Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

projects for improving pseudoscience articles

There are two projects for improving pseudoscience articles:

keeping them in the proper balance, according to the NPOV, etc. In particular, here is a proposed format for pseudoscience articles that I think is good: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition. Bubba73 (talk), 14:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is marvelous. However, it should be noted that these aren't Wikipedia policy but rather a group of users deciding policy for themselves. I think "The Green Cheese Model" brings to light something great for striking most of the debated list on Pseudoscience. You see, we landed on the moon... any science that said it was made of green cheese was blown out of the water and rendered pseudoscience for sure. Show me the proof that renders Chiropractic's Vertebral Subluxation as pseudoscience? Well, according to these projects, the burden of proof lies with the adherents. I and other users have pointed to numerous texts, research, documenations and entire websites dedicated to the science of Vertebral Subluxation. We've done our end of the bargain. Why aren't you upholding yours? Currently, VS is listed in both Pseudoscience and Protoscience as prime examples. Well, which one is it? Pseudo or Proto? Or is it just plain science at this point? Given all of the research and all of the scientific evidence, the latter must be true and VS should be struck from the Pseudoscience list. TheDoctorIsIn 16:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that the projects were PW policy, but this is: Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience. Bubba73 (talk), 18:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, the majority of the science does support chiropractic and VS. It is as mainstream as an alternative/complimentary medicine can get. So much so, that it is mainstream. Aside from being one of the most widely used CAM treatments, aside from its popularity with a great deal of the public, aside from it being considered a filed that is growing faster than average by the US gov't labor statistics, aside from it being used by every NBA, MBL, and NFL team, there is the science and research (hundreds of links and articles and projects and reports - all scientific performed by labrotory scientists, PhDs, DC, MDs et cetera) that so many users have pointed to on this and other discussion pages. Calling chiropractic or VS pseudoscience is encyclopaedically false. So why does it still remain here? TheDoctorIsIn 01:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

500 faculty members from the Florida State University College of Medicine called it pseudoscience and convinced the university to turn down 9 million dollars a year instead of add a chiropractic school. 500 faculty members, including 2 Noble laureats, and 9 million dollars a year. That's serious evidence that the people who know about medicine don't consider it valid.

Astrology makes millions a year, and has been used by presidents. That doesn't make it right. All the popularity in the world doesn't make something non-psuedoscience. I don't regard myself capable of evaluating the scientific evidence you dump here; I'd rather trust those who are qualified. --Prosfilaes 02:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually you have been misled with regards to FSU. The faculty rejected the chiropractic school for more political reasons than scientific ones. The school's board of directors were accused of kowtowing to Gov. Jeb Bush and the rejection of chiropractic was more of a demonstration of political solidarity rather than an outright rejection of chiropractic (as many chiro critics have incorrectly cited). Senator Dennis Jones who spearheaded legislative support for the school, said the professors were "overreacting" and he directly fingered anti-chiropractic groups from outside the state of stirring faculty opposition at FSU. A group headed by the former university system chancellor filed a lawsuit against the board, accusing it of failing to flex its constitutionally granted muscle and pointing to the chiropractic school as a prime example. Further, the two noble laureates that you mentioned have little or nothing to do with healthcare. One is a professor of chemistry (who is strongly aligned with pharmaceuticals); the other is a professor of physics. In fact, of the 500 memebers of the faculty that signed the petition, less than 70 were from the actual medical school.

I don't think the FSU argument is very credible in your argument to define chiropractic as pseudoscience. Clearly, it was more about politics than science or medicine. What else do you have? Or are you pigeonholing chiropractic as a pseudoscience solely on the FSU outcome? TheDoctorIsIn 05:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, if the person who started the idea for a chiropratic school for the university says it was political, then it must have been. Ignore what the people signing the petitions said; ignore the fact that 500 members of the faculty would be unlikely to agree on any political purpose. But it's very important that you dismiss someone by saying that they are "strongly aligned with pharmaceuticals"; that must mean they're a brainwashed idiot.--Prosfilaes 12:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to stay rational. I was merely pointing out the facts. The petition was less about chiropractic as a discipline and more about "sticking it" to the board for allowing Jeb Bush and some state senators to shove them around. Therefore, I don't think that this is a good basis for you or anyone else to use to call chiropractic pseudoscience. So, if not this, what other basis are you using to label chiropractic as pseudoscience? Surely, someone with you convictions has other reasons. I just want a chance to read them. TheDoctorIsIn 17:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sticking it to the board because they accepted $8 million a year for a new college? If it's just politics, then why were "FSU professors [...] circulating a parody map of their future campus that places a fictional Department of ESP Studies, a Bigfoot Institute, School of Astrology, and Faith Healing School adjacent to a future Chiropractic School." Why were people threatening to resign over this? --Prosfilaes 17:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the outside anti-chiros created the map and it got circulated because it was funny. Funny things get circulated. I would consider resigning my post if I felt my university board was allowing itself to get bullied by politics. People can feel just as heated about political controversary as they do about scienitific controversary. Did you read the petition? It said nothing about pseudoscience. So why are you hinging your entire debate on this? It's pretty flimsy support at best. TheDoctorIsIn 18:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

System of concepts

JA: To remove a potential contradiction in terms, I have substituted "system of concepts" for "body of knowledge", since it does not make sense to call something "knowledge" if you are at the same time calling it "false". Jon Awbrey 13:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sub [real phenomena/the physical world]

JA: Science is not limited to the physical world, that is, to the "natural sciences" or "the hard sciences" as they are popularly called, so I have made the above substitution. This may require additional clarification as to what one means by "real" and "phenomena", but these concepts have fairly standard definitions in and out of philosophy and science. Jon Awbrey 13:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

JA: I started out with the simple intention of substituting "system of concepts" for "body of knowledge" in the Introduction, and found myself in the thicket of such a tangled paragraph that I was led to make the following additional changes.

Introduction
The standards for any system of concepts, methodology, or practice to qualify as science vary in their details from application to application, but they typically include (1) the support of empirical evidence, (2) the formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, (3) the use of scientific method. The procedures of science typically include a number of heuristic guidelines, such as the principles of conceptual economy or parsimony that fall under the rubric of Occam's Razor. A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered "nonscience", and if its exponents further claim the status of science for it, then they put themselves at risk for the charge of "pseudoscience".

A number of attempts have been made to apply philosophical rigor to the notion of pseudoscience, with mixed results. These include Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability and the historiographical approach of Imre Lakatos in his Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Other historians and philosophers of science (including Paul Feyerabend) have argued, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, that a clear philosophical distinction between science and pseudoscience is neither possible nor desirable.

JA: Being by nature a positive person, I think that it is clearer to describe science in positive terms, and then say why a given system of concepts fails to meet those criteria. Jon Awbrey 14:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary defs

JA: Trying to wade further into the article I found it a brew of so many brewmasters-brewmistresses that I could not make any sense of the putative arguments or variant perspectives. In particular, why do some people keep insisting that the term pseudoscience is not pejorative, that is, "having negative connotations, belittling, deprecatory, disparaging" (Webster's), when it so clearly gets used in all of those manners? From reading the previous talk on dictionary defs, part of the problem seemed to be the mutation that took place from any of the standard defs. The M-W def seems best to me as it mentions three elements of scientific method itself, whereas the AHD definition suffers from a large amount of redundancy between method and practice. So I went back to the M-W definition. Now, the word is still pejorative, but at least this definition localizes the negative connotations to an attribution of error. Still, that does not quite cover all of the disparaging connotations that are actually flung about in practice, as any observation of recent discurse on this page amply shows. Jon Awbrey 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as pejorative, but if you want to leave it in, I'm not going to take it out. Calling a pseudoscience item "stupid" would be pejorative. The term has been in use since 1844, it isn't a neologism. If something meets the criteria for pseudoscience, then I think that is what it is. If it walks like a duck and the shoe fits.... What do you propose to call these things that isn't pejorative? Items of pseudoscience are not science. Neither are they in the same category as religious, philisophical, or political beliefs, so I don't think calling them a belief is quite appropriate. The term "pseudoscience" applies, and I don't know of any more polite term for it. Bubba73 (talk), 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: I did not say it was a neologism. I am simply inferring from some standard definitions of "pseudoscience" and "pejorative" that attributing "pseudoscience" to a system of whatever has negative connotations for whatever, at the very least, and is therefore pejorative. I don't see a logical way around that. Jon Awbrey 06:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Let's step back a bit and see if we can address the question or the assumption that I think may be behind your question, and that seems to be the sense that recognizing science is as cut and dried as "the difference between a duck", as we used to say in my old school. Personally, I believe that there are things called science and its method, though I sometimes use other words, like inquiry, to avoid some of the problematic connotations that some folks attach to the word "method" in our Al-Gore-Rhythmic Age, but if it were all as pre-cut and freeze-dried as all that, we would have been done with our homework Ages Ago. Yikes, but it's late here, so I'll have to pick it up again tomorrow. Jon Awbrey 06:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a few comments. There is nothing wrong with the term being considered pejorative by those who hold pseudoscientific viewpoints. It can't be any other way. Pseudosciences often blend philosophical and even religious elements into their theories. The vertebral subluxation (VS) is such a blend, being a metaphysical construct used to explain perceived benefits of "adjustments." Even "adjustments" are considered to be different from "manipulation," because the term implies manipulation for the purpose of correcting VS, which haven't been proven to exist. It is the intention behind "adjustments" that makes the difference. Chiropractic is to science, what Scientology is to religion. It is just as much a pseudoscience, as Scientology is a pseudoreligion. If a philosophy claims to be scientific, then it certainly borders on pseudoscience.

BTW, don't you all find it ironic that believers in pseudoscience have such a large say in editing an article on pseudoscience? Their whole effort is aimed at whitewashing themselves and doing revisionistic editing. If they could get their way, they would eliminate mention of their nonsense from the article, and write their own articles, where they would claim their nonsense to be scientific. Hmmm....in fact, that's what's going on! -- Fyslee 09:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Which of the folks here are believers in pseudoscience?Phiwum 17:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe in science. And there is enough science out there to say that vertebral subluxations do exist. No whitewashing as the user above claims. I would say, given this user's editing history (adding anti-chiro slander on seemingly unrelated pages such as Mass Marketing and Oxymorons) he/she is doing what WP calls soapboaxing. Soapboxing against chiropractic. I am always weary of users who come to WP with such a clear unwaivering agenda. They are usually the ones to blind to consider changing their minds about anything. Careful with this one. TheDoctorIsIn 18:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, your opinions about chiropracty aside, the field belongs on a list of alleged pseudosciences. So does Darwinian evolution in my opinion, because some philosophers of science have wondered whether the principle of natural selection is really tautologous. (I would add evolution to the list but I don't have any references to this debate and I don't trust the authority of my addled memory.) Being on the list simply means that there has been some debate on the scientific merits of the theory. This is a historical fact in the case of chiropracty, regardless of your or my opinions on the subject. Phiwum 06:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In partial answer to my own comment about evolution, I found a reference to Popper calling evolution "almost tautological" and later retracting the claim. See [1]. I don't have any first hand references, but this seems to give prima facie reason for adding Darwinian evolution to the list. The main reason against this suggestion is, of course, the misleading impression it gives regarding evolution. At the least, if one were to add natural selection to the list of alleged pseudoscience, we'd want a brief explanation of why it was there (that is, tracing the argument back to philosophers of science rather than creationists and ID folk). Phiwum 16:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition, Connotation, Contention

JA: I have attempted to clarify the first paragraph in the following way:

A pseudoscience is defined as "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" (Merriam–Webster, 1950). The term has negative connotations in so far as it attributes an "erroneous regard" to the holders of the system of concepts and practices in question. Consequently, its use is likely to be contentious, with claims of ideological bias being made by one or more parties to the contention.

JA: The word "pejorative" is gone, replaced by the minimal component of its definition, to wit, negative connotations. The nature of those negative connotations is pinpointed to the attribution of an "erroneous regard", or mistaken view, to the holders of a given system. The fact that applying the word to some system-holder is "contentious" is simply the observational fact that it frequently leads to contention, however unsurprising such an observation may be. Jon Awbrey 18:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that is better (but I wasn't going to change it). Calling (e.g.) string theory "pseudoscience" at this point would definitely by using the term in a pejorative way. But I think what you have done improves the ar6icle and I am happy with that. For what it is worth, here is another dictionary definition that I don't think has been given: "Pseudoscientific - pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific", from Oxford American Dictionary, published by the Oxford English Dictionary but much smaller and not nearly as authoratative. Bubba73 (talk), 17:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is more authoritative than the OED? Are you kidding? Sorry, but the OED is the authoritative English Dictionary.

Additionally, the first paragraph is utterly incorrect and significantly violates NPOV. Wikipedia is not here to worry about people's feelings getting hurt, but rather to provide the truth. I'm adding an NPOV tag as the paragraph is in clear violation of NPOV, and quite probably NOR.Jim62sch 18:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW: calling string-theory pseudoscientific would also be false. Jim62sch 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Please review WP:VERIFY. The WP policies are quite explicit that the criterion in force here is not "truth" but "verifiability". Requesting a citation for a definition means that you have to give a citation for the definition used. The requirement is not met simply by posting a footnote and then citing a very different definition in the cited reference. That is what is called by some influential thinkers a "pseudocitation", said Jon weasely. Jon Awbrey 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you are kidding. Paraphrasing is actually OK, believe it or not, and an OED source trumps a Merriam-Webster source for accuracy any day of the week. (BTW: pseudocitation is macaronic and a neologism). Oh wait, I get it, you're going to argue that "erroneously" and "falsely" aren't synonymous. Actually, semantically, you are correct. See, I was being kind. If you'd like I can make the change to match the cite. You and the rest of the influential thinkers decide. Jim62sch 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision, more correctly reversion

I think the revision to the earlier version is a great idea. The recent edits have left a bit of a mish-mash of this and that, without such clear direction as the previous version. Call it the problem of writing-by-committee.

Sorry to all those who have made the many recent revisions, but I like the clarity and simplicity of the earlier version. Phiwum 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, the clarity and simplicity except for minor bits. I've added a re-write about pejorative what-nots, but feel free to have at it. Of course. Phiwum 19:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: I have taken the WP:CON process seriously, observing a Zero Revert Rule, as I have found it advisable to do when it come to these brands of hot disputes, and I have explained every one of my edits that I thought might possibly require explanation on the talk page either before or shortly after the edit. When other editors do not exhibit a corresponding restraint and respect — using terms like "misbegotten" and acting as if their POV concerning what's "good" is a fiat unto itself — reverting several days of joint work that had about as much consensus as one could expect in this type of situation, then I believe it is time to call in another level of mediation. As I have never had to do that myself, I will ask for advice on how to do that. Jon Awbrey 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. Jim62sch 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience vs. alternative science

I have just been browsing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience pages. It seems to me that there is a grand chasm between perpetual motion machines and the moon as green cheese, on the one hand, and fields of alternative medicine - such as chiropracty, homeopathy and acupuncture - on the other. There are many studies relating to alternative medicine published in established journals; the results vary from noting effects to noting no significant effects (beyond placebo), but the fields are treated as serious questions needing answers. Note that the University of Bern has a chair in alternative medicine, split between three different specialties (I believe that these are Chinese medicine, homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine). I would therefore suggest making an intermediate category between established science and pseudoscience: alternative science.

Pseudoscience should include areas simply ignored by the vast, vast majority of respectable researchers: UFOs, perpetual motion machines, green cheese, and directly in conflict with our scientific understanding of the world. Alternative science, with subsections alternative medicine, alternative physics, etc., should include theories that seem doubtful to many, but are taken seriously (treated in mainstream journals, for example). String theory probably needs to go here as an unproven but interesting (and possibly valid) theory. So should homeopathy and chiropracty. They are not in direct conflict with established medicine, and there is evidence on both sides.

