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 Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience 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.

WP:PSCI

As reminded at the top of this Discussion page, this article should only contain examples which are Obvious Pseudosciences or concepts which are Generally Considered Pseudoscience. Osteopathy and Chiropractic are neither. See WP:FRINGE/PS for more detail of this threshold. 67.127.101.127 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

These two forms of quack alternative medicine have pseudoscientific aspects, but I have to agree with the IP editor that they are probably best left out of the list. Neither are "obviously" pseudoscience, although they have been characterized as such. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It is always hard to draw a line between pseudoscience and things "characterized as pseudoscience". See, for instance this thread and this mediation case, resulting, so to speak, in the current state of the article, containing the said examples as PS. DVdm (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The MedCab case referenced does not relate to this article. I can see the confusion though. The article it does refer to is a list of disciplines/ideas "characterized" as a pseudoscience but are not necessarily obvious pseudosciences nor necessarily generally considered pseudosciences. This article on the other hand is making a de facto claim that the list are examples of pseudosciences. WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE/PS (referenced at the head of this discussion page precludes us from making such a de facto claim unless the members of the list fall into either the obvious pseudosciences bucket or the generally considered pseudosciences bucket. Osteopathy and chiropractic fall into neither and should thus be removed.

From User:SteveBaker on the MedCab case referenced: There is a subtle distinction between what would be in "List of pseudosciences" versus what is actually in "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" - that being that in the former list, we could weigh the evidence as to the number and reliability of sources that say that some topic is a pseudoscience versus those that might state that it is not. We could remove topics that were once characterized as pseudoscience yet are not considered mainsteam.

I think this comment nails the issue here on the head. The heading in question on this article is "Pseudoscientific concepts" and not the wishy-washy "Concepts characterized as pseudoscience". The section defines inclusion as: Examples of pseudoscience concepts, proposed as scientific when they are not scientific, are ... Thus this section makes it clear that the inclusion here means that the concept is a de facto example of pseudoscience. Therefore, including topics that are not "obvious pseudosciences" nor "generally considered pseudoscience" is not only a violation of WP:PSCI but also – and more important to integrity of Wikipedia – factually inaccurate. - 67.127.101.127 (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call. This deals with the difference between this article and the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. If this article were the only one dealing with the subject, then Wikipedia would be failing in its mission to document the sum total of human knowledge, which includes "characterizations". That's why we have the list. Together they cover the subject well and help to fulfill our goal here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And by this same rationale, in the "See also" section of this article, we should not include reference to "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" under the heading "Common examples". Members of that list article are not necessarily "common examples" of pseudosciences. While we should definitely maintain a link to the list article in the "See also" section of this article, the current heading is in violation of WP:PSCI and – more important – inaccurate. We should either change the heading or just move the list under the "Related concepts" heading.67.127.101.127 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. It's been so long since I've dealt with this subject that I hadn't even noticed it. I've fixed it. Hope it's good enough now. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Acupuncture is another discipline that is neither an "obvious pseudoscience" nor "generally considered pseudoscience". Thus, per WP:PSCI should not be included in the list here as such. Any arguments against removing it? 67.127.101.127 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm... nothing in wp:PSCI seems to speak about including or omitting it here in or from the list. The policy says that "inclusion of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate with the scientific view." I think that acupunture is indeed proportionally included with the scientific view in those medicine-related articles where it is mentioned. But that has nothing to do with this article. This is not a medine-related article. - DVdm (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It is generally considered as pseudoscience. See List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience where it is listed for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more specific in my PSCI reference... Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories. Acupuncture is not generally considered a pseudoscience. There are certain aspects of acupuncture which are indeed pseudoscientific but there there are aspect which are more scientific. I encourage everyone to read the very well written Wikipedia article Acupuncture which explains how acupuncture may be characterized as pseudoscience by some, but how there is also scientific evidence published in reputable journals supporting some of its claims. As discussed above, List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is where we list items which have merely been "characterized" as pseudoscience by some reliable source. However, in this article - as throughout the rest of Wikipedia - we have a higher threshold for inclusion. Referenced at the top of this discussion page, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE prohibit us from stating that something is a de facto pseudoscience unless it is indeed an obvious pseudoscience or it is generally considered pseudoscience. Acupuncture skirts the line of the latter, but if the authors of its Wikipedia article haven't been able to conclusively state that it is a pseudoscience, then I don't believe we should be categorizing it as such here. 67.127.101.127 (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture is generally regarded as a pseudoscience by the scientific community as is shown in the acupuncture article. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I see discussion in the Acupuncture article about 3 or 4 scientists characterizing Acupuncture as a pseudoscience; however, I also see discussion about it being endorsed by organizations such as WHO. What I am looking for is something like the authors of Phrenology have done... an outright statement: Phrenology is a pseudoscience. No one is arguing that it isn't. Phrenology is clearly therefore generally considered to be a pseudoscience. I am not seeing this kind of of de facto statement on Acupuncture but rather statements such as "so-and-so has characterized acupuncture as pseudoscience." If it is just a characterization then it belongs on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience but not on this article's examples of pseudosciences. 67.127.101.127 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The central basis for acupuncture is pseudoscience, and any endorsements given by organizations such as the WHO are based on placebo effects. I see no reason for removal. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is this statement supported? The central basis for acupuncture is pseudoscience The point being, I don't find acupuncture to be a helpful example in this article based on evidence from a well-regarded scientific publications (e.g. the Cochran systematic review) supported at least some of its claims. 67.127.101.127 (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In the article on acupuncture. A fistful of sources follows the line: "There is no anatomical or scientific evidence for the existence of qi or meridians, concepts central to acupuncture." It's quack medicine passing itself off as legitimate and scientifically-based, which is more or less a textbook pseudoscience. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we're treading on cultural and legal thin ice here. Insurance companies pay for it. The Chinese practice it. It's part of Taoism and other beliefs. This listing of acupuncture as a pseudoscience is at best vulgar and at worst... well, do I have to draw a picture? Gingermint (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Brian Dunning EL

