255:. 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.)
205:, 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", with a source claiming "^ X does Y", while the current article instead lets statements like "^ Y is a Z" back the text. Therefore the text does a very heavy
260:
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
265:
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.
295:
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
162:
156:
284:
117:
90:
85:
94:
122:
77:
288:
177:
144:
17:
138:
408:
377:
359:
331:
312:
273:
247:
229:
59:
402:
134:
81:
423:
324:
issues, the subject is just plain undeserving of a page on
Knowledge at present and that's unlikely to change. —
184:
36:
422:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
73:
65:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
308:
320:
Personally, I love the quote, but I agree with
Kenosis and Scientizzle's appraisals. Even ignoring the
243:
150:
326:
270:
267:
212:
of the references provided. Beside from that it is heavily political, covering the same topics that
343:
198:
170:
239:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
369:
351:
304:
221:
297:
398:
209:
202:
55:
213:
194:
342:
to my own pages to see if it can be refitted to give a short section in the article
321:
292:
206:
111:
365:
347:
300:
217:
391:
50:
346:, but the article as such got me feel like the cat catching a mouse.
238:. Completely original research built on a non-notable neologism. ...
201:, to label the reasoning of the later. It does this by writing an
416:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
193:
The article tries to define a phrase that appears to be a
291:
treatment is currently lacking. It's presently only an
107:
103:
99:
169:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
426:). No further edits should be made to this page.
183:
8:
197:solely used among opponents against the
364:Not, needed. Pardon for offtopic note!
283:it's got some use as a turn of phrase (
7:
340:Political Reverse Scientific Method
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
287:, though only 72 unique), but
1:
338:Me to, I'll save the section
216:treats much more neutrally.
443:
409:04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
378:08:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
360:08:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
332:10:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
313:20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
274:20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
248:18:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
230:12:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
60:01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
74:Reverse scientific method
66:Reverse scientific method
419:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
303:enough for Knowledge.—
344:9/11 truth movement
199:9/11 Truth movement
44:The result was
407:
434:
421:
395:
374:
356:
299:) a concept not
226:
188:
187:
173:
125:
115:
97:
34:
442:
441:
437:
436:
435:
433:
432:
431:
430:
424:deletion review
417:
370:
352:
327:TheHerbalGerbil
222:
210:undue synthesis
130:
121:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
440:
438:
429:
428:
412:
411:
383:
382:
381:
380:
335:
334:
329:
315:
277:
276:
257:
256:
250:
191:
190:
127:
123:AfD statistics
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
439:
427:
425:
420:
414:
413:
410:
406:
404:
400:
394:
393:
388:
385:
384:
379:
375:
373:
367:
363:
362:
361:
357:
355:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:
333:
328:
325:
323:
319:
316:
314:
311:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
279:
278:
275:
272:
269:
264:
259:
258:
254:
251:
249:
245:
241:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
225:
219:
215:
214:Pseudoscience
211:
208:
204:
200:
196:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
124:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
418:
415:
396:
390:
386:
371:
353:
339:
317:
307:
296:conclusion."
280:
262:
252:
235:
223:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
389:per above.
157:free images
285:30K GHits
195:neologism
368:dixit. (
350:dixit. (
289:academic
220:dixit. (
207:original
118:View log
301:notable
281:Delete.
253:Comment
240:Kenosis
163:WP refs
151:scholar
91:protect
86:history
387:Delete
366:Rursus
348:Rursus
318:Delete
309:tizzle
236:Delete
218:Rursus
135:Google
95:delete
46:delete
392:C6541
322:WP:OR
305:Scien
271:Adler
203:essay
178:JSTOR
139:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
48:. --
16:<
372:bork
354:bork
268:Hans
244:talk
224:bork
171:FENS
145:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
376:!)
358:!)
263:are
228:!)
185:TWL
120:•
116:– (
330:,
293:OR
246:)
165:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
405:)
403:C
401:↔
399:T
397:(
242:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.