Talk:Regulatory science

Scientific foundation of regulatory science section

This section appears to be based on one person's book; no indication is given here that this is widely used persepective. Moving here per UNDUE; VERIFY is also questionable as no page numbers are given.

Scientific foundation of regulatory science

Based on the unique needs of regulatory science Moghissi et al. developed the concept of Best Available Science (BAS) and Metrics for Evaluation of Scientific Claims” (MESC) derived from BAS. The BAS/MESC system is rather complex, but its basic requirements are as follows:

Principles of the BAS/MESC

1. Open-mindedness principle: This principle implies the willingness to accept new knowledge and careful evaluation of the claim. Historical evidence suggests numerous misdeeds by theocracies, individual scientists and others in rejecting scientifically valid ideas
2. Principle of skepticism: This principle requires that those who make a scientific claim are obligated to provide sufficient evidence supporting their claim. The skepticism principle makes sure that the open-mindedness principle is not misused.
3. Scientific Rules Principle: All scientific disciplines use certain methods, processes, and techniques in pursuit of their professional activities. This principle implies that there are certain principles applicable to virtually all scientific disciplines and is valid regardless of the nature of the discipline.
4. Ethical Rules Principle: This principle includes several elements including Morality, Truthfulness, and Transparency. Morality consists of ethical requirements of virtually all professions notably medicine. Truthfulness and Transparency require… and continue with the current text reading: Truthfulness and Transparency require that the public in general and the affected community in particular that the public in general and the affected community in particular, be provided with the inclusion of assumptions, judgments, relevant data, areas outside the purview of science and other related items in regulatory science. Furthermore, the regulators and regulatory scientists must also describe how alternatives to the above items would modify the conclusions. If a scientific issue is complex, it is the responsibility of regulatory scientists to explain the subject to the public in a language that is understandable to its recipients.
5. Reproducibility principle: Reproducibility is the true proof of the validity of a scientific claim and separates undisputed areas of science form those that include assumptions, interpretations, and in some cases, the inclusion of ideological and societal objectives in a scientific assertion. The BAS/MESC system is rather complex and its details are described under Best Available Science.

Pillars of MESC

1. Standardization of Science: This pillar provides several classes of science based on their level of maturity consisting of
   1. Proven Science (scientific laws and their application)
   2. Evolving Science (Reproducible, Partially Reproducible, and Hypothesized)
   3. Borderline Science (Judgment and Speculation)
   4. Fallacious Information sometimes called Junk science or politically processed science.
2. Reliability of Science: This pillar consists of personal opinion, gray literature, peer-reviewed and consensus-processed science
3. Areas outside the Purview of Science: Regulatory science may not include ideology, societal objectives, political desires, and related issues. Violation of this pillar is one of the primary causes of contention in regulatory and other policy decisions

References

- Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you want. Why are you doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJTaliesen (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is clear that you don't know, but thank you for finally coming and talking. As I noted on your Talk page, there actually is a kind of "rule of law" here - we have what we call "policies and guidelines" that govern both behavior and guidelines. Above you can see that I cited WP:UNDUE and WP:VERIFY, which are two of the policies that govern content. My biggest concern with the UNDUE thing, is we don't have another citation, that says this book and the BAS/MESC system is widely accepted and used. Do you know of any? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

proposed content

Here is what is being proposed by User:AJTaliesen - it is the content that was already there.

Based on the unique needs of regulatory science Moghissi et al. developed the concept of Best Available Science (BAS) and Metrics for Evaluation of Scientific Claims” (MESC) derived from BAS. The BAS/MESC system is rather complex, but its basic requirements are as follows:

