Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

‹See TfM›

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

Memes?

Just a question, not really a suggestion or anything, but why isn't the concept or idea of a "meme" in this list?Adolon 06:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's generally well-accepted, maybe? Also, it seems to play a bigger part in sociology than the natural sciences, and it's a ton harder to know for sure that a theory there is pseudoscience. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these really pseudoscinetific?

I'm a little concerned that some topics are included here that aren't really pseudoscientific. In order for something to be pseudoscience doesn't somebody notable have to first claim that it can be rationalized using science, and then present bad/warped/twisted science or something that sounds like science but is really junk?

• Séances: As far as I'm aware this topic is basic level mystisism/spiritualism which nobody notable have ever tried to conceptualize through science. If people don't try to use bad science to explain it then it's not pseudoscience.
• Fung Shui: Spiritual belief. As above, people don't attempt to justify it through bad science then it's not pseudoscience.
• Full moon lunacy: At best, statistical dishonesty. Somebody notable would have to claim that cosmic rays from the moon were causing it, or something similar, and then try to prove it through science, for this to be pseudoscience
• Channeling Same as for Seances. Nobody notable is trying to explain it through warped science
• Cryptozoology recognized science which is sometimes abused
• Earthquake prediction An area of geology, real science with some weirdo handers on
• Elves, fairies, gnomes, pixies Folklore, not pseudoscience
• Neoshamanism new-aged faith type thing. Nobody claims that it can be rationalize scientifically so it is not a pseudoscience
• Polygraph/Lie detection based on real science but it falabel. Not a pseudoscience
• Face on Mars Urban myth and conspiracy, not pseudoscience

perfectblue 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Full moon: Tides are influenced by the phases of the moon why not human behaviour?

Polygraphs are accepted even though there is litte proof.

I think there is a real confusion about what is pseudoscience. I think the term is generally used as a pejorative term without any real justification. TheBestIsYet 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia articles is reliable sources not personal opinion. FeloniousMonk 16:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the standard here would be verifiability of mainstream consensus, this means sources representing multiple professionals in a related field, or a source from a representative agency. For example, the opinion of a biologist that earthquake prediction is a pseudoscience is worth a lot less than the opinion of the US geological survey. - perfectblue 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you also need a consensus to change anything? TheBestIsYet 17:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The point that I was trying to make here, which people seem to be missing, is that while questions have been raised about all of the above, "most" of them fall outside of the boundaries of pseudoscience because nobody has ever tried to justify them using what they claim to be scientific methods but which are actually unscientific methods. For example Fairies are blatantly not pseudoscience because nobody notable has ever claimed to have a scientifically valid hypothesis for their existence. Equally, nobody ever claimed that there was science behind Fung Shui so it's not pseudoscience.

Things like the the Polygraph are simply controversial, its effectiveness as a predictive tool is disputed but the principles that it is based on are quite well known (eg, people sweating when nervous etc). Earthquake prediction, too, is simply a field that's too new to have had much success just yet, or to be proven to be bunk, but which is largely grounded in conventional geology. - perfectblue 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make this argument before, and it fell on deaf ears. I hope you can do a better job of explaining it to them. ;-) However, polygraph tests do make some claim to being scientific, as well as cryptozoology. The rest of the list is just an example of the general problem of wikieditors equating supposedly false beliefs with false scientific methods. Good luck trying to correct that. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you guys forgetting that -for better or worse- this List also covers psdudoscientific concepts? In other words, concepts which would be psdudoscientific if held to be literally true, or held up -even in one's own mind- as being truths of the same sort as scientific truths (even when you consider that scientific truth is not absolute). Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that fairies aren't a concept, they're base mythology and nobody is trying to jstify their existence using flawed science dressed up to sound real. Also cryptozoology is (baring cranks of the type that show up everywhere and so should be discounted) isn't a concept either. Mostly it's regular run of the mill zoology. Most Cryptozoologist don't spend their days trying to prove that bigfoot exists or that mermaids are eating out of your garbage, many are far more likely to be looking for previously uncatalogued species of regular animals, known species that were thought to be extinct (we're talking species of wolves thought to have been hunted to extinction, not dinosaurs), or to prove that chupacabra attacks are the work of feral dogs (Many cryptozoologists are zoologically trained debunkers). Nothing paranormal, nothing pseudoscientific, just ordinary zoology but with animals that aren't in the text books. - perfectblue 20:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ours is not to question why, ours is but to report what reliable sources say on the matter. That is to say, it's not our place to make the judgment over whether something qualifies as pseudoscientific. If a reliable and appropriate source says it is, we put it in. If none such source says so, we take it out. Now, I believe many of those points you raised were indeed sourced; it's just hard to tell due to the default sourcing on this page. I'd try to fix it myself, but I don't have access to a copy of the Skeptic Encyclopedia which I could reference. If anyone here does, their assistance would be appreciated. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you in principle over WP:V, I where you and I appear to diverge is that I don't consider an article in which a single person somebody uses the world pseudoscience in conjunction with a given topic, or in which they express a personal opinion that something is pseudoscience, to be sufficient. We need to find more representative sources.

Can you provide a statement of justification, backed up by sources knowledgeable in the topic (No botanist or parapsychologists Etc. Preferably geologists) as to why mainstream Earthquake prediction efforts are a pseudoscience? - perfectblue 20:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's something. I found a brief summary of some of the items contained in the Skeptic Encyclopedia (from [1]):

1. A-Z — acupuncture, alien abductions, astrology, facilitated communication, Fen Shui, hypnosis, magnetic therapy, polygraph and lie detection, prayer and healing, recovered memories, reincarnation, spiritualism, subliminal perception, Tut's curse, UFOs and dozens more.
2. Case Studies: In-depth analyzes: acupuncture, alternative medicine, Atlantis, chiropractic, homeopathy, immortality, police psychics, pyramids, Satanic Ritual Abuse, science and religion, witchcraft, and many more.
3. Pro and Con debate section — evolutionary psychology, memes, Race and Sports, Race and I.Q.
4. Historical Documents: Animal Magnetism by Ben Franklin, A. Lavoisier; Bryan’s last evolution speech; Hume’s “Of Miracles,” Condon report on UFOs. Bibliography, Illustrated.

