed dogma. In such conditions to speak about "scientific consensus" is meaningless, because the term 'consensus' implies free discussion in the first place. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with criticism of Ronz about the Lysenkoism paragraph: this one is the case of dissent which does not match the definition of this article: it was not dissent against proper scientific consensus; it was dissent against forcefully imposed scientific dogma. It is an important distinction and I am beginning to understand why, in opinions of some wikipedians this article looks like WP:SYNTH. In my defense I can say that the "outside world" of reliable sources is equally sloppy with words to draw this distinction. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have an issue with your use of the word "proper," in that you are wanting to classify scientific consensus into two kinds -- based on proper debate, and based on force. At a personal level, I would probably make a similar distinction, but that is purely WP:OR. In fact, all scientific consensus includes some element of force -- the Galileo affair and Lysenkoism are just the two most famous extreme examples. The element of force exists because science is done by human beings, and some of those human beings have power (senior academics, journal editors, people in charge of funding) while others do not (PhD students, postdocs, non-tenured academics). I have met talented physicists, for example, who could not get jobs because they did not accept string theory. That's not consensus based on debate, in that the experimental data to decide for or against string theory does not yet exist; that's people with power favouring those who agree with them. In any case, multiple reliable sources use the term "scientific dissent" for the anti-Lysenkoists so including Lysenkoism in the article is on solid ground. Galileo is also widely discussed as an example of scientific dissent (even though several of the sources that use the term do not appear reliable to me), and it seems clear to me that Galileo's book constituted scientific dissent in the sense of this article. Although Galileo got leaned on very heavily, the book resulted in the consensus of his time being overturned: he was a dissenter who was right (in contrast to disbelievers in atoms, like Mach, who were wrong).

It's important to realise that Galileo was not condemned for religious beliefs: he was not a Protestant, for example, and his beliefs seem to have been orthodox Catholic ones; Galileo was condemned for teaching that the earth went around the sun. There were of course religious and political factors behind people's desire not to mess with the existing cosmological consensus, but to some extent that is often the case. In a similar way, the anti-Lysenkoists did not politically oppose the Stalinist regime (in contrast to, say, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose physics was acceptable but whose politics was not). The anti-Lysenkoists were just genuine scientists who woke up one day to find that their well-grounded scientific ideas had become an illegal minority point of view in the USSR.

I agree that we have to be very careful in this article to not let people link modern pseudoscientists to heroes of science like Galileo and Vavilov. -- 120.19.131.177 (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"you are wanting to classify scientific consensus into two kinds" - One could with just as much justification say that you want to classify two different things as the same thing: you want to cram scientific dissent and resistance to external dogma in the same category. What counts is what the reliable sources say: do they lump both together under a common name or do they not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This appears to be yet more original research, all to further a point of view not in the sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources, including those cited, certainly describe Galileo and the anti-Lysenkoists as scientific dissenters (see the quote from Mukherjee in the references: "Any form of scientific dissent to his theories — especially any belief in Mendelian genetics or Darwinian evolution — was outlawed in the Soviet Union"). This is all standard history of science. Galileo was not opposed to Catholic religious dogma, and the anti-Lysenkoists were not opposed to Stalinism or to Communist dogma. If you disagree, please state, with sources, what you think that Galileo and the anti-Lysenkoists were condemned for. -- 120.17.184.166 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the material again, as the sources demonstrating that these are examples of dissent against scientific consensus don't appear to be forthcoming. If someone thinks they have such sources, please bring them up here, quoting the source as 120.17.184.166 did above, but include in that quote material that actually verifies what is proposed we add to the article. Otherwise it's original research. More importantly, it's an ArbEnf violation, given that this is a fringe viewpoint being pushed into this article as if it's mainstream science history. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence in the article is crucial: "Scientific dissent is dissent from scientific consensus". The Galileo and Lyssenko stuff is scientific dissent from dogma: it is scientific, and it is dissent, and people may call it "scientific dissent" in reliable sources, but it is not scientific dissent in the sense of the article. (Not every table which is round is a round table.) It should only be included if the definition in the article was changed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources call anti-Lysenkoism "scientific dissent" (see e.g. the Mukherjee quote: "Any form of scientific dissent to his theories — especially any belief in Mendelian genetics or Darwinian evolution — was outlawed in the Soviet Union") so this article should also.