I feel strongly that the current polarity is partly a result of there being no middle category in Wikipedia for work that has some standing and is still under evaluation. (I would take the latter criterion literally: if there continue to be articles about a subject in serious, peer-reviewed journals, it is under evaluation and not yet decided. There are not many articles about phrenology these days, but quite a few about string theory - and homeopathy.) Hgilbert 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Protoscience is the middle term. And, actually, string theory would be protoscience. It is real science. Jim62sch 01:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few about homeopathy? Where? Homeopathy is in direct conflict with established medicine, which believes that the higher the dose, the greater the effect, and with established chemistry and physics, which conclude that a typical homeopathic dose has exactly zero atoms of anything listed as an active ingredient.--Prosfilaes 20:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well... try

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Already the fact that many established European universities have centers for complementary medicine should give pause to a hasty categorization. I realize that it is very upsetting to scientific theory about substances to consider homeopathic doses as having an effect. But it is a subject of serious scientific inquiry at the moment, by serious scientists. Wikipedia policy is not to project one's own narrow view of a subject as the mainstream when the mainstream includes other voices.

JA: One of the important "community of inquiry" issues that is being neglected here is the leveling effect of genuine scientific community. I am far more interested in process issues — both the inquiry process and the WP process — than content issues, but just by way of ancedote, I did spend a decade moving from a student statistical aide to a professional consultant, during which time I worked on a variety of health-science education and research projects, and during which time my university adopted a school of osteopathic medicine in addition to the school of medicine that it already had in place. As a purely nerdy bystander, it was all just data to me — in the beginning all the usual cliches were aired, but by the end of the decade I think that it was a fairly general consensus that the levels of training were on a par with each other, differences in emphasis and orientation aside. The plan fact is that being a part of an academic research environment exerts a pressure to prove that methods and practices work, or else they have to be abandoned. But doing that requires that all parties sit at the table. There's a lesson in that. Jon Awbrey 14:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeated reversions without comments

I have made an edit to the introduction which has been reverted without comment twice. Now, I am more than willing that my edit is rejected by others, but I'd like an explanation.

I have slightly changed the language so that it reads the term "pseudoscience" is typically pejorative, a claim that I think is not particularly controversial. I don't know of any skeptic that uses the term without negative normative overtones.

Instead, the two editors reverting apparently think that only adherents of dubious theories view the term as pejorative. This strikes me as dismissive and false. It is rather more natural to think that the claim "X is a pseudoscience" is almost always a negative judgment about either X, some of the arguments for X or the honesty or scientific understanding of some of X's advocates.

Surely we can agree that "pejorative" does not imply "subjective". Many terms are pejorative while still being factual. For instance, the term "irrational" is undeniably pejorative (mathematical usage aside), but it is certainly objective in at least some of its uses. Similarly, acknowledging that calling a theory pseudoscience is a negative judgment is not giving away too much: such claims can still have objective grounds. Phiwum 20:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the direction you were heading with successive edits was progressively beneficial. I first reverted via popup because I have come to trust Jom62sch's judgment as a general rule, and because I didn't notice your original explanation, only the disagreement about reverts. Most importantly, the introduction is not the place for specific examples of how a field might choose to defend or counterattack. If it is worthy of saying, there can be made or found a place in the article for the specific points. I also left a response on my page. Take care... Kenosis 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I certainly agree that your latest edit is an improvement. It also includes my main concern, namely that it is not just adherents that find the label to be pejorative. (The bit about ideology didn't matter to me, but I kept it as a leftover from the earlier intro.) Phiwum 21:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the new edit is better -- I restored the previous merely because the version I reverted had really drifted away from a good definition (no offence). Jim62sch 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfalsifiable Labels (No, the other UL)

JA: Give it up, guys, can't you recognize an unfalsifiable label when you see one? Anyone who criticizes the arguments or the evidentiary basis of any bull e-dicted by this particular Closed Circle is automatically labelled an "Adherent" of some unspecified pseudoscience or another. At least they are providing us with an object example of how that works, so maybe there's a lesson in that after all. Jon Awbrey 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you refer to the second sentence of the intro, I agree with you. But given the obvious demand for this "insight", I couldn't quite see my way clear to avoid stating the obvious right up front. Should it be "supporter" instead of "adherent"? Problem is, of course, like the jailhouse statement from The Shawshank Redemption, "Everyone in here's innocent"...Kenosis 02:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Uhhuh, and there's a process for putting 'em in thar. Hint: It no longer involves dunking chairs or autos-da-fé. Jon Awbrey 03:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, pretty arbitrary in distinguishing between pseudoscience and protoscience at times--there should perhaps be an International Court of Science to arbit these things :) Kenosis 04:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: There is a court like that. Reality just keeps on banging its gavel on our heads until we wake up from the drone of all the false counsels. Jon Awbrey 04:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Though there are some reasonable consensus limits to what can be gotten away with on both sides of any given spat. And of course, if one's slant has enough corporate backers, who knows what one can get away with...Kenosis 04:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Which is precisely why I don't waste my time tilting at sunday funnies horoscopes. Jon Awbrey 04:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:-) Kenosis 04:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism considered harmful

JA: I previously commented on the host of intellectual errors inherent in anthropomorphism — we'll discuss the sexist implications of that term another time — but found myself roundly set upon by the adherents of pseudogrammar. Perhaps heads are cooler now. Jon Awbrey 15:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no inherent sexist implication in athropomorphism. Ανθρωπος is the equivalent of Latin homo (human), while ανηρ (genitive ανδρος) is the equivalent of Latin vir (English cognate wer, were as in werewolf).

JA: Hence the humor. Jon Awbrey 22:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you are very subtle...excellent! And I wasted all that time typing in Greek! Oh well. Jim62sch 00:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see your definition of pseudogrammar, as well. Jim62sch 22:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Locally speaking, an inductive definition suffices. Jon Awbrey 22:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet, I don't know specifically to what pseudogrammar you are referring. Jim62sch 00:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: And cooler heads, if you'll excuse the synecdoche, will already have noticed the same problem in the abridged reference to an abridged reference that we find here:

"Pseudoscientific - pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific", from Oxford American Dictionary, published by the Oxford English Dictionary.

Let's see. While pseudoscience is a macaronic word, (tsk), in essence it means, "false knowledge". This would match very well with the OED (the real one) definition of pseudoscience, "a pretended or spurious science; a collection of beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status of scientific truths," So, the problem would be what? Jim62sch 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: In the exact sciences, exact definitions are widely considered, so weasely to speak, as having some importance, and instances of paralogic are not lightly excused under the cover of "paraphrase". Jon Awbrey 15:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? That'll shock a lot of scientists. Paralogic? You meant paralogism -- no need for a neologism when there's already a word sufficent to the need. Jim62sch 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: I probably shouldn't try to get serious about anything this close to the twitching hour, but here is my attempt to analyze why the anthropomorphism is so akin to the galemorphism or the kerdomorphism (Gk: weasel, wily).

JA: First, a word from our sponsor:

WP:WEASEL
Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.

JA: To keep things general, and yet keep them grounded in concrete, real-life examples, here's a formal abstract of an assertion that I tore from the headlines of an actual article in WP.

B-ism and C-ism reject J-ology as a pseudoscience.
D-ism maintains that J-ology misconceives X.

This statement is criticizable on the grounds that it uses anthropomorphisms (A-isms) in the manner of weasel wording to insinuate pseudosourced generalizations.

JA: The statement as a whole conjoins three assertions, to wit:

B-ism rejects J-ology as a pseudoscience.
C-ism rejects J-ology as a pseudoscience.
D-ism maintains that J-ology misconceives X.

JA: Problem 1. Each of the three claims has the form of an A-ism, in other words, their subjects are not the grammatical sort of nouns that are subcategorized to take verbs like "rejects" or "maintains".

JA: Problem 2. The grammatical problem would normally be solved by rephrasing. Most likely, a person who says "B-ism rejects J-ology" means to say that the overwhelming majority of B-ists reject J-ology, or that there is a tenet of B-ism whose acceptance defines what it means to be a B-ist, and that it contradicts a fundamental principle of J-ology. However, in each of these cases, the A-ism is used to cover an extremely broad generalization, as if to claim that all B-ists share a tenet that contradicts a tenet that all J-ologists share, and respectively for C-ists and D-ists.

JA: Problem 3. More signficantly with respect to the WikiPedia policy of WP:VERIFY, none of the above claims is sourced. The effect of the A-ism is to make them sound sourced, to make a pretense of sourcing them, and thus to finesse the freedom of the reader to "consider the source". At any rate, WP:VERIFY states that the burden of proof is on the editor who makes the claim or who desires to keep it in the article, not on anyone else to provide contrary evidence.

JA: Problem 4. The fact that, say, some B-ists reject some of the tenets of some J-ologists still does not mean that those B-ists reject J-ology "as a pseudoscience". All sorts of folks reject each others axioms and maxims without necessarily calling each other pseudo-anything. If the statements above appear to imply that B-ists, C-ists, and D-ists present a united front against J-ology, then it's necessary to observe the fact that they don't really say that. It may happen that they reject some of each others' principles as well, all without needing to raise the charge of pseudoscience.

JA: But enough about weasels for one day. Jon Awbrey 05:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I wasn't arguing that anthropomorphism isn't bad (I've noted that myself on a number of pages), I was questioning the "exact definition" portion. Also, "some" is actually required in certain syllogisms. (For example, the Baroco syllogism, "All P are M. Some S are not M. Therefore, Some S are not P.").

Also, I agree with all four of your points (listed above as problems). Point 4 should really have a 4a and 4b, with 4b explaining why, for example, phrenology (call it P-ism) is a pseudoscience.

Could you rephrase this a bit, "bias must be controlled, either directly, through the manipulation of factors" -- while I understand exactly what you are saying, and note that you are correct, the terms "bias", "controlled", "manipulation" and "factors" may be miscontrued by the casual reader who knows nothing of the scientific definitions of the terms. Gratias tibi ago. Jim62sch 11:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sciences, exact & excruciating

JA: By exact science I mean mathematics, statistics, and the deductive ring in the big top of logic. One of the big jolts to me personally — as I took a raison detour from the exact science of mathematics and the not-so-exact science of physics through the rougher ringers of psychology, computer science, and statistics as she is spoke in the real world — was the way that the monastic monographists of exact and formal knowledge must negotiate with the world-that-goes-on-as-it-darn-well-pleases. So that's what I'm talking about when I say that. Start now, finish later, time is like that ... Jon Awbrey 15:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: To continue to continue ... If I remember correctly (a fallible assumption), the word "control", same as "comptroller", derives from "counter-roll", which refers to the practice of keeping two sets of books in the innocent sense of redundant backup copies for error-detection and error-correction purposes. This is the parchment scroll equivalent of the primitive practice of keeping an account of a transaction by notching a twig along the edge, then splitting it lengthwise with one's counterpart as a way of ensuring a bona fide copy thereof. Hence, our word "compute" by way of the Latin putare, to wit, to prune. So control is originally about error control, not messing with Mother Nature. This proto-echoes our own era's late grasp of the complementarity between information and control, or the mathematical duality between observability and controllability in cybernetics and systems science. To be continued ... Jon Awbrey 16:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know all of that. My point was that the casual reader may not. We're not writing for each other, but for a broader audience. On the other hand, I look forward to the continuation of the continuation's continuation.

JA: I did the best that I could, for the time being, to rubricize a complex issue on a front bumper sticker, which most folks are quite naturally trying to dodge first and ruminate later. It's usually just easier to stick with one cliche pseudotruth or another. As far as speaking to a wider congregation, not just preaching to the choir, there's a kind of a (DIYD)^2 phenomenon in that. My last day's BTT&S at relating scientific inquiry to everyday reasoning got branded and reverted as a "personal essay". So the homiletics of science is a risky business, especially when "sounds scientific" is the criterion of soundness and some people wouldn't know science if it was under their gnosis. The next generation always pays more attention to what the last does than to what it says. And you can trite me on that. Whew! Gotta go find something productive to do. Jon Awbrey 14:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I think I might've chosen "most people" rather than "some people". :) I suppose, too, that you point to the one weakness of an encyclopedia -- brevity. On the other hand, if the article is written well enough, perhaps the reader will be spurred on to reading actual books on the topic (assuming the reader have the requisite attention span to read a book).

Three categories: a suggestion

I would like to suggest that the list of fields considered on this page be divided into three separate lists (and pages). One would be for those fields that do not use scientific methodology or for which there is really no evidence. These could be termed pseudoscience.

A second list would be for new fields that are undergoing or seeking to undergo methodologically sound testing, but for which evidence is not decisive as yet. This would include string theory. These belong on a page devoted to protoscience.

I would suggest a third page for practical fields that have had some record of success, but that have not been given a theoretical foundation compatible with present scientific theories and/or for which the presently available empirical studies are insufficient. Much of what is commonly called alternative medicine would fall here: Chinese medicine, chiropracty, homeopathy. Since established universities offer specialties in these subjects and peer-reviewed, respected scientific publications discuss them (see above), these make up a special topic of their own. Research in progress might be a title for such work; they are not decided one way or another by any scientific standard, but their scientific status will hopefully be clarified as more research is done. If people feel that this group belongs on the protoscience page, I would accept this, but feel that these areas have a fundamentally different character than new scientific theories...perhaps it is simply a matter of one coming from the praxis, the other from the theoretical side. Hgilbert 17:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: This is beginning to sound sensible to me. Just by way of one comment, the term "protoscience" is criticizable on the grounds that it involves a kind of retrospective projection or post hoc revisionary anachronism. What I mean is, just as nobody ever wrote their YOB on a job application as "500 BC", nobody ever says, "Mommy when I grow up I want to be a protoscientist". So the use of such terms involves an inherently extrinsic coordinate system for describing intellectual history. Probably a measure of extrinsicality cannot be avoided — but it's important for us to keep seeing it for what it is. Jon Awbrey 17:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, although protoscience is the accepted term (that and 75 cents will get you a cheap cup of coffee). What would you suggest as a definer for the term, as in "Protoscience, which refers to disciplines that have a scientific basis, but are as yet..."? Jim62sch 23:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: I've gone through my mental Latin and Greek lexicons and cannot think of a word to replace proto (except dynamo, as in potential, but that word has been coopted by a different meaning). All else sounds predictive. Jim62sch 23:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering how the concept of protoscience relates to the Wikipedia policy against original research. Wikipedia isn't the place for proposing many of the concepts being termed "protoscience." They must be verifiable and established. Speculative theories are limitless and could quadruple the size of Wikipedia if allowed to fill the servers. -- Fyslee 09:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

All that is required is sourcing. Jim62sch 13:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah but surely there is a difference between historical protoscience and modern protoscience, e.g. Alchemy was a protoscience, but labelling something as modern protoscience is probably crystal-ball gazing. — Dunc|☺ 14:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I noted that earlier on when I said it was predictive. The problem is, I can't think of a better word, and protoscience, for all of its flaws (and there are many), is the accepted term. I'm open to suggestions. Jim62sch 18:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted a preliminary split into the three pages:

Pseudoscience

Protoscience, and

Prescientific systems

Please help me sorting these out!!! Criteria I propose are: Pseudoscience must be really disproven or use totally non-scientific methods and standards Protoscience to be reserved for work by trained scientists that is revolutionary or not yet fully recognized/confirmed, but also for historical precursors of modern sciences such as alchemy...recognizing that if these were practiced today they would be pseudosciences. Prescientific systems for all empirical work (including traditional and modern medical and psychiatric therapies) that has no firm scientific standing, basis and/or proof, especially where ongoing studies are taking place to determine the status and efficacy of the field. Question: do such areas as precognition fit this? I have tentatively placed them here, but they almost need their own category.