While the items contained in sections 3 and 4 are simply additional topics addressed by the book, and we can't assume its conclusions on the subjects in section 2, the subjects in section 1 are all in the main section. This amounts to them being labeled pseudoscience by a notable skeptic body, which is sufficient for inclusion in the second section of our article. I'll go in and source them as such. For those subjects which have some redeeming value (such as polygraph), we can simply note this in the description in the article.

However, I can't say for sure that the other subjects aren't contained in it (the present state of the article at least implies that they are, but they may have been put up by other editors unsourced). We'll still need an actual copy to reference, it seems. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I only added the section 1 items. Any additional items on this list is unsourced or insufficiently sourced. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, acupuncture isn't in the first section (I have the book right here in front of me). I'll individually source the encyc items again. If "The Way" or some other disruptive character reverts it again, please undo it. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help here. Hopefully from this point on we can keep the article free from a little of the chaos if we maintain a hard line about inclusion based on sourcing. On that note, can we remove the NPOV tag yet? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics dictionary was written by a person with little scientific background and shouldn't be used as a source in itself, it should only be used as a guide of opinion. If you feel the need to key off of it, I suggest that you skip Carrol altogether and instead cite his sources as they are more reliable than him. - perfectblue 09:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The key is that Carrol has gained a great deal of respect among skeptics, likely on par (or close to) Michael Shermer. He easily meets the criterion of being a "notable skeptic," so I think being sourced to him should be sufficient. Now, if you think that criterion isn't sufficient, that's something else we can debate, but I fear if we drop it, this list could dwindle to nothing. It's hard as it is finding skeptics actually use the term "pseudoscience." Most of them prefer more colorful or encompassing terms such as "woo." --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Single source

I've noticed that a lot of the entries on the page are sourced back to a single location, a publication produced by a skeptical organization. This worries me. Could some alternative (and preferably neutral) sources be found?

perfectblue 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Skeptics (real skeptics, not denialists) are biased only in the same way scientific organizations are: toward reality as best as they can determine it. Essentially, these are simply non-scientists who take a role in rooting out false science and other forms of craziness (many scientists consider it below their dignity to address these issues, so someone needs to do it).

Now, if you could show that there was significant controversy among reliable agencies over whether this particular organization was acting fairly, then maybe we could consider why it's neutral. It's quite possible for skeptics to go too far and immediately deny anything that doesn't mesh with their current worldview, but we'll need to see evidence that this is the case before declaring this isn't a neutral source. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

chiropractic medicine

Are editors here aware that the BMA and the OMH both consider this to be a genuine branch of medicine with verifiable health benefits?

perfectblue 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that BMA is the British Medical Association, but what's the OMH?

Aside from that, simply that one or two organizations are fooled into thinking some pseudoscience is real doesn't mean it actually is. Far too many people in science and medicine haven't been trained in what actually constitutes science (I only learned about it because I took a couple of elective courses as an undergrad), so it's possible to fool them into accepting certain forms of pseudoscience. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you that the BMA is pretty much the largest and most notable medical union in the world. For the purpose of WP:V and WP:RS it is almost unquestionable and it most certainly outweighs the skeptical cite offered on the page. Frankly, I think that it is far more likely that the skeptics have been fooled into thinking that it is pseudoscience.

"Far too many people in science and medicine haven't been trained in what actually constitutes science", and far too many skeptics haven't been trained in medicine at all and so are not WP:RS on medical issues.

The OHM is the Ontario ministry of health. The health ministry for Canada's second largest province. Again, a WP:RS source.

perfectblue 08:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the organizations there. I've done a bit more checking, and I think I've found what seems to be the problem: There are many different schools of chiropractic. The most reasonable, scientific school uses it only to treat certain forms of headaches and lower back pain. There is clinical evidence showing that it actually has benefits in these - and only these - areas. However, there are many less reasonable schools, which propose theories such as the existence of "subluxations" (which they've never defined), and say that misalignments in the spinal cord inhibit the body's innate "intelligence" from properly expressing itself, and these cause absolutely all ailments.

So, I can see it being perfectly reasonable that certain medical organizations would accept the former type of chiropractic as being legitimate, while the latter type still is still pseudoscience. Perhaps we should clarify that there are a few benefits to it, but some grossly overrepresent it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

Can this be counted as pseudoscience? From where I'm standing it's the reverse of pseudoscience, its trying to apportion knowledge not with twisted or wrong science, but without science all together. - perfectblue 15:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think part of it might be that people who claim this then extend this to claim that other, unverified claims in the Bible must therefore also be true. I agree that an item like this probably wouldn't make sense on its own, but presented as it is, as part of a list of topics related to ID, I think it's fine to have it in. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Apollo moon landing hoax accusations and Face on Mars

Do these deserve to be in the primary pseudoscience category?

I mean, they aren't even cohesive pseudoscientific hypothesis, mostly they're just a collection of urban legends and conspiracies that are the result of A) Scientific Ignorance B) Bull headedness (the refusal to accept other explanations). I think that they belong in the secondary category as they sometimes reference pseudoscientific concepts but are mostly just the result of uneducated people looking for alternative explanations for things that they don't believe.

perfectblue 15:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We've already debated this one extensively (mostly on the moon landing hoax). Why don't you go back through the archives to see all the arguments made there. If you still have concerns (or if you've already done this), then could you let me know what issues you feel haven't been addressed in there? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Other concerns

Spiritualism, Séances and Channeling don't really belong here. The Oxford American dictionary described pseudoscience as being something "pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific". Can anybody here actually find a WP:RS source where somebody claims that any of the above conform to scientific laws or principles, that they can be explained scientifically, or that they are in any way related to science?

As I understand it, most practitioners/believers of the above distance themselves from science and scientific concepts, preferring to explain it away as being something that science cannot explain, rather than trying to pretend that it is remotely scientific.

