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.

Article is an arbitration case waiting to happen

But that is the whole point of this article. First, there have been endless discussions attempting to reach a lasting consensus. For instance, pseudoscience and fringe science. I have attempted to explain the case for the point of view of some of the commonly named pseudosciences, not to explain their value, but to show that the article is simply calling out any subject that is not mainstream. I told you that all of the science methodologies are properly dealt with in parapsychology and all you can see is your incredulity about ghosts. I told you that we examine all possible answers and you assume we have made a conclusion in behalf of what you obviously think must only be supernatural. Most noteworthy are the two logical errors in your advice that we are somehow violating Occam and that, if the answer is not in the book, then we should keep reading until the answer is in the book. Is there not something about the definition of insanity here?

So here is the bottom line. The article is written too inclusively when there is no need. Yes, obviously there is pseudoscience out there. Unlike some, I am not offended by the concept of this article. What I am offended by is that it is written in a way that gives closed minded people a name to dismiss what they don't understand. Tom Butler (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, allow me to be completely open. The problem you are talking about has deep historical roots on project. there was a period some years ago, before my time, when editors went to bat against a whole slew of fairly extreme fringe science advocacy. It was good that that happens - we don't really want wikipedia proclaiming UFOlogy and cryptozoology as important mainstream sciences, for instance - but it left in its wake an unfortunate hard-core anti-fringe advocacy cohort, and a sometimes pugnaciously hard-nosed pro-science attitude across the project. Myself, I've been slowly working to moderate that attitude over time, but it's the kind of thing where headway is measured in months, not edits. Aggressive challenges of the kind you're making just trigger an automatic defensive reaction. while there are times when it's useful to trigger such a reaction, for the most part it's better to try to ease your way into it and make incremental changes. --Ludwigs2 03:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the recalcitrance of mainstream editors. I also know that whatever progress made here to make this article more balanced would be reversed the day Schroeder is let out of jail. Reading the article at one time, one finds the same things said over and over--psycho babble, assumptions of delusion or fraud. I cannot see that you have made any forward progress, nor will you by being the only agreeable "balancing editor".

I see that the page gets around 1500 hits a day. Considering my website only sees 1000, that is a pretty big deal. We do not have an article on pseudoscience, but a search on the Internet gets this Wikipedia article first, and then and endless array of skeptical websites harping about pseudoscience. The common denominator is that they vilify free thought rather than discussing specifics. Perhaps my time would be better spent placing an article high on that search.

Meanwhile, it is NewsJournal season and I have to get back to work. Tom Butler (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Damned liar!

"There's lies, there's damn lies... and there's Statistics" - Mark Twain

"I am a Statistician" - PPdd

Pseudoscience commonly uses methods to lie with statistics. An example is methods derided in Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined, which uses "hoodoo science" and "pseudoscience" as synonyms to describe abuse of statistics in social sciences. (The book is pretty ideologically right wing, Bork liked it, so "hoodoo science" is common in right wing intellectual attacks on contrary ideological arguments abusing statistics in social sciences and now other sciences.) I propose a new section in this article about "how to lie with statistics". There is much RS on this. PPdd (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Turro's subsumption of pseudoscience and junk science under pathological science

Nicholas Turro's definitions here[1] seems to subsume pseudoscience and junk science under pathological science. I think the three are essentially synonyms in general academic use, and the articles should be merged. PPdd (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge from hoodoo science

Hoodoo science is currently about two sentences with two sources, one of which is apparently a bare mention. I suggest merging it into this page, perhaps in one of the "identifying pseuodoscience" subsections. Unless there are considerably more sources forthcoming on this neologism, it's better (and safer) here where it is one part of a larger topic and thus unlikely to be deleted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I created it. Merge it to be a section of this page, with a redirect to here. PPdd (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Also merge voodoo science, junk science, and pathological science to sections here, and add sections on how to lie with statistics voodoo economics here but possibly keep their own article, which may have extra technical or political stuff.

Some think pseudoscience and junk science are subsets of pathological science,[2], some others think the other way around, and some think the three are synonyms. No need for four articles on what are not uncommonly used as synonyms PPdd (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the merges to here make sense. Pathological science may in some sense be the umbrella, but in overwhelming common usage pseudoscience is the general category. Anyway, pathological almost always seems to connote bad faith, so I think pseudoscience is a much better core term. Pseudo is neutral enough that it doesn't take a stance on the intent of the practitioner, though it can accommodate simple incompetence, ignorance, or malice. So I think we should keep it at the center. Ocaasi (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge all to here. PPdd (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree I support the merger proposal. Put all of the crap in one pile, I always say. Tom Butler (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Having looked briefly at all pages, Hoodoo science is the only one that I really, strongly feel needs merging here. The rest could probably remain as standalones (based on current content). Voodoo science should be Voodoo Science in my opinion though - focusing on the book but incorporating the few mentions of the phrase into the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's add a mention of "voodoo science" as a historical term and synonym here, and convert that page to the book article; it's 90% about Park (author) anyway. Ocaasi (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Absence from citation databases

In Absence from citation databases, the entry mistakes acceptance by the mainstream as the definition of pseudoscience. If there are no references for this, it should go. Lack of citation only indicate ignorance of the subject or ignoring the subject but does not say anything definitive about the kind of science. Tom Butler (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary examples

Resolved

New editors have added Dianetics to the list of examples in See also. I understood we were keeping the number of examples to a minimum, partly for clarity and partly to keep this article from becoming a list of alleged pseudosciences. Each of my attempts to adhere to what I understood as our consensus was reverted and I have used up my three reverts. I do not believe that adding Dianetics or any additional alleged pseudoscience examples will improve this article. I hope we can discuss this issue here rather than edit warring. Jojalozzo 07:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "new editors". Lots of us watch and edit these pages. To many of us you are the new editor. It's rather interesting that you only reacted to the addition of Dianetics, and used a false edit summary, which was answered quite well by Moriori. Each time you always chose to remove only that one. The Dianetics article makes it plain that it's considered pseudoscientific. Now if there is a consensus to not add more (and I'm not the one who added it, or restored it, whatever the case may be), then point me to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not recognizing your past contributions here and lumping you with others who seem to be participating here mainly to promote the inclusion of this link to Dianetics. The other examples in the See also section are listed because they are the examples chosen for illustration purposes in the article. As my edit comment said, Dianetics is not referenced