JA: I moved it to the singular form Prescientific system per local standard usage. Jon Awbrey 14:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Text removed from Problem of demarcation section

This historical material is temporarily removed from article for discussion, as it is incomplete and not fully representative of the most relevant parts of the historical discussion...Kenosis 18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Logical positivism, for example, espoused a theory of meaning which held that only statements about empirical observations are meaningful, effectively asserting that statements which are not derived in this manner (including all metaphysical statements) are meaningless. Later, Karl Popper attacked logical positivism and introduced his own criterion for demarcation, falsifiability. This in turn was criticised by Thomas Kuhn, who illustrated with historical examples that falsification did not play a largely causative role in changes between scientific theories, and also by Popper supporter Imre Lakatos, who proposed his own criteria that distinguished between progressive and degenerative research programs.18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Restored Pseudoskepticism to intro

I've restored the reference to Pseudoskepticism as a valid sub-category of Pseudoscience, as described on the Pseudoskepticism page.

Phiwum, at least have the courtesy of providing an explanation for your removal of the statement. --Iantresman 14:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Pseudoskepticism is not a very widely used term and it is not very relevant to the topic. If you feel like a reference to the term is essential, why not put it in the body rather than the intro? The fact is that this notion is close to a neologism to my eyes. Ever see pseudoskepticism in a reputable academic journal without a pseudoscientific bent? I haven't. I take this as evidence that the term isn't essential to understanding pseudoscience and hence the reference doesn't belong in the intro.

I'll leave it there for now and await input from other editors. Phiwum 15:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not widely used, and perhaps the introduction is not the right place. I've now moved the sentence on section on "Classifying pseudoscience".

The article on pseudoskepticism seems to include a number of references. I don't have any citations to peer-reviewed references, but then most of the article on pseudoscience is also lacking refererences --Iantresman 16:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with this change. Sorry I didn't comment when I reverted. I'm afraid I have been playing with popup-reversions and they make it too easy to revert without comment! Good we came to an agreement here.Phiwum 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition of pseudoskepticism to section on Classifying pseudoscience

I believe a clear consensus should be developed and documented about what can go in the section on Classifying pseudoscience. There is a reasonable argument for pop science and pseudoskepticism here because they are classes that have specifically to do with the lack of use of analytical rigor and nothing more specific in terms of the content of the arguments--they have more to do with style of analysis of whatever particular field of practice or research they're dealing with. If the editors do not achieve a clear consensus about their inclusion here (rather than in the list section), it opens the door to inevitable additions by passersby with no thought to organization. Seems to me all further attempted additions of more specific classifications should be immediately put on the list of pseudosciences, or rejected completely if it can be shown why they do not belong on the list...Kenosis 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I think the section on "Classifying pseudoscience" is more accurately to do with "Indentifying pseudoscience" which is not the same thing. It shouldn't be too difficult to find an appropriate place for the sentence on pseudoskepticism. (unsigned by Iantresman)

This is a good point I think which should help to keep it under control. Going to implement it now, pending of course the normal course of discussion about the issue...Kenosis 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would add something to the effect of "claims to be skeptical via the scientific method", but that might simply be redundant with "non-rigorous" and "claiming to be" ColdSalad 12:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations & Examples

I think that since an article on pseudoscience considers the scientific method to be so important, that it (a) adds peer-reviewed citations where appropriate (b) applies the "Classifying pseudoscience" identifiers to a real situation, such as the Big Bang theory, in order to demonstrate its veracity. For example

by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified... what aspect of the Big Bang makes a prediction that can be falsified? And how does this differ from observations that require the theory to be modified?
by habitually changing the nature of its claims to deflect criticism... why do all the changes to the Big Bang theory not count as "habitually changing" the theory.
by failing to make use of operational definitions... what are the Big Bang's operational definitions?

--Iantresman 17:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If those criticisms were valid, they belong on the Big Bang page itself more than they would here. ColdSalad 02:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter in any event. Big bang theory is not a field per se, or a practice with its own agreed name used by its "practitioners." Astrophysics appears to be the most used term for the field. "Big bang theory" as it has come to be popularly known, actually is a forensic speculation which makes use of, among other concepts, relativity theory (now a law really), and quantum mechanics, itself a field with a number of theories currently on the table within it. If the "big bang" is wrong, or is shown to be radically flawed, so are a number of either observations or principles that have been used to arrive at it. And if so, it will need to be adapted accordingly, not to deflect criticism but to reconcile principles or theories that have repeatedly proven useful for other calculations and observations that can be tested and replicated.

Perhaps there is another example of a field that could be of benefit to the readers of this article, but not clog up the page with a rapid flurry of rabid objections? Perhaps the classic illustration of phrenology, for instance?...Kenosis 04:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not about a criticism of the Big Bang, but illustrating the points on pseudoscience. Sure, let's included phrenology, but as a comparison with "real science", let's include the Big Bang too. It does not matter than the Big Bang is not entire field, after all, pseudoscience has been "applied" to many individual's work... and technically it's an individual that is guilty of pseudoscience, not the subject. --Iantresman 07:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The big bang is not a field or area of practice; it is a speculation, one which has some consensus today incidentally. If you are advocating that astophysics is a pseudoscience, you are by no means alone. Personally I refuse to take on, among others, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in this article in Wikipedia...Kenosis 07:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

removed sentence

Just removed this from Intro because it's a bit too field specific for intro, and applies to fields involving human factors. Placing it here because of its potential value to the article...Kenosis 07:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In certain kinds of science involving human factors as an object of study, double blind testing is often appropriate.07:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Technological singularity

An anonymous editor recently removed this entry from the list of "fields" associated with pseudoscience. I have reverted that removal, since we have a consensus that such edits should be discussed (right?).

Nonetheless, I tentatively agree with the edit. This is a concept or perhaps a claim, but not a field. If the list is a list of fields, what is this doing there? Phiwum 09:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Phiwum. I too provisionally agree. Upon noticing the edit, I did several searches and found nothing where proponents of this view attempt to cast it as science. And, it does appear to be more in the realm of theoretical speculation, with an added twist picked up by other speculators (not Kurzweil, whose original prediction continues to become more and more true) that make some yet more profound assumptions about human consciousness. But I see no attempt to cast it as science...Kenosis 16:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed from this article. There are specific, testable aspects to the technological singularity. It perhaps might fall in the category of Protoscience, but definitely not Pseudoscience. (Cardsplayer4life 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

I'd say that t.s. does not belong here - definietly not without an academic citation. I'd have thought t.s. is a respectable theory in future studies.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say t.s. does not exhibit the properties for a science or even proto-science. It does not satisfy Karl Poppers Falsifiability criteria, being an untestable phenomena. Perhaps there is a need for questionable theories article to put theories which do not lay claim to being scientific. --Salix alba (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

TS can say whatever it wants so long as it does not cast itself as science. It does not appear to do so to date...Kenosis 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kenosis. This page is about pseudoscience, not questionable non-scientific theory. But, interestingly, there are two defenses for removing T.S. at present:

It isn't a pseudoscience because it is not claimed to be a scientific theory.
It isn't a pseudoscience because it is a respectable (proto-)scientific theory.

Obviously, these two claims are incompatible.Phiwum 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't claim to be scientific or to have any scientific legitimacy, then it can't be considered a pseudoscience. There are other possibilities for things that aren't classifiable as pseudoscience: metaphysics, religion, philosophy, protoscience, nonsense, etc. -- Fyslee 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, yes, that point was first suggested by Keonisis and I agree. But the question is whether, as some say, it is a respectable science (and hence doesn't belong here) or it isn't claimed to be a science (and hence doesn't belong here). Or we can just accept the consense that it doesn't belong here without worrying that the two offered reasons are contradictory. Phiwum 05:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The primary problem with "pseudo-science(s)" is that it (or they) attempt(s) to draw upon the accumulated credibility of science(s) without responding to the responsibilities of science to be open to verification by others to determine how reliable the "body of knowledge" and/or its premises is/are for use by others in their life and work. An "open" body of knowledge that is faulty will quickly enough be detected as such by others who have the wherewithall to deal with the technicalities--if it is adequately open to scrutiny. Here, TS neither seems to pretend to be "science," nor is particularly vague about its premises. If it were to pretend to be a science, I believe it should be reinstated here, because the "event" it strives to predict is a one-time event that is not replicable, testable, etc, etc...Kenosis 06:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling a pejorative a pejorative

JA: The term "pseudoscience" is pejorative. Nobody who can read a dictionary definition of "pejorative" and apply it to a case of predication could say otherwise. Could somebody please explain why they have a problem with the simple statement that "pseudoscience" is a pejorative term? Are scientists supposed to be such nice people that they never criticize other people? Or is it some wish to criticize without assuming the responsibilities and the risks of doing so? This is commonly recognized as "Man Behind The Screen" behavior — well, at least it's so recognized when other folks do it. Jon Awbrey 06:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your revert stated your case adequately--the rest that you just stated is either gravy or icing, depending on your POV...Kenosis 06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: Well, irony aside, at least for a second, and since I suspect, empirically speaking, that it will probably come up again, I really would like to understand where in the ointment the flies are. Jon Awbrey 06:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I vaguely suspect a "strange bedfellows" conspiracy between the Wizard Behind The Curtain focus groups in DC, and the obsessive/compulsive co-dependent nice guys, psuedo-nice-guys and proto-nice-guys (leaving aside, for convenience of terms, the gender neutrality issue for the moment)...Kenosis 06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I misunderstand anything here. (I've been away from this article for awhile, and may not understand the finer nuances of your ongoing discussions.) I'd also like to know "where in the ointment the flies are." Is there a real disagreement about whether the term "pseudoscience" is also a "pejorative," and thus has "negative connotations?" Or is this a matter of political correctness regarding what wording to use in the lead section? -- Fyslee 07:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a very significant difference between "political correctness" and avoiding making one's self involved in the judgment whether it's "good" or "bad", or whether somebody or some group meets the "style test" for casual respectability and invitation to the next social function, or whatever the current off-the-books judgment junk that's being passed around for lack of a more suitable outlet for those feelings. I maintained the article should just state the facts and walk away. Who the heck gives a whoot to see in writing that it's typically pejorative (whereupon, I suppose, the reader is perhaps expected to say "whoa-ho-ho-ho ! That makes it even worse!") with a link to the "Pejorative" article... is that supposed to be instructive or something? I thought not, I felt it's just prurient in a minor kind of way. There also is a verifiability problem that's involved, because there is not study out there about the relative frequency with which the term "pejorative" can properly be attached. So we already agree it's probably "pejorative" almost all the time; by the time you get to that threshold, there's no longer any need to attach the statement because it's not informative. And, in my view it's also pretty irrelevant, because people resent other people for all kinds of reasons including complete success and perfection...

That was my position, Jon reverted, and as far as I'm concerned that ends the argument. The rest of what Jon talked about was therefore either gravy or icing, depending on your POV...Kenosis 14:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: Again, I continue to be flummoxed about this. Is there something pejorative about the term "pejorative-user" (PU)? It does not say "obsessive PU", just "occasional PU", and it imparts no judgment as to the fairness or the frequency of ones PU-hood. Should we not follow Patrick Henry? — "If this be pejorative, make the most of it!" Jon Awbrey 14:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there supposed to be a "h'rumph" attached to that? ;-) ...Kenosis 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon and Fyslee, As I said, I had already relinquished the issue before, except to explain further. But, it just struck me why that passage bothered me. It was because it is arguably gratuitous--adds nothing substantive to the article (at least in my view)...Kenosis 15:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: Yes, that whole bit about "it is pejorative to call somebody a fool and/or a liar, and of course they will protest their innocence, being as they are fools and/or liars" is logically gratuitous. But it's not gratuitous in a practical sense, because there may indeed be people who do not know that the predicate "pseudoscience" is logically equivalent to the predicate "fool and/or liar", so that is why dictionaries include that sort of information when there's a possibility that word users might not know it. Jon Awbrey 15:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Jon Awbrey has a point. The article isn't expected to provide much new information for people who are very familiar with the subject. It needs to be written for those who don't know much about it. The explanation about adherents of pseudoscience objecting (to the inclusion of their favorite delusion in a list of pseudosciences) has already been demonstrated very clearly and repeatedly on this talk page, so it is certainly a very relevant observation, and thus deserves inclusion. True believers are so immersed in their ideas that they cannot recognize their idea as a pseudoscience; they cannot consider it to be controversial; and they often claim it to be very scientific and backed up by hard science, when nothing could be further from the truth. They thus demonstrate that the expression "true believer" certainly applies to themselves. This kind of information is only apparent to those who have been involved in these subjects for some time, and who know the difference (not just in definitions) between pseudo- and real science. This "apparentness" is usually limited to those who are open adherents of modern science and the scientific method, while those who are deeply involved in so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM) often fail to understand the matter, and continue to insist their method is scientific. There are exceptions, but they are very few and far between. Among those exceptions would be those who are deliberate frauds and scammers, who reveal their bad motives and tainted consciences by refusing to allow their method or themselves to be tested (for example by the Randi $1.000.0000 dollar challenge). Those who are truly believers in their delusion are willing to be tested..... IMHO, Fyslee 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The explanation about adherents of pseudoscience objecting (to the inclusion of their favorite delusion in a list of pseudosciences) has already been demonstrated very clearly and repeatedly on this talk page...True believers are so immersed in their ideas that they cannot recognize their idea as a pseudoscience;

I think everything on the list is pseudoscience (not including when a adherent to some pseudo-science slips one in until someone catches it)...but nonetheless it seems pretty clearly a list from the POV of the scientific skeptics. The idea that scientific skeptics and scientists are one and the same is simply not true. Roger Penrose argues for Quantum conciousness, which is pretty pseudo-scientific--yet he still has contributed much to science. Newton, and plenty of modern day scientists believed some 2000 year old Jewish guy was channeling the God of Abraham, or perhaps was said God's actual son--hardly scientific skeptics if you ask me...doesn't mean they wern't scientists. I DO in fact adhere to the scientific skeptic philosophy, and have met more than a few scientists, more accomplished than I in science, that don't necessarily. They are NOT one and the same. This list clearly comes from the POV I hold. But I am still able to recognize it as a POV. --Brentt 12:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(Pseudoscient)ology as a Pseudoscience

JA: The drawing up of a blacklist, an Index of Proscribed Thoughts, with no supporting arguments attached to each case, is a very non-scientific, non-scholarly procedure, and violates all of the guidelines of truly critical thinking. The hypothesis that anybody who criticizes the dicta of the Grand Inquisitor is automatically the adherent of some proscribed heresy is not exactly unfalsifiable, since people of good sense see the flaw in it right off the bat, but it is the moral equivalent of Infallible Truth in the eyes of the True Believer in (Pseudoscient)ology, not to be confused with the pseudo²science of Pseudo(scientology). Jon Awbrey 13:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Think Its Time For Archiving?

Geese, is there no admins watching this? Its taking forever to load the page.