The scientific consensus article defines scientific consensus as "the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity." Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union was a consensus in that sense. It was accepted by most biologists in the USSR (for a variety of reasons). The scientific consensus article goes on to say that "On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the 'inside' to the 'outside' of the scientific community." That also happened in the USSR. In hindsight, the top scientific institutes in the USSR were wrong with regards to Lysenkoism, but there is nothing in the scientific consensus article that says that consensus has to be correct. Indeed, that article explicitly says that consensus can change.

In a similar way, the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic synthesis was the scientific consensus in Galileo's day. All the top universities taught it, and most scientists accepted it. Even Galileo himself taught it for many years. That consensus also changed (largely as a result of Galileo's dissent). Both Galileo and the anti-Lysenkoists were dissenting, they were dissenting on scientific issues (did the Earth go around the sun? could acquired characteristics be inherited?), and they were dissenting against an established consensus which included the majority of their fellow-scientists.

I am confused by people using the term "dogma." In what sense were Lysenkoism or the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic synthesis dogma that ordinary science is not? Our article dogma is quite poor, but the OED defines "dogma" as "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." This would cover Lysenkoism , but also most of the valid science taught in high school. Of course, Lysenkoism and the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic synthesis were wrong, but we can't take that into account, because such falsity is only evident in hindsight. -- 120.19.32.55 (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:IDHT, then read what Ronz and I wrote above. Everything you wrote is made irrelevant by it.

What I'm hearing is a refusal to answer the points I made. It seems to me that Ronz is acting on what appears to me to be an incorrect understanding of the relevant scientific history. -- 120.19.32.55 (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, your repeating of the Mukherjee quote - which is a clear case of IDHT, since my "round table" argument had already refuted it - put me on the wrong track. In the paragraph following that quote, you actually tried to address our arguments by redefining "scientific consensus". But your reasoning fails: Taking one possible property of scientific consensus and saying "That also happened in the USSR" does not mean that was a scientific consensus. As you said, scientific consensus is "the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study" - though not "the collective judgment, position, and opinion of that part of the community of scientists in a particular field of study who live within one specific country". The community of scientists is worldwide, of course. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware that your comment about round tables refuted what I said. The Mukherjee quote, and multiple other quotes in the literature, are clear that Galileo's dissent was scientific dissent. I hear you arguing that scientific consensus must be international, but that is not reflected in the scientific consensus article, and it raises all kinds of problems for areas where a scientific consensus exists in the USA, but scientists in other countries do not agree. In many disciplines there is no international society that would be able to articulate what the international consensus was. And do you have references supporting the view of scientific consensus that you are proposing? -- 120.19.224.168 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Duh. "The community of scientists in a particular field of study" does not mean "that part of the community of scientists in a particular field of study which is located in a particular area". This is obvious to every scientist... Oh, what's the point. You are not worth it. Go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, it is really bad style to reinstate your changes to article every time you make a contribution to the Talk page. If everybody does that, assuming on the basis of nothing that his last Talk page contribution has finally convinced everybody and resolved the issue, articles will change back and forth several times per day. Wait until the discussion is over, and if you have won, then roll back. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the rule for that: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverts, because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring." --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This would be the page that explains that large deletions of text should be a last resort and "the first choice in editing should always be to improve an article by refinement, not to revert changes by other editors"? -- 120.19.32.55 (talk)

Yes, most of the time some of the text is useful and can stay, but this time it is not. But you are trying the change the subject. Would you please acknowledge what I said and admit that what you did was wrong? When I talk to you I get the feeling of talking to a wall, or to a rock. You just don't listen, except for hooks where you can hang your reply. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not concede that I did anything wrong, and I believe that your blanket deletion was against Wikipedia policy. -- 120.19.224.168 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What blanket deletion? I did not delete anything I know of. You are just a confused person, and I will stop trying to engage you. Go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And BTW: Lyssenko was known to be wrong at the time. Not "in hindsight". It was only forbidden to disagree with him in the Soviet Union. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It was known to be wrong outside the Soviet Union. And it was known to be wrong by the dissenters. That doesn't alter the fact that there was a consensus within the Soviet Union. And we have no way of knowing which of the Soviet scientists who jumped on Lysenko's bandwagon were genuine believers and which were simply bowing to the threat of force. For that matter, it might be true that 99% of physicists disbelieve in relativity (because they would certainly lose their jobs if they spoke out against it). I don't think it makes sense to go down that road; we have to assume that people agree with what they write in their scientific publications, and we have to assume (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that organisations like the AAAS and VASKhNIL actually represent their members.

