Re: Facts vs Opinions


Yannig - F4IUJ
 

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:52 AM, Jim Manley wrote:
Yannig,
 
Now I see your problem.  Wikipedia isn’t regarded as a reliable, authoritative source by anyone who’s actually a practicing scientist, including myself (I’m also an engineer, in both cases by degrees and professional work).  You use the word “accepted”, so you’re admitting that I’m right, making that an accepted fact.
 
The scientific method has nothing to do with the nomenclature of theories, facts, or anything else in that vein.  It’s just the established process for testing whether or not observations support suppositions/theories, and provides the opportunity to modify suppositions/theories so that they can be retested against existing and further observations.
 
Wikipedia contains a lot of garbage that can be submitted by anyone, starting as a repository for articles on popular culture such as musical groups, movies, TV shows, and other forms of entertainment and other casual types of information.  The current editors are well-known to be extremely biased in a certain political direction (much to the chagrin of its founder), often stifling free speech by locking articles and disabling access to anyone who disagrees with them.
 
They’ve lost whatever credibility they may have had in serious communities, never having any credibility in academia.  That’s one of a number of reasons why Wikipedia isn’t allowed to be referenced in scientific academic papers, published journal articles, theses, dissertations, etc.  You know, they’re what actual scientists produce for a living.
Jim,

These are creative strawmen,

I told you to " read the primary references given in these Wikipedia articles" that is very different from taking Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Wikipedia is very useful though if you can read with a critical mind as it tends to be well sourced thus it is possible to make up your mind on a subject without being dependent on others thinking for you. If you are in a hurry and don't have time to comb through the primary references, you can always go to the bottom of the article check if what is written is backed up and finally decide whether what's written is worth consideration!

I can't remember writing that the scientific method has anything to do with a nomenclature of theories. That is not my view, not sure why you seem to think I hold this view.

You clearly  misunderstand how scientific publications are written, you wouldn't use any encyclopedia (wikipedia, universalis or whatever encyclopedia you prefer) in your references because you are meant to use the primary source. That would be as ridiculous as saying "according to the new scientist who wrote a feature about X work on Y subject". You obviously cite directly X as the author of the work. How you discovered the source is not relevant to its reliability.

You probably need to question why you think Wikipedia is biased. It is written by 10s of 1000s of people and it would be nearly impossible to convince them all to show the same biases. May be you are not seeing the world as it really is.
I have one more Wikipedia article for you : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
I love Wikipedia (BTW thanks Mark for your hard work!) in less than 10 seconds I dug out something I have studied when I was in high school nearly 30 years ago! 

73,

Yannig - F4IUJ

Join QRPLabs@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.