Encyclopedia Comparison or Scientific Disagreement

Encyclopedia Comparison
Compare an encyclopedia produced by laypeople (Wikipedia) with an encyclopedia produced by
experts (e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), or two
encyclopedias produced by laypeople (e.g., Wikipedia and Conservapedia), or Wikipedia editions
in two languages (e.g., English and Chinese).

Pick a topic related to climate change or environmental health and safety standards (e.g., carbon
tax versus emissions trading, polar bear extinction).

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Encyclopedia Comparison or Scientific Disagreement
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

The comparison criteria are coverage (amount of stuff), accuracy (errors), and treatment (bias).

Develop a hypothesis (e.g., Germans have a mystical attitude towards nature, and in particular
forests, as compared to people in English-speaking countries, who have a utilitarian attitude): what
follows for coverage, accuracy, and treatment (e.g., of Waldsterben vs. forest dieback)? Discuss if
your hypothesis panned out. If it didn’t, develop a conjecture as to why not.

Scientific disagreement
Get to the root of a scientific disagreement. The disagreement in question must be between
scientists or between scientists and science-influenced organizations such as the National Academy
of Sciences or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and not between experts and
laypeople, or scientists and think tanks, or scientists and politicians.

Examples of scientific disagreement discussed in class are Diamond vs. Hunt, Hockey Stick
Graph, Gaia vs. Medea, and climate change caused by human activity vs. sunspots. Wikipedia’s
“List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming” can be a
good starting point for identifying a scientific disagreement.

Here’s a detailed example. An article in The Economist article will lead you to Castle and
Henderson’s critique, a rebuttal by 15 IPCC contributor’s, and Castle and Henderson’s reply. (You
can choose to cover this particular disagreement in your paper.)

The Economist. 2013. “Hot potato: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had better
check its calculations.” February 13.
Castle, Ian, and David Henderson. 2003. “The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical
Critique.” Environment, Climate Change, Energy Economics, and Energy Policy 14 (2-3).
Nakicenovic, Nebojsa, et al. 2003. “IPCC SRES Revisited: A Response.” Environment, Climate
Change, Energy Economics, and Energy Policy 14 (2-3).
Castle, Ian, and David Henderson. 2003. “Economics, Emissions Scenarios and the Work of the
IPCC.” Environment, Climate Change, Energy Economics, and Energy Policy 14 (4).

Describe the controversy. Explain why is the controversy important—what hangs on it? Define
your task (“My purpose is to sort through …”). Describe the arguments and evidence on one side.
Describe the arguments and evidence on the other side. Spell out exactly why and where the two
sides disagreement. Optionally, come to a conclusion of your own.