It seems that you are implicitly assuming that "genuine" scientific consensus is always right, and therefore that wrong consensus is not really consensus at all. I don't think the history of science supports that. Sometimes the dissenters are right (and sometimes they are wrong). -- 120.19.32.55 (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not implying that. You keep inventing things and putting them in your opponents' mouths. DON'T DO THAT.

I repeat: NOT IN HINDSIGHT. You said "in hindsight", and that was wrong. That was my point. What you are arguing against here was NOT MY POINT. You are an extremely annoying person, and I am extremely annoyed. The way you handle this is not a smart way to handle conflicts. And you keep spouting half-truths: you say "there was a consensus within the Soviet Union" but you mean "there was a consensus within the Soviet Union except the Gulag, because the people who disagreed were sent there". Even if that was not the case, the local character of this "consensus" shows it was not a scientific one. Unless you are a fan of that crackpot Paul Feyerabend who thought that "anything goes" was the only possible definition of the scientific method, you can't believe that arresting or killing those you disagree with your ideas is a valid way of achieving a scientific consensus. (In case you still don't get it: This has nothing to to with those ideas being right or wrong.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean unanimity, and the presence of dissenters does not mean that there is no consensus. In general, we say that consensus exists when the relevant academics, scientific societies, and journals are agreed. And no, I don't believe that "arresting or killing those you disagree with your ideas is a valid way of achieving a scientific consensus." Equally, I believe that the other forms of suppression of dissent mentioned in the article (journal editors rejecting a paper for political reasons prior to peer-review, refusing access to data for research which might draw negative conclusions about the safety of some commercial product, and putting pressure on a university to fire a dissenting researcher) are unethical. However, I am aware that those things do happen -- in fact, I have met several legitimate scientists who have undergone some or all of those things. If the use of force in that way invalidates scientific consensus, then very little scientific consensus exists in the world. If the use of force in that way is justified against pseudoscientists (as many would claim), who decides the difference between legitimate dissenters and pseudoscientists? There is nobody outside the scientific community itself that can decide whether or not the scientific community is doing the right thing. But this is all a pointless debate: it's not up to us to decide what is and isn't scientific consensus, we should follow the literature. And the literature speaks of "consensus" in the case of Lysenkoism. -- 120.19.224.168 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

After the first sentence I stopped reading. You are still doing it: inventing objections nobody used. Go away, you lost. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

In general, we say that consensus exists when the relevant academics, scientific societies, and journals are agreed. Yet neither the Galileo affair and certainly not Lysenkoism fit this definition, as has been repeatedly pointed out. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No response here either. I've changed the paragraph to synch with Lysenkoism and how it relates to the topic of this article. As such, it is a false example, so I'm moving it to the proper position. We'll need to expand it to include more on why it's relevant as a false example. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, please be careful with tag-slapping. "OR to further a POV" - which POV? When throwing accusations be specific, otherwise it all turns into witch-hunt akin to best Soviet practices. At the same time I do accept an accusation in WP:SYNTH: I was careless no to pay attention the use of words in sources, see my previous paragraph. But my admission of error took so long, because it took Ronz too long to bring on a specific proof of WP:SYNTH. All previous long revert war was just alphabet-soup splashing. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't like it. None if it was about you, and if any of my comments suggested otherwise, I apologize. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Another merge target

I accidentally run into a puny stub "Scientific controversy", with a single, but IMO respectable ref to berkeley.edu. The ref cited contains quite a few insightful observation, and I am inclined to suggest the merge Scientific dissent ->Scientific controversy and expanding the latter. IMO "controversy" is a more NPOV and general subject than "dissent". Your thoughts? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think "Scientific controversy" is a broader topic. It includes debate on ethical issues, and it also includes scientific debates where there is no mainstream consensus, and thus neither side are "dissenters." -- 120.17.184.166 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Looking at the history, it was started as a list. If this article is really about dissent within science, then a merge seems appropriate. So far though, this article looks like its just going to become a honeypot for dissent against religious or political ideas that some want to present as dissent within science. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we do not want the article "to become a honeypot for dissent against religious or political ideas that some want to present as dissent within science." We should therefore exclude any of the debates about Aristotelian physics and transubstantiation, which was a purely religious issue. Likewise, we should exclude Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who was a scientist in the USSR who dissented politically, not on any scientific issues. The focus of this article should be situations where the scientific community is almost entirely agreed on "X," but other legitimate scientists (we should exclude pseudoscientists) dissent, and disagree with "X," preferring "Y." We should also exclude cases where the scientific community has no consensus (e.g. the Steady State theory in the mid-20th century). -- 120.19.32.55 (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You are making it a honey pot, and edit-warring for it. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Some WP:AGF would be good here. I suspect that the various contributors to this article have more in common than you think. 1.129.97.47 (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing but AGF from me. I'm just stating what the article is being pushed into becoming. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Common examples of false scientific dissent