Principles of the BAS/MESC

1. Open-mindedness principle: This principle implies the willingness to accept new knowledge and careful evaluation of the claim. Historical evidence suggests numerous misdeeds by theocracies, individual scientists and others in rejecting scientifically valid ideas
2. Principle of skepticism: This principle requires that those who make a scientific claim are obligated to provide sufficient evidence supporting their claim. The skepticism principle makes sure that the open-mindedness principle is not misused.
3. Scientific Rules Principle: All scientific disciplines use certain methods, processes, and techniques in pursuit of their professional activities. This principle implies that there are certain principles applicable to virtually all scientific disciplines and is valid regardless of the nature of the discipline.
4. Ethical Rules Principle: This principle includes several elements including Morality, Truthfulness, and Transparency. Morality consists of ethical requirements of virtually all professions notably medicine. Truthfulness and Transparency require… and continue with the current text reading: Truthfulness and Transparency require that the public in general and the affected community in particular that the public in general and the affected community in particular, be provided with the inclusion of assumptions, judgments, relevant data, areas outside the purview of science and other related items in regulatory science. Furthermore, the regulators and regulatory scientists must also describe how alternatives to the above items would modify the conclusions. If a scientific issue is complex, it is the responsibility of regulatory scientists to explain the subject to the public in a language that is understandable to its recipients.
5. Reproducibility principle: Reproducibility is the true proof of the validity of a scientific claim and separates undisputed areas of science form those that include assumptions, interpretations, and in some cases, the inclusion of ideological and societal objectives in a scientific assertion. The BAS/MESC system is rather complex and its details are described under Best Available Science.

Pillars of MESC

1. Standardization of Science: This pillar provides several classes of science based on their level of maturity consisting of
   1. Proven Science (scientific laws and their application)
   2. Evolving Science (Reproducible, Partially Reproducible, and Hypothesized)
   3. Borderline Science (Judgment and Speculation)
   4. Fallacious Information sometimes called Junk science or politically processed science.
2. Reliability of Science: This pillar consists of personal opinion, gray literature, peer-reviewed and consensus-processed science
3. Areas outside the Purview of Science: Regulatory science may not include ideology, societal objectives, political desires, and related issues. Violation of this pillar is one of the primary causes of contention in regulatory and other policy decisions

References

- Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn this, but you are incorrect: I did not propose that. Looks t what was there before I even came along. I changed the phrase "Transparency Principle" to "Ethical Rules Principle", and I changed the words "Universal Scientific Principle" to "Scientific Rules Principle" to better reflect what is actually written in the source material. THAT IS ALL I did.

You in turn, decided to delete the entire section. That is draconian in my opinion.

AJTaliesen (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think I was in error to change those two words, please show me a link to the book showing that I'm wrong in my edit.

However, you have no basis for deleting the entire section. Revert to what it was before I made my edit if you like, but to delete all of what was there before is a reach on your part.

AJTaliesen (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

AjTaliesen you are really freaking out. It is just parked here temporarily so we - the editing community - can talk about it. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I just re-copied to make sure I got it right... and i also want to say that my moving this to Talk wasn't any kind of punishment or anything. I had been wondering at this for a while. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to your claim that not widely used: that is entirely irrelevant to what is written: this entry specifically describes the set of principles defined by a specific book. It makes no claims about it's adoption, merely it's contents, it's creators, and why they did this.

As I said before: I am more than happy to put you directly in touch with the author whose work is being discussed and you can argue about the accuracy of his work all you like. But this specific reference merely discusses the content of the book, NOT whether or not anyone else agrees. AJTaliesen (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In regards to me freaking out...I apologize. Sincerely. I am new to this and trying to learn. I was asked to help a distinguished man make a minor edit to a wikipedia entry about him, and it resulted in his entire entry being deleted. that rattled me, I admit it.AJTaliesen (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It's OK. I didn't claim that that it is not widely used; I said that we have no source saying whether it is or not. And the question of whether this is widely used is very important here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would never claim that it's not. But in this case, a book has been mentioned, then a paragraph was given about the contents of that book. That's all.

Now if you would like a separate section about how widely used that particular book is, you could start one, but I really don't know how you would establish that. I can say that Dr. Moghissi is the Associate Director of International Center for Regulatory Science at George Mason University, president of the Institute for Regulatory Science, Member of Board of Regents and Senior Fellow at Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, and adjunct Professor in School of Medicine at Georgetown University, and was a charter member of the EPA, so...his ideas on regulatory science do have SOME presence in general use. I just don't know how you'd measure it.

