Talk:Pseudoscience

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

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

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Pseudoscience article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents the fields it lists as "pseudoscience" in an unsympathetic light or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

Notes to editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory. Please use edit summaries.

theoretical and practical perspectives

I paraphrased this from the Stanford article on science and pseudoscience. I think it would be a good frame for the article as it makes the distinction between the theoretical reasons and practical reasons. I think we could incorporate this into the current article even in the second paragraph in the introduction. Feedback would be appreciated...

The demarcation of science from pseudoscience can be considered from theoretical and practical perspectives. Theoretically, "the demarcation issue is an illuminating perspective that contributes to the philosophy of science in the same way that the study of fallacies contributes to the study of informal logic and rational argumentation. " Practically, the distinction is important to direct decision making process for individuals and the public in general. Due to the position of science as the most reliable source of knowledge in modern society, it has become commonplace for the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products to be exaggerated. It has become increasingly important to distinguish between science and that which simple appears superficially like science. The demarcation issue has been brought to the forefront of many disciplines such as health care (e.g. Pseudoscience produce inefficient and potentially dangerous interventions and, therefore, governments, insurers and patients need access to be able to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific medicine.), expert testimony (e.g. it is important that the facts that are accepted as evidence in course are based on the best available knowledge.), environmental policies (e.g. prevent hazards) and science education (e.g. adherents of creationism attempts to introduce it into school curricula).

---

Action potential ^talk_contribs 10:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's definitely some value in this, but I don't think this actually gets at the problem we have on wikipedia, so I'm not certain this will be of much help. The wikipedia problem is a conflict between conservative and radical interpretations of the demarcation problem. to explain: few people have any real problem distinguishing "real science" from "real pseudoscience" (the former is based in established theoretical models and supported by empirical results, the latter casts itself as superseding established theoretical models but cannot provide empirical evidence to back up that claim). There is, however, a vast gray area of theories and practices that rely on non-competing non-scientific models, or that haven't been evaluated scientifically in any meaningful way, or that have a partial list of minor positive empirical evidence, or... The conservative (scientific) interpretation of the demarcation problem ignores this gray area - it is neither science nor pseudoscience. the radical (political) interpretation either casts this grey area as pseudoscience or casts it as proto-science (depending on the inclinations of the advocate). How will this passage help resolve that? the passage seems to lean slightly towards skeptical advocacy (e.g., anything that does not represent 'best available knowledge' is pseudoscience). Is that true? --Ludwigs2 18:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That passage was really about the purpose for pseudoscience demarcation. The practical reasons does seem to lean towards advocacy. This could be highlighted. Later on in the article the source says: "This picture is oversimplified. All non-science is not pseudoscience, and science has non-trivial borders to other non-scientific phenomena, such as metaphysics, religion, and various types of non-scientific systematized knowledge." The author also discussed pseudoscience in the wider sense, that is any science that conflicts with "good" science. ----Action potential ^talk_contribs 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

ID meets the criteria for pseudoscience, and has no scientific backing. It is notable enough to be included, and should be.96.55.192.119 (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on which set of criteria are used. If our definition of pseudoscience refers only to Physical science, then you might have some thing there. Even so, better to attribute that viewpoint to a named source.

Also, one measure of pseudoscience is its "status", which means that a theory such an continental drift did meet the pseudoscience definition for a few decades. But it later became part of mainstream science. If I recall correctly, more of the change came from other scientists finally agreeing to compare theory with observation, than from theory proponents doing a better job of explaining or proving their theory.

I don't know if the 19th century counts - was that a "pre-scientific" era - but just consider the difficulty Semmelweiss had getting anyone to look at his work. On the basis that the mainstream according his ideas no scientific status at all (and other doctors hounded him out of the profession), his notion that an invisible substance might cause disease would qualify as pseudoscience - even though (A) it did correspond to physical reality, and (B) it wasn't subjective.

Let's be careful about our definitions, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A Question

Why is religion not considered a Pseudoscience? Generally speaking religion has little or no scientific backing and is generally based on the limited belief of those who are in a religion. Religion falls into many of the categories that define a pseudoscience:

"Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements." (As measurements are generally defined by those who experience religion)

"Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them)." (A.K.A. Heaven and Hell, soul, spirit)

"Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible." (Lack of proof, we make assumptions based on what we see or "feel")

"Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design." (How is a control even possible?)

"Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment."

"Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict[33]. Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience""

"Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa."

"Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience. This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification."

"Presentation of data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.[37] This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect." (Although this is not always true, this is done to a great extent by some members of religion.)

"Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to explain negative findings.[39]" (As is stated by an example "I bared my soul to God, and God has made me whole again")

"Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims." (Where is the proof?)

"Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[45] By contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence." (I admit that some progress has been made by religion, but very little has been made)

"Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[46]" (TA-DAAAAAA!!!! This is a big religion clincher.)

"Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[47]" (Calling those who disprove them "God-Haters", etc)

Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[48] (See above)

I have found that 13 of your 24 identifiers for pseudoscience identify religion as a pseudoscience. With this identification, can you either disprove or explain why religion is not considered a pseudoscience. 71.37.184.250 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

religion is not a science, and generally doesn't pretend to be a science, therefore it can't really be a pseudoscience, can it? There are better ways to bash religion if that's what you're after. --Ludwigs2 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not an attempt to bash religion, I would be thankful for you to be unassuming.216.161.218.170 (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No? then I fail to see what value any of it has at all, since it seems tautological. I mean the argument boils down to "anything which is not science is not science" which is tautologically true, but goes onto imply "therefore it must be pseudoscience" which is just plain silly. I mean, come on - replace the word 'religion' above with - say - the word 'baseball', and look:

• Makes assertions of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements - do you know how many specious statistics sportscasters pour out in the course of a baseball game?
• Failure to make use of operational definitions - how are RBI's and ERA's operationally defined within the context of predicting particular outcomes in a game?
• Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony - How many frigging stats does a baseball game need?
• Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design - double-blind baseball games are not a normal practice (though maybe they should be), and while I will grant that baseball works better as a sleeping pill than a placebo, I'm not sure that's helpful to your case.
• Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment - again, listen to any sports broadcast and count the number of unfalsifiable claims made (feel free to stop at ten, which you should reach before the 3rd inning)
• etc, etc.

Therefore baseball is pseudoscience. Now, try it with politics, the stock market, movie reviews, dog breeding... pseudosciences, all of them. There's no obvious reason to single out religion as being different from any of these other non-sciences, but since you do so single out religion you must have a non-obvious reason for doing so. What would that reason be, if not to engage in a bit of religion-bashing? --Ludwigs2 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another objection, apart from Ludwigs', is that not once did you define the concept of 'religion' and what it is. You offered plenty of fanciful quotes that contain ambiguous assertions regarding incoherently applied concepts but not once did you define the very concept you wanted to dissect. This is sloppy thinking and indeed appears more politically driven than anything regarding the philosophy of science and it's methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the poster that Religion DOES belong here, and that Ludwigs arguements are incorrect. Now, it is a little apparent that the poster does not like religion, but regardless of his baises, it is still fact. First off - the moment that Ludwig said "Religion does not pretend to be Science" made it apparent that he did not put any time into his thinking - and therefore his arguement that "all non scientific fields are non-science, and this they are pseudoscience" is wrong. Sure its true - we should not classify every non-scientific idea as pseudosciencem like Baseball - as he mentioned. Now baseball, THATS something that doesnt pretend to be science. And all pseudoscience fields aren't "pretending" - they either acknowledge that they don't follow the same protocols as rigourus scientific method, or (more likely) they really believe they ARE a science and ect...

And another person said that the poster did not "define" religion. Well that doesnt even make sense. First of all, why should he define it? Everyone knows what it is - and it doesnt have any single definition. The "definintion" of Bhuddism is nothing like Islam, for example. And many ideas that we call "Myth" or "Creation Myth" are, to many cultures, current and extinct, Religion. Such as the Great God Bumba, and the Greek and Roman Mythologies.

Religion does indeed pretend to be science - but they just don't walk around talking about how they are a science. They use the word "Religion" instead. But Religion and Science are almost identical in their fundamental goals - an explanation of the Universe, the Earth, Life, and Humanity.