I've created a new section, as the ip's edit-warring over the content are arguing for it in their repeated confusion between dissent within science vs dissent by people against science or dogmas. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Trying to gather relevant articles as I look for better sources: --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• morphic resonance --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Association_fallacy#Galileo_Gambit --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And possible sources: --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  "Modern scientists follow the evidence-based scientific method that Galileo pioneered. Skeptics who oppose scientific findings that threaten their world view are far closer to Galileo's belief-based critics in the Catholic Church." --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  "Galileo was suppressed by religious/political authority, not scientists. Galileo was not suppressed or “outvoted” by other early scientists. Many scientific contemporaries agreed with his observations[2], and were appalled by his trial.[3] Galileo was persecuted by the religious-political establishment – the Catholic Church, which in 1616 ordered him to stop defending his view of the solar system, which contradicted church dogma." --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/04/16/did-ted-cruz-just-use-science-to-disprove-global-warming/ --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  "Galileo was not challenging “accepted scientific wisdom.” He was challenging religious mysticism: while Biblical evidence pointed towards the sun revolving around the earth, there was little credible scientific evidence to support a geocentric model." --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0327/Ted-Cruz-compares-himself-to-Galileo-new-language-for-climate-change-skeptics --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  Probably not useful unless we want to give examples of the misuse. Cruz' mistakes and fallacies are so numerous that it makes for a confusing example as well, unless we had a different source that analyzed and summarize it all better. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• https://propagandaprofessor.net/2015/11/09/science-deniers-flat-earthers-and-the-modern-galileo/ --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  Goes into some detail about Cruz's many mistakes and fallacies, but far from the supposed topic of this article, scientific dissent. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.salon.com/2015/12/10/ted_cruzs_junk_science_gop_candidate_denies_climate_change_while_citing_debunked_data_and_touting_his_inherited_math_skills/ --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  "Galileo was labeled a heretic not by scientists but by the church because he affirmed that the Earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around." --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2008/12/20/the-lonely-grave-of-galileo-galilei/#.V78ogK0Wn-A --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  "The problem is that the way most people think about science hasn’t caught up with the pace of scientific change. In just a couple of hundred years, science has gone from being an assortment of separate, largely bad notions, to being a vast construct of interlinking and mutually supporting theories, the foundations of which are supported by mountains of evidence. Yet all of our most popular myths about science are Robin Hood stories – the hero is the underdog, the rebel, the Maverick who stands up to authority, battles the entrenched beliefs of the Establishment, and challenges dogma. In other words, the hero is a denialist – albeit one who turns out to be right. Once, this was realistic. Galileo was an Aristotelean cosmology denier; Pasteur was a miasma theory denier; Einstein was a Newtonian physics denier. (In fact, the historical facts are a bit more complicated, as they often are, but this is true enough.) But these stories are out of date. Thanks to the great deniers of the past, there are few, if any, inappropriate dogmas in mainstream science."

  "Science has moved on since the time of Galileo, thanks to his efforts and those of they who came after him, but he is still invoked as a hero by those who deny scientific truth." --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/wall-street-journal-climate-change-denial_b_9551482.html --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  "So let’s be clear about the facts: Galileo had the courage to speak truth to the powerful interests of his day in the Roman Catholic Church, just as two generations of scientists have tried to speak truth about climate change to executives and lobbyists in the fossil fuel industry.

  "The Catholic Church declared Galileo a heretic and placed him under house arrest. Oil industry lobbyists don’t have that kind of power, thankfully, so they merely suppressed internal climate research and started funding groups like CEI to publicly attack independent climate researchers, instead.

