Science (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 6 June 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on August 2022.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
"Anti-science attitudes seem to be often caused by fear of rejection in social groups. For instance, climate change is perceived as a threat by only 22% of Americans on the right side of the political spectrum, but by 85% on the left. That is, if someone on the left would not consider climate change as a threat, this person may face contempt and be rejected in that social group. In fact, people may rather deny a scientifically accepted fact than lose or jeopardize their social status."
it seems like the opposite example would fit better with this sentence? This seems to imply that the 'anti-science attitude' is seeing climate change as a threat. Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about simply "attitudes about science", because that's what the data is actually saying, is that such attitudes are socially informed. Remsense诉22:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OH I thought you meant changing the entire paragraph. I see what you mean now.
Maybe something like:
"Attitudes towards scientific subjects seem to be often caused by fear of rejection in social groups. For instance, climate change is perceived as a threat by only 22% of Americans on the right side of the political spectrum, but by 85% on the left. That is, if someone on the left would not consider climate change as a threat, this person may face contempt and be rejected in that social group. In fact, people may rather deny a scientifically accepted fact than lose or jeopardize their social status." Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also maybe 'desire for acceptance' or something similar instead of 'fear of rejection', not for any specific reason but I think it carries a more neutral tone? Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should reflect what the source says, as neutral point of view is not "no point of view": Cracking open the source, though there's no page cited in How minds change, here's a pertinent excerpt:
Humans aren’t just social animals; we are ultra-social animals. We are the kind of primate that survives by forming and maintaining groups. Much of our innate psychology is all about grouping up and then nurturing that group—working to curate cohesion. If the group survives, we survive. So a lot of our drives, our motivations, like shame, embarrassment, ostracism, and so on, have more to do with keeping the group strong than keeping any one member, including ourselves, healthy. In other words, we are willing to sacrifice ourselves and others for the group, if it comes to that.
"There are a lot of terms for this in modern psychology, political science, sociology, and so on—I prefer “tribal psychology,” but it’s also called “extreme partisanship,” “cultural cognition,” et cetera. Whatever the label, the latest evidence coming out of social science is clear: humans value being good members of their groups much more than they value being right, so much so that as long as the group satisfies those needs, we will choose to be wrong if it keeps us in good standing with our peers. When I asked sociologist Brooke Harrington her thoughts on all this, she summed it up by saying, if there was an E=mc2 of social science, it would be SD > PD, “social death is more frightening than physical death.”
So, while I think important claims like this could do with more rigorous sourcing than this, which is definitely anecdotal and narrative rather than wholly scientific itself—if this is the source we're writing from, "desire for acceptance" represents the text less well. More extreme versions of such tone problems can be considered editorializing, and even assigning undue weight to claims or WP:original research on Wikipedia. Remsense诉22:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know more than I do so I'm going to bow out of this discussion, I was just trying to point out something in the article that felt off to me. Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an article of such a broad scope, I think it may be better to simply remove "current" stuff (such as the COVID and global warming controversies) and keep the article as timeless as possible. There are plenty of other articles with a more specific focus where those controversies can be explained. I would also remove the table with the opinions on global warming divided by political party: that's just a controversy specific to the US and it is irrelevant elsewhere. Cambalachero (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the best-case scenario it's still an WP:EGG, but Testability seems much more general and less potentially leading. it's a very underdeveloped page though—which I do see as a potential reason one would link a related-enough page instead. Remsense ‥ 论 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Remsense ‥ 论13:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what about MOS:SOB? That's the only reason why I unlinked it. I also believe that the average user would know what testable/testability means and how it is used in a sentence. ZZZ'S13:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it is recognizable as related to/involving the common sense, but the term is used in a specific way and has a specific history, but I'm not quite sure whether that's enough to say it's not a "common word being used in a straightforward manner". Remsense ‥ 论14:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user → Remsense is preventing me from publishing an edit to the Science article claiming my post is unconstructive and that I’m being disruptive. After two attempts to add two words to the article this user started a talk page making their claim, but my attempt to understand their continued removal of my post have gone unanswered. If anyone is being disruptive it is Remsense. Justwanaedit (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The world is very clearly meant as "existence external to ourselves and subject to empirical observation in general", as opposed to "the planet Earth". That you are reading it to mean the narrower latter sense is a hang-up particular to you, as far as I can tell.
Another editor may come along and decide to change the prose because this exchange is even occurring to begin with—better safe than sorry, and all that. I would strongly object to this: just because one editor has decided to become deliberately confused about the plain meaning of a passage does not mean that passage is actually confusing. Remsense ‥ 论05:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, your inference that somehow I’m confused in my understanding of the world is only adding to your deliberate snide remark toward me initially and “hang-up” come on. The first sentence of the article ends prematurely because it infers the world is the limit of all science and my addition “and beyond” was meant to add clarity. Surely you don’t think “the world” includes other planets or someone should take it to mean all the universe. You may remember mom’s day-time soap opera “As the World Turns” perhaps they were confused too. Maybe we can agree instead of “world” it would be better to use “universe”. Just so those of us who are easily confused and get hung-up on the vague use of a word just might be able grasp the area of study. Justwanaedit (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-1 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done 💜 melecie talk - 01:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: