Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:18, 17 December 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 16, 17, 18, 19: 30 days

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.

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:

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.
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 justification.
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.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why has my edit been reverted? What did I do wrong?

A1: Check the edit history for the article. Hopefully, the editor who reverted you left a useful edit summary explaining why they feel the previous version of the article to be better; occasionally, links to various policies and guidelines are included. The most common reasons for reversion are that the article should not contain editorial bias and every statement should be cited to sources reliable to the topic at hand. If you disagree with the reasoning provided or otherwise wish a fuller discussion, please check the archives of this discussion page for a similar proposal or open a new section below.

Q2: One entry to this list is better described as an emerging or untested area of research, not pseudoscience.

A2: A few topics have several facets, only some of which are described by reliable sources as pseudoscience; multiple notable descriptions or points of view may be appropriately included as described in Wikipedia:Fringe theories. On the other hand, proponents of a particular topic characterized as pseudoscience almost always self-report as engaging in science. The several points of view should be weighted according to the reliability of the sources making each claim. Advocacy sources are reliable only for their own opinions - it is okay to state that Dr. X claims to have built a creature under the usual caveats for self-published sources, but the creature's exploits should be described as reported in independent sources. If the majority of scientists would be surprised by a claim, it is probably not mainstream science.

Q3: Real scientists are investigating this topic, how can it be pseudoscience?

A3: Respected researchers, even Nobel Prize laureates, sometimes have or propound ideas that are described by sources reliable to make the distinction as pseudoscience, especially when they are working outside of their core expertise.

Q4: Why is the description so negative? Why not just describe the views covered and let the reader decide?

A4: The Wikipedia policy Neutral point of view requires that the prominence of various views be reflected in the articles. We strive to summarize the tone and content of all available sources, weighted by their reliability. Reliable in this context means particulary that sources should be generally trusted to report honestly on and make the distinction between science and pseudoscience.

Q5: Why does this article rely on such biased sources?

A5 Scientists generally ignore pseudoscience, and only occasionally bother to rebut ideas before they have received a great deal of attention. Non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience can only be had from second- and third-party sources. The following sources are almost always reliable sources for descriptions of pseudoscience:

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Encyclopedia of pseudoscience
An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural
Skeptic's Dictionary
Skeptical Inquirer
talk.origins archive
Bad Astronomy
Quackwatch
Sense About Science
Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.)
Statements from scientific societies

Q6: Isn't pseudoscience a philosophically meaningless term?

A6 The term describes a notable concept in common use.

Q7: Why is a particular topic omitted?

A7 Some ideas are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article; other topics have been explicitly rejected by the consensus of editors here at the talkpage. Please search the archives for relevant discussions before beginning a new one. Still, this list is far from complete, so feel free to suggest a topic or be bold and add it yourself.

Q8: What relation does content here have to the four groupings (below) from the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience?

A8 Many fail to understand the nature of this list. It is not exclusively about "Obvious pseudoscience", but, as the list's title indicates, about "topics characterized as pseudoscience" (emphasis added). That wording parallels the Arbcom description from group three: "but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" (emphasis added). Therefore we include items covered in the first three groups below, but not the fourth. In this list, we refuse to decide whether an item is or is not an "obvious" pseudoscience (although most of them are

).

Four groups

1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Science List‑class Mid‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics List‑class High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paranormal List‑class High‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism List‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science List‑class Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Creationism List‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views List‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists List‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, April 14 2009, see discussion.
Speedy keep, February 1 2007, see discussion.
Speedy keep, January 31 2007, see discussion.

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—2013
Archive 16: July — January, 2014
Archive 17 December 2013 — March 2015
Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Historical materialism

I have recently added information on historical materialism, which was charactrerized as a pseudoscience by Karl Popper and others. This claim appears in one form or another in several Wikipedia articles (Historical materialism, Criticism of Marxism, Marxism, Falsifiability).

My edit was deleted with no explanation other than that I have "tried this before with scientific socialism". I have not made any edits to this page before 09.05.2021, at which point mentions of "scientific socialism" were removed from the article. I am in no way affiliated with the user who was the author of those edits. The contents of my edits was completely different.