  "If he were alive today, Galileo would be appalled to witness industry shills attempt to wrap themselves in his legacy. He would not be on the side of powerful fossil fuel interests who fund attacks on scientific research; perhaps this time, ironically, he would be on the side of his Pope and the scientists whose council he regularly seeks, who respect facts and evidence and recognize the reality we live in for what it is." --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Galileo was challenging accepted scientific wisdom, as was taught in the universities. And some of the criticism Galileo faced was actually valid: the Tychonic system was also consistent with his astronomical observations. I'm afraid that blogs, salon.com, and Huffpost don't count as reliable sources on the history of the Galileo affair. -- 120.19.166.194 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone agrees with any of the opinions that you present here, you need to provide sources or demonstrate some consensus within Wikipedia for these viewpoints. Most importantly, there's a huge amount of information in this section of the comments (and it's just the tip of the iceberg) that conflicts with the unsourced point-of-view that is being argued - that what Galileo opposed was equivalent to the scientific consensus of today. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So it's known as the Galileo Gambit. Should we continue expanding this false example, point out how common it is, show how it demonstrates ignorance or denial of actual science and history? --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

But you can't lump Galileo and the anti-Lysenkoists with those people. What you can do is write something about the Galileo gambit as such. -- 120.19.202.86 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a brief section on the Galileo gambit, which can (and should) be expanded. The eventual writing of such a section was of course one of the reasons that I wanted a Galileo section included.

The underlying syllogism of the Galileo gambit is something like:

Galileo was a legitimate scientific dissenter who was criticised, but turned out to be right.

I am criticised.

Therefore I am a legitimate scientific dissenter who will turn out to be right.

The fallacy of such reasoning is obvious. -- 120.19.202.86 (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess that means we will follow the path that both examples demonstrate ignorance and denial of actual science and history.--Ronz (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So a few things to look into beyond the use of the Galileo affair and Lysenkoism in propaganda:

Does anyone of note believe that the religious dogma of Galileo's day was "scientific consensus" comparable to the scientific consensus of today?

Does anyone at all believe that Lysenkoism was part of any scientific consensus? --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No response? I've requested page protection to direct editors' attention here and get the edit-warring to stop. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ronz You have mentioned the Galileo affair as an actual example of science vs religious dogma and while I tend to agree with your view, there are various WP articles about the conflict between science and religion like conflict thesis, Relationship between religion and science and the Galileo affairarticle itself that are very well documented, and sourced, and all portray the Galileo affair as scientific dissent regarding new astronomy models. One of the hallmarks of a great encyclopedia would be having consistency about a topic accross various articles. As I stated, I agree with you, but there will be a lot of pushback from WP apologists in getting this changed across all of the articles and since those are very well sourced, you will need to be able to refute citations from professional scholarly apologists who are determined to push the view in public discourse that the Galileo Affair was about scientific dissent and religion had no part of heliocentrism debate because if it did, the Bible would be wrong. I wish you luck, but this change is going to be harder than one would initially believe. Above all, the articles must be consistent about their conclusions regarding the Galileo affair and that article would probably be the place to start. In the alternative, leaving the Galileo affair article as is, leaves you no room to call the Galileo affair as an example of false scientific dissent. Lipsquid (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

In this article, we are focusing on scientific dissent against scientific consensus within scientific research. The Galileo affair doesn't fit this on multiple counts: It was during the development of modern science, so any comparison is questionable without providing proper context. Saying that the consensus at that time is comparable to scientific consensus today is extremely problematic without proper context. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading the Galileo affair article leaves me with a very different impression. It states quite clearly that Galileo's ideas were counter to both the scientific and religious consensus at that time. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That ignores my point: Comparing the religiously-imposed dogma of astronomical philosophy at that time to scientific consensus of today based upon a scientific method that didn't exist in Galileo's time is not only OR, but unencyclopedic. Doing it without proper sourcing and context is worse, well into ArbCom-violating territory. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have a rather strange understanding of science in Galileo's time. They had universities (the University of Bologna dates from 1088) and they had a scientific method (see Roger Bacon). And what on earth do you mean by "religiously-imposed dogma of astronomical philosophy"? -- 120.17.108.92 (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the history. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear - are you threatening to take me to ArbCom about this? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and avoid making this into a battleground.