Unless somebody can find a WP:RS source attaching any notion of science to the above, I can see no way that they can be called pseudoscientific. Can anybody point out to me the paragraph in the he Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (the primary source for this page) where it highlights people who believe that these things are remotely scientific?.

perfectblue 15:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really wary about adding our own judgment on top of what a source says. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not truth." It's verifiable that the source labels them as pseudoscience; we shouldn't have to go in and try to double-check the truth of it (even if it is checking to make sure it fits the definition). And even if the book doesn't mention cases of them being presented as science, we don't know that they didn't check and find these before publishing the book. That's part of what we do in taking the word of reliable sources - we trust they've done their fact-checking. Now, if you don't consider this a reliable source, that's another issue. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First, verifiable is just one criterion in the wikipedia policy. Verifiability is important but pseudoscience is rarely black and white. For example, there might be some practitioners in a particular field (eg. Hypnosis) who have more pseudoscientific features than others in the same field. In that case it would be necessary to identify exactly what methods (eg. memory recovery hypnosis) are pseudoscientific. Second, the term pseudoscience or pseudoscientific is not a categorical definition (not a label). The degree to which a method or collection of beliefs are considered pseudoscientific will differ depending on evidence of pseudoscientific features. ----Action potential ^{t c} 05:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely right that there's a whole range of greys when it comes to pseudoscience. The question then is, how do we handle it? Should we put notes next to all the items that have some legitimate scientific study as well? Do we put a general note in the header that this might be the case for some? Do we create a separate section for these? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think when there is significant evidence that there is legitimate scientific study then it should also be mentioned alongside the other views. It could be given relative weight (eg. number of words and emphasis) depending on the strength of the evidence (at best high impact peer-reviewed sources). As infophile suggested, a note alongside, separate sections, or additional notes would do the job. I attempted this my edit to the subliminal perception and hypnosis entries. When there are references to "skeptics' encyclopedia of pseudoscience" we should track down the original sources (ie. the sources the skeptic's magazine cited as evidence). ----Action potential ^{t c} 05:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately the book is out of print (and quite expensive besides that), and not in my local library, so I'm no good there. Besides, I think it's probably sufficient as a secondary source. The only times we might need to see primary sources are if we see some seemingly outlandish claims that we'll simply need more evidence to accept. So far, none of what we've sourced to it strikes me as that outlandish (well, in the sense that it's outlandish to call it "pseudoscience").

As for the grey-area subjects, I'm going to put a note in the header that subjects here may have some legitimate research past or ongoing, but in general the majority is pseudoscientific. We can leave it to the articles on the individual subjects to make the case of exactly how much is which. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not object to that. I'm going to step aside for a while. ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've removed the tag from this page as I saw no concerns raised as to why this article might still be NPOV. If anyone feels there's still a problem here, let's discuss it and try to fix it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

Is it too controversial to include any of the alternative medicine beliefs like osteopathy, homeopathy, some aspects of herbalism, faith healing, spiritual surgery, medical dowsing, naturopathy, crystal healing, pyramidology, etc. as pseudoscience?--Filll 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as they're properly sourced as such, go ahead. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I am bit nervous about starting chaos and attacks etc.--Filll 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems most of the rabble-rousers around here have moved on. The worst that'll likely happen is I'll revert it if you don't source it or use a really bad source (finding a halfway decent one shouldn't be hard). If you're unsure whether a source is good enough, just ask here. I have a pretty good handle on what would qualify as a mainstream scientific body and who all the big notable skeptics/skeptical bodies are. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Faith healing, homeopathy, dowsing, crystal healing and psychic surgery, are now in the list. Pyramidiocy I think is fairly adequately covered by pseudoarcheology, daniken and ancient astronauts. ornis (t) 13:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Caroll

Hello. Just some information. Todd Carroll is an educator focusing on scientific skepticism and philosophy and teaches subjects that specialize in distinguishing science from pseudoscience in particular. His Wiley published book (2003) is consistent with accepted scientific view. Its an excellent source in my view, and is probably even more useful than Williams (2000) encyc of pseudoscience. Docleaf 11:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of "who" Robert Carroll is, my point specifically is this, Carrol's primary field is philosophy and critical thinking. He's not a scientist and his primary notability is as a commentator not as an authority. I have no problem in using him as WP:V for skeptical beliefs etc (I have cited him myself on a number of occasions), but I strongly believe that he should not be used in situations where scientific expertise is required. We already have a sound source, adding Carrol just detracts from it's credibility.

Let me turn this around, you are using Carrol; a skeptical advocate with no background in empirical science, to WP:V that a topic is not scientific, but would you accept it if another editor tried to use X; a belief advocate with an identical background to Carrol, to WP:V that a topic was scientific? I don't believe that you would. You would likely throw it out right away. Well the same is true here.

For what it's worth, Carroll often cites people who are qualified in empirical science, why don't you just cite them instead and cut out the commentator?

perfectblue 12:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Often, and perhaps the majority of the time, WP is not a secondary source, but a tertiary source.--Filll 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why buy the CD when you can get tickets to the concert for the same price? Carroll is a commentator who makes no attempts to be objective, at most he's as reliable as his sources, so why not quote them instead? If they're not credible enough to stand up on their own, then he certainly isn't, but if they are credible enough to stand up then why not cite them instead of him? It certainly can't do any damage to cut out the middleman. - perfectblue 15:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Carroll gives a well qualified account of the science view and it is always based on primarily, the research findings. Then there is an analysis of why the methods are considered pseudoscientific or dubious. That is why authors such as Carroll are so useful to this subject. The primary sources are great, but they often fail to give explanations for why. This is why secondary sources are so well regarded in Wikipedia. Basically they pull together a set of research and discuss, then giving conclusions. The beauty of lists is the faculty for annotation, and primary sources often don't give much explanation beyond saying something is unvalidated. Authors such as Carroll give their view based upon the research, and from a scientific skepticism point of view which is supported by philosophy of science concepts, with explanations. I don't think you could ask for more. Docleaf 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

mysticism

I think that we need to be a little careful in relation to mysticism. Some of the items in this list aren't really pseudoscientific as they were never claimed/believed/related to anything other than pure belief.

For example, we wouldn't include Native American spirits as pseudoscience, or Hawaiian volcano beliefs.

perfectblue 13:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed the other times you brought it up. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 13:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet nothing appears to have come of it. - perfectblue 15:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll just repeat the argument made before for the time being:

• We're including them based on Verifiability, not Truth. We have a reliable source saying they're pseudoscience; so they go in. We assume that this source has done their research and found some instance of it being presented scientifically. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then change the title to "List of concepts anyone has ever considered pseudoscientific"; mysticism and religion are not generally considered branches of pseudoscience, and a single author's inclusion of them in this area does not redefine the consensus. Hgilbert 10:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd better have quotations from the source which justify this inclusion. It seems that anything included in the Skeptics' Encyclopedia is being included here, whether there are actual citations that justify this or not. Hgilbert 02:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Malformed code

For some reason, whenever I try to click on edit to edit a section I get the section next to it instead. This is likely due to malformed syntax somewhere. Could somebody with some free time please have a look at the syntax for the citations etc to see where the error is.

perfectblue 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

The Shroud's section references the religious beliefs about the shroud. Shouldn't it reference the unproven scientific ones instead? After all, faith based beliefs discount science (therefore pseudoscience also) in favor of a unified explanation.

There's nothing pseudoscientific about saying "It's mystical".

perfectblue 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, it doesn't matter whether you or I think an item belongs here. The threshold for inclusion of content on Wikipedia is verifiability, not true. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that you have crabbed a hold of the wrong end of the stick. I'm not arguing whether or not the religious account of the shroud is factually correct, I'm arguing that religion is a separate category form pseudoscience.

perfectblue 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source labeled it pseudoscience. Therefore, it belongs here. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ours is not to question why, ours is but to report what reliable sources say. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Blind faith is not a good thing. Reko 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

1. As others have said, we have to seperate between stupidity and pseudosciences. Fairies is stupid but not a scientific stupidity.

2. We have to make it clearer that is psuedoscientific about a subject and that is not. To just write Tunguska event and nothing more, makes is seem that the Tungaska event didn't happen. This is wrong. We should write something like:

Antimatter Tungaska event - the belief that the Tungaska event was not caused by a meteor but by antimatter or similary anomalous causes.

Other subjects that may need rewriting is

• Ball lightning - ball lightings exist. Only some new age uses is psuedo.
• Hypnosis - exists.
• Meditation - exists. Maybe use "Magical meditation - people that states that they can no magical tricks by meditation."
• Stock market prediction - exists. Maybe use "False economic models. Many parts of modern economics makes predictions they have no sound scientific base to support."
• Out-of-body experiences - is it not better to use "life after death" as the psuedoscience.

Should we not add religion, god and soul as psudoscientific concepts?

3. Some things are not big enough to include. Laundry balls - never heard about. Delete?

4. We should seperate between obscure and parody pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.108.234 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reko 23:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For God and souls, it seems difficult to find source about people trying to make these concepts look scientific. But yeah, it is not really clear when something is simply unscientific or really pseudoscientific. Kromsson 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed the "Finally, some of these items are not considered pseudoscientific in and of themselves: only certain aspects, explanations, and/or applications of them. See an item's description text for more information on this" bit. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 14:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both of us did. Kromsson 00:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Bible Codes anyone?

Should the bible codes be listed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting definitions of list

The list as structured has conflicting purposes. Is it for anything called pseudoscientific by any critic or for areas where there is a clear consensus that a subject is pseudoscientific? If the latter, evidence of this should be on the article's page (and/or presented here). If the former, the article is misleadingly (and leadingly) titled, as are sections thereof. Some clarification is needed - you can't have it both ways (i.e. include disputed areas but title this article as if only undisputed items are included). Hgilbert 10:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moved certain subjects from the main list to a disputed area. References are supplied in the article for the dispute (except for biorhythms, which still needs positive citations). Hgilbert 13:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is kind of between those two extremes. The razor we came up with a while back is that we'll include it if it's called pseudoscience (or described as such, the actual word isn't necessary) by either a notable scientific body or a notable skeptic or skeptical organization. So, in the former case, it would likely be representing consensus of the scientific community, while not so much in the latter case. Of course, for something like this, there's the possibility of disagreement (particularly between skeptics when it comes to borderline issues, such as acupuncture). What to do in that case isn't clear, though I think it would be appropriate to leave it in with a note that it's disputed and briefly explain the dispute. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To expand a bit, I really don't think a "disputed" section is a good idea. I've all too often seen pseudoscientists try to fram their subject as being "disputed" in order to make it look better. In actuality, most of these cases have been resolved by mainstream scientists and it's just a few fringe scientists who are trying to keep the dispute alive. Also, to show there really is a dispute in an area, a single source by someone saying there's a dispute or disagreeing with mainstream consensus isn't sufficient. There will always be people out there (even some scientists) who disagree with well-established theories. Just look at evolution - among biologists, it's taken for granted at this point, but there are scientists all over the place who disagree with it and try to frame it as a dispute (see Teach the Controversy). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a range between genuinely disputed areas (e.g. acupuncture), marginally disputed areas and areas only disputed by fringe elements (e.g. evolution, or the roundness of the earth for that matter). There are also areas, however, that are clearly not pseudoscientific (e.g. meditation, ball lightning, subliminal perception) on this list. Whether the latter two exist or not is an ongoing scientific question; to prejudge this is bad science. The Wikipedia entry on ball lightning certainly indicates that there is serious scientific research on the question.

The article says of the areas listed: "a majority of the work ... done in them (or having been done) is of a pseudoscientific nature." This claim is not proven for quite a number of the items, either here or in the corresponding articles. In fact, several of them assert that the contrary is true; that serious work is ongoing. An unsupported claim should either be dropped or proven. If the article is simply a collection of everything skeptic groups, or even single individuals, (both of which are by definition not neutral) consider pseudoscientific, it should be clear about this too.

The terminology and qualifications for being listed should be brought into line. Hgilbert 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you make some good points there. I think the question we have to ask here is along the lines of what this list should be, rather than simply what it is or what it says it is. Once we decide on that, we can rework all sections as appropriate. Personally, I believe the article should include any subject for which the pseudoscientific research into it is notable and not in an extreme minority (and we should of course describe this in the comments about it). My reasoning is simply that if there's significant pseudoscientific research into Ball lightning, for instance, it would make sense for it to be linked from here, no? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this approach, but the list's name and the introduction should then be changed. You can't include ball lightning in a list of pseudosciences, or assert that it is a pseudoscience, when there is ongoing and genuine scientific research into the subject. Let's decide what we want and then title and introduce it accordingly. A broadly inclusive policy will require a title such as "List of concepts critiqued as pseudoscientific". Hgilbert 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We've gone back and forth on this title a lot in this article. If you haven't already, it might be a good idea to go over some of the archives to see what's lead to the current title. I'll probably do that myself as well, since I wasn't around when this last change was made. After that, we can possibly restart discussion on it if you still feel the need. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Questioning topics' inclusion

All right, I've gone through the recent archives and the arbitration proceedings. Some questions: First of all, I cannot see many of the footnotes (those formatted like this: {{ref|[S]}}. They are invisible to my browser somehow. Do they exist?

I see problems that remain with the following areas:

1. Scientific areas. The following belong to science, not pseudoscience.
   1. Ball lightning. This appears to have once been questioned but now accepted by scientific authorities.[2]
   2. Hypnosis. This certainly happens. There are no citations either here or in the hypnosis article to support its listing here.
   3. Multiple personality disorder. Clearer description that it is not the disorder, but paranormal explanations of the disorder that are in question.

1. Non-scientific areas. These are not pseudoscience, but non-science. I propose removing the following items from the list; they are as inappropriate here as "Jainism" would be.
   1. Meditation
   2. Reincarnation

In some cases, there are citations in this article supporting a topic's scientific foundation, but none supporting the claim that they are pseudoscientific or undermining this foundation!!! I have fact-tagged these items.

Finally, whatever standard the article applies, documentation needs to be present as to how the topic meets this standard. Hgilbert 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Allow me to be of service. Please check out Wikipedia's policy for Stand-Alone lists. Please pay close attention to the "Lead and Selection Criteria" portion of the policy which begins: Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the present lead section meets that criterion. Hgilbert 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. From my perspective, it reads a little ambiguously. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I reread the lead section, and there are some issues. The last paragraph is self-contradictory about hypnosis, for example:

[Subjects] are included, however, in that a majority of the work being done in them (or having been done) is of a pseudoscientific nature. For instance, while many proposed explanations for hypnosis are pseudoscientific, the phenomenon is generally accepted as real and there are scientific explanations for it as well

Is the majority of work pseudoscientific or is the phenomenon generally accepted as real?Hgilbert 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Hence the ambiguity. I truly believe that this list would be more maintainable if you limited it to items which only notable bodies of scientists have declared as pseudoscientific. I think including the opinions of certain skeptic organization muddies inclusion criteria with politics rather than pure science. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A little like listing "Communists" on the basis of the Committee for Un-American Activities' work? Hgilbert 11:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As absurd as it may sound, that isn't a bad analogy at all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ball Lightning

I would like to call into question the reasoning for adding the ref tag to the ball lightning entry. What would properly satisfy the editor in question who added the tag in order to have it removed? There are numerous ref's that can added from the ball lightning entry to support the anecdotal evidence, but is it really worth adding more ref's to the page that already has a ton? From reading through the ref's on the entry, there does not seem to be a single entry that discusses more than 2 specific instances. Thoughts? Cheers!!! Baegis 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Both in the main article and in this list entry, there is documentation that ball lightning exists and is a matter of scientific study. However, there is no documentation in either location that documents why it should be included in a list of pseudosciences. (Anecdotal evidence is not per se pseudoscientific.) Hgilbert 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There are accounts of people claiming to have seen ball lightning, but I would not go as far as saying that there is documentation of it existing. As you mentioned, anecdotal evidence is does not qualify it has pseudo-scientific but it also doesn't make a good case for its existence. The scientific community may be leaning towards acknowledging its existence but until it can be replicated, it is still an area shrouded in controversy. As to its inclusion on this list, I have my doubts. I guess it all depends on the the lead. And from how it reads now, I think that ball lightning might warrant exclusion. Cheers!!! Baegis 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The entry in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience merely states that evidence is anecdotal and varied explanations are given; it does not use any term related to pseudoscience. Nor is it up-to-date; the more recent scientific consensus is that it exists, and the phenomenon is now better understood. The entry should be removed. Hgilbert 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedia labels it an "important pseudoscientific concept." Also, the list item and the cited article don't say outright that ball lightning doesn't exist. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind Simoes, could you point me in the direction of the particular entry you are referring to above. With the ref's being busted, it doesn't help to support anyone's particular case right now and I would like to read it, if possible. Cheers!!! Baegis 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Volume 1, Section 1 (Important Pseudoscientific Concepts) of The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. The article is on page 48. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

While I don't doubt the entry in the SEoP, I do have to ask why a mention of pseudoscience is nowhere present on the actual Ball Lightning entry, yet it is included here. Methinks that if it did qualify as pseudoscience, it would warrant a mention on it's own page. Thought we should discuss that on the talk page for Ball Lightning, we need to address that problem here as well. Baegis 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, for this article, we have it properly sourced, so it should stay in. You do raise a good point that we should probably then include this information at Ball lightning, but this doesn't mean we should remove the entry from here until that's done. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about it meeting the current criteria. I have therefore moved ball lightning to a section for natural phenomena for which there is only anecdotal evidence, and have therefore been doubted by skeptics, but which mainstream science does not question. Hgilbert 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

References

As mentioned above, many of the references in this article seem not to function (those formatted with {{ref}} templates, in particular). Shall we remove them, or does someone know something I don't? Hgilbert 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to replace dead links with requests for citations if there is no other solution. Hgilbert 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think someone broke these references along the way. I'll fix it in a bit. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems we have at least 55 refs but we only show 49 in the reflist. Some of the refs are formatted as such: {{ref|[S]}}. Is this a problem? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Title

If we stay with the current criteria for entries in this list, I suggest that we change the article title. The situation with ball lightning makes this evident; try this topic in Google Scholar and a host of scientific studies of the phenomenon come up, including book length works. The New Scientist article cited above makes it evident that there is no longer serious doubt about the existence of the phenomenon, only about its cause. The Wikipedia Ball lightning article records no dispute about the topic's scientific validity. Yet, because it is (apparently) mentioned in a single skeptical work, probably with no citations at all to document its pseudoscientific nature, it can be included in this list.

If an area of serious scientific study can be listed here on such a basis, then the list's title cannot claim that its entries are definitively pseudosciences - only that someone, somewhere, has claimed this, even if the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly against that individual or body. How about "List of topics ever termed pseudoscientific"? Then we get to include psychoanalysis, cryogenics, Zen and sunspot cycles (all in Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience). Hgilbert 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

From the article: "Finally, some of these items are not considered pseudoscientific in and of themselves: only certain aspects, explanations, and/or applications of them. See an item's description text for more information on this" Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are, of course, areas like this, and we should be careful to avoid tainting a field with a tar brush meant for certain of its interpreters. This may need review, as well; are we careful enough with this distinction for the general reader?

I was discussing a more general divergence between the criteria for inclusion and the title, however. If one hundred scientists have done serious work in a field but one skeptical writer has called the field pseudoscience, the field qualifies for inclusion here according to the list's criteria. But it is not verifiable to call the field a pseudoscience, merely a field someone has once mentioned in this context. That's different than a list of verifiably pseudoscientific fields, meaning there is a broader consensus than a single individual in a contested area.

Note that I am not here concerned about areas where there is a broad consensus towards pseudoscience except for a few fringe supporters/investigators. I am concerned about areas where there is a broad consensus toward science but a few fringe skeptics. This seems to be the problematic situation where the article title implies a consensus that need not exist for inclusion here. Hgilbert 16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If one hundred scientists have done serious work in a field but one skeptical writer has called the field pseudoscience, the field qualifies for inclusion here according to the list's criteria. - Well, that depends. Are these scientists or "scientists"? You really have to be careful these days, especially with many pseudoscientific endeavors getting scientific funding. But anyways, it's not just one skeptical writer that's required, it's a notable skeptical writer. It has to be someone who's earned respect as a skeptic (as an easy measure, they should probably have a Wikipedia entry which makes mention of this aspect of them). Even in this case, if you can source significant dissent from this opinion (by other sources which meat the same criteria), then it might be reasonable to not include an entry. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the situation with ball lightning. It appears to be a subject of considerable serious scientific research - there are pages and pages of book-length and journal treatments on Google Scholar. But one encyclopedia appears to consider it pseudoscientific, and this apparently solely because people have seen the phenomenon often (which is all anecdotal evidence means). We only have analytical evidence that things fall down when dropped, for example, but gravity is not considered pseudoscience. Hgilbert 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought one of the guiding principles of Wiki was that all notable viewpoints must be presented. How can an article that simply requires one source to state as fact that something is an example of X, irrespective of how many competing (better? more authoritative?) sources exist, and without even mentioning the existence of those sources, itself be allowed to exist? The title should be changed to "things that have been called pseudoscience." As things stand the article is little more than a piece of POV pushing sleight of hand.Davkal 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the point. Hgilbert 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should come up with a sort of litmus test to evaluate a claim for inclusion on this list. There are obvious pseudo topics (creationism, magnet therapy) but there are other topics whose qualifications have to be questioned. I really do think that it all comes back to how the Lead introduces the topic. I will work on something that will hopefully give a more concrete definition for inclusion in the list. Cheers!!! Baegis 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And then let's make sure the title reflects the criteria. Hgilbert 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea: all that needs to happen is a careful evaluation of all reliable sources. If the sources that evaluate a subject to be pseudoscience are more mainstream and more reliable than the sources which claim it isn't pseudoscience then we should include it in the article. Otherwise, I think we shouldn't. ScienceApologist 14:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics?

I don't personally consider eugenics to fall under the definition of "pseudoscience" proper, but it is often, often referred to as such. My thoughts on it might be that it could fall into a somewhat separate category here, if others agreed: things often referred to as pseudoscience, often because specific historical forms of it engaged in what we might call pseudoscience in retrospect, but depending on the current definition of the term may or may not fall under any strict definition of pseudoscience. But maybe that is a bit too wordy. Anyway, just a thought I had. --24.147.86.187 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ours is not to question why, ours is but to report what reliable sources say on the matter. Simply put, we have a source for the claim that eugenics is a pseudoscience, so it goes in. Counteracting this based on our own beliefs is original research. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually see eugenics listed on this page. Baegis 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthroposophy POV-pushing

I understand that User:Hgilbert is a fan of anthroposophy, so that may explain why anthroposphy was so unduly characterized with kid gloves. In particular, the evaluation of the sources discussing this subject was obviously biased. Classifying anthroposophy under the categorization of "conflicting studies" is quite disingenuous as the subject has absolutely zero support from the scientific community for its pseudoscientific aspects. ScienceApologist 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? So far as I know, there is also zero criticism of anthroposophy from the scientific community. The skeptical sources used here are not scientific ones. The article quoted a verifiable source stating that there were conflicting philosophical evaluations of claims that inner experience can be treated with similar scientific rigor as outer experience; this source was removed without justification by the above editor. POV-pushing, i.e. excluding certain POVs and pushing others, is indeed out of place here. So are personal attacks. Hgilbert 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Before this begins an edit war, which it looks like it might, let's discuss this on the talk page a little. What do ya say? Raise a pint and talk a bit? Baegis 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the source referenced to include anthroposophy and anthroposophic medicine in this article, the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. As far as I can see, the relevant article does not refer to either of the two as pseudoscience, nor does it use any phrasing equivalent to this. At the moment, including the two in this list appears to be Original research. The articles are written by a person with no academic qualifications; the only critical commentary in the article - which has nothiing to do with pseudoscience - is cited to a self-published website. I'm not clear how this is an encyclopediac source, and it clearly does not support the entry here. Hgilbert 02:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I humbly recommend that User:Hgilbert cease from editing this page as his direct association with anthroposophy is a direct conflict of interest. Typical of many advocates who dislike seeing their pet ideas labeled as pseudoscience, Hgilbert has decided to attack the source of the criticism rather than acknowledge the marginalization of his particular belief per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I note also that the sources used to claim that there is "inconclusive" or "active research" in regards to the subject are themselves highly biased meta-studies that are not published in journals devoted to scientific experimentation. ScienceApologist 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How about instead of having an editor leave, we follow through with evaluating the sources on each side in order to find out it's inclusion. In going with what SA mentioned earlier, "all that needs to happen is a careful evaluation of all reliable sources. If the sources that evaluate a subject to be pseudoscience are more mainstream and more reliable than the sources which claim it isn't pseudoscience then we should include it in the article." Lets evaluate the sources for each so that we can not only have a well-sourced claim but we can evaluate the criterion for inclusion. Baegis 15:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to say that Hgilbert should leave, only that he should be judicious in how he edits this article considering his conflict of interest. I encourage him to give some input here, but I don't expect that his association with anthroposophy will enable him to fairly characterize the subject. ScienceApologist 15:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest with Baegis that we need to evaluate the arguments on their merits. We seem to have one source that does not support what it is claimed to support here, and is an article written by someone who has no professional or academic standing in the field. We have another source, which does support what it is claimed to support, is published by a mainstream academic publishing house, and is written by someone who is a recognized expert in the field. Please correct me if this summary is in any way incorrect. Hgilbert 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem with using the writings of someone so closely connected to the field is that they have a vested interest in seeing that their field is portrayed in a good light. A sort of appeal to authority, if you will. Baegis 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, could you be more specific to whom you are referring, that is, which of the cited sources "has a vested interest"? Merci, EPadmirateur 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The "recognized expert" in the field. Baegis 17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be so dense: do you mean Hgilbert or Robert Todd Carroll? Hgilbert is an editor and not a cited source. The sources he cites are reliable and authoritative as far as I can see. If you mean Hgilbert, then you are really questioning the motives of an editor: I think we need to assume good faith in such cases. If you mean Carroll, I believe Hgilbert raises a question about Carroll as a reliable source, so that's what needs to be discussed. --EPadmirateur 19:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the justification for this edit which removed several statements and references with the justification being "material was used because it was cherry-picked and unreliable". I don't understand the reasons given. ScienceApologist, can you be more specific what problems you have with the citations of von Rohr et al., Edzard Ernst, Alm et al., and Carlo Willmann? They all look like reliable, authoritative sources to me and support the statements that you removed. Merci, EPadmirateur 17:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, those sources are not directly relevant to the question of whether anthroposophy is pseudoscience or a based on pseudoscientific concepts. Perhaps "unreliable" is not the right word: "irrelevant" may have been better. These sources discuss what may be perceived by some to be positive benefits of aspects of anthroposophy. There, indeed, may be many positive benefits for lots of pseudoscientific beliefs. Indeed, the placebo effect of people associating their magnetic bracelets with pain relief is very real: that does not mean that the process of creating a magnetic therapy bracelet is therefore scientific. See the problem? ScienceApologist 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's take one at a time: von Rohr, et al. is a peer-reviewed paper by mainstream medical doctors, statisticians, etc. in a recognized Swiss medical journal which characterizes anthroposophical medicine specifically as "complementary" and not alternative: "Anthroposophical cancer treatment is applied in a complementary (additional to conventional medicine) rather than an alternative way." (p. 1183). This is a reliable source and gives a more authoritative characterization of anthroposophical medicine, I believe, and it justifies the use of that term to characterize anthroposophical medicine, as Hgilbert had it worded.

Furthermore, the article states "Our main conclusion is that theoretically it is possible to find study designs which respect the holistic character of alternative or complementary cancer treatments and at the same time, produce methodologically correct evidence on treatment effectiveness. But we have also learnt that unexpected obstacles do occur, which made progress difficult." (p. 1183). This study is therefore quite relevant to whether anthroposophical medicine can be studied scientifically, and indeed the authors conclude that such studies can "produce methodologically correct evidence on treatment effectiveness", although there are obstacles that need to be overcome in such studies. So I think citing the von Rohr et al. study would be quite relevant to this article to achieve a neutral point of view and should not be deleted. --EPadmirateur 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Ernst 2004 citation, Hgilbert said "No thorough scientific analysis of anthroposophical medicine generally has been undertaken; studies of individual medicines have shown a range of positive and negative results." May I suggest a more recent and comprehensive review of controlled trials of anthroposophical medical complementary cancer therapy (Kienle and Kiene, 2007. Complementary cancer therapy: A systematic review of prospective clinical trials on anthroposophic mistletoe extracts. European Journal of Medical Research, 12:103-119.) [3]? This study was done by two medical doctors for a peer-reviewed medical research journal, so it should be acceptable as a reliable source. Their conclusions are: "Regarding quality of studies and consistency of results, the best evidence for efficacy of mistletoe therapy exists for improvement of QoL and reduction of side effects of cytotoxic therapies (chemotherapy, radiation). Survival benefit has been shown but not beyond critique." In other words, of the 16 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 9 non-randomized CTs (n-RCTs) that were considered, the best studies showed that there was good evidence for the efficacy of the AM mistletoe therapy in improving quality of life (QoL) and reducing side effects. There was also evidence suggesting an improvement in survival but some of these studies could be criticized.

I'm not suggesting that these results be cited in this article, only that there are reliable sources (this one and the "better" studies that it cites) that suggest a countervailing view, namely that anthroposophical medicine is not pseudoscience. The efficacy of AM therapies can indeed be, and are, studied with scientific rigor. In fact, I believe that point warrants moving the anthroposophical medicine entry back to the Disputed subjects section, because the question is in dispute. --EPadmirateur 05:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Alm et al. (1999) Lancet study, Hgilbert stated "An 'anthroposophic lifestyle' has been shown to reduce atopy." Lancet articles are certainly reliable sources. Again, may I suggest a more recent study following on from this 1999 study, namely, Flöistrup, et al. (2006). Allergic disease and sensitization in Steiner school children. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 117(1), 59-66. Reprint copy? This study is a similarly reliable source from a peer-reviewed scientific journal authored by 16 MDs, PhDs and ScDs, involving 6,630 children age 5 to 13 in five European countries, which concluded that certain practices of anthroposophical doctors, such as restrictive use of antibiotics and antipyretics, are significantly associated with a reduced risk of allergic disease in children. Again, it's not the study's result that need be cited but the fact that the practices of anthroposophical doctors can be, and are, studied scientifically and their efficacy judged. So again, the question whether anthroposophical medicine is pseudoscience is in dispute, based on reliable sources. The requirement to maintain a neutral point of view means that the viewpoint that anthroposophic medicine is not pseudoscience be given due weight. Again, I would suggest that anthroposophic medicine be placed in the Disputed subjects section. --EPadmirateur 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Carlo Willmann (2001) reference, Hgilbert stated "The possibility of such a systematic [scientific analysis of inner experience] is disputed and the question remains unsettled." The anthroposophy article contains the following statement: "Anthroposophy aims to attain in its investigations of the spiritual world the precision and clarity of natural science's investigations of the physical world. Whether this is a sufficient basis for anthroposophy to be considered a 'spiritual science' has been a matter of controversy.", citing this same source. I don't have a copy of this book. The citation on the book at Google books says that it was Willmann's doctoral thesis at the University of Vienna. The book's bio say that he studied theology. The publisher (Boehlau Verlag in Germany) is a mainstream publisher. Therefore I contend that the Willmann source is a reliable source, being a doctoral dissertation in theology from a major university. Hgilbert may want to quote what Willmann says more specifically, but if a PhD dissertation contends that the question of scientific analysis of inner experience is "unsettled" or a "matter of controversy", that ought to be enough to warrant inclusion of Hgilbert's original statement in the Mysticism, religion and belief section, if this countervailing viewpoint is to be given due weight. --EPadmirateur 06:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The cited encyclopedia labels it an "important pseudoscientific concept." I'm not sure what else you could want. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of the two encyclopedia articles (on anthroposophy and anthroposophical medicine), neither of which contains the statement you cite. Could you be more specific about where you found this statement?