Jon Awbrey, you have made a lot of headers that could have fit in to existing discussions: please stop doing that, its made the page longer than it ought to be. (and prefacing every paragraph with "JA" is not necesssary, thats what signatures are for, and signatures work fine as long as everyone signs, and if someone doesn't just sign anonymous for them to avoid the ambiguity you are apparently trying to superflously avoid.)--Brentt 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: Brentt, try to avoid telling other people what to do, and so will I. Jon Awbrey 10:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: P.S. It just occurred to me that maybe you were unaware of this, but chunking the talk page into many sections and adding only to the relevent one is one of the ways to avoid problems with browser overload, and also to reduce edit conflicts when the talk gets hot and heavy. Also, it's a good idea to add stuff at the bottom of the page rather than stringing stuff on some high branch of some old tree. 11:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why do we have sections at all? If we really wanted to start a new section every new comment, it would be easy to set up the code that way. If you can't subordinate simple things like quoting styles and signature styles to the overall style of the board, how can we believe that you can subordinate your personal opinions and personal style to the larger goals of Wikipedia?--Prosfilaes 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: The recommendations about chunking sections and adding at the bottom are things that are suggested in various guidelines and followed more routinely in various parts of WikioPolis, but like most folks you Pseudoscientologists are very selective about which rules you subordinate yourselves to. Jon Awbrey 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your misunderstanding the guidlines, a good clue that your misunderstanding the standards is when your the only person ahdering to what you think is the standard. Brentt 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Remainder of discussion from 2005 archived

Discussion through January of 2006 has been moved here: /Archive 2. The previously existing Archive 2 was comparatively brief....Kenosis 13:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

many tanks for your effort--Brentt 04:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And discussion through mid-March of 2006 has been moved here: /Archive 3 Hgilbert 05:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy and vertebral subluxation revert war

There was no agreement as to whether veteral subluxations should be taken off the list so don't pretend there was in order to make it look like taking it off the list is uncontroversial. (specifically refering to Levine2112's edits). From the POV that the list comes from, it IS in fact a considered a pseudoscience. The POV problem is with where the list is...i.e. the pseudoscience article as opposed to the article about the POV it comes from. Your not helping the effort to adress the POV problems in this article, your just coming at it from a different POV, and I think have hurt the efforts to show the editors that have made this a POV article that it is in fact an innappropriate place for this list. I'm going to get around to getting a third party review of this if I can and when I have time to review that procedure. But the way the adherents to the pseudosciences have been approaching it, by shrilly defending their pet pseudosciences, have hurt the efforts to make this a NPOV article by making this a battleground for opposing viewpoints, instead of a sincere attempt to make the article NPOV. --Brentt 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My sincere effort to make this article NPOV would be to remove the list entirely. This list represtents what some people consider pseudoscience - sometimes definitionally, but more often as a matter of opinion. That you say Vertebral Subluxation is "considered" a pseudoscience - for example - shows POV. In truth, Vertebral Subluxation is not pseudoscience, but you are saying it belongs on this list because some still "consider" it a pseudoscience (despite it being a science as valid a gravity, atomic theory and psychology). Certainly you can see the inherent POV here. I can't speak intelligently for the other disciplines on the list, nor am I willing to point a finger and say that this or that belongs on the list. I think the best thing that we can do is to remove the list. The article does a very good job of describing the concept. The editors of this page are to be commended. The list is frankly unneccessary, inciteful, and clearly a big thorn of POV wedged in the side of an otherwise neutral article. Levine2112 17:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Read my stance in the above arguments about the list. I do think the list is POV and don't think the list belongs in this particular article. But there has been no consensus on that, and saying that there has been consensus on it is disengenous. I don't think your efforts are working towards making the article any less POV, I think your just trying to accomodate the list to your POV. Thats quite distinct from working towards a NPOV article. So you take out Chiropracty...what does that accomplish? Phrenology and "flat-earth theory" and someone elses pet theory are still on the list. The issue isn't whats on the list, its where the list is. --Brentt 21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with you, Brentt. The list is POV and it does not belong on this article. I am using Chiropractic as an example about which I can speak of intelligently. I don't know much about the other disciplines listed here but with Chiropractic, at least I can state a case. Rest assured however that I want more than just the reference to chiropractic and vertebral subluxation removed... at this point they have been removed, and yet I am still here. I want what you want, which is to have this very subjective list removed from this otherwise neutral article. Levine2112 23:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We worked through the three categories which have now been made into three articles. Please respect the distinctions made there. In particular:

I have never heard of vertical subluxations before, but the briefest of research confirms that it is not a science or pseudoscience; it is a specialized term. In the words of this article, it is not a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice. I have no idea whether vertical subluxations exist, but the topic is objectively treated in the eponymous article.

As mentioned above, there is serious research being done on homeopathy, and there are major universities and research centers (including the NIH) that continue to treat the subject seriously. The NIH website, for example, says

NCCAM supports a number of studies in this area. For example:Homeopathy for physical, mental, and emotional symptoms of fibromyalgia (a chronic disorder involving widespread musculoskeletal pain, multiple tender points on the body, and fatigue); Homeopathy for brain deterioration and damage in animal models for stroke and dementia; The homeopathic remedy cadmium, to find out whether it can prevent damage to the cells of the prostate when those cells are exposed to toxins. It cannot be termed a pseudoscience.

-- Hgilbert00:36, 25 April 2006

Quote:

"Systems disproven by scientific testing are normally dropped from scientific discourse; if claims continue to be made for the validity of such a system, it may be considered pseudoscientific." [2]

Both homeopathy and subluxations qualify. -- Fyslee 04:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Subluxations are not a "system". It is a misalignment of bones. Levine2112 08:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but we're not talking about orthopedic subluxations, but about chiropractic subluxations (VS), which are far more than just a "misalignment of bones." They can exist with absolutely no objective or subjective evidence for their presence, other than the pronouncement of a chiropractor. They can be asymptomatic, and yet be considered to be a legitimate object for non-stop, lifelong "wellness care."

They are also the legal and philosophical foundation of the chiropractic profession, in spite of their being considered by many chiros and all scientists outside the profession, to be the biggest hindrance to the advancement of the profession. The most adamant promoter of their existence admits that they are not a proven entity, but that "The vertebral subluxation cannot be precisely defined because it is an abstraction, an intellectual construct used by chiropractors, chiropractic researchers, educators and others to explain the success of the chiropractic adjustment." - Koren

They are not only a system of thought, they are currently (not just historically) the foundation of a whole profession, and practically the only thing uniquely chiropractic. If that doesn't qualify them for inclusion here, then the whole concept of pseudoscience loses all meaning. In spite of chiropractic being based on a pseudoscientific concept, I still don't consider placing chiropractic itself in the list, although good arguments could be made for that possibility. -- Fyslee 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vertebral subluxation is simply a misalignment of the vertebra . Are we to add scoliosis to the list of pseudosciences too then? Levine2112 21:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That is simply not the case. Misalignment of the vertebra would be fairly striaghtforward to objectively detect.Geni 05:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But yet that is precisely what Vertebral Subluxation is. Just a misalignment of the vertebra. Now then, when bones move out of place, the soft tissue surrounding the bone becomes inflamed. In the case of the vertebrae, this tissue can cause pressure on the nerve stem and interfere with nervous message flow. It is this point - what chiropractor's believe to be the result of Vertebral Subluxation - that is contentious; albeit not pseudoscience. Vertebral Subluxation is the foundation of a concept, but are in themselves not a concept. Levine2112 17:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Just a misalignment ....?" Not quite, by a long shot (111 years of contention and changing definitions within the profession).

There are myriad significant differences between the chiropractic vertebral subluxation (VS) and an orthopedic subluxation. I'll name just a few of them here:

An orthopedic subluxation is always objectively verifiable and no one questions its existence, including chiropractors. It is also nearly always symptomatic, and it usually is not amenable to manipulation of the HVLA thrust variety commonly used by chiropractors. In fact, its presence is usually considered to be a contraindication to the use of manipulation.

The chiropractic VS is a "claimed" diagnosis: It is "claimed" that there is a "misalignment." This claim is nearly always false, since it is only the chiropractor who determines its existence and location; no two chiropractors find the same "subluxation;" it is not objectively verifiable on x-ray or scans; it is often asymptomatic, yet is the subject of lifelong so-called "maintenance care" (which is expressly excluded from insurance coverage by several major health insurers); ad libitum....

The very existence of the VS is vigorously debated, even within chiropractic circles, with more and more chiropractors openly expressing "heretical" doubts. This would not be the case if VS were "just a misalignment" that was easily objectively confirmable.

Only VS is the foundation of a profession, and since it is debated and unproven, it makes a very shaky and unstable foundation, which is the biggest cause of most of the problems chiropractic has endured throughout the years. Of course chiropractors attempt to get around this fact (it's pretty nearly impossible to admit that one has a false belief...) by blaming their troubles on persecution from the medical profession. While there certainly has been persecution, the reason has basically been because of the false VS belief being perpetrated on the public, with its resulting quackeries and scams.

VS is a confusing and false diagnosis, because it attempts to misuse and twist an existing and legitimate subluxation diagnosis. There is only one "true" subluxation, and that is the orthopedic subluxation.

-- Fyslee 07:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that vertebra cannot become misaligned? I'm not looking for a long answer here. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice. Levine2112 21:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. There are a few situatons where they can become misaligned, but those would be true orthopedic subluxations, while believers in VS claim that all people have so-called "misalignments," even without any objective evidence for that being the case. Real subluxations are objectively verifiable, symptomatic, and are usually not amenable to HVLA manipulation. Attempts to manipulate ("adjust") them would only make the situation worse, including serious injury and treatment dependence.

One must take into account that chiropractors who believe in VS (not all of them do so) use the term "misalignment" in a false way. They would agree with an MD or PT who diagnosed a misalignment (since it would be visibly obvious on x-ray), but they would also interpret normal variations as "misalignments." These so-called "misalignments are normal spinal variations that are better left untouched. They are "normal" for that person, and attempting to "correct" them would create an unnatural situation for that person, creating a dependence on unnecessary treatments, the very treatments that created the problem that wasn't there before. "Leave sleeping dogs alone."

Having lived and worked in Greenland, I am somewhat of an expert at real subluxations of the type called spondylolisthesis. It occurs in 30-50% of Eskimos, and for them is a genetic condition. Manipulation can be catastrophic for these people, and cannot "correct" the condition. It can be stable or unstable. I became an expert at diagnosing and grading them. The worst cases require surgical stabilization.

The "ideal" spine is rarely found in living beings, just in textbooks. I have two of them. One is a nice plastic copy and the other is very real, with plenty of pathological changes. Very interesting. During school we each bought our own skeletons and they were all different, revealing the enormous natural variations to the human skeleton. Even textbooks reveal differences. Attempting to force a natural spine to conform to an "ideal" version is foolhardy. -- Fyslee 22:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I ask for a simple "yes" or a "no" and you give me a dissertation. I appreciate your POV here. Since you are fond of textbooks, here is the textbook definition of VS:

'The vertebral subluxation is the term applied to a vertebra which has lost its normal position and/or motion in relation to neighboring vertebrae. Vertebrae which do not function properly within the spinal framework generate mechanical stress. This accelerates the wear and tear on the surrounding spinal muscles, ligaments, discs, joint and other spinal tissues. Pain, palpatory tenderness, inflammation, decreased spinal mobility, and muscle spasm and hypertonicity will eventually follow.

'Additionally, because of the direct mechanical and physiological relationship between the spinal column and the spinal nerve roots, vertebral subluxations as well as other spinal abnormalities have the potential to impair proper nerve functioning. Once nerve functioning is compromised, communication within the body becomes less effective jeopardizing the overall health and wellness of the individual.

If you agree that a vertebra can become misaligned - which is scientifically proven - then you do believe that vertebral subluxations exist... for they are one in the same. And if you had an auto accident - for argument's sake - and the trauma caused your vertebra to become misaligned, wouldn't you want that to be corrected? Don't you think that the misalignment could be altering your body's normal function? Or do you think the body's overall health and well-being is not impacted in anyway by the alignment bones - particualrly the vertebra which encase your spinal cord? Levine2112 00:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Subluxions aside, what is the opinion on Homeopathy. It's a text book case of pseudoscience. Jefffire 11:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can hardly think of a better example of pseudoscience. Fortunately it is falsifiable and continually fails in good research. (Poor quality research confirms it.) Because it is testable, our skepticism about it is not based on a lack of evidence because of a lack of research, but because good research repeatedly shows it to be lacking in specific effects above the placebo effect. It is simply a disproven method.

The very fact that there are flaky "scientists" who insist that it is scientific and continue to research it, is what makes it classifiable as a pseudoscience. If they gave up and admitted that they are following an old prescientific metaphysical belief system, then it wouldn't be a pseudoscience. It is also this continued research that is being improperly used here as a reason to exclude it from being included, which is an absurd notion. True believers never give up, and since there is so much money involved, they will continue to get funds to research it, instead of admitting defeat. -- Fyslee 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. To say water retains long-term ordering (as in, ordering on the timescale of hours) due to trace quantities of solute is to challange the postulates of statistical mechanics. I have not seen a "scientifically mature" criticism of stat. mech. by homeopathy proponents, rather, they assert a model and provide 'evidence' in the form of the placebo effect. I'm not saying it's impossible that homeopathy works, but their model is definately not scientific, discrediting its status as a science. rmbh 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The research results have actually been mixed. Of course, those with a bias against homeopathy will claim that only the negative results can be believed. --Lee Hunter 17:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Research which was carried out with adaquate scientific rigour has been largely negative. Jefffire 17:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

LeeHunter, your point isn't relevant, in response to mine. The results of tests of homeopathy's efficacy aren't relevant. Let's say that homeopathy works, for the sake of argument, that still certainly doesn't make it a science (which was my original point, and the point of this thread). And as long as homeopathy makes scientifically falsifiable claims, claims motivated from a model that contradicts multiple, separately developed bodies of theoretical science (like stat. mech.), it is pseudoscience.rmbh 07:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is the pseudo science, like some of the eastern medicine ideas. Science is the only way to stop the abuse of the public from quackery people. Hylas Chung 08:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences

I agree that the whole list of pseudosciences is a delicate, perhaps a highly problematic matter. Removing it is one solution. Another would be giving (and requiring) substantial citations that support each of these fields being classified here. A third approach would be our being very careful (but new editors might not be) about what we put here; innocent until proven guilty would be a highly recommended practice...in other words, doubtful but not proved false theories would not be listed. A fourth approach would be to allow anyone to add anything they are quite sure fits the bill...and, I suppose, anyone to take off anything they are quite sure doesn't. I guess that the latter is the current approach. I'm not sure it's working all that well.

My experience suggests that concrete criteria are the best solution, though I could also go with the cited justifications for the classification. I have suggested that any approach about which articles are being written in peer-reviewed journals, which is studied in universities or recognized organizations (such as the NIH), or which in any way is still a topic of discussion and research (as opposed to mere derision) in academic or professional circles, should not be listed here. The jury is still out on many areas(especially health-related, like homeopathy and chiropracty), and this encyclopedia is not the place to make the judgment. Perhaps some of the contributors here could add to the suggested criteria, or modify them, and come up with a reasonable, objective set that we can all apply. Hgilbert 21:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As for your second approach, I said that I would see if I could get citations for most of the things. I think I can do it with just a handful of books, but I haven't done it yet. Bubba73 (talk), 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Pseudoscience article does a marvelous job sans the list. The list will always be contraversial and cause headaches, edit wars, and more headaches. The examples don't really help the article. It is merely a list of what some people consider pseudoscience. Since it is a pejorative label, there will always be adherents who will be correct when they cite POV. Removing the list is the most Wikipedian thing to do here. Levine2112 01:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If we keep the list at all, then it should be for fields for which it is difficult or impossible to find citable support. If there is a legitimate mix of opinion out there, the field doesn't belong here. I think that there are some areas that are clear enough to be listed (Wiki policy is also to be bold ... (and be prepared to be corrected, as I am here). I'm worried about the gray areas, though; thus my wish to have objective standards. Hgilbert 05:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mst of the things on the list are in the Category Pseudoscience, aren't they? If so, then I don't see any problem with listing them in the Pseudoscience article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no meta-science to judge something as pseudo-scientific. I don't even think its about citable support. Flat-earth theory or the moon is green-cheese theories could theoretically use the scientific method to test hypothesis', have studies published in peer-reviewed journals (it doesn't much matter if your peers think like you do...there are peer-reviewed journals for many pseudosciences. They use the scientific method, they just interpret the results unconvincingly.), and just generally act scientific. Of course to most people it would be unconvincing and obviously a facade of science. And in most cases its clear which ones are just putting a veneer of science on their theories...but there will always be a minority opinion of people that think it is real science.

Now if pseudoscience was a term used by only scientific skeptics, which is the POV the list comes from, then it would probably be a non-issue. But many people use the term not, the fact that it was originally made a widely used term by scientific skeptics, and was later usurped by proponents of fringe theories is irrelevant. Creationists call evolution pseudo-science, and some make sophisticated arguments as to why they think it is pseudoscience. So why isn't evolotuion on the list? A small minority of scientists think globabl warming climatalogy is pseudoscientific--why isn't that on the list? Obviously because generally scientific skeptics don't think it is pseudoscience. ergo this is a list from the scientific skeptic POV.