I think there's a ArbCom violation. I think I was clear. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Modern biological example

There used to be wide consensus that animals behaved for the benefit of the species. Some did not believe this, and argued (dissent) that animals were behaving simply to propogate their own genes (popularised by "The Selfish Gene" by R. Dawkins). This is now the consensus. I think this would make an interesting example to include in the article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

How is this "dissent"? Is this not just normal scientific progress? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well isn't that the point? "Dissent" is innately time stamped. The thinking and publications were dissent at the time, but no longer are. That makes it "normal progress" but aren't all the other examples just that? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with the single reference mentioned, I find it hard to believe that this is about dissent within science. Maybe the summarization is oversimplified? I'll look at the source. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Skimming a few articles and ending with Group selection, I agree with Isambard Kingdom that this is an example of normal scientific progress. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So how does this differ from what is currently in the article Modern scientific dissenters include Peter Woit, who expressed criticisms of string theory in his book Not Even Wrong and in his blog of the same name. To my mind, they are both simply "science in progress". DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, are you suggesting that this article on "dissent" is nothing more than about routine scientific progress? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm saying that I do not understand the difference between "dissent" and "questioning the consensus". If we do not sometimes question the consensus, science would never progress. I am totally open to explanations of the difference - if there is one. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, but if "dissent" is about something so routine, then I don't know why we need an article on it. We have lots of other articles about, for example, the scientific method whereby new hypotheses are routinely proposed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• We are in agreement then - I also do not understand why this article exists if it simply reflects "normal" scientific progress. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A modern geological example is continental drift, which was "deeply unfashionable" for a long time. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Continental drift was essentially an observation that the continents we have today could be fitted together like puzzle pieces. It didn't really explain how this could have happened. Plate tectonics was more of a working theory, one backed up with additional information about the oceanic crust and lithosphere. That some people had a hard time accepting all of this until an interconnected set of observations and theories validated it all was part of the normal process of scientific progress. This happens all the time, though usually for theories that are much less spectacular than plate tectonics. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You keep repeating something about scientific dissent being "part of the normal process of scientific progress". But I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that scientific dissent is in some sense "normal", and you think this means there is no need to discuss it any further in an article? --Epipelagic (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Epi, if I may chime in here with my take on this. I am confused about whether this article should exist or not, but this really depends on our interpretation of the word "dissent". To my mind, it is a perfectly normal part of the scientific process for someone with experience in that field to say "I have data or a working hypothesis that conflicts with current scientific consensus". Is this dissent? It seems to fit with many dictionary definitions. Perhaps my pre-concieved idea of dissent is some sort of "activism". But, the article states "Some claim that a historical example was the Galileo affair."...why the "some"? This seems to be best example of "dissent" I can think of in science using the "oppose consensus" interpretation, yet the article content seems to dispute this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Epipelagic, if this article about "dissent" is just about posing of new scientific hypotheses, including revolutionary ones like gene-theory, natural selection, or plate tectonics, but also including more routine but new hypotheses, then, yes, I don't think this particular article needs to exist. We have articles, already, on the scientific method, scientific progress, and probably lots others that cover this sort of thing. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is potentially about much more than just that. It is, or should be, about the many roles dissent, or lack of dissent, plays in the scientific process. This includes phenomena such as the inhibiting role "fashions" play and the tendency for academic and political establishments to close ranks and refuse to acknowledge potentially legitimate areas for research. We see that today, for example, in the way open research into psychotropic drugs is marginalized or made difficult. A few years ago we saw that extraordinary retreat into silence by the academic community in the aftermath of the United States endorsement of torture (something Galileo would have understood). --Epipelagic (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

After having read around this subject a little, I agree with Epipelagic. It is not limited to just scientific process, but also the politics and advocacy which can affect science. However, I think we might need to make this clearer in the definition of the article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Modern physics example?

Diving into physics (certainly not my area of expertise), it strikes me that the Fleischmann–Pons experiment in Cold fusion may be another example of scientific dissent. Do others agree? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, I agree...

