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

	; Archives
	Archive 19
	;
	This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
	Archive 1: 2003 — August 2006; Archive 2: August 2006 — December 2006; Archive 3: December 2006 — March 2007; Archive 4: March 2007 — April 2007; Archive 5: April 2007 — July 2007; Archive 6: July 2007 — October 2007; Archive 7: October 2007 — January 2008; Archive 8: January 2008 — April 2008; Archive 9: February 2008 — November 2008; Archive 10: December 2008 — January 2009; Archive 11: January 2009 — March 2009; Archive 12: March 2009; Archive 13: 2009; Archive 14: 2010; Archive 15: 2010-2013;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:03, 11 August 2013

Skip to table of contents

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

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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, 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.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q6: Isn't pseudoscience a philosophically meaningless term?

A6 The term describes a notable concept in common use.

Q7: Why is a particular topic omitted?

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

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

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

).

Four groups

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

Science List‑class Mid‑importance

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

Physics List‑class High‑importance

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

Paranormal List‑class Top‑importance

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

Skepticism List‑class Top‑importance

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

History of Science List‑class Mid‑importance

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

Alternative medicine List‑class

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

Creationism List‑class Mid‑importance

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

Alternative Views List‑class High‑importance

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

Template:Multidel

Use of "some" in the lede

Rather than edit-war, let's discuss.

The first sentence of the lede currently reads, "This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by some academics or researchers." I have issues with the word "some." Nearly every item on the list is recognized by most, if not all, academics and researchers as pseudoscience. The very few items that are not are sufficiently covered by the "at one point or another in their history."

I would assert that giving the impression that astrology, moon landing conspiracy theories, the Bermuda Triangle, channeling, psychic surgeries, graphology, phrenology, biorhythms, colon cleansing, faith healing, magnet therapy, naturopathy, Holocaust denialism, creation science, feng shui, quantum mysticism, perpetual motion or scientific racism -- just to name a few that caught my eye as I went down the list -- have ever been considered to be actual science by academics and researchers makes is far less neutral than simply leaving out the word "some." TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be clear: the word "some" was added very recently. My reversion for the reasons stated above was itself reverted. Thus, the discussion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The recent undiscussed addition of the word serves no good purpose. It disrupts the logic of this list. These are fringe topics. "Some" implies that most scientists think these are scientific subjects, which is BS. "Some" would apply to an extremely small minority of fringe "scientists." They would be the equivalent of those on this list: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It's an extremely!!! small group. The addition of "some" totally recasts this and implies that these subjects are not generally considered pseudoscientific subjects by the vast majority of scientists. That's false, so the word should stay out. We should keep the long-standing status quo version. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the additioan of "some" disrupts logic. FlatOut 01:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the inclusion criteria in this list is not fields generally or widely considered pseudoscience, but fields that have been characterized as such by anyone at all in a reliable source. In fact we should change "some" for "any". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time that someone has tried to sabotage this list by including fringe POV as if they were mainstream POV, or including subjects that are overwhelmingly not pseudoscience, but have been characterized as such by some fringe wingnut. These attempts rarely succeed because their views are not published in RS, but if you can find them, we could discuss the creation of a section for wingnut accusations that include things like: "belief in a round earth has been characterized as pseudoscience by The National Society for the Promotion of Fringe Conspiracy Theories." Seriously, is this where you're headed? If so, we've been there before. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think people generally throw in a good dose of common sense as well. Basically what is being looked for is that the level of characterisation is such that the parent article for an entry could reasonably include information on that characterisation without being undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like say with topics such as Psychoanalysis or Hypnosis... huh? 162.197.89.79 (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historically considered

Given the scope of the current lead, it seems appropriate to include items in this list that are now generally accepted as science but in its history had been regarded as pseudoscience in some significant way. Plate tectonics comes to mind. Thoughts? 162.197.89.79 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting article: science & non-science topics

FYI

– This discussion is about a possible split. It does not encompass what is or what is not pseudoscience.

199k -- is this article a bit looooonnnng? I've done a layout of topics in line with {{science}} and have a non-science section set up. The non-science portion is 39k. With this in mind, I propose splitting the article. Rename this one as "List of science topics characterized as pseudoscience" and name the new article "List of general topics characterized by pseudoscience". Please note the distinction between "as" and "by" in the two. The "as" is appropriate because of the clear word connection between science and pseudoscience. The "by" works better because it shows pseudoscience is being used to booster the topic (like in history, which clearly is not a science topic) rather being an alternative to the actual science. Thoughts are welcome – especially as to using the word "general" in the split article. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction you made between "science" and non-science topics appears to have been completely arbitrary. For example, Astrology is listed under astronomy and space science, while creation science is listed under non-science. Putting these in different articles by some arbitrary division doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. You appear to have grouped a collection of disparate things together which wouldn't make any sense in an article. The article is 200k because there are 372 references, not because the content is particularly long, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, 150k is the references. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the sections and subsections as I did was not arbitrary. Going by the headings, sections 1-4 follow the science template. I left the bulleted listings under the subsections as is, hence the inclusion of astrology & creation science where they are. Given your comment (thanks!) cleaning up/re-bulleting the subsections first is probably a wise preliminary step to a split. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with IRWolfie that your distinction is not helpful, and that there is no need to split the article. Your use of "science" vs. "non-science" here is bizarre and jarring. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And interesting article will look at more carefully; probably a few more things need adding. At this point I do think it's not quite long enough to split, and splitting it would necessitate some discussion, given issues raised above. User:Carolmooredc 17:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Srich32977's idea has some merit, but the article is in such a poor state, I think it's preferable to keep everything in one spot so it's easier to fix. We have items that are completely unsourced, items that are sourced to broken links and items that probably don't belong on this list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Face on Mars

I've removed Face on Mars.[1] The cited link is broken.[2] I tried to find other reliable sources characterizing this as pseudoscience, but couldn't find any. What's more, I sincerely doubt that anyone actually believes that this is a real face. This is just one of those things people on the Internet find interesting/funny. I don't think anyone actually believes that this is a real face. Anyway, without solid sourcing, it doesn't belong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prepared to be surprised. You are under the bad assumption that people are rational. A very cursory google will tell you Hoagland still believes this, as do a number of other proponents [3]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the impossible, and fixed the broken link automagically, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I stand corrected. But I don't think that this list should feature every single theory that some nutcase on the Internet believes in. What exactly is the inclusion criteria for this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively; that there is a sufficient characterisation that noting the characterisation with attribution would not be undue. Psychoanalysis is a classic example of a topic often characterised as pseudoscience, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knock if off. You should know better.[4] The very instructions on this page say not to include this item. And you should be smart enough to know the difference between pseudoscience and the supernatural. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 **OK, I stand corrected.  But I don't think that this list should feature every single theory that some nutcase on the Internet believes in.  What exactly is the inclusion criteria for this article?  [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 13:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 :::Effectively; that there is a sufficient characterisation that noting the characterisation with attribution would not be undue. Psychoanalysis is a classic example of a topic often characterised as pseudoscience, [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 20:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
+::::Knock if off.  You should know better.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&diff=568119273&oldid=568074216]  The very instructions on this page say not to include this item.  And you should be smart enough to know the difference between pseudoscience and the supernatural.   [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 21:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)