Trying to pretend that there is some meta-science to determine what is an isn't real science is to be naive about the highly contentious issues debated in the philosophy of science. From my POV, everything on that list is pseudo-science, but that doesn't mean its not a POV. Pretending there is such a meta-science to determine whether something is or isn't pseudoscience or science is disengenous.

Please understand I'm not defending any of the theories on the list. I am a scientific skeptic, thats precisely why I've come to recognize the list as coming from my POV. --Brentt 01:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you have made it abundantly clear that this list is truly POV and completely inappropriate here. You have my support in taking it down. Is there anyone who can challenge what Brentt has so clearly stated here and give us any good reason to keep this list any longer? Levine2112 02:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course we should keep the list. The article is about a POV - the scientific POV, and to delete explanations and examples from that POV would be to hollow out the soul of the article. It would be like having an article about weapons, without it being allowed to make a list of typical weapons. Absurd!

To make it conform to the NPOV policy, the article must also present the POV of critics of the article's (scientific) POV, which is what the Criticisms section is for. Both POV should be presented, but the article's main POV is of course the subject of the article, and thus maintains the pole position. Readers of the article should come away from it with an understanding of both POV and then be able to make up their own minds. -- Fyslee 21:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 (talk), 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is about a POV - the scientific POV, The article is not about the scientific POV: and thats why I am saying whe should move the list to the article that is about the scientific POV. Several disparate groups use the term pseudoscience (and as I've said before, it is irrelevant whehter or not they usurped the term from scientific skeptics). The main group that uses it would mostly fall under the scientific skeptics but there are significant minority groups that use the term to describe mainstream scientific fields.

The criticism section is not really germane to the POV issue here. The POV issue I'm talking about isn't about problems with the "concept" of pseudoscience, which the section adresses, it is about wikipedia taking a stance, even if a weasely stance, on what is and isn't pseudoscience, and only representing the majority scientific view, when there are significant minority views.

So from what I'm reading, you are in fact saying that the list is representing a POV? We are halfway to resolving the issue. Now all I have to do is convince you that the "scientific" POV does not have a monopoly on the term pseudoscience and therefore the list should not be representing one POV in this particular article (like I said before, the list is useful and should remain on wikipedia, just not in this article since it is about a term used by several disparate groups with conflicting ideas about what qualifies as pseudoscience). --Brentt 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

(Deleted subthread upon request of other participant. It can be found here)--Brentt 22:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I by the Category pseudoscience you mean the Platonic category, that's certainly the case. If you mean the Wikipedia category, well, it's probably been set up by a lot of the same people who made the list in the Pseudoscience article. The question is whether any sort of objective criteria have been applied to either. String theory, for example, has been described as pseudoscience by respected scientists because of its lack of verifiability. Lack of verifiability is normally a clear sign of a pseudoscience. So what are the criteria here? It does seem to come down to a very arbitrary collection based upon the subjective choices: a pseudoscientific list of pseudosciences. 24.190.149.18 01:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Uggh, your being being unproductively contentious. Such frivolous contentiousness isn't going to help people see why the list is POV. Calling the list "pseudoscientific", or making stupid comments about string theory, is just going to goad people into a flame war and make them all the more certain that the list is good and proper because after all "clearly the people against the list are just adherents to quackery". Brentt 01:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from above " Creationists call evolution pseudo-science, and some make sophisticated arguments as to why they think it is pseudoscience. So why isn't evolotuion on the list? A small minority of scientists think globabl warming climatalogy is pseudoscientific--why isn't that on the list?" These are opinions of a small minority. The concensus of the vast majority of scientists is different from the small minority. WP policy says to present the majority scientific opinion as the majority and the minority opinion as the minority. These things are examples of pseudoscience, in the consensus of the majority, and that is the topic of the article. Natural science lists examples of natural sciences, so why can't an article on pseudoscience list examples of pseudoscience? The list gives the reader specific examples to look at. Otherwise, they would have to click on the Pseudoscience category to find them, and not everything in the category is an area of pseudoscience. Bubba73 (talk), 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting "String theory, for example, has been described as pseudoscience by respected scientists because of its lack of verifiability". String theory doesn't meet the critera for pseudoscience because no one (to my knowledge) is claiming that it is true. Anyone calling string theory pseudoscience is probably using it in a broader context. I doubt they mean that it is a pseudoscience the way, say, ESP is. Bubba73 (talk), 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

WP policy says to present the majority scientific opinion as the majority and the minority opinion as the minority. Precisely the point. The problem is that the minority opinion is not represented here at all--and it is hard to argue that there isn't a significant minority that believes evolutions is pseudoscience, or that global warming climatology is pseudoscience, or that chiropracty or homeopathy is scientific (or atleast not pseudoscientific). Thats why I proposed moving the list, which I agree is useful, to the article about the majority viewpoint--scientific skepticism--and linking this article to that list (adherents to the minority view wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to change the list there, thus ending the revert wars).

The alternative is to make other lists for the minority viewpoints: do I need to explain why that would be unwieldy? Only counting significant minority viewpoints you'd have to make several lists. Instead we could link to other viewpoints that have used the concept pseudoscience to fields they view as pseudoscientific and state clearly that they are minority views, just like we could state clearly that the scientific skeptic view is the majority view among scientists (it is irrelevant whether the adherents to fringe theories have usurped the term in a sophisitic battle, as I think they have). --Brentt 16:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

About moving the list to scientific skepticism andlinking ot it - I may go along with that. However, someone (I've lost track of who) says that the term pseudoscience is used my a minority of people in a different way. I consider these incorrect uses of the term. Someone mentioned String Theory as being called pseudoscience, but that is an improper use. String theory doesn't claim to be true (at this point). Someone criticized it for not being falsifiable. It is falsifiable in principle, but not in practice at present, because of the high energy levels required. However, the theory that matter is made up of atoms was not falsifiable in practice at the time it was proposed, and that wasn't pseudoscience. Bubba73 (talk), 01:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think the list should stay here, where it is most appropriate. If someone wants to add some minority/incorrect uses such as cybernetics and string theory, and label them as such, I think that would be OK. Bubba73 (talk), 13:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need to give a fuller and above all a more differentiated picture than a list offers. I have attempted to give a more differentiated stance to three of the subjects; I would hope that the article will eventually have such a description for all the fields on the list. Please feel free to add more evidence on any side; it will need this to achieve a balanced picture. I hope that everyone will agree that more information can only be better under the circumstances. Please do not add rank and unsubstantiated opinions to the page, however (and let me know if I have unwittingly done so!) Hgilbert 03:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an article about what is a pseudoscience. This is an article about what pseudoscience is. This article shouldn't become yet another battleground for every controversial topic that someone decides they want to post on this list. I'm sure each topic in the list has it's own article raging with its own flame wars. If we keep using this article to point fingers and place labels, there will never be peace here. The only way to reach an accord is to take out the highly subjective, POV-ridden, and inciteful list. Levine2112 09:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Either take out the whole thing or not at all, but I feel it is very useful to the article to give some examples of high profile pseudosciences. Jefffire 09:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I just now searched the site at homeopathic.com and found no instances where homeopathy holds itself out as scientific. What I do see are many instances where practitioners appear to be arguing for more scientific research and some instances where it is argued that scientific research has later shown arguably compelling evidence that some of the techniques or strategies for healing (or attempted healing) are statistically sound. No doubt there are other instances where the techniques and decisions are unique to the homeopath on a patient-by-patient basis. And almost no-doubt there are instances where research may have shown certain strategies not to be effective in healing patients — that has certainly [also] happened to its most prominent competitor as we all know. But I don't see where it holds itself up as scientific. This reference on the list is therefore questionable, at least by my observation.

Of course, the article editors have chosen to leave the catogory labelled as "Fields commonly described as pseudoscience" but doesn't set a standard for who is doing the describing. And thus this article can rely on any field's business competitors or other interested critics to make a judgment about whether something should rightly go on the list. And there's a convenient avenue for using any set of references found by a search on the web, or elsewhere. I feel confident I could fairly easily find a few more that should be on the list by that standard. It seems to me that the section deserves a more cautious approach and a clear demand for credible disinterested sourcing of candidates for inclusion, or that the list should be dropped altogether. Good regards all...Kenosis 10:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about pseudoscience, and that includes all aspects of the subject - both about it and what it is. We don't need a half article or an amputated article, just to spare the feelings of those who oppose the existence of the concept of pseudoscience.

Not only is the article "inciteful" (Levine2112 above), but it is "insightful." It should be "full of insights," not half full. The list should stay. More on this aspect of the subject. -- Fyslee 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a half article or an amputated article, just to spare the feelings of those who oppose the existence of the concept of pseudoscience.

The existence of the concept of pseudoscience is not the issue. You must be aware that its a bit more sophisticated an argument being made than that. The list will still be linked and accessible to those interested, as it is a list that many people will find of interest. Saying its amputating the article is a bit sophistic as is bringing up grammatical mistakes and mispellings. Thats just mudslinging. But nevermind all this. We have enough to work out as it is. Just stick to the subject about whether the list is in fact POV. If it is determined that the list is POV, it doesn't matter how much pith it takes from the article to remove it (although I think the article would be just fine with a link to the list)--Brentt 23:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For you and me the concept is no problem. I'm used to dealing with those who find the concept to be abhorable, because it nails their particular beliefs to the wall of scientific scrutiny, and classifies it as nonsense, or whatever other term that might be appropriate. They simply don't like their favorite notion being exposed for what it is.

As far as the spelling thing, I wasn't mudslinging or commenting on a misspelling. I was simply making a pun that I found useful in the situation.

I'm not sure about what you mean with the last part you added (it's early morning here in Denmark, and I'm tired):

"Just stick to the subject about whether the list is in fact POV. If it is determined that the list is POV, it doesn't matter how much pith it takes from the article to remove it (although I think the article would be just fine with a link to the list)"

Are you objecting to the inclusion of the list because it is written from a POV? Wikipedia articles are expressly required to present all POV, so that shouldn't be a problem. The list needs to be in harmony with the topic of the article, which describes a particular POV, the scientific POV (which certainly includes the scientific POV). As far as including the list in the other article, I see no problem with that.

As far as the misuse of the term by others, I don't think we should be parties to the crime by accomodating such misuse. We need to keep definitions pure and fight misuse, even pointing it out in the article. What they would love most is to do what Wikipedia forbids, and that is to create a WP:POVFORK, one article with the correct use (this one), and other articles with their misuse, where they can criticize scientific thinking using sophistic arguments. -- Fyslee 23:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute! If I read you right, you are saying that this article should only include one point of view because 'it is about the scientific POV'. There is no justification for excluding other points of view in Wikipedia. The list in its current form does so. The fact that major universities (Exeter in England, Bern in Switzerland, Bridgeport in the USA) teach homeopathy, that in France:

courses in homeopathy leading to a degree are offered in six medical schools. Homeopathy is taught in all pharmacy schools and in four veterinary schools. see reference

and that in all countries I know of (including the USA), homeopathic physicians are allowed to practice medicine is completely ignored; Either we include multiple POVs on the page itself or I'd like to take this into arbitration. The page as it stands is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Hgilbert 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a very poor example. In the USA it is exempted from the normal standards of evidence for efficacy, and thus its protected status should not be used as an argument for its supposed legitimacy. It is protected by a very old law. Its belief and practice are still pseudoscientific, even if it is practiced by some flaky MDs and taught in some universities that aren't concerned about their integrity or reputations. Haven't you noticed that more and more unscientific practices are creeping into universities? That doesn't make them legitimate. It just proves that those institutions are more interested in making money than in avoiding the dumbing down of modern medicine.

You are also reading me wrong. The article is written about one POV, but must present other POV (in the Criticisms section). That doesn't change the fact that it is about one POV. -- Fyslee 00:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is about pseudoscience. There are many points of view about what should be included in pseudoscience. If you want to write an article about a POV, do so. This one is article Pseudoscience.Hgilbert 00:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To illustrate.....the article about Catholicism is written about the Catholic POV. Catholics determine what that POV is. This article is about pseudoscience and is necessarily written from the scientific POV. It's in the word itself.... pseudo science, IOW scientists determine the POV.

Since the article is on Wikipedia, it must also include mention of critical viewpoints, but the article is still from the scientific POV.

You threaten:

"Either we include multiple POVs on the page itself or I'd like to take this into arbitration."

You do not own this article. It is a collaborative effort.

Maybe the best way to resolve this is to do what Wikipedia doesn't really like, and that is to make a WP:POVFORK. The Anti-Catholicism article does that. Those who don't like the term, or who define it otherwise (and misuse it), can start their own article. We can't have non-scientists defining science, or unscientific "scientists" doing so. Look what happened to Jacques Benveniste. Poor guy did poor research (homeopathists suddenly thought there was finally an inkling of proof!) and ruined his reputation. -- Fyslee 01:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about the "scientific POV", read my response in the sub-thread above pointing out why this is not the case. For one thing there is no monololithic "scientific POV". The list is from the scientific skeptic POV which happens to be the POV of a majority scientists (even if they don't know it). And as far as the "misuse" article, I don't even think I need to adress why saying its being "misused" is POV. It should be obvious that from the POV of adherents to these fields that the term is being misused by skeptics. I think they are wrong, but nonetheless, from their POV its not being misused. Acting as if there is some authority on proper use of the term is disengenous.

and please stop arguing about specific items on the list, it wouldn't matter if the list only included the moon is green cheese and flat-earth theory, it would still be innappropriate--Brentt 00:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I give up. If you want to join the pseudoscientists, then let this scientific skeptic out. Have fun. I'll look in once in awhile to see if you can get along without support from other skeptics.....;-) -- Fyslee 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For me, at least, there is a distinction between moon as green cheese, articles about which do not appear in any scientific journal (pro or con) and courses about which do not exist in physics departments of any universities, and homeopathy, articles about which do appear in all medical journals (indicating that it is a topic of scientific discourse even if the evidence is uncertain or weak (as it is for string theory, ladies and gentlemen), and which is taught at eight French medical schools (most of them in France, I believe) as well as at least the Creighton University School of Medicine (based on a quick web search; there may be other schools) in the US of A. Homeopathic medicines and treatment are covered by essentially all insurers in Germany. The list goes on...it is treated as a serious contender, though an unproved area, rather than a goofball subject, by many, many respectable agencies. (If you don't consider insurance companies respectable, ignore the last mention.) Do you fathom this distinction?

Rereading this section, however, I see that there are serious concerns by many users about the list itself. In view of this, the suggestion to move it to a separate page on scientific skepticism seems to me an excellent one. Hgilbert 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this discussion. Homepathy is pseudoscience from the POV the list comes from. Getting it taken off the list won't solve any POV issues. (And its much different from string theory, as string theory has not been contradicted in any studies, whereas homeopathy has, and homeopathy has never had a plausible mechanism too boot whereas string theory is nothing BUT plausible mechanisms. String theory hasn't been tested because of the energies required to probe the scales it makes predictions about. Homeopathy's efficacy is easily testable, and has been tested, and it has perforemed poorly in those tests. But none of this matters, this isn't the place for this discussion, the POV issue is not about any single item on the list)--Brentt 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you consider the idea that there are 6-7 effectively invisible extra dimensions to space a plausible mechanism ;) But I agree with you, taking the wider view, the whole list is beginning to seem severely misplaced and problematic. Hgilbert 03:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you consider the idea that there are 6-7 effectively invisible extra dimensions to space a plausible mechanismYour kidding right? There's nothing non-sensical or even inelegant about proposing dimensions with odd (as in "weird") topologies. Its no more spectacular than standarad space-time warping (actually I've always found that harder to get my head around--no pun intended)--Brentt 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am considering putting political science on the list.;-) I believe I can make a far stronger argument for that than for homeopathy and Gotaland theory. The latter of these I am now going to delete, on the basis that it is part and parcel of an interethnic dispute about its own history based upon local, parochial pride. ...Kenosis 04:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If Hgilbert will do his research better, he'll see that Creighton's coverage of homeopathy is very critical. -- Fyslee 04:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From above - just because some insurance companies cover homeopathy doesn't mean it is scientifically valid. It just means that the insurance comany can make money off of it. Bubba73 (talk), 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

hehe, think how much money they save if someone decides willningly to take small amounts of pure water in lieu of expensive "mainstream" treatments for, say, cancer. They'd only have to pay for overpriced pure water ("potentized" whatever) until the cancer runs its course. Oh man, thats sad. I know thats not what you meant (I assume you mean it makes people choose one insurance company over the other if the one covers alternative medicine, mostly at a negligible cost probably more than made up by any individual's premium ),but the thought struck me as funny in a cynical way. It reminds me of a proposal and, accompanying efficacy "study" I saw to combat illnes from water polution in India by distributing "potentized" pollutants to people who can't afford to acquire potable water. The proposal basically was "well since it would be too difficult to provide poor people with potable water, lets give them insignificant amounts of "potentized" pollutants--i.e. PURE FREAKIN WATER--and hope for a miracle (like water having "memory" that will somehow allow your body to stop the side-effects of the toxic substance)". It can be so darn pernicious.