In any case, the author of the article has neither expertise nor qualifications in any related field, nor does he cite any author with such expertise or qualfications. In addition, if known POV bias on a subject excludes use here he must be rejected on this basis. Carlo Willmann both has such qualifications and also cites further sources, both non-anthroposophical (Dr. Heiner Barz, a professor of education) and anthroposophical (Kiersch, etc.) that support the contention that the claims of anthroposophy to a scientific methodology are taken seriously, even defended by established academic authorities not themselves connected to anthroposophy. Hgilbert 11:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Please follow Wikipedia standards for reliability and verifiability. Unless a source does not conform to these, please do not remove it arbitrarily (i.e. because it contradicts your POV). In addition, when an active discussion is in hand, it is bad manners to peremptorily take one-sided action. Hgilbert 11:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could give the reader some basis in comparing the worth of the various sources. For example, the author of the Skeptic's Encyclopedia articles quoted here was denied standing as an expert witness on that very subject in a California court of law. In fact, the judge expressed "'grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including anthroposophy'" (from the trial transcript). Shall we continue to compare the strength of the sources? Or just include this last quote in the article so that the reader can make up his/her own mind? Hgilbert 13:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Expert witness on what exactly? What was the case in question? Baegis 16:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessing & Rating Sources

Above a few editors suggest we should assess the various sources on offer and decide which are the most reliable and/or authoritative and then come to decision here, on that basis, about whether something is or is not pseudoscience. The editors further suggest that once that decision has been reached here, the less authoritative/reliable sources (in our view) should be ignored completely and the article should then state (as fact) only that viewpoint that we have decided here is the most authoritative/reliable source.

This runs directly counter to Wiki policy in at least two ways. First, it is almost the definition of original research. That is, we research the topic, we assess the evidence, we assess the credibility/authority/reliability of the sources, and we then write our conclusions into the article as fact. Second, it runs roughshod over the notion that all notable viewpoints should be expressed. That is, it means that once we have decided what the truth is, we cherry pick those sources we used for our decision and pretend that competing viewpoints/sources don't exist.

On both counts, then, the proposal should be roundly rejected. The problem here is not solved by coming up with new ways to circumvent Wiki policy. The problem here stems from the fact that whether something is or is not a pseudoscience is not a straightforward matter of fact, but is instead, at best, a complex value judgment. And when we add to that problem the problem of the various meanings/uses of "pseudoscience" (one fairly tight definition that includes almost nothing, one fairly loose one that includes almost everything including many sciences, and one that is simply thrown about as a pejorative by various professional "skeptics"), we can begin to see the underlying difficulties with the article as a whole. That is, the title suggests that there is a list to be compiled in a fairly straightforward manner, but the actuality shows that there isn't.

My suggestion, then, is: change the title to "Things that have been labeled pseudoscience", and then in each case state explicitly in what sense something has been so labeled; or else give it up. Anything else is, as stated above, a mere piece of POV pushing sleight of hand. Davkal 13:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a name change to the article. It seems to me you are pushing towards wanting to nominate this article for deletion. If that is what you want to do, it is your right, but I don't think it will be a successful move. I'm not sure if you are talking about Science Apologist's idea or not, but I am going to assume you are for the sake of this. His idea doesn't run counter to any Wiki policy of which I am aware. For every contentious article, you have to weigh the different sources for each viewpoint. We are not conducting original research by any means. These "skeptics" you mention do not throw about the term pseudoscience and I think you are mistaken when thinking they include any actual sciences under this banner. In going with what the lead mentions, it establishes the criteria for inclusion. Baegis 16:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Nobody was saying that sources don't have to be weighed and appropriate levels of coverage given in the article - this is the essence of Wiki policy. The reason the proposal above runs completely counter to this is that the suggestion there is to weigh the sources here (on the talk page) and then write the article from the viewpoint of only the "winning" source" - the "losing" sources being left unrepresented in the article. This, as noted, is the antithesis of presenting all notable viewpoints because it is the explicit removal of some/many notable viewpoints/sources in order to present a seemingly factual situation in the article (i.e., x is pseudoscience) where no such certainty exists in actuality. The whole point of including all notable viewpoints being to prevent this kind of thing.

2. "Skeptics" such as Robert Carroll and Michael Shermer do throw the word "pseudoscience about as a pejorative and this article does even worse. That is, things are included in this article on no other basis than they are included in a book called the 'encyclopedia of pseudoscience' - a title that was probably chosen for it's rhetorical appeal rather than any actual analysis, carefully considered or otherwise. How else can one explain the inclusion of "trolls, elves and pixies" in such a book. And this is why there is a pressing need for the sense in which "pseudoscience" is being used to be explained in each case - the refusal to do this, or even to acknowledge the appallingly loose manner in which some items have been deemed pseudoscience is the clumsy piece of sleight of hand referred to above. It's not that far removed from having a list called "people born out of wedlock" and including in it everyone who (my friends) have ever called a bastard. That this is being done is amply illustrated in the "ours is not to reason why" response which is so regularly used to respond to anyone questioning anything in the list. Davkal 17:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)