That is pretty much everything Science is - Science has goals of establishing and a foundation and understanding on the origin of the Universe, the formation of Galaxies and Solar Systems, the formation and history of Earth, and its processes. The origin of life, of evolution and the early history of humanity. The study of Human consciousness and psychology. Philosophical sciences try to find meaning and reason to certain aspects of life - and underlying causes and types of morality and so on... Sciences aims to explain many other things as well - Lightning, Magnetism, Ocean Currents, Weather, Insects, Mating Habits, Communication, Politics, Law, Government, Health, Life and Death, and it goes on and on

Religion does the same thing - sure it has its differences, but the main objective of Religion throughout history is very much the same as science. Early religion was intended to give Humans and understanding of How they arrived on the planet - how the planet came to be, where the stars and the sun comes from and why they move in the sky. (Didn't Religions teach that the Earth was the center of the universe? Wrong or not, that is a scientific idea which requires scientific observation). Early religions even sought to explain things like lightning, rain, wind, weather, and so on. Some went so far as to credit the Gods for the answer behind Beauty, Lust, Jealousy, Love, and other emotions and traits.

The Current Religions, like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and the rest of them, are all different in their Story and Principles, but again - they share a common link between each other and Science.

For example - Christianity aims to explain the origin of the Universe and the Earth - the origin of Life and the Living Plants, Animals and Marine Creatures on the planet. The different types of life and why they are different. The origin of humanity and the answers behind life and death. It gives and explanation for human emotions, and for the reasons behind greed, suffering, poverty, ect... It also (especially a cpl hundred years ago) aimed to give the answers to poor health and disease, citing the need for spirtual healing and opposed to physical healing. Christianity explained the orbits of the planets around the sun due to Crystal Speheres, and offered the Geocentric universe. Things like morality, society, governing issues, politics, relationship and communications were ALL attempted to be answered by Religion.

And MANY MANY Religions then and TODAY offer schools that aside from religions learning, teach THEIR VERSION OF THE EVENTS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, TO THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND HUMANITY, TO TODAY - and I assure you THATS where the difference lies between Religion and Science, and what qualifies Religion as a pseudoscience.

Religion teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old, contrary to ALL evidence and research - that Evolution does not exist, again ignoring the overwhelming evidence. And Religion does not seek to gain this evidence, it does not have research labs that day in and day out try to prove the God-given unchanging clockwork of living things, or attempt to explain why Galileo was condemmed for saying the Earth moved in the sky - and why the even taught the Geocentric model when it was wrong, which they should have known because of the word of God cannot be wrong - instead, they just shift to the next unpovable theory and move on. They do not have files and files of evidence, and particle colliders, and rigorous research, and thousands of books of Mathematics backing their theories.

Mostly EVERYTHING that above poster said was true. And yes - he is baised and was doing a little religion bashing in the process. But youll see none of that in my post - only true statements.

I do not believe in Religion, and I believe they are wrong in their explanations for the universe and the origins of earth and life. For example - I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old, but christianity does teach it (and many other religions teach similar - I believe the oldest, withone exception, is that the universe is a few million years old. the exception is at least one religion i know of that believes its eternal). But like I said - there are true teachings of religion, and they REALLY do go against a MASSIVE collection of evidence. In many cases, especially christianity, they have tried to find proof (not of their own research, but by seeking out unanswered questions in science, such as Mercury's liquid core) of their claims, and in nearly all of those cases, the proof is either erroneous, or shows a heavy misunderstanding of the subject (croco-duck, enough said).

Making claims based on faith, based on un-proved past teachings, traditions, and so on... that make an attempt to explain scientific ideas such as the creation of the universe, the origins of life, the biology of life, and many other topics, without even coming close to the scientific method, would - by wikipedias definition of pseudoscience, certainly have religion fall into that category.

I will wait a little while, and if no one is convincing against these arguments, then I am adding a section for Religion (ALL religion, not just one or two, and all past ones as well).and if people complain and make good points, Ill change the article as needed and make sure there is no obvious bias in the actual article, because of course for me, I do not believe in Religion so some of that can show, and I certainly dont want that on the article.

Thanks173.62.181.145 (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:TLDR and WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages ("Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikireason proposal).")

I have not read your entire post because it is so long and doesn't appear to be very original. I am an atheist myself, but I agree with Ludwigs2 that religion is not pseudoscience. Otherwise you would have to include cooking in pseudoscience because the art of cooking is full of factual statements which are mere beliefs, in no way grounded in an observation of nature, and more often than not, wrong. A good example is the oft repeated claim that alcohol used in cooking evaporates completely. (In fact, most of it stays in the food.) Most religions have some pseudoscientific aspects, but that's not enough, because they are primarily about something else.