An external link to Brian Dunning's web site was posted, removed, replaced, removed (by me, per BRD, with a note to discuss here). The page lists 15 points for identifying pseudoscience that may have some general utility. However, the site is also promotional, self-published and does not rise to WP:RS standards. Dunning's 15 points could be incorporated into the body of the article but each point would require proper citations which Dunning does not provide. I see no need to include a link to Dunning's site. Jojalozzo 14:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Brian Dunning (skeptic) appears to be a reliable-enough source for this purpose. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliability isn't the only issue - there are already several "how to spot pseudoscience" type links in the EL section (too many, in my opinion), so the Skeptoid link isn't adding anything new. The EL section isn't supposed to be a collection of links to any and all reliable sources that touch on the article's subject. The fact that the Skeptoid entries are self-published is a bit of a concern, too. Per WP:EL, the burden is on the person wanting to add a link to explain why it is necessary, not on the person who wants to remove a link. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jojalozzo. the Dunning list is interesting and the main points are commonly cited by Skeptics with broad brushes, but he has posted it as an opinion piece and that makes it original research and self-published. Those two point alone disqualify it from Wikipedia. If the offered references support his points, then those should be referred to. However, one, the book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal appears to be just the personal opinion of the author which is not otherwise very well researched. The other three authors are already well represented in this article and more would be just be using a proxy author to push a viewpoint.Tom Butler (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this website is also being discussed on RSN: [[1]]. Second of all, it's not only Dunning's list that is interesting and useful, but the whole site, as well, as it covers a wide range of pseudoscience and woo topics. It's incredibly useful to readers who want to explore. It's the best such comprehensive collection of articles on woo on the internet, and it's well known and trusted. The podcasts are well-writen and conscise, and pretty much represent the mainstream view. Dunning has certainly done his research, and is an excellent explainer. Most EL's are self-published, so that is not an important question here. He's more reliable than most such sites by far. I disagree that the site is "promotional". I think the link would be a valuable addition to the article, and that's coming from me, an ardent deletionist and spam-killer. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider Dunning's site promotional because it has a store, it promotes Dunning's broadcasts, Dunning's live shows, Dunning's videos and books, and it incorporates "tip Brian" requests for payment (albeit voluntary) in the middle of the articles. It is a commercial enterprise that will benefit financially from inclusion on Wikipedia. Jojalozzo 04:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I oppose his link being under external links and as a source. He's kind of just some guy with a vlog/podcast. Why use him? There's other people we could use. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Protoscience

The only thing referenced in the article is what is already in the pseudoscience article. I propose that Protoscience be redirected to pseudoscience. Comments to Talk:Protoscience#redirect_to_pseudoscience, cheers IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The last two sections of this article are badly in need of rewriting/editing. In their current state, they devolve into a poorly written, ungrammatical mess that pushes a decidedly non-neutral POV. They drag the entire article from "decent", well into "major suck" territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.59.118 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cold fusion?