I have re-added my paragraph. I believe Popper's critcism is notable enough to be included on this page. I have provided sources that discuss the claim in detail, as well as mentioned simmilar views by other thinkers to demonstrate this was not a singular opinion. I believe that the paragraph is written in a way which clearly demonstrates that Popper's claim is not an absolute truth and criticism of Popper is mentioned. Therefore I don't see any reason to delete it, especially if the sole rationale is "someone else wrote a simmilar, but ultimately different thing in the past". I'd like to hear comments on this. KtosKto64 (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the pragraph was removed again, before I could post this. KtosKto64 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you weren't the guy who did the scientific socialism thing? ah crap, my bad man, I must have not noticed, my bad. In that case I guess it's not as bad, I think it's not wise though to include it on this page because some have called it a pseudoscience mayhaps for the same reasons the scientific socialism thing was removed. personally my take is that it shouldn't be here until some talk page consensus on the page itself says that's fine, but popper's criticism and all that can be included on the page "criticisms of marxism" and historical materialism, don't see nothing wrong with that, as it's more of a debate of validity rather than like "science" saying "it's wrong because x y z" and the response being some conspiratorial nonsense. I do thank you for getting back to me, and do again apologize for misidentifying you as another user, my bad. AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was late to this but here's my comment, hoping it may be useful in the long term: the lead currently states "This is a list of topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers". The argument for removing scientific socialism doesn't seem to hold in this case since the historical materialism article mentions Popper's characterisation of it as pseudoscience. I think this is a different case from most of the other examples, but Popper fits the description as an academic or researcher and did characterize the topic as pseudoscience. The removed paragraph itself seemed otherwise quite NPOV. The solution would be to either open up the article to anything was ever described as pseudoscience by some academics/researches (limiting this to people working in the same field seems reasonable/implied, how much this needs to be up to date is debatable) or to limit the criteria for inclusion and rephrasing the lead in some other way. Depenging on how you define science/pseudoscience even the fact that Eath goes around the Sun and not the other way around may have been at some point characterized as pseudoscience by some authoritative figure (I'm not sure if any theory of history would fit Popper's definition of science as falsiability, but this is probably a simplification and may be true for a lot of other examples too). Personuser (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before, claims of historical materialism being characterised as a pseudoscience are established in multiple articles, thus fulfilling the basic criteria for inclusion on this page. I agree that this characterisation can be controversial, hence why I tried to explain what precisely Popper meant by that term. I thought it would be relevant to include it for two main reasons. Firstly, Popper's ideas on falsificationism are rather influential in the debates of science vs pseudoscience, and historical materialism is one of his canonical examples, along with psychoanalysis, which is already on the list. Secondly, his argument has been brought up in debates on historical materialism by both supporters and opponents of the idea.

The topic has been discussed on the talk pages before, last time in 2018. Main concern raised in that discussion was that the section was primarily based on Popper's own writings, which I have attempted to avoid by providing additional sources (including those criticial of Popper), as well as simmilar opinions by others. Another point was that the additions of Popper's criticism to the articles on Marxism, historical materialism etc. were then recent, but given that 3 years have passed, I think this can be dismissed. I shall wait for other comments before reinstating the removed content. KtosKto64 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monatomic Gold

This phrase redirects here but as far as I can see there is no entry. What’s the deal? RobP (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How strange. It looks like it was in the article for a grand total of 22 minutes.

I've brought it up at redirects for deletion.

Anyway, the deal is that "monatomic gold" is dirt that is neither gold nor monatomic. It has no interesting properties except that you can charge $50 for a tiny vial of it and suckers will buy it. ApLundell (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a related red link at Ormus. The matter seems too trivial for mentioning at RfD, reporting it here for transparency. Personuser (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dogon and Sirius

I'm confused as to why this topic has been included as pseudoscientific? Or at least how the article indicates what is pseudoscientific. The claims that are flatly unscientific are the ones attempting to conjure a more recent Western source for the Dogon's knowledge (of a lighter fainter star in orbit with the main, no mention of a white dwarf). These supposed exchanges aren't recorded or effectively preserved in any way, assuming their existence is therefore unfalsifiable, ergo, pseudoscientific. Killswitchwp (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which entry you mean, there were two of them..... and that may have been the confusing part. I deleted the less detailed one. See if it fixed what you saw. Good catch either way. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The broken link to Aura from the Aura (paranormal) article:

Hammer, Olav (2001). Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 900413638X. 2A02:AB88:248D:1C00:35:6FB0:23F7:5BDC (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See [1]. - DVdm (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

exorcism

"exorcism" makes claims about demons. If science accepts the existence of demons, then claims about them are subject to scientific method. If science does not accept the existence of demons, or says that talk about demons is not pertinent to demons, then claims about them are not scientific claims. So the question is, are claims about demons, among those to whom the concept of "exorcism" is relevant, intended to be scientific claims? --142.163.194.149 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Indigenous medicine

here we go: cancer is a symptom of colonialism." https://www.lakeheadu.ca/about/news-and-events/news/archive/2021/node/67755 --142.163.194.149 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CRT, Gender Studies, anti-nuclear energy activism, salmon aquaculture

all pseudoscience. --142.163.194.149 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 here we go:  cancer is a symptom of colonialism." https://www.lakeheadu.ca/about/news-and-events/news/archive/2021/node/67755  --[[Special:Contributions/142.163.194.149|142.163.194.149]] ([[User talk:142.163.194.149|talk]]) 22:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
+== CRT, Gender Studies, anti-nuclear energy activism, salmon aquaculture ==
+all pseudoscience. --[[Special:Contributions/142.163.194.149|142.163.194.149]] ([[User talk:142.163.194.149|talk]]) 22:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)