Of course, if you have a lot of contact with biblical literalists (creationists) and other religious fanatics, then you are going to see more of the pseudoscientific parts of religion, and they tend to stand out because they are so zany. But most religious persons in most parts of the world (America may be an exception) are able to keep religion (what makes them feel good) and science (what explains the world) apart very well, even though the figurative language they use when speaking about religion may obscure that fact. Hans Adler 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you guys keep comparing Religion to things like Cooking and Baseball? And why on EARTH would you comment on something you admitted that you didnt read - how can something "appear" non-original if you didnt read it? That to me shows that you are ignorant, 100% ignorant. What I said is not unoriginal or original - its not meant to be classified as either - its a part of a discussion agreeing with someones belief about an omission from the article. I look up to at this page, and yep - it says Talk:Pseudoscience. Alright - thats what I was doing, so no need to quote wikipedia rules... which is again strange because you didnt read what I wrote. I know I know, its long, it would take a whole... 2 or 3 minutes MAX to read it! I mean come on... in a generation of kids who find Fred from Youtube funny, masterbate while choking themselves, and playing Nintendo Wii, I could NEVER expect you to read something more than 5 sentences long.

So cooking - it is not like Religion, Cooking is about cooking - it makes no attempt at explaining the origin of life, the universe, and so on - read the above statement from me for more info. Cooking and Baseball have NOTHING to do with anything - they are aweful arguments against this idea, and all the more reason why Im preparing to add religion to this article. Not because I want to piss of religious people - but because its true. Religion makes attempts to explain almost every single thing Science attempts to explain - from why humans do what they do (philosophy) to allieviating ailments (medicine) to human history (anthropology) to the scope and creation of the universe (cosmology) and the solar system and other aspects of space (astronomy) to the origin of the Earth and its processess (geology) to the origins and explaintions of life (biology) to the process of life and death and what happens beyond (health science, psychology and philosphy) to the explanation of suffering, human behavior, and social concerns (sociology) to the creation of laws and morals (law and legal science) to the assisting of governing bodies (political science) and so on....

If anyone tried to dispute that religion has not made MAJOR attemtps in history, and in modern times to do the preceding, I will cite a guaranteed 10 different reliable examples of how that is been done for at least 90% of the above stated.

Why do you think Religion and Science Clash?????? Because they have NOTHING to do with each other? NO - of course not.

Why do you think Baseball and Religion have never clashed - or why no one ever wrote a book on the war of Cooking and Science and so on...

Religion and Science go hand in hand - and if Religion was EVER disproved, it would be by Sciece, and Science would take its place

if the Natural Sciences were ever disproved, it would be by Religion, and Religion would that its place.

You guys are going to have to do better than comparing it to cooking, which makes no sense, and not reading the articles, and calling me unoriginal. Someone can ACTUALLY give me a nice, educated, REAL example of why Religion should not be included, wonderful, I'd love to politely discuss with you - everyone else is wasting their time 173.62.181.145 (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Term

I've undone an anon's changes. The article is not about the "term". Also restored the "peer review" avoidance bit. Vsmith (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This was the second paragraphs... None of it is cited, and it all has it's own section in the wiki... I started to try and rewrite it to be less accusative, but it wasn't cited in the first place, its inapplicable & only makes the summary too confusing.

Pseudoscience is easily identified by the inherent lack of objectivity due in part to the observational bias of human abstractions. Such abstraction can be vague, exaggerated, misunderstood, unique to each individual & completely unobservable outside ones own subjectivity. This subjective mentality often leads to an over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, & suppressed theory development

