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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse scientific method

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article tries to define a phrase that appears to be a neologism solely used among opponents against the 9/11 Truth movement, to label the reasoning of the later. It does this by writing an essay, claiming that there exist a concept "Reverse Scientific Method" by misusing diverse references that doesn't support the statements in the article. If a proper reference backs a text "X does Y^[ref]", with a source claiming "^ [ref] X does Y", while the current article instead lets statements like "^ [ref] Y is a Z" back the text. Therefore the text does a very heavy original undue synthesis of the references provided. Beside from that it is heavily political, covering the same topics that Pseudoscience treats much more neutrally. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely original research built on a non-notable neologism. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The title is a non-notable neologism. (The phrase was used once in 1910, in an article on "the scope of the scientific method" and more recently by someone who was interviewed by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute to describe the approach of alternative/complementary medicine fans. It may get more traction now that it is being used by some in connection with the 9/11 fringers, but we can't know this.)

The content looks very much like original research. However, whoever marked citations with "not in citation given" was way over-enthusiastic. If a sentence is followed by two footnotes, it's not OK to tag one (or both) in this way just because they support different parts of the text. We are allowed to put information from different sources into a single sentence, if we do it correctly. Also tagging a footnote whose purpose is transparently to link indirectly to a definition somewhere on the web is not helpful at all and looks like an attempt at gaming. Hans Adler 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. it's got some use as a turn of phrase (30K GHits, though only 72 unique), but academic treatment is currently lacking. It's presently only an OR extention of Thomas W. Eager's pithy quote ("These people use the "reverse scientific method"... they determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[1]) a concept not notable enough for Wikipedia.— Scientizzle 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personally, I love the quote, but I agree with Kenosis and Scientizzle's appraisals. Even ignoring the WP:OR issues, the subject is just plain undeserving of a page on Wikipedia at present and that's unlikely to change. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 10:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me to, I'll save the section Political Reverse Scientific Method to my own pages to see if it can be refitted to give a short section in the article 9/11 truth movement, but the article as such got me feel like the cat catching a mouse. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not, needed. Pardon for offtopic note! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. C6541 (T↔C) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.