Actually, if insurance companies covering homeopathy is "proof" that there is something to it, check this out. Here in LA there was an art exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Art (its a very main stream art-gallery, second biggest in LA actually behind the Getty) called "Ecstacy: In And About Altered States". One of the installations was a fountain of "potentized" LSD--and the museum of course did not get into any trouble with the DEA or anything, cuz potentized LSD is just WATER, and WATER doesn't have memory, or else it'd remember most substances that ever existed on our world, probably our whole galaxy, and all the effects of those memories would cancel each other out, or atleast, every bit of water would have the same memory. But man how I wished homeopathy actually worked that day. --Brentt 21:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, yes, Creighton University's coverage of homeopathy is in fact very critical.

Well, I've found the solution. Potencized substances affect the extra spacial dimensions of substances that string theory proposes are effectively hidden from us! ;) I knew the two kept coming together on this page for some reason! Hgilbert 00:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And all the beneficial effects are appparently wrapped up in those extra-spatial dimensions too still waiting to be discovered. --Brentt 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cybernetics?

Why is cybernetics on the list of pseudosciences?

I believe the reference is to an attempt to apply cybernetics to direct economic and social life (see the author mentioned), but I am removing it from the list as misleading (cybernetics as we commonly think of it is not a pseudoscience). This illustrates the danger of the current system; how long has cybernetics been listed??!!

Yea, I was a little iffy about that one too when I first saw it added a couple months ago. I don't really know that much about cybernetics, but I know that some thinkers associated with the skeptic movement take cybernetics seriously. Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett both seem to take it seriously as applied to questions of "free will" and what "control" really means. And I think I've even seen Richard Dawkins talk about it in regards to evolutionary theory. (oddly enough those three are all connected to each other...Hoffstadter and Dennett are good friends, and both of them have works that are derivative of Dawkin's ideas.) But they all are usually considered skeptics and Hoffstadter was even one of the founding members of the Skeptic's Society and even wrote an essay defending the "hard-line" skeptics when their was a split in the society between one faction who wanted to be more open and accomodating to "alternative" theories.

I'm sure that there are all kinds of pseudo-scientific renderings of cyberenetics though. I did pick up a book once titled Cybernetics that I suspected was a pseudo-scientific tract upon skimming it (heh, one of the things that made me suspicious was the fact that the author's name was presaged by MD. When I see the author of a supposedly scientific tract having little or nothing to do with medicine presaging their name with MD I get suspicious--because I've seen so many authors of pseudo-scientific tracts use their medical credentials to give a false sense of authority. Creationists are especially fond of that little tactic). But just because its been usurped as such doesn't mean their isn't serious proto-scientific renderings of it (again I don't know that much about it, so maybe it is pseudo-scientific) --Brentt 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

String Theory!?!?

When I first saw this added my first reaction was what the...!? thats ridiculous!. But then I thought about the title of this list being "fields associated with pseudo-science" and then thought, well strictly speaking, string theory, while most emphatically not a pseudo-science, is often associated with pseudo-science. Not with the auspices of actual string theorists of course, but by New Agers who read a popularization of it and think that their misunderstanding of it reinforces their views (they do it with QM and relativity of course too). But of course, despite the title, I don't think thats what the list is supposed to be about. The term associated probably shouldn't be in there. It does nothing to mitigate the POV of the list (and I do think the list is from a particular POV as I've said before.) But if the list is going to be up, there is no sense of saying "associated with". Maybe "alleged to be", if you want to keep of the facade that the list isn't POV. --Brentt 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Another list name change

This is unrelated to the POV issue. But I changed the name of the list to Fields alleged to be pseudoscientific and phenomena associated with pseudoscientific methods of study. The main change being so things like UFO's,Telekenisis, and Perpetual motion can be included without any awkward qualifiers, since they are obviously of interest but aren't pseudosciences per se. I thought it would be a uncontroversial change. Hope I'm right? --Brentt 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The List

Ok, let's see: who is in favor of stripping off the list to another, possibly more appropriate page? Hgilbert 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor. Levine2112 04:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also in favor. The so-called skeptics seem to have appointed themselves the arbiter of good and evil. Seems very Aryan-like, and as usual, articles like this become yet another way to load Wikipedia with their links and it to drive traffic to personal opinion sites. IMO, this is a violation of WP, not to mention a self-serving agenda. The list should go.

The so-called article entitled 'Scientific Skepticism', IMO also doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, especially if it is filled with links to sites that pass off opinions as facts. When did Penn and Teller become scientists? They do it for ratings=money. Who would fall for that?? BTW, I second Brentt's viewpoint below. Steth 18:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Very "aryan-like"? "white/colored water fountains"? talk about shrill. Ugghh, you have no idea how hard it is to argue against POV pushing when the opposite POV make some of the most ridiculous statements, and my opinions are being "seconded" by people making those statements.

So "scientific skepticism" isn't a significant enough philosophy to be included in wikipedia despite having several widely read publications dedicated to it and the fact that most scientists would included among its advocates? Or you just don't think viewpoints that you disagree with shouldn't have articles written on them? Your statements would make a good illustrative example for this article. --Brentt 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of copying the list to Scientific skepticism. There is no good reason for allowing those who disagree with this article to be allowed to strip it of its content. That would be similar to allowing non-Catholics to strip the Catholicism article of its list of beliefs. Catholics decide what are Catholic beliefs, just as scientific skeptics decide what they consider to be pseudoscientific beliefs and practices. Neither non-Catholics nor believers in pseudoscience should be allowed to strip the articles of important content. -- Fyslee 06:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

just as scientific skeptics decide what they consider to be pseudoscientific beliefs and practices So your saying because skeptics most commonly use the term "pseudoscience" the article is justified in coming from the skeptic POV? Nooooope, I don't think so. Other groups besides skeptics use the term, and there is no trade mark informal or formal, or "rights to determine proper use" on it. It could be argued by non-skeptics that THEY are the ones using it properly, they just got the idea to use it from the scientific skeptics, who made the word and falsley applied it (I'm not arguing that obviously, I'm just saying from their POV that is the reasoning). Its all POV, and this article IS NOT about the scientific skeptic POV, the scientific skepticism article is about the scientific skeptic POV. Your making your position incredibly tenuous by claiming the list is OK because the article is coming from, or even about, a particular POV. Because it clearly shouldn't be. It would be misleading if the article implied that scientific skeptics are the only people who use, or have the right to use, the term pseudoscience and the article was written on that assumption. And it would be misleading if the article implied there was some meta-science to determine what is and isn't science or pseudoscience. and the inclusion of this list in this article implies both. its irrelevant if you think its abuse of the term. its only abuse from the scientific skeptic POV, and really even them "abuse" is meaningless in this context, as it implies some authoritative rules of conduct which simply don't exist. --Brentt 17:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Brentt, what can I say? I seem to be dealing with a postmodernist, which means that no matter what I or anyone says, it's all relative..... If you're trying to play devil's advocate, your timing sucks. If you're serious, I can't take your opinion in this matter very seriously, which means I'm wasting my time. Have fun with the defenders of pseudoscience. You're on your own with them - the lions - in the lion's den (and god won't help you...;-). -- Fyslee 19:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not a "post-modernist" or "relativist" in that sense (I hate that crap if you must no). Nothing I said has anything to do with a philosophical stance, there really is no meta science to determine what is and isn't science, and there really is not a generally agreed to authority on the subject. There are libraries of philosophy on it, but no science--and none of that philosophy is generally accepted, each just has varying degrees of influence. Its not a controversial statment.

You've seemed to have resorted to skirting the issue rather than adressing the arguments made. I'm not upset about anything thats in that list, I'm not coming at this from an emotional standpoing. You've seemed to have given up on actually making the argument that the list being included in the article is in-line with NPOV standards, and are now just saying that its OK for the list to be POV. wikipedia would not work very well if everyone had that attitude. --Brentt 20:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, it appears that you are the only one who really supports this list being on this page. Can you accept our moving it to the skepticism article graciously? Hgilbert 02:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have long since checked out of this discussion. But if I may throw in my two-cents, I too am whole-heartedly in favor of removing the list from the article. TheDoctorIsIn 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. No point in being the only skeptic who supports providing examples. I expect the next step will be to redefine pseudoscience? -- Fyslee 05:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious skepticism. By the way, I think the definition of pseudoscience is rather good at this point; we've all contributed to this effectively :) Hgilbert 06:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the definition of pseudoscience is rather good. Nice work everyone! Levine2112 06:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep the list here. How can you have an article on Pseudoscience without providing the reader with an idea of which subjects are consensually considered to be Pseudoscience . Lumos3 06:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensual by whom? How many people have to agree that a discipline is pseudoscience before we can safely say that it isn't a matter of opinion or POV? It's a wiki-quandry. However, I think that this article does a superb job of explaining what Pseudoscience is without the examples. The examples don't seem to add anything except opinion. Levine2112 22:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea moving it. Keep. Jefffire 11:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We have seen that there is a lack on concensus on some items, and a feeling amongst several editors here that the list is inherently POV-biased. I happen to believe it would be possible to have a list that included items for which there is essentially universal concensus, and then more differentiated presentations of mixed situations (like homeopathy, for which respected medical journals publish studies, and about which respected medical schools - such as most of those in France - offer courses of study and professional certification). This approach didn't work. There is an existing list of alternative, disputed and speculative theories. Since the people at the scientific skepticism site don't want the list here, perhaps a link to the existing list is best.

In any case, we had reached a concensus on this talk page...please find a new concensus before moving it back. Hgilbert 11:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you do not have a consensus. Check the definition. Secondly my favoured approach is to include only the larger and obvious pseudosciences, such as homeophathy, astrology and creation science. More obscure ones can relugeted in the big list. Jefffire 11:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that homeopathy is an obvious example of pseudoscience. Levine2112 22:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it here. I just reverted the deletion. The current discussion (this thread) is less than two days old and I see no consensus. Vsmith 11:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It should go. A strong case can be made to add Psychiatry to the list, well known as the 'Gold Standard' of pseudoscience, should it be decided that the list remain here. But many will object. So which is it? You can't have it both ways, including some opinions but not all opinions. Either way it is a list of opinions which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Removing the list will rid it of personal opinions/agendas, etc. Steth 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of kepping the list here. Why not have some examples of the topic of the article? If you want to include some improper uses of the word,those can be included if they are labeled. Bubba73 (talk), 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is determining which examples to keep. Some create huge POV issues; homeopathy seems to be the largest of these. If we only keep those with no significant POV issues (no citable references to support their validity?), I'm ok with keeping it; otherwise there is a de facto oversimplification of more complex situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs)

Removing homeopathy is extremely POV. It is one of the largest and most well defined as a pseudoscience articles on the list. Jefffire 08:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue of POV is in this case a non-issue. This is Wikipedia, where it is a requirement that POV be presented in articles, but not advocated. As long as the POV are properly labeled and documented, they should be allowed. In fact, in this case - because of the title and nature of the subject - the very existence of this POV discussion reveals just how important that the skeptic's POV be presented and illustrated. The removal of a POV by those with another POV is a forbidden practice. The article should contain all POV, not just one POV. The list is properly labeled

"...which their critics fault as failing to meet..."

and thus is perfectly legitimate. The critics of the concept also have their POV presented here.

The list should stay. -- Fyslee 19:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"is a requirement that POV be presented in articles, but not advocated." I feel that having the list does that. Bubba73 (talk), 19:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If we allow one POV (scientific skeptic's) then be prepared to allow all POV. This means that if someone feels that Evolution is a pseudoscience because it fail to me their criteria of an actual science then they are allowed to add it to the list and have it rightfully remain. I just feel that the list leaves the door open for lots of headaches. It would be so much easier if the list vanished and the article spoke for itself. Levine2112 20:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. That's what I've already mentioned. There is a section for dissent. There could be another list in that section. The two lists shouldn't be mixed. -- Fyslee 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, good point, Levine; are we prepared to let anybody add any items that have been criticized by somebody for being a pseudoscience to this list? What are the objective criteria? Hgilbert 01:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should avoid adding things that are called pseudoscience by one or two people. I don't think we should include improper uses of the term (e.g. String theory), unless that is indicated. The things on the list now have a consensus, but we could list ones that are legitimately considered pseudoscience by a significant minority of scientists, if that is indicated. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I Don't think that characterology is notable enough to warrent inclusion in the list. Jefffire 13:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I believe the list is fine, though notability is important. If a fringe practice is popular or well known then it can be included. There are many pseudosciences. Also, it may be a good idea to follow the link to those pseudosciences to the appropriate article, to clarify the views of experts that it is pseudoscience within the specific article itself. I have access to a good library. I'll see what I can do about proper citations for all subjects considered pseudoscientific. BTW, I'm biased towards scientific skepticism, as most scientists are. I have also seen that many articles need clarification using the light of science. This article seems to be a great hub for doing that. According to NPOV policy, if a significant view says a subject is pseudoscientific, then it can be presented in the appropriate article. A clarification is also necessary, and that means referring to scientific view/theory/evidence. Bookmain 03:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy as a Pseudoscience

I would like to nominate Anthroposophy for inclusion in the list on this page. It was called spiritual science by its founder Rudolf Steiner and continues to claim this description today but follows none of the methods used by science. Particulalry it violates reproducibility since all its observations are subjective. I do not say it is without value merely that it is not a science yet masquerades as one. Lumos3 12:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea, its pretty clearly a pseudoscience. Brentt 17:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It follows many of the methods used by science, and its natural-scientific observations are objective and phenomenological. For example, anthroposophical medicine has produced remedies based on mistletoe extracts that have been shown to be effective in combating tumors; there are numerous peer-reviewed studies of this, as I have shown elsewhere:

There are various anthroposophical discoveries, such as Flow forms that create rhythmic motion through purely (passive) geometric forms, Oloids that are unusually efficient mixers, etc. that are reproducible and have been reproduced by numerous researchers. The list goes on and on.

Anthroposophical spiritual research is not able to be validated directly, of course, but results such as the above are, and have been. As long as these ultimate results are reproducible and shown to be valid, it must be regarded as in some sense scientific. Hgilbert 02:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a pseudoscience, but is it notable enough to warrent inclusion to the abridged list on this page rather than the main list? Personaly I haven't heard of it before. Jefffire 10:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A curious response to the above citations, which include summaries like:

Obviously, a strong immunoprotective/immunostimulatory effect was induced by the treatment of glioma patients with ML-1 standardized mistletoe extract

in a research report by the Stadtische Kliniken, Department of Neurosurgery, Koln, Germany and published in The International Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment. Hgilbert 00:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

There is as much dispute about the neutrality of the points of view represented in this article as anywhere I've seen in Wikipedia. A NPOV label is simply descriptive of the current controversy. Hgilbert 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That has not been my observation.