--Lawstubes (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I liked most of your changes, but the first sentence was better as it stood previously. For one thing, we cannot assert that the reason an idea lacks scientific status is that it "fails to observed objective change within the physical universe [and] is subjective". There are many well-known cases where a theory succeeded in describing observed, physical changes objectively, but failed to achieve scientific status in various places and times. The history of science is filled with such examples, and philosophers of science have debated how to tell the difference between real science and pseudoscience. Not everyone agrees that it's as cut and dried as you made it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe what you are referring to is innovation... Science is founded on objective observation, whether through the use of preexisting law, or simply through observation, one can not observe in an unbiased manor unless they observe objectivity... I did cite the Encyclopedia Britannica... --Lawstubes (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

are you working for a black hole of something?--Lawstubes (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think you get it. The OBJECT must be observed by our subjectivity! All legitimate science is backed by an OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION that is subjectively unbiased. All Pseudoscience is the Subjective observation of Subjectivity. Only objective observation is seen by everyone, subjective is based in an individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

All you did was take out the explanation & made it vague —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead needs Organization

Repeated attempts too reorganize this page into manageable sections have been thwarted. IT would be appreciated if editors begin discussion here, and remember to use the "edit/summary" box when editing a page. Issues include:

Bias Lead

Article requires unbias lead. current lead is over defined and presents multiple viewpoints of the same concept. Such a topic as this can be adequately defined in a single sentence, such as the one by user:Lawstubes which was Pseudoscience is unverifiable, does not adhere to scientific methodology & consequently lacks its status; often presented in a scientific context by scientists, it appears scientific, but is not. This sentence contains all necessary info to classify the topic, WITHOUT BIAS! This is key in understanding the modification by lawstubes, it is, in fact unbias while the current lead is a number of different biases all mashed up into one. This is not to say the current lead is inadequate, only that it is overqualified for the job & should be categorized in an overview.

Sections

The current Lead has already been broken up into sections throughout the article, such as is already done in the sections interpretations & Etymology. Editors appear extremely attached to the current lead, and are denying its transformation into an overview, which would be ill advised as the article needs an overview section.

References/Citations

Certain references/citations within this article contain relevant subtext & this subtext should be embedded into the text of the article itself, rather than tucked away in a reference and USED by editors in bias manor.

Overall citation/reference oversight may be necessary, as there may be infringement...Not sure.

The Perfect Lead

Just to make it clear, I am not promoting myself, I wrote this because I recognized the necessity for such a modification. If you want to reword it, that is fine, but I wrote it with the help of an English Major... SO, yeah... The lead should be Pseudoscience is unverifiable, does not adhere to scientific methodology & consequently lacks its status; often presented in a scientific context by scientists, it appears scientific, but is not It says it all! Every source that is referenced as to this meaning, in the very first citation, is simplified in my rewrite. Furthermore I have already reorganized the example farm into sections, so you don't have to do that if you change the lead. I don't want to anymore because someone threatened an edit war. But I will probably sandbox the sanity back into this entire article.Lawstubes (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of article

I recently restored the article to the version prior to the flurry of (mostly) bad edits that it has seen over the past couple of days. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding how edits including material from the NSF and other reliable sources constitutes 'bad edits'. can you explain? --Ludwigs2 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All (nearly all?) of this was pasted in from elsewhere in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more careful breakdown of the removed content, recently added by IP (and removed by myself):

• Common knowledge: This is unsourced and poorly-written twaddle. The issue is expressed in a more encyclopedic fashion in the second paragraph of the "Background" section immediately before hand, and is sourced to H. G. Gauch.
• Oxford English dictionary: This is a word-for-word reproduction of the first sentence of the article. We don't need to have it stated a second time.
• Hansson, Sven Ove: This reproduces part of the contents of footnote 1 in the article. It is unclear how the article is improved by having this included as a separate subsection.
• Addison Wesley: This appears in the first footnote, and is clearly material suitable for a footnote, but is clearly inappropriate as a standalone paragraph of text.
• National Science Foundation: Again, part of the first footnote.
• In Education and Laudan, Larry: A copy of the second paragraph of the article.
• Hurd, P. D.: A copy of the third paragraph of the article.
• Etymology: Again, a copy of content from the lead.

