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 redirect to Scientism. John254 00:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific fundamentalism[edit]

Scientific fundamentalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Completely POV original research. "Scientific fundamentalism" is only used as a pejorative term by those who wish to erroneously equate science with religious movements. Groupthink 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's room for a balanced article on the use of this term, but this isn't it, or even the beginnings of it. I'd edit it to remove the POV, but that would mean blanking the page. Iain99 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Added: better still to redirect to scientism per Leinad-Z below. Iain99 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree with Iain99. Oliver Keenan 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Iain99 says it all here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Drivel. Nick mallory 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Iain99 - superβεεcat  23:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While I agree the present article is inherently PoV and would be hard to fix, it appears to be a valid topic. Is it worth retaining a stub and pointing the History of Science WikiProject people at it? Does anyone have access to the Nature article linked, even just to extract a proper citation? Espresso Addict 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I considered stubifying it, but the way I'd have done it would just have left a dicdef as I don't have the knowledge to write much more, and tbh my patience for reading creationist sites is too limited to do the research myself. But if anyone else would like to rewrite it in the next few days then I'll say keep. However, the article has been up for a year - if nobody improves it soon it would be better to delete and let a future editor start from scratch. I'll look at the Nature article from work later - if there's enough in it for a valid stub I might change my mindIain99 07:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Added The Nature reference (Philip Clayton, Nature 409, 979-980 (22 February 2001) | doi:10.1038/35059152) is a review of "In search of unity" by Mary Midgley. It doesn't contain the phrase "scientific fundamentalism" so it's not a good place to start. Iain99 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless this can be expanded, referenced and made a hell of a lot more interesting, it can't be saved. This is little more than a dictionary definition and a link to a website. Mandsford 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What substitute are systematic research methods and firsthand empirical data for superstition and ignorance? ~ Infrangible 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article has way too many problems as evident by the numerous tags.--Sefringle^Talk 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt POV fork, possible WP:SOAP violation. Suggest salting as well--the title essentially SAYS it's POV. Blueboy96 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's keep salting for if the article gets recreated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least one tenured academic has used the term in the title of a book so there may be potential for a proper article. No need to salt unless it gets recreated in something like its current form. Iain99 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Iain. No salt per Dennis --omtay38 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as per nom, Iain99, Blueboy96, and Dennisthe2. Bullocks, Bullshit. Bearian 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (Further) comment. I'm rather disturbed by the 'delete and salt' comments here. Scientific fundamentalism is, as far as I'm aware, a recognised critique of the scientific method and, in particular, the application of scientific judgements to real world decision making. As a scientist, I don't agree with much of what its adherents say, but that doesn't make it invalid. It might be difficult to create a neutral poV article, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth attempting. Espresso Addict 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not calling for salting here, just deletion... but "recognised" by whom? I'm not denying that the scientific method has been critiqued, but who frames said critiques as "scientific fundamentalism"? I appreciate the cite that Iain99 came up with, but that's one citation of an article by an English professor in an obscure journal. I'd like more, please. Groupthink 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I admit I'd never heard this precise term before, but I have often come across the critique it appears to represent. A quick Google search on this/very similar terms, turns up for example, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (this and other similar sites state that the 'Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism' they quote originate in The Wall Street Journal, 1993), [7] (quotes a piece by Bryan Appleyard in New Scientist, possibly [8]). Espresso Addict 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those first few cites smack of POV phrase-mongering: much as I'd love to use the term "anti-choice" here on WP, in deference to neutrality I employ "pro-life". However, there might be something of substance in those last few refs, but is there really enough to support a whole article, especially given that "scientific fundamentalism" appears to be a neologism? Can it really be argued that there's a formal scientific fundamentalist movement or belief system? I'd push for a redirect to something like naturalistic fallacy or science wars instead. Groupthink 00:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a complete amateur in this area, but on a quick scan neither article seems to encompass the precise scientific fundamentalist critique, though it could perhaps be added to the science wars article. The 1993 date of the The Wall Street Journal reference, if correct, would tend to suggest it isn't a neologism. Espresso Addict 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 85 hits on Google Scholar Not as many as I expected (and I was even more surprised that there were only 619 on Google proper), but Google is not the sole arbiter of notability and there might be enough there for someone to write an article. I'm not going to do it myself, partly because I don't have easy access to most of the journals, partly because reading things with "postmodernism" in the title is bad for my blood pressure and partly because I think the term is pretty silly and wouldn't know where to start writing an article which took it seriously. But that's just my opinion - if someone with access to a university library disagrees and thinks they can manage it I don't think we should stop them trying. Iain99 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there's enough there to write a brief article, but I too have neither the expertise nor the access to an appropriate library. I'll pop a note to the History of Science WikiProject; someone there might perhaps be interested. Espresso Addict 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per most previous comments. Rjm at sleepers 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to "scientism". Common current usages of scientism seem similar enough to the topic discussed in the article. If someday one can write a meaningful page about the term "Scientific fundamentalism" alone, then it can cease to be a redirect. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 12:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Perfect. Redirect to scientism. Groupthink 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Brilliant. I agree with Leinad, have changed recommendation accordingly. Iain99 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Another me too, for a redirect to scientism. Espresso Addict 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal. If no one objects, at this time tomorrow I will withdraw my AfD nom and redirect this page to scientism. Groupthink 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an objection, merely a question. What will happen to the current contents of the page? Shouldn't the content of Scientism be modified before redirection, otherwise it's simply a back door deletion. Rjm at sleepers 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary: Unlike with a deletion, the contents of this page will remain in page history. Plus, I'll post the page contents to Talk:Scientism with a note that scientific fundamentalism has been redirected there. Groupthink 09:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest adding a sentence to the introduction of scientism along the lines of "The term scientific fundamentalism has also been used to refer to similar concepts". The "recent examples" could then be incorporated into the scientism article if someone can find sources showing that these things have actually been notably described as scientific fundamentalism. The term seems to be less widely used than I thought, I don't think it's certain that they will have been. Iain99 08:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with adding the sentence. If we've come to consensus on the deletion + redirect, the discussion on the details should probably be moved to the talk page of scientism. The list of links that have been dug up here should probably be copied there. Espresso Addict 16:41, 15 July 2007 (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.