"A pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between cold fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here." – David Goodstein

There are parallels with continental drift in the 1950s. There are also medical examples. Lobotomy was a mainstream procedure and an accepted part of the medical establishment in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact the medical establishment was so satisfied it awarded Moniz a Nobel Prize. Perhaps that is an example of what can happen when there is a "failure" of dissent. However, I would be hesitant to use medical examples in the article. Medical research can be motivated by commercial gain and straining for status, and can offer bad modelling of scientific processes. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The science of medicine has trailed other areas of science in it's ability to move beyond reliance on dogma. Much of this is due to the financial aspects vs need for medical guidelines regardless of the state of research. Psychiatry (and dentistry as another example) has slower still. See Evidence-based medicine. --Ronz (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Another example of scientific dissent, this time from biology, occurred during the protracted period when the theories of Lynn Margulis, that mitochondria descended from bacteria and chloroplasts descended from cyanobacteria, were ridiculed. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Section: Environmental reductionism in animal testing

Could someone please demonstrate that this is dissent against scientific consensus rather than the financial aspects of maintaining lab animals? --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, please look at the titles of the first 2 references I provided. The dissenting authors are arguing that the laboratory environment should be more complex for scientific reasons (e.g. external validity, biological significance), rather than minimalised which is the convention.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't address my concern, so we're clearly in OR/SYN territory, which has been a problem with this article from the start. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well if that was your concern, you should have expressed it as that, rather than asking a question about research finances. I re-iterate, the titles alone of the first 2 references should indicate that these are ideas contrary to the severe reductionism we usually impose on laboratory animals. I don't see where you are suggesting there is OR/SYN. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't understand how you think the sources vs content is not an OR violation. I'd hope this is not turning into yet another case of where concerns are ignored.

What source demonstrates that the scientific consensus is what has been presented? Simply reading the titles cannot answer this. Please identify the source and provide a relevant quote. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read the article again - I have already added a quote which addresses your concern. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You've repeatedly made assumptions about my not reading the article content, first the titles of the references, now the content as it appeared when I commented here. Can you please stop this?

You've not addressed my concern. If you mean to say that "However, we also argue that standardization [of the laboratory-animal environment] is a flawed concept, which entails the risk of obtaining results of poor external validity and therefore needs to be profoundly revised" somehow demonstrates scientific consensus, I have to disagree. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that is the dissenters' argument - the opposite of consensus. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please demonstrate that this is dissent against scientific consensus... What source demonstrates that the scientific consensus is what has been presented? Please quote from that source after identifying it so we can clearly see that it's scientific consensus that is being presented. In the meantime, I've removed the content. We need to get some inclusion criteria for examples so we don't make this article into a coatrack. To start, we need to clearly source that the dissent is against scientific consensus, a reoccurring problem with this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The content about animal testing seemed to me to simply be a sensible assertion that controlled laboratory tests, where single variables are isolated, need to be augmented with additional tests in which multiple variables are at play. I don't know that this is "dissent", but that is just my perception. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Presently, this section has this content:

"Scientific consensus is that when using animals in laboratory tests, the environmental variability should be reduced to a minimum. This allows just a single variable (environmental or otherwise) to be changed and effects recorded. The result of this is that many laboratory animals are housed in small, barren environments."

But this doesn't seem very logical. Reducing animal-testing variables to a minimum does not necessarily mean housing animals in "small, barren environments". Reducing variables just means housing animals in the same environment. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is logical or not, this is what has happened. I placed an image in the section to show a typical laboratory rodent cage. Have a look on the internet - there are plenty of images. It has been a "race-to-the-bottom". DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Nature article cited for this material (Richter et al.) mentions (but not define) "enriched" and "unenriched" cages. Perhaps this is what DrChrissy is talking about when he says "small, bare environments"? Some clarification would be useful. I don't find an open, readable version of the other cited article (Wurbel and Garner). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I found an online version of Wurbel and Garner. I find this article strange. They actually seem to think that experiments with multiple animals should not utilize standardized conditions for the animals. They argue that standardization is elusive. Perhaps so, but what is the alternative? Just forgetting about it altogether? I wonder how a control is supposed to be defined in these circumstance, and how any meaningful statistical significance can be established. I know we're are supposed to focus on the article, here, but, for now, I suggest that Wurbel and Garner might rethink what they are saying.

