Talk:Pseudoscience: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 16) (bot |
→"System 1"?: new section Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
:I've told you a million times, "dont exagerate", so no. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the sceptical dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 17:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC) |
:I've told you a million times, "dont exagerate", so no. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the sceptical dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 17:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
::I would only add that the introduction need not have references as long as the text agrees and has good citation. I would expect general refs in the intro for the general audience who only reads that far. [[User:Dushan Jugum|Dushan Jugum]] ([[User talk:Dushan Jugum|talk]]) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC) |
::I would only add that the introduction need not have references as long as the text agrees and has good citation. I would expect general refs in the intro for the general audience who only reads that far. [[User:Dushan Jugum|Dushan Jugum]] ([[User talk:Dushan Jugum|talk]]) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
== "System 1"? == |
|||
is "System 1" a real thing? Is there a wikipedia article about it? Parts of this article really read like someone's third-year paper. --[[Special:Contributions/142.163.194.149|142.163.194.149]] ([[User talk:142.163.194.149|talk]]) 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:04, 17 December 2021
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pseudoscience article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pseudoscience. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pseudoscience at the Reference desk. |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recent addition of Racism section - too big and irrelevant info should be trimmed
Hello @Elliepreston:, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!!
In my opinion, the section you added is about twice to three times as big as it should be...this article is about PSEUDOSCIENCE, and those paragraphs veer off into more detail about certain racist organizations than is helpful in THIS article. There may be other articles (Racism in the United States, or White genocide conspiracy theory) in which some of that content would be more pertinant/relevant, but the section in this article should concentrate on their use of pseudoscience.
Specifically, this is not relevant to pseudoscience: Collin was later arrested after child pornography and other evidence of sexual abuse against young boys was found in his possession. He was expelled from the American Nazi Party and served three years in prison [73]. After he was released, he began a career as an author and editor in chief for Ancient American Magazine from 1993-2007 [74]. However, before publishing works, he changed his name from Frank Collin to Frank Joseph. Joseph became a successful writer.
...though if that info isn't in the article about him, it could be added.
Thanks again for contributing!! ---Avatar317(talk) 01:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I removed over 4 KB of redundant or irrelevant information. Some of the sources in the section are also quite poor. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- A user @Rp2006 reverted the above removal of irrelevant content, claiming that this needs talk page discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
"Pseudoscience (physics)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pseudoscience (physics). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#Pseudoscience (physics) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
"Pseudophysics" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pseudophysics. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 22#Pseudophysics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
No mention of New age movement
The New age movement is one of the most significant pseudoscience in the 21st century, I think it deserves to be here. 223.184.77.204 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- If we included this, we would be obliged to include Islam, Christianity, American Christianity and Morris Dancing as Pseudoscience too. All of those are of far more significance than the New Ageists. We do label most New Ager types and their ideas as pseudoscience in the articles concerned, but adding the wooly thinking new agers to this article requires a shift in consensus too far imho. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Why is the line between science and pseudo-science so blurry?
I used to think that pseudo-science, or "quackery" was reserved for dogmatic claims such as: earth is only a few thousand years old, the world is flat, earth is the centre of the universe, global warming is not man-caused, all vaccines are bad, nicotine is not addictive/sugar is safe (both views embraced in last decades). When there is plenty of verifiable evidence to debunk such claims. Why are academics insisting on blurring the line between science and pseudo-science?
Why can't esoteric studies such as astrology, numerology, tarot, or other ancient mystical languages, used for self-knowledge or spiritual guidance, be a legitimate therapeutic tool for gaining personal insight? Freud and Carl Jung must be quacks too, because they used ancient symbolism to help understand psychological issues. Haven't Joseph Campbell given us enough evidence of its importance? The blunt dismissal and quick categorization under one big umbrella of pseudo-science is biased, if not just pure ignorance. And rigid in itself.
Homeopathy, or other alternative health treatments, with acceptable scientific studies to back efficacy, again gets lumped up the same way. Isn't the political/financial interest at play, deciding what is good-science, and what isn't, obvious enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepovtourself (talk • contribs) 01:44, August 20, 2021 (UTC)
- source behind homeopathy having "acceptable scientific studies to back eiffcacy"? Clone commando sev (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- It seems that you want to call things pseudoscience only if you yourself are able to see the mistakes in it. That is not a good way of doing things because you will support pseudosciences in areas where the scientific methods used are outside your areas of expertise, such as medicine or psychology.
- There is a reason why Wikipedia uses reliable sources for deciding those things and not the judgment of Wikipedia users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
removal of the following paragraph (paragraph 3 on page):
"Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatments with demonstrable health benefits, leading to deaths and ill-health.[7][8][9] Furthermore, people who refuse legitimate medical treatments to contagious diseases may put others at risk. Pseudoscientific theories about racial and ethnic classifications have led to racism and genocide."
references 7,8 and 9 do not support the argument but simply link to opinion pieces about homeopathy, no scientific proof of harm or dangerous effects are mentioned
paragraph is dangerously overgeneralising by linking homeopathy with death, racism and genocide, despite the referenced articles claiming it is medically unhelpful but not dangerous Goldediting (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've told you a million times, "dont exagerate", so no. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 17:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would only add that the introduction need not have references as long as the text agrees and has good citation. I would expect general refs in the intro for the general audience who only reads that far. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
"System 1"?
is "System 1" a real thing? Is there a wikipedia article about it? Parts of this article really read like someone's third-year paper. --142.163.194.149 (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Top-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles
- B-Class Alternative Views articles
- Top-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- B-Class paranormal articles
- Top-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class logic articles
- Mid-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of science articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- B-Class science articles
- Top-importance science articles