If it's about homeopathy being on that (ill conceived) list, I happen to agree with you. As I've said before on this page, homeopaths do not hold themselves up as science or scientific, at least not officially. The debate in that profession in recent years has been about conducting more empirical studies, and the last credible references from within the field that I could find to homeopathy as science or scientific go back to the 1970's and are no longer in print. Therefore, they do not belong on the list. I'm not, however, even going to argue the point with determined skeptics lined up to punch away at the obvious flaws in the history and even current practices in that field. The list allows for fields commonly called pseudoscience, and that's what it presents.

But I do not see this article as rightly tagged NPOV. A section is provided for properly sourced criticism of the concept of pseudoscience, and very few editors have chosen to make full use of it. Therefore, I am removing the tag you just placed.. .Kenosis 23:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't whether or not homeopaths say they are a science or not. All that matters is that they make scientific claims, ie. that takeing one of their "remedies" will lead to health. That is testable and so the pseudoscience term can be applied when they don't test or refuse to accept the negative results of tests. Jefffire 10:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This stance you propose is scientism pure and simple. What is the warrant to impose such as standard? Are you now going to impose such a standard on sociology, political science? How about law, police work, government and politics itself? There are plenty of claims made in all these realms that look formulaic and scientific and result in terrible events and harm to folks without proper empirical justification. Just point the finger. Anyone who proposes a formula?? What about the horrible events and harm that came out of evidence-based medicine and psychiatry? What about all the unnecessary hysterectomies?, the poorly researched conclusions that resulted in such nonsense as the salt-free and fat-free diets that after further research turned out to be of no benefit to folks with heart conditions, hypertension and the like?, What about all the lobotomies??, etc. etc. Is psychiatry now included too?. And I'm just barely scratching the surface here. Merely proposing or using a technology or formula that can be subjected to further empirical research but currently is not, is not the standard that was agreed in this article on pseudoscience....Kenosis 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Specious reasoning. Are you seriously suggesting that making claims about the efficiacy of a "remedy" isn't a scientific claim? The soapbox half of your edit illustrates the difference between science and pseudoscience, when a problem is found it is retracted from science. Not so in homeopathy. Incidently, Wikipedia is Not a Soapbox. Jefffire 12:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Now all of a sudden "specious reasoning" and "soapbox" is the problem, after presenting a list hiding behind the catogory "often called" or "commonly accused of". This, frankly, is arbitrary, conclusory, and rather disingenuous. Good day...Kenosis 12:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The POV issue has been about the appropriateness of a list from a particular POV being in this article. And that is not a dispute that has been resolved. If you think its about one item in the list, you havn't been paying very close attention to the controversey. Keep a section POV tag for the list, until steps are taken to resolve the issue. This may have to go to a third party arbitration, or atleast start the process. --Brentt 03:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV label addresses the question about whether such a list can be made without differentiated discussion about each item; by default, it asserts a single point of view about each of the items under discussion. As long as a list that excludes such differentiated discussion - and when the latter has been added, it has been removed - remains in the current form, there is a clear violation of the NPOV policy.

In addition, the NPOV label simply says that the material is disputed; this talk page is evidence of this. Hgilbert 11:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All of the items on the list are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. As long as that is made clear all we are doing is reporting, nt advocating. Jefffire 11:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be time to get rid of this list. What are the editors here, judge jury and executioner?? And to then hide behind statements like "fields often called pseudoscience, or "often accused of being pesudoscience" ?? With the presentation of this list, a reasonable article unfortunately turns into a self-appointed consumer protection service that operates without any serious empirical methods in and of itself! Now, you tell me, what class of enterprise does that remind you of? Personally, it reminds me of ... pseudoscience . ...Kenosis 11:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All it does is give examples of fields which are clearly and obviously pseudoscience, and described as such by reliable scientific sources. All we are doing is reporting, not advocating. We do not need to appease POV kooks who dislike what science has to say about their irrational belief. Jefffire 12:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What does that statement intend to mean? "what science has to say...". Scientific organizations do not, as a general rule, take official positions on what is "pseudoscience" and what is not...Kenosis 12:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

But scientific methods can be utilised to investigate the claims of a field. In the case of those on the list they have been repeatedly found wanting. However the fields have carryied on as before because they are based on faith rather than reason. In homeopathy's case because they believe that, for no apparent reason, statistical analysis and double blind randomised studies don't work. Jefffire 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What about psychiatry? Where is it on the list?? What about the widespread destruction and ill-fated attempts to accomplish its objectives under the same kind of guise of which homeopathy is here accused. What about such nonsense as penis envy and the ego/id/superego distinction (remember those diagrams reminiscent of phrenology)? Oh, but it's individual, case by case-- what an angle ! What about all the lives ruined by the lobotomies? what about all the highly questionable therapies that involve basically anesthetising patients for the duration of their stay in a psychiatric facility?. What about the wholly unverified claim that paying $150/hour can lead to better mental health? And after making this claim, what about the virtual absence of statistically verifiable improvement in committed patients after spending a fortune on them.

I quote from the relevant section of the article: “theories and fields of endeavor which their critics fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another. “ Explain to me please, why is psychiatry not on the list...Kenosis 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it isn't as obviously a pseudoscience as homeopathy. Personally I clump psychiatry in with chiropracty, they might work but there isn't any reliable evidence. Something like homeopathy obviously doesn't work and we can verify that, so we can safely include it in the list. The fact that homeopaths won't accept reason is irrelevent. Jefffire 19:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no monolithic "scientific community". There are significant minorities in science. The list does represent the POV of a majority of the scientific community, but wikipedia does not have a MPOV policy, it has a NPOV policy. There are significant minorities that use the term pseudoscience to label things normally not considered pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community, and it would be unwieldy to represent every significant minority POV. The list is useful, but it should be in the article about the POV the list comes from, which is the scientific skeptic POV. So far most arguments made against moving the list to the appropriate article have boiled down to admissions that it represents the majority POV but that they think that is OK. Its become a clear case of people scoffing at POV policy because of the mistaken belief that there is some monolithic opinion of the "scientific community". There are definititely majority opinions. Not that the credulous folks who by into the pseudosciences on the list have helped make the skeptics see the POV issue by simply arguing that their pet pseudoscience shouldn't be on the list, or the science they think is pseudoscience not being represented, instead of seeing the POV issue with the list as a whole.

Ask yourself: does the list represent the majority scientific opinion? It would be silly to argue otherwise, and if you say yes, its tantamount to agreeing that the list is MPOV, and not NPOV. --Brentt 01:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Perhaps the list could be saved by introducing it as follows:

For detailed discussion of fields sometimes identified as pseudoscience, see

Alien influences on the White House
Moon landings actually took place in Nevada
Supersymmetry ;)^[1]
UFOs
etc.

Otherwise I agree that it clearly violates the NPOV policy.

^ Note: In its latest issue Science magazine reported there is no evidence for supersymmetry and growing evidence against it...I'm not really proposing it be added to the list, I suppose...not yet, anyway...

Hgilbert 10:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In an article that relates to to scientific method isn't it right to report the scientific POV (as the POv)? Also, once again people are confusing "pseudoscience" with "incorrect". There is a word of difference. Jefffire 13:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that last comment illustrates the challenges here. Some people are convinced that there is a single 'scientific' POV. That is a view most commonly associated with popularizations of science, not with serious scientists, however.

It seems to me that the criticisms of homeopathy as a pseudoscience are largely based on its theory being implausible, or on the weakly or unverified efficacy - in other words, that it is 'incorrect'- and not, for example, upon any of the many justifications for a field being termed pseudoscience listed in this article. This is exactly why some of us are arguing that it does not belong in this list; it is as scientific in its approach as traditional medicine (under any treatment regime, some get better, some don't; there are conventional medicines that turn out to be ineffective or even dangerous); the real question is whether it works or not. As in the case of supersymmetry, or string theory, a novel theory with no evidence to back it up is simply tested and either confirmed or rejected when sufficient evidence is there, but not attacked as being pseudoscientific so long as evidence is sought and respected. The relatively frequent presence of homeopathic studies in respected medical and scientific journals shows that the latter is the case.

If the standards of the article were followed more carefully in the list, we'd have less of an issue here. Hgilbert 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree. The fact that the only homeopathic studies which have shown positive results have been found fraudulent suggests that homeopathy is now pseudoscientific. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What homeopathic studies have been found fraudulent? I think you are misunderstanding the meta-analysis, which showed that the efficacy demonstrated by certain studies - many were excluded for methodological reasons - was within the range also shown by administration of placebos. The meta-analysis is itself contested, but in any case there was no mention of fraud. Hgilbert 17:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your current rational for labeling the section POV? It is clearly attributed as a view point and none on the list are seriously contested in the scientific community. Jefffire 23:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

exactly! It is a viewpoint in a article not about the viewpoint the list represents. It is an article about a term used by many different groups. Perhaps the world would be a better place if skeptics we're the only people that used the word pseudoscience, or hey, perhaps even if skeptics we're the only people period, but unfortunately this is not the case, and it isn't appropriate to have a list from one particular viewpoint in a article about a concept that people of many different viewpoints use as a pejoritive term.

If this article is about the skeptical viewpoint then the article should be merged with the article about the skeptical viewpoint. If the article is not about the skeptical viewpoint, then just the list coming from the skeptical viewpoint should be moved to the article about that viewpoint. --Brentt 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rational include:

Other viewpoints have been consistently excluded and deleted from this article.
The POV label does not refer to the question of serious contests in the scientific community. It refers to debate on the talk page. There is considerable debate on this talk page about a number of the items on the list.

Hgilbert 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Other view points are included only if they are notable. I note there is a criticisms section where those view points are aired and I don't feel the need to put up a NPOV tag. Now all the items on the list are undeniably pseudoscience. More over they are all also verifiable as being wrong as well (two different things of course). Now unless someone wishes to make a serious appeal to remove one or more items then the tag should go. At present such an appeal isn't being make so this feels very much like disruption to prove a WP:POINT. Jefffire 09:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There ARE notable opposing viewpoints. The fact that something is notable enough to be on the list, coupled with the fact that no adherents to any of those pseudosciences would consider themselves pseudoscientists proves that (think about it). I know its hard to accept viewpoints that seem as ridiculous as say "flat-earth theory" or "water memory" (homeopathy), but since this is a NPOV encylopedia, we do have to respect that it is a viewpoint, and unfortunately they are significant viewpoints--thats why its an issue in the first place.

There is no metascience to determine what is an isn't pseudoscience, so saying the things on the list are "indisputably pseudoscience" is debatable, and it is indisuputably an ongoing debate. While it seems clear to you and I what is and isn't pseudoscience, it is nonetheless because we are coming from a particular POV (and yes, I am quite confident we are coming from the same general POV, I am pretty comfortable saying I am a scientific skeptic, and that everything in the list is quite certainly pseudoscience, and the list is coming from my POV) BUT since science IS NOT a formal system (in the technical sense), but a mish mash of formal systems, there is no proof schema to say "x is indisputably pseudoscience." (this is basic philosophy of science)

That being said, please stop removing the tag. While some people arguing against certain items in the list do seem to be trying to prove a irrelevant point about something that is or isn't in the list (e.g. Hgilberts supersymettry and homeopathy thing) there is nontheless a legitimate POV dispute with the list as a whole. All arguments for the list have amounted to admitting its a list from a particular POV, and then claiming its OK because some people seem to think this article is about that particular POV (which is simply not true). There is a legitimate POV dispute here.

If you can come up with a convincing argument that this article should be about the scientific skeptic POV, then the dispute remains legitimate. Although if you do come up with a convincing argument, then we are going to need to talk about a merger, because there really should not be two articles about the scientific skeptic POV. --Brentt 10:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not argueing against what I have said. My point is that list gives a view which it presents as a view. It is properly referenced and worded as such. It is not taking a side, it is presenting it. Please read WP:NPOV, which contains much information which pretains to the discussion. Jefffire 11:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be agreed upon that the list represents a particular POV. That creates a POV dispute because this is a article about a term that is often used by other opposing POVs. Do you see now? --Brentt 11:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Specious reasoning. Real world disputes are seperate to Wikipedia neutrality disputes. But that logic it would be equally valid to put a tag up in the "Criticisms" section. Jefffire 11:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a tacit endorsment of the POV represented when it is the only POV represented. The criticism section is different because its criticism of the concept of pseudoscience in general, no matter what POV is labeling this or that pseudoscience.--Brentt 11:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversial science

Regarding the suggestion to move that article here, as per the discussion on the relevant discussion page, that article does not belong here but represents another stage in the scientific process. It is sourced, the concept exists and is separate from "pseudoscience". Why confuse the two??? Haiduc 11:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Science not POV

Unless you're an unreconstructed postmodernist with a bad education, arguing in the 21 century that science is inherently POV leaves you floundering with Locke and Berkerley, who, with Johnson I refute thus: blathering armchair pontificators. This is a short way of saying the list is not POV, it is defined by mainstream science like it or not. The article shouldn't be merged. I support Jefffire. Mccready 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

arguing in the 21 century that science is inherently POV

err, who said that? Whats been being said has been almost the opposite of that contention. If you think thats whats been being argued, you havn't been following the arguments very closely. --Brentt 20:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Brentt. Science takes precedence over pseudoscience and is used to explain or shine the light on pseudoscience on Wikipedia. If there is a view by scientists that a particular notable subject is considered pseudoscientific and it is sourced, then it should be included. From my research on the list of pseudos, there are no significant views opposing that view. They are all valid. Bookmain 02:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please understand. I am very much a scientific skeptic. I have a pretty sensitive bull* detector, and it rings for everything on that list. I am not arguing that these things are not pseudoscience (I certainly am of the opinion that they are). So don't get me confused with an adherent.

All I am saying is that there is no monolithic "scientific" view as to what qualifies as pseudoscience. There are only majority opinions. A majority of scientists would no doubt agree that every thing in the list is a pseudoscience. But there is no completely general "decision procedure" so to speak to determine what is and isn't pseudoscience. There is no meta-science to qualify this or that "science" and this or that "pseudoscience". Nothing I said in the above paragraph is controversial I hope (I sincerely hope that a skeptic would have a sufficient understanding of the nature of science to not dispute this...science isn't a dogma with Truths, with a capital T, thats what makes it so powerful--and precisely why post-modernists are misguided in their criticisms of it). Nothing about this paragraph should be controversial.

Now, since we are clear on that--I hope--lets establish a matter of wikipedia policy--NPOV != MPOV. Neutral POV does not mean Majority POV. Since there are significant minority groups that level the charge "pseudoscience" at various activities normally considered bonafide science, no matter how misguided and downright silly the charge may seem to you and me, it is not appropriate to have a list coming from one POV--that is indeed the scientific skeptic POV--about what is and isn't pseudoscience in an article about the idea ofpseudoscience in general; and idea used by several different opposing viewpoints.