E/C ::::The problem that Wurbel and Garner (and others) identify is that raising and keeping an animal in standard small and barren laboratory cages affects the development of the animal in a way that makes them non-representative and therefore unsuitable as models. They are not "normal", in the way that if we raised children in a prison cell, they would also be unlikely to be "normal" or representative of other humans. They (and others) argue that complexity is necessary for normal development and to gain more meaningful data. Complexity can be standardised, and meta-analysis can be used to account for differences between laboratories (which in themselves are a source of non-standardisation). DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I can believe that spare cage conditions can introduce a complexity to an experiment. But Wurbel and Garner seem to take the lesson to an odd extreme, discounting any attempt at standardization. That seems like silliness to me. Richter et al. seem to have their heads on straight, however. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Spare ? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Richter et al. also feel that standardization is difficult to achieve, so they make it an explicit variable, analyzing lab animals across a different conditions. Well, okay, that is fine, but in the end an experiment is usually performed to understand a new variable. Hopefully it is a variable that has a large enough effect to actually be detected despite small deficiencies in experiments that are designed to have some level of standardization. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What you are referring to is the difference between statistical significance and biological significance. The reductionist approach may allow us to detect a statistical significance, but what does this mean to the animal? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I admit that I might not have appreciated proposed randomization of conditions as suggested in Wurbel and Garner. This is getting too far from my area of experience. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to read this article. Crabbe, J. C., Wahlsten, D., & Dudek, B. C. (1999). Genetics of mouse behavior: interactions with laboratory environment. Science, 284(5420), 1670-1672. It is an extremely robust and well controlled study in which the same tests were performed on the the same genetic strain of mice under the same standardised conditions. The results differed between laboratories - i.e. they were idiosyncratic. Not exactly a good indicator for standardisation. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your discussion here is the best indicator of original research. You are trying to figure out what's this about instead of just citing a secondary source which says it is an example of scientific dissent. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed this example per WP:UNDUE: the refs cited do not discuss the issue as notable dissent; these are primary sources of a scientific discussion, hence putting it here is WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the content. Primary sources are allowed. Are you suggesting that unless the words "notable dissent" appears in a source, it should not be allowed? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed, but making conclusions from primary sources is not allowed. The sources cited are about animal testing. The subject of the article is not animal testing. Scientists disagree with each other all the time, therefore, unless we want the list of examples here to be 7 miles long, we have to pick ones which are discussed in secondary sources as examples of dissent. Discussion of the dissent per se in independent secondary sources, not the words "notable dissent", is what makes it reasonably noteworthy. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. These are straightforward steps to prevent this article from becoming a coatrack. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR

Why does the article contain the (unsourced) statement "Instead of being an dispute within science itself, the dissent was against the political dogma"? This is patently false: dissenters against Lysenkoism were motivated by the belief that it was scientifically wrong, rather than by political conflict with Communism. I also note that the sentence "A false example that some claim is scientific dissent is the imposition of the Lysenkoism political campaign within the Soviet Union against the genetic science of the time" is contradicted by the two sources attached to it, which say precisely that it was scientific dissent.

It seems that an editor with an agenda of some kind has tossed WP:NPOV and WP:V out of the window, in order to insert WP:OR of his/her own, and then protected the article to lock those edits in. The Wikipedia of former times would never have tolerated such behaviour. -- 120.17.108.92 (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

But Lysenkoism isn't science and never was. This article is about dissent within science. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. dissent within science is the subject of the article. There are numerous examples of dissent of decent scientists against politically-motivated dogmas. As examples from these times, historical materialism or scientific communism were deadly to be questioned but people still tried (and died). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Citational justice

Should "citational justice" be mentioned in the Suppressed dissent section (or maybe elsewhere in the article)? The New York Times describes it as a push "to cite more Black, Latino, Asian and Native American scholars and in some cases refuse to acknowledge in footnotes the research of those who hold distasteful views." [emphasis added] . The refusal to acknowledge research of those who hold "distasteful views" clearly seems like a form of suppressing scientific dissent, no? User:Generalrelative removed this material by arguing "including this content here very directly implies wrongdoing on the part of advocates for citational justice". I don't see how the content implies wrongdoing in anyway; it's simply presenting what is being advocated. Stonkaments (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

1) It does seem like a bit of a stretch to assert that "in some cases refus[ing] to acknowledge in footnotes the research of those who hold distasteful views" can be transparently equated with suppressing dissent. For one, it seems rather that the proponents of citational justice would say that they're the ones in the dissenting position and have been historically suppressed. 2) My main issue with your addition here lay in the juxtaposition of this material with that which preceded it. Since that preceding material is highly normative, following it up with this appeared to imply in Wikipedia's voice that citational justice is a concrete example of a violation of normative scientific principles. Perhaps that previous paragraph should be cut as unencyclopedic instead, in which case this objection would disappear and we could then discuss my more modest objections to point 1). Generalrelative (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

References