My understanding is that cold fusion is generally considered to be the result of bad science or pathological science (Simon 2002) but not a case of pseudoscience. I'm sure there's a lot pseudoscience that has grown out of the scientific pursuit of CF but I don't think Fleischmann and Pons are considered to have participated in pseudoscience. Comments? Jojalozzo 02:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I cited a source, I'll admit that it's weak. If you want to revert the addition (and the addition of the source) I won't revert you. My knee jerk reaction was to the lack of edit summary. Anyway, not attached to the claim so totally your call. N^oformation ^Talk 09:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's enough crackpot work going on with CF now that we can keep it. Jojalozzo 14:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember this question coming up several times before, and there are a number of sources that call much of the work on it pseudoscience, but it's hard to deal with since it's such a broad term. a13ean (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a broad term. Though there are those who claim to have achieved it, there are theories that certainly ARE scientific and it is an ongoing study. I don't think it should be written-off as pseudoscience (although there have been pseudoscience claims attached to the study). Gingermint (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Economics as Pseudoscience

Should economics be included in the pseudosciences? Or mainstream economics at least? It seems to conform to many of the criteria of pseudoscience as listed in this article. And its role in the context of predicting recent events seems to be particularly dismal. However, I'm not aware of any particular sources that make the claim that economics is a pseudoscience. (If anyone is, perhaps they could add it with a citation.)89.100.37.108 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, without sources, it's, at best, your original research. Jojalozzo 21:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Economics may be infested with political and ideological biases, and often use mathematics in an attempt to pass as more scientific than it really is, and some sections, schools etc. may be especially questionable, but a blanket statement portraying economics as a whole as a pseudoscience is certainly excessive. It is doubtless possible to conduct sound research into economical phenomena and I don't think even the most critical observer would deny that any valid research is really done in that area.

As a comparison, I've often seen Chomskyan generative linguistics criticised for its over-reliance on theoretical constructs as well as overemphasis on Standard English and other widely-used written languages, and neglect (or ex post rationalisation) of empirical data, variations (through space, time and society), rare exceptions and exotic phenomena and anything that threatens its theoretical edifices, attempts to fit any inconvenient messy real-life data into a predetermined theoretical corset or Procrustes bed, or unrealistic or dubious assumptions (such as the nativist theory of language, the idealised speaker-listener and the competence vs. performance separation, the exclusion of context or pragmatical aspects, the neglect of conversational structures, language change, etc.), or lack of theoretical unity with dozens of competing variants (which is, admittedly, a general problem of linguistics), and personally, I think that the central assumption that natural languages are context-free just like formal languages and can therefore be studied using the same methods and tools is critically flawed. But even if you think that Chomskyan linguistics or other subfields, such as evolutionary or cognitive linguistics, are to some smaller or larger extent pseudoscientific or have pseudoscientific aspects, that would never invalidate linguistic research as a whole. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Whipping Boy

This has been an article ripe for anyone who really wants to promote their beliefs. I.e. this is pseudoscience or that is pseudoscience. I've eliminated a few things here and there to restore some semblance of POV before Democrats started listing Republican ideas as pseudoscience and vice versa! Also, there were several references of terribly dubious scientific nature and I've eliminated those, as well. 108.202.113.201 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edits appear to violate the neutrality policy and have been undone. CityOfSilver 23:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the content you removed was sourced to reliable sources, which are extremely important here. Do you have contrary sources we could look at which support your proposal? Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that this article is ripe for anyone who wants to promote their believes seems to fly in the face of the fat that this page has been around since 2002 and nothing like what you've mentioned has actually happened. See WP:BEANS and remember, if it ain't broke...SÆdon^talk 23:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that it won't happen. Well, it certainly is. Also, there is absolutely nothing wring with making this a reasonable article devoid of POV problems. At present the article has several and appears to be guarded rigorously by those with a definite agenda. I don't buy astrology or any number of things... but I know they are culturally imbedded in numerous countries. Any number of people in the Near East or Asia could (maybe rightly) regard this page as centric and another opportunity for Westerners to denigrate their cultural beliefs. Is it? Well, there is intent and there is appearance. At any rate, it is obvious that there are people editing this page that have very strong ideas and they certainly ARE using this page to promote their ideas Gingermint (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And the sources were hardly reliable. This is the problem when people who are not scientists try to edit a science article. They don't know a good source from a bad one. Gingermint (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Science is science all over the world, and in every culture. Astrology may well be a significant part of some folks' culture, but that cannot ever make it science. At BEST, it's pseudoscience. At worst, it's bullshit. It can be part of culture. But nowhere is it science. That's not POV. That's fact. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)