Now please be clear, despite superficial appearances, you can not derive a flawless decision procedure from the "scientific method" to determine without some degree of subjectivity about what is and isnt science. The "scientific method" really is not a rigid set of rules, but more like a set of guidelines (like "parlay",). You'd be suprised at how often good science skirts the scientific method, by skipping steps. Its usually quite clear which sciences are skipping steps with good cause and without really losing their ability to convince a critical thinker of their veracity (e.g. evolutionary theories about the origin of life--some of which are built on hypothesis' that are so obvious, trivial even, that they remain convincing even though they havn't been tested even indirectly. I am a huge fan of evolutionary theory, and think gene-centric evolution, and origin theories based on it, are some of the most profound ideas in intellectual history, so please don't misunderstand this as crticism of evolution), and which ones are just nonsense ("water memory" in homeopathy. feel free to consider that a tacit disaproval on my part--this is a talk page, I don't have to conform to NPOV standards here). But nonetheless there is undeniably a subjective quality to all such judgements. Just the slightest hint of subjectivity, not enough for me to personally waste my time to look into the possibility of evidence that we may have been created by a divine sphagetti monster, or the proposition that standing on your head for a day will give you psychic abilities, but enough for me to be quite sure that a list representing one view, in an article not specifically about that view does not qualify as NPOV. The list would not be an issue if it was in the article about the view it represents (as a matter of fact, it would be quite valuable there.) But if the pseudoscience article is not about that view specifically then the list doesn't belong here. If you want to argue that the pseudoscience article is inherently about the scientific skeptic POV (and such a contention would be hard to argue for various reasons) then a merge would seriously be warranted (I am not proposing that a merge should take place, as this article clearly isn't solely about the scientific skeptic conception of what is pseudoscience, I'm just saying that if you argue that it is, then your stuck having to seriously consider a merge--Catch-22) Brentt 07:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

And yes, there are strong contrary POVs within the medical community of other countries, for example, about homeopathy, which is taught in mainstream medical schools in India, France and Switzerland (U of Bern). There is a strong temptation for US citizens to assume that the US sets the standard for the world and to ignore other cultures. (NPOV = MPOV = USPOV) Hgilbert 08:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please put this under its own header Hgilbert. You have no idea how difficult it makes it to show skeptics why the list in general has POV issues, when adherents to this or that pseudoscience keep on trying to convince us that their pet pseudoscience is real science. Please make another topic if you want to make a quixotic attempt to convince us that a repeatedly falsified, and theoretically untenanable practice, is not pseudoscience.

You miss the point. The question for Wikipedia is not whether it is pseudoscience or not. The question is whether there are a variety of views about this. To suggest that medical schools teach homeopathy, and even offer specialized diplomas in it, in the belief that it is only useful as a placebo is to insult the professional standard of their work...or was just a rhetorical device. ;)

I'm sorry if pointing out that there are POV concerns with particular areas interferes with pointing out that there are POV concerns with the list in general; some people might think they are related. I suspect the real problem you are having is that there are some people who aren't going to listen to your points no matter what, because they want the list and believe that the scientific-skeptical viewpoint has ultimate truth, and that this trumps the NPOV perspective here. This is a defensible standpoint in and of itself, but not in Wikipedia's terms, and so they will simply run around in circles avoiding making any concessions. But good luck.Hgilbert 21:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Because somes medical schools teach something doesn't mean it fits the standards and norms of science. They may even be teaching it being quite aware that it is only useful as a placebo. Homeopathy is useful, in the same way sugar pills are useful. Its just easier to get the benefits of a placebo when the placebo is widely believed among the general public to work. Its quite a convenient arrangement, drs can have a placebo to give, and not face any ethical issues with lying about what it is. They can tell them its "potentized" whatever, and people, in their ignorance, will think that means something that it doesn't (of course all it means is that its pure-water, but "potentized" sounds scientific, so they get the benefit of being convinced that they are getting something--hence get the benefit of a placebo). Its a genius arrangemet.

That does not mean that the people who are seriously advocating that pure-water will cure you of your ills by taking some real, non-placebic (is that a word?) action, could not comfortably be labeled pseudoscientists by scientific skeptics (although, it wouldn't be appropriate in a NPOV encyclopedia, since scientific skepticism is a POV.) --Brentt 19:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert, the US thinks it sets the standard? I'm from the US, and I thought Brits today were the best and sternest skeptics on the planet ;-) ... Kenosis 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Damn straight! Jefffire 22:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (Britisher)

I think that was just a rhetorical device to make use skeptics look like evil imperialists. --Brentt 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't blame anybody one bit in light of recent global events. But I have caused us to digress somewhat...Kenosis 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Brits skeptic! Go into any UK bookshop today and you will find alternative medicine books outnumber real science books by about ten to one. (Actually we are skeptic, but probably more of the "pill pushing medical establishment"). This whole issue has just broken into the news with a dozen or so top doctors writing to all the health care trusts and robust defence by complementary medicine practitioners (Leader in todays Independant newspaper). --Salix alba (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We get the same in here Hong Kong. The traditional medicine people don't try to get a science certificate though. But the alternative doctors in the west are always doing the crossing the line. They pretend all the time to be clinical and proved by science and it is wrong. Hylas Chung 08:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Quackery has been nominated for deletion

Not sure if its a good idea to list it here, but it seems relavant to current discussions so here goes. --Salix alba (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The related Category:Quackery has been nominated for deletion or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion.

Yes thank you I had a talk on the discussion. Thanks Hylas Chung 08:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Archive Freedom"

[Note: this post copied from my User page ]

Are we supposed to take this seriously as a source:--> http://archivefreedom.org/

Claims there is some kind of "blacklist" in physics preventing certain physicists from publishing work. This clearly shows a grave misunderstanding of the scientific method. Anyone is free to publish -- as long as it is science. Overturning a paradigm will earn you fame, and if true, a theory will stand up to critical peer review.

All the website shows is that certain pseudoscientists have a bizarre conspiracy theory of science, and instead of doing science, pseudoscientists scream like children about how they are being "censored"? — Dunc|☺ 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Website illustrates the "Identifying pseudoscience" item, "assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress their results". It is meant as an example, rather than a source, and I think the words describing it as such. Your description of the Web site seems confirm this? --Iantresman 20:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

At least one of the people mentioned Dr. Peter Rowlands is a university lecture at an in a physice department which has been given the top rating for research in the UK (5A). The transcript [10] indicates this is not just obvious cranks being excluded.

As to Anyone is free to publish, have you ever tried to get a paper published? Yes anyone is free to publish if your work fits with the agenda of the journal you target. Rejections are rife, there are many incidences of important work which has taken years and years to get published. For instance Galois's ground breaking work in group theory was rejected, basically because no one else understood it (and maybe because he had wound up the wrong people).

There is an important distinction between peer review and arXiv to which the website refers. arXiv is not a peer review journal, it is a repository of pre-prints appearing prior to aceptance in a journal. --Salix alba (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Pseudoscience articles just mentions "conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress their results"[11]. arXiv is representative of the scientific community, and the Archive Freedom web site claims that arXiv is suppressing pre-prints. That seems to me to be illustrative of the article description? --Iantresman 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Galois' work was not really "rejected". In fact, several prominent mathematicians understood its significance and encouraged him, at various times, to submit it for publication. Parts of it would be published before his death, but the famous memoir (to which I believe you are referring), was not published during his lifetime...but that was due to various factors such as his reluctance to clarify his work and unforeseen events such as Fourier's death. The romantic view that Galois was a misunderstood genius is to a large extent a fiction set up by the writings of E.T. Bell. See Evariste Galois for more info. There are some good external links there on this stuff also. --C S (Talk) 12:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Such "censorship" is real, and is no conspiracy. I notice a mistake which is so common that it almost deserves its own name: the conflating of intellectual suppression with "conspiracy theory." When crackpots complain of suppression, thoughtless people will often accuse them of being conspiracy nuts even though the crackpots said nothing about conspiracy. The accusation is wrong. In fact, intellectual suppression is a common event, and has nothing to do with conspiracies. For example, the resistance to bad ideas is a key part of scientific conservatism. Crackpots really are being suppressed; researchers really do refuse to listen to them, and their papers really are being rejected by all physics journals. Their complaints of censorship or suppression are completely genuine. It is the purpose of journal editors to accept the best papers and "censor" all others. Anyone who insinuates that intellectual suppression is illusory or is a "conspiracy theory" is at best mistaken, or at worst is using an emotion-based strategy in a science debate. Besides the censorship of bad ideas, the resistance to valid new ideas is well known in science (and in the rest of human endevour,) and it also has nothing to do with a conspiracy. Often a genuine new idea poses a threat, and researchers will individually resist it for emotional reasons (as with doctors rejecting Semmilweis, etc.) Scientist are human, and they sometimes resist ideas leading to scientific revolutions which threaten their work, their jobs, or which simply make them look bad in the eyes of the public. No conspiracy is involved, and the suppression is genuine. So, when making accusations, we must take care to insure that our criticism isn't itself a fallacy or a rhetorical ploy: we must only use the "conspiracy theory" label against crackpots who actually claim to be victims of conspiracy, and not just those who complain of suppression. Wjbeaty 10:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Wjbeaty (talk · contribs) was trying to say that the traditional scientific journals do in a loose sense "censor" papers which fail to pass peer review, and a good thing too. Most of us would agree with the last!

But Beaty also writes "When crackpots complain of suppression, thoughtless people will often accuse them of being conspiracy nuts even though the crackpots said nothing about conspiracy. The accusation is wrong." Please note that the Archive Freedom organizaton specifically charged that Paul Ginsparg was keeping their eprints out of the arXiv using a "secret blacklist". My understanding is that this is wrong: there has never been a blacklist.

Here is an example of a closly related conspiracy theory which I know is untrue. Some years ago, I posted in sci.math.research a call to institute some kind of screening of archive submissions. This post drew a rather critical response from Paul Ginsparg, via John Baez. Some years later, however, in response to a growing percentage of cranky submissions, the endorsement system, which should not be confused with conventional refereeing, was reluctantly instituted by arxiv.org. This coincidence may have led Jack Sarfatti (a fringe physicist notorious for his cranky submissions to various journals) to claim that Baez, Ginsparg, and myself were conspiring to keep his eprints out of the archive :-/

Another closely related claim: some cranks complained that they could not even access the archive. Apparently they jumped to the conclusion that software at the arxiv website was somehow preventing them from even connecting. An alternative explanation is that the original domain name was xxx.lanl.gov (chosen as a joke), and some countries apparently really do prevent their citizens from accessing url's containing the string xxx.

Beaty also writes: "Crackpots really are being suppressed; researchers really do refuse to listen to them, and their papers really are being rejected by all physics journals." That last bit is demonstrably untrue, unfortunately, even if you exclude crank journals like Galilean Electrodynamics (which publishes papers denying special relativity and Journal of Scientific Exploration (which publishes papers on paranormal topics). Journals such as Foundations of Physics often publish some very dodgy papers. Even supposedly rigorously refereed journals such as Classical and Quantum Gravity on rare occasions publish papers which are generally deemed cranky (see Bogdanov affair).

By the way, about Galois: Ian Tresman mentioned in garbled form a legend to the effect that the great mathematician Augustin Louis Cauchy supressed the great paper of Galois (c. 1831), which was found among Cauchy's personal papers after his own death. One version of the legend, due to my former colleague :-/ Eric Temple Bell, hints darkly at an alleged political motivation. The truth seems to be closer to this: Cauchy didn't understand the paper (which really is rather cryptic) and procrastinated so long that he forgot about it. Fortunately, Joseph Liouville obtained and understood the manuscript, and published it with a laudatory introduction in 1846 (before Cauchy's death in 1857). A fourth great mathematician, Carl Gustav Jacobi, then became an ardent champion of Galois's revolutionary ideas. The modern form taught to many undergraduate math majors is largely due to a fifth great mathematician, Emil Artin. Quite a few other leading algebraists have made important contributions to this theory.---CH 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So in the section Identifying pseudoscience", an item describes the "assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress their results".
The Archive Freedom Web site seems to illustrate this precise claim. So is there any reason not to provide it as an example? --Iantresman 11:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new article

I think we may wish to have an article on mainstream science. This would serve as a good counterbalance and would be an excellent reference for articles that straddle the boundary between innovation and quackery (certain ecology ideas and psychoanalysis proposals come to mind). Any thoughts on this? --ScienceApologist 17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But how is that different from science? — Dunc|☺ 17:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Science" is a process. "Mainstream science" is an institution. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Halton Arp publishes in "mainstream scientific" journals. Hannes Alfvén's "Plasma Universe" was peer reviewed by "mainstream science". Dilemma? --Iantresman 19:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. We can discuss the relationship between mainstream science and those who are "outside" mainstream science in an article on the subject. First we should decide whether we can write such an article. --ScienceApologist 19:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It seems unneccassery to me. Jefffire 19:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We could discuss such notions in the article itself, but I would be disappointed if you went to all that trouble, only to discover that "inside/outside" the mainstream is based on personal research, rather than objective criteria. Can you provide a couple of peer-reviewed sources that might clear up the matter?

Part of the reason I'm posting here is asking for people's input on the matter. Obviously resources from the article on the scientific community might be useful, but the proposed article is from a slightly different perspective. Currently, I have no resources, which is exactly why I haven't started writing the article.--ScienceApologist 01:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm increasingly thinking there needs to be a good article linking all the criticism of the science together. To me these seem to fall into two main camps

Cricicism of the Scientific establishment, how the process of science is guided by the government funding and funding by specific interest groups (eg drug and oil companies). The impact of the establish journals giving prominence to certain modes of enquiry. For example: there is only one professor on complementary medicine in the UK; research on Medical cannabis has been severely limited; and then there is all the criticism of the Bush's administration especially in relation to climate change.
Criticism of the scientific method. Can a reductionist approach be applied to all modes of enquiry cf Holism in science. Also there is the Thomas Kuhn paradigm view (in the end science is just another paradigm) and postmodernist critiques, especially Michel Foucault. Romanticism was an early critique.

There are plenty of good critiques out there. I saw The Golem: What You Should Know About Science [12] in a bookshop the other day and this seems to be a fairly notable critique, alas I did not buy it. --Salix alba (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see an article, perhaps not within pseudoscience, but on wikipedia, regarding the pseudoscientific theories surrounding Orgone and Orgonite. User: MilquetoastCJW

Ian's concerns about what constitutes "inside"

Per the suggestion of others, I've redacted irrelevant comments to their own section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) .

Who judges who is on the "inside", or what is considered "consensus"? According to the literature, a consensus of papers still considers comets to be dirty snowballs, and "2003 UB313" has less papers about it that Halton Arp has published on intrinsic redshift --Iantresman 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant? You brought up the idea of "inside" and "outside" of mainstream science, and these question seem key to the article? How can the merit of an article be assessed if you're going to side-line some of the content. I haven't criticised your article suggestion at all, the least you can do is engage in the discussion. --Iantresman 09:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoarcheology

User:Kenosis, why do you want to remove pseudoarchealogy from the list? Can you explain your reasoning? When I compiled some watchlists dealing with pseudoscience, I had a large number which I thought of as pseudoarchaeology. ---CH 06:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(Today in Pseudoarcheology: User:Kenosis tagged with a citation request {{fact}} all the items in the list which didn't have a reference; I untagged Pseudoarchaelogy as being defined as a pseudoscience, and he/she deleted it from the list entirely.) I think it may be better as a See Also than as an example, as is pseudophysics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hillman and Arthur. I'm not wedded to that decision to remove. But my objective is twofold:

(1) For the article to at least have reasonably credible citations, ideally multiple citations, for all the contents of that repeatedly controversial list. Pseudoarcheology (note the lack of a link from the common alternate spelling to date, for instance) is not well supported in this article on pseudoscience nor in the article on the topic of pseudoarcheology. I vaguely suspect there may be good reason for lack of citations for the term, as much of what is listed as pseudoarcheology is really speculation based on what we might call simply "archeology" (or "archaeology"), itself an often highly speculative business — not to even mention notorious forms of "skulduggery", private marketing of artifacts and other such "junk archeology".
(2) To try to keep the length of the list somwhat under control with an occasional sweeping of marginal items. If you include pseudoarchaeology and pseudophysics, I can add pseudopsychology (a pet peeve of mine), someone else may start an article on pseudosociology (readily found in most bar-rooms), etc. I imagine there already exist other such items that contain other folks' targets of ire in yet other articles on Wikipedia, and at some point in the expansion a case can easily be made for a pseudo-every-kind-of-science on the List of scientific fields.... Kenosis 14:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But like I said, I'm not wedded to the edit, and found Arthur Rubin's choice to put it in "see also" to be a reasonable decision in this case... Kenosis 14:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[1] Note: In its latest issue Science magazine reported there is no evidence for supersymmetry and growing evidence against it...I'm not really proposing it be added to the list, I suppose...not yet, anyway...

[1]