Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sustained scientific debate, sometimes scientific controversy [1] or persistent disagreement, [2] is any a substantial disagreement among scientists. A scientific controversy may involve issues such as the interpretation of data , which ideas are most supported by evidence , and which ideas are most worth pursuing.
For example, climatologist Kevin E. Trenberth has published widely on the topic of climate variability and has exposed flaws in the publications of other scientists. [6] [7] [8] For past debates and controversies on scientific details see for example: History of climate change science#Discredited theories and reconciled apparent discrepancies
This is a list of Wikipedia articles deemed controversial because they are constantly re-edited in a circular manner, or are otherwise the focus of edit warring or article sanctions. This page is conceived as a location for articles that regularly become biased and need to be fixed, or articles that were once the subject of an NPOV dispute and ...
The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the ...
There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to the current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change. [17]
In modern times, with the increased role of science on the society and the politicization of science, a new aspect gained prominence: effects of scientific dissent on public policies. [1] Scientific dissent is distinct from denialism, which is a deliberate rejection of scientific consensus usually for commercial or ideological reasons. [2]
Disputes within contentious topics is a distinct area of research, some based on ArbCom cases and others on quantifiable variables. [ 21 ] Some topics appear to be unavoidably polarizing, such as abortion and climate change, although the level of editor conflict may not match the degree of public debate.
Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted, but resurrected in a pseudoscientific fashion. Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific, but have in one way or another impinged on scientific domains or practices.