If there is no objection, I think these should once again be removed. At least someone should make a case for their inclusion and, with the exception of the first item, near exact duplication of the contents of the lead paragraph. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit reluctant to use a baseball analogy, but as currently written the section has three content-policy strikes on it, so it's out. It's got POVs, failed or nonexistent V's, and lots of OR. And it's a mess. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed newly-added material, placed here for analysis and comment

I've removed the newly placed section on "Interpretations". Such a section might well be a good idea--don't know. But this is presently a complete mess, full of OR, stuff that's not in the associated citations, POVs (especially first subsection), redundancies from the rest of the text, formatting errors, etc. Here it is, immediately below. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The previous section addresses some of these concerns. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

==Interpretations==

===Common Knowledge===

A pseudoscience fails to meet any combination of the four basic scientific principles. Firstly, Science is observing what is outside our selves. Next, Science is taking these observations and replicating them. Then, Science is experimentation with these replications. Finally, Science is the Knowledge we gain from these processes. Science must include all four of these principles. Taking part in any of these aspects is considered to be scientific research. However, Science is often poorly defined. For this reason, many individuals do not even fully understand what science is.

===Oxford American Dictionary===

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

===Hansson, Sven Ove===

Hansson, Sven Ove (1996). “Defining Pseudoscience”, Philosophia Naturalis, 33: 169–176, as cited in "Science and Pseudo-science" (2008) in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Stanford article states: "Many writers on pseudoscience have emphasized that pseudoscience is non-science posing as science. The foremost modern classic on the subject (Gardner 1957) bears the title Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. According to Brian Baigrie (1988, 438), “[w]hat is objectionable about these beliefs is that they masquerade as genuinely scientific ones.” These and many other authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996): (1) it is not scientific, and (2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific".

===Addison Wesley===

For example, Hewitt et al. Conceptual Physical Science Addison Wesley; 3 edition (July 18, 2003) ISBN 0-321-05173-4, Bennett et al. The Cosmic Perspective 3e Addison Wesley; 3 edition (July 25, 2003) ISBN 0-8053-8738-2; See also, e.g., Gauch HG Jr. Scientific Method in Practice (2003).

===National Science Foundation===

A 2006 National Science Foundation report on Science and engineering indicators quoted Michael Shermer's (1997) definition of pseudoscience: '"claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility"(p. 33). In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation"(p. 17)'.Shermer M. (1997). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.as cited by National Science Board. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics Template:Title=Science and engineering indicators 2006

• "A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have," from the Oxford English Dictionary, second edition 1989.

===In Education===

As taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.

===Laudan, Larry===

The term is inherently pejorative, because it is used to assert that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science, and those labeled as practicing or advocating it normally dispute the characterization.

===Hurd, P. D.===

Pseudoscience has been characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development. There is disagreement among philosophers of science and commentators in the scientific community as to whether there is a reliable way of distinguishing pseudoscience from non-mainstream science. Science educator Paul DeHart Hurd wrote that part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to tell science apart from "pseudo-science, such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition", but philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend argued that it was unrealistic and pernicious to insist that science run according to fixed and universal rules. The philosopher Karl Popper wrote that science often errs and that pseudoscience can stumble upon the truth, but what distinguishes them is the inductive method of the former, which proceeds from observation or experiment, and that its theories are falsifiable.

Possible Copyright Violations

I notice that the Oxford Dictionary is extensively referenced in this article. I can only find information pertaining to the Oxford Online dictionary, however I don't 'think' the policy would be any different. Someone needs to double, triple, quadruple check this, and if my assumption is correct, remove all references containing text from the Oxford dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The OED is quoted briefly in a footnote of the first paragraph. Copyright law in the United States allows for brief qoutes such as these under fair use. Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind also that the qoutes are for verification purposes, and should probably be kept for this reason. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Improvement PLEASE

It appears to me that we need to simplify the lead to contain a more straightforward explanation. Break it into different categories, such as etymology, origin, controversy, opinions , interpretations & so on. The basic explanation of a pseudoscience is pretend/false science. Although, this should not be all that is stated in the lead, I can not ignore that the current lead is redundant. Repeating the same paraphrased interpretation of pretend/false science in two or three ways, emphasizes the word origin rather than meaning, is poorly transcribed & therefore is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead should emphasize the importance of Observation of Objective phenomena (in SCIENCE) rather than subjective views (of pseudoscience). This should be done in such a way that the following EXAMPLES such as metaphysics, Astrology, Religion, Alchemy, Phrenology need no explanation as to WHY they fall into the category pseudoscience. Perhaps, further detailing possible scientific status, if the context of such practices would submit to scientific method & accept terminology such as "theory", yet in such cases as religion, this is not likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)