Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Archives

Archive 1: 2003 — August 2006 Archive 2: August 2006 — December 2006 Archive 3: December 2006 — March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 — April 2007 Archive 5: April 2007 — July 2007 Archive 6: July 2007 — October 2007 Archive 7: October 2007 — January 2008 Archive 8: January 2008 — April 2008 Archive 9: February 2008 — November 2008 Archive 10: December 2008 — January 2009 Archive 11: January 2009 — March 2009 Archive 12: March 2009 Archive 13: 2009 Archive 14: 2010 Archive 15: 2010

Hollow Earth and Hollow Moon

I expected to see the Time Cube under "Idiosyncratic ideas", but I see that the Cube is apparently off limits as its crankiness is so humungous that no reliable source can be bothered to state the obvious, or rather the whole logic (?) of the idea is so idiosyncratic and amusing that characterising it as pseudoscience would be equivalent to an entirely undeserved accolade and suggests that it deserves more than a quick laugh. But how about Hollow Earth, and its offshoot, the Hollow Moon? Is there any particular reason (other than a giant conspiracy consisting of Wikipedia rouge admins suppressing The Truth, of course) that this idea is missing from the list? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. How about providing some good wording backed up by several RS, and do that here on the talk page for us to evaluate? -- 01:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. --Seduisant (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"millenarianism?"

Is that actually a word? or how the group identifies itself? When I try to type it in it gets the red squiggly line. It just seems like someone stuck a few too many suffixes on. If I'm wrong, my apologies. It just looks like the sort of vandalism that can go unnoticed due to subtleties. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse, it's a word now. a13ean (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Check for yourself via Google or Bing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Broken link

There is a ref named "scientificamerican" that is currently a dead link. The ref was to this bare URL: Scientific American. It is a link to a search engine. Searching google for ED460829 (part of the URL) yielded this web page which is apparently in regards to this document: Scientific American Frontiers Teaching Guides for Shows 801-805. One supposes the original intent was to reference this show. The ref is used several time in the article for the following topics: "Dowsing" "Ufology" "Therapeutic touch" "Perpetual motion" "Free energy".

Scientific American Frontiers does have episodes addressing fringe science and the transcripts are on line. If I find time I'll replace these links to the shows. Here's one for "Free energy" and on the same page "Therapeutic touch".

I would suppose this show as a citation is reliable enough for this article to show that these subjects are pseudoscience. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarity needed

I feel that "characterized" is a poor choice of words. Perhaps "labeled" would be better. The naive reader would likely miss the nuances discussed in the lede.

Also, some of the "pseudoscience" does not quite fit the generally accepted definition. I'd rather not see any modern controversial topic listed here, if its proponents have indicated a significant willingness to subject their findings or claims to independent review.

Therefore, I recommend a page move, e.g., to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. This would clarify that someone has labeled each of the various ideas as pseudoscience.

Another thing that would help is to separate the ones that are generally regarded as pseudoscience, from the ones which are mere controversial, such as:

• Topics where there is a political or economic stake:
  1. Climate change denial
  2. Conversion therapy
• Topics related to the supernatural]]
  1. Extrasensory perception
  2. Ghost hunting
  3. Seance

Perhaps, like the section on parodies, there can be a section on modern controversies. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Cognitive Bias regarding Creationism

• One need not create fiction about "Creationism" to object to it. Singling out sources that naturally contradict supernatural phenomena for stating the case of "Creationism" is biased and irrational strawman arguments. I suggest a wider use of sources. Start with ones similar to:

http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/creation_timeline_chart_color_201107.pdf)

• Obviously statements like this are a bandwagon argument:

"Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."

If you include "Creationism " because it is scientifically unproven, then you must include "Psychoanalysis."

If you exclude "Psychoanalysis" because it has a "substantial following," then you must exclude "Creationism," from your list of pseudoscience as well.

John Lloyd Scharf 01:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The above seems like a general purpose complaint and is not suitable to justify a tag. When adding a tag saying "factual accuracy is disputed" and "neutrality is disputed", it is necessary to point out some text in the tagged section whose factual accuracy and/or neutrality is disputed. Do any sources used in the article fail WP:RS? Rather than suggest that editors read some generic pdf, what text in that pdf is recommended for use in this article? Does reasons.org satisfy WP:RS? Please fix your signature; it must have a link. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, John, he's got a right to place the tag. Give him a chance to spell out what he means. If he's trying to suggest that creationism (in particular) has not been characterized as pseudoscience then he's not going to get very far with it (too much sourcing to the contrary), but maybe he has something else in mind.

I mean seriously - this article reeks of bias to begin with. If we ever want to smooth it out and get a neutral article we have to take challenges like this seriously and evaluate them on the merits. --Ludwigs2 04:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We include what is characterized as pseudoscience in reliable sources, that is all. IRWolfie- (talk)

I've removed the tag based upon the information provided by John Lloyd Scharf. Wikipedia is not a forum for ideological battles. If someone wants to come up with better information, perhaps addressing Johnuniq's concerns, demonstrating problems with that or other sections of the article, then the tags can be easily restored. --Ronz (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ludwig does have a point regarding the bias of this article. At the moment it is more of a 'List of topics Wikipedia characterizes as pseudoscience'. Wekn reven ^Confer 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wekn reven you're joking, right? (Note the comment by IRWolfie above: "We include what is characterized as pseudoscience in reliable sources, that is all.") -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

But if the characterization is disputed by reliable sources, what then? Suppose a topic such as a theory has been labeled 'pseudoscience' by one group, while another group have actually listed criteria for the theory's falsifiablity?

To give a vivid if zany example, consider the idea that the Moon is made of green cheese. Now suppose this has been characterized as pseudoscience. Yet the idea's proponents say that they'll withdraw their claim if astronmers can show that the Moon's refractive index (the band of lines you see in a spectroscope) are inconsistent with green cheese. Then by definition it's not pseudoscience: it's disputed science, i.e., a scientific controversy. It can be settled whenever astronomers are able to make that measurement.

A more serious example would be the claim that the far side of the Moon is smooth (has no craters). Before the 1960s, this would be an open question, not "pseudoscience". After photos were taken by spacecraft orbiting the Moon, the question was settled.

Let's not dive into WP:OR, of course, but let's also be aware of disputes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier to answer if we had a real example, but basically there shouldn't be too much of a leap from "characterized" to "actual" pseudoscience (as defined by mainstream science). The characterization should be accurate enough that most physicians and scientists would agree that it was a true characterization. Since we're dealing with "verifiability, not truth", there's a slight bit of wiggle room, but we shouldn't list characterizations made by fringe groups who label proven facts as pseudoscience,... and they actually do it! We've even had editors here who are promoters of fringe ideas who have provokingly posted such things on this list. That's just plain stupid and disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A distinction between "characterized" and "actual" pseudoscience is always necessary. Likewise those characterized by a majority expert consensus against and virtually no expert support and a majority expert consensus against and significant (except when expressed as a fraction) expert support. The current classification system by fields is somewhat confusing, especially when you have as diverse topics as:

Creation science

Flat Earthism

Laundry balls

Wekn reven ^Confer 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)