For now: the book exists. And this is an entry about what's in it.

feel free to create your own entries to contradict it if you feel that it's conclusions are in error, but for this particular entry, the reporting of it's contents are accurate to the best of my knowledge.AJTaliesen (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah i know all that stuff about him and I know the book exists. AJ this is not going to work, if you won't slow down and deal with what i am actually saying and really try to engage with me. Don't know what to say. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have read what you wrote and I did understand it. Now I ask the same of you. Read what I wrote and understand it.

To Illustrate your point, just to be sure I understood: you want me to somehow establish that this approach "valid" enough to warrant mention. Is this not correct? Is this what you are asking for?AJTaliesen (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am in fact, trying repeatedly to engage with you. I submit now that it is you who are getting frustrated. If you feel that I have misunderstood you, feel free to restate. But if you're just going to take your toys and go home, then please discontinue holding this article hostageAJTaliesen (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, please slow down. Again this is really hard because you don't understand how Wikipedia works - you don't even understand the words I am using, and you are trying to rush to the end. Here is exactly what I wrote above: "As I noted on your Talk page, there actually is a kind of "rule of law" here - we have what we call "policies and guidelines" that govern both behavior and guidelines. Above you can see that I cited WP:UNDUE and WP:VERIFY, which are two of the policies that govern content. My biggest concern with the UNDUE thing, is we don't have another citation, that says this book and the BAS/MESC system is widely accepted and used. Do you know of any? ". You haven't even come close to answering that question but have just been flailing. So do you know of any? It is a yes or a no question. If your answer is "no" that is not the end of the world - it just means I have to go look yet more. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Do I personally have such information handy? No.

Does it exist? perhaps. And we have some options here.

I can put you in touch with the guy that most likely COINED the phrase who can tell you everything there is to know about it. However, since you seem to either reject that, or just didn't understand it the four times I offered it, I can seek out such references myself and give them to you if you require.

My endgame is to finish the task I was asked to do: make a tiny word correction to an article, so that I can actually get back to do real work for the rest of the day. I am interested in doing whatever it takes to accomplish this, even enduring your unwarranted insults if I must. Feel free to continue with those, so long as we also continue making progress: my goal requires that I satisfy you.

To this end, in order to achieve this, I ask: what, ultimately, is your preference for a solution: Shall I direct you to a place where more info is available? Shall I seek out such information myself?

Previously I hoped for commons sense: that the views of the guy the article is actually talking about might be relevant to the article in question, but that seems very unlikely at this point. I AM open to any and all other suggestions for reaching a solution that makes you a happy duck once again.AJTaliesen (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You have still not responded. I have stated openly that I am willing to undertake any and all actions required to satisfy you in this matter, but the fact remains that for half the day now: the article has been dead merely because you, personally, have a question about it...a question that I have now repeatedly offered multiple avenues for answering, not to my satisfaction, but to YOURS, but you have stopped even responding. Meanwhile the entire article remains effectively dead.

Please respond. I, AGAIN state a willingness to explore the avenue of YOUR CHOICE to resolve this. But I ask that you either engage on the issue, or cease holding this article hostage, preferably both. Please respond. What avenue would you like to explore of the offered options?AJTaliesen (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, this is another mistake that new editors make. I am nobody. I am an editor who tries to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Everything I am saying here, is based on them. That said, yes it is me talking. But please stop making this like "i" am throwing up hurdles. By creating an account and being present here, you have already agreed to try to understand the policies and guidelines yourself and to work together with other editors, according to them. Do you see that? And please also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a service provider - I owe you precisely nothing on any deadline you might create - in fact one of our sayings is that there is no deadline here. Wikipedia is going to be around for a long time, and no one is going to die if this bit of content is not in the article for a little while we fix it. That said, I do want to get this fixed; it is just not yesterday or ASAP or whatever. I have no idea what is driving your urgency and I don't really care - what i am telling you is that your urgency has no place here. So please - again - slow down, and try to learn about what is going on here. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)