Talk:Critical appraisal: Disputed Authority of Science

Prue (talk) I'm not sure what this problem is asking for - it is an observation. What do we do with it? How do we answer it? Agree or disagree?

Bruce — Have a look now. I envisaged just copying in the description, but maybe the whole table is better.

Bruce — there still is the problem that we haven't got a process for considering a "problem" or "question" (as opposed to a RC) and coming to a conclusion. A procedure to resolve a question of fact should be easier than "What do we do about this problem?" — even when Stephen J Gould etc have written entire books on it.

Prue (talk) Still not sure what you mean. It’s meant to be “a genuine problem seeking a solution” but although I agree it’s a genuine problem it’s not a proposal to seek a solution. Do you want to develop guidelines?

Bruce — I see what you mean. It is a genuine problem, seriously interfering with our communication. My assumption in raising it is that we need to solve it, at least to the extent of arriving at some sort of understanding about how to proceed. Otherwise there is very little basis for dialog. But problems don't seek solutions, people do — and people are genuine too — so should we change our definition to "a genuine problem requiring a solution"? Of course the decision might be "no decision, just muddle through" but even that would be less of a recipe for failure after it has been taken seriously and discussed.

. . . continuing . . . We haven't got a structure for discussing problems yet — compare Template:RC and Template:Q. Ideas, anyone? Start it at Template:P.

I've changed it to "problem requiring a solution" - makes more sense. BP

Prue (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC) i’ll approve, but I still don’t know what we are to do with it. I suggest more in-depth description of the problem and examples of why it’s a problem, many reconciliation challenges stem from this issue, and personal conflict from there. I don’t think it will be possible to develop unbiased and respectful guidelines as there are ideological differences here and for both sides tolerance of the other side is probably irreconcilable with one’s own side.

I’m still doubtful this has “clear aims” or is “feasible”.

Bruce — Thanks. It might take us a while to come up with Template:P, without which it's not feasible in this wiki discussion, but I don't agree that it's impossible. It might require a moderator-adjudicator role, though, which is not in the true wikiwiki spirit. Meanwhile there are other things to go on with (RCs and questions) and maybe we can propose smaller problems to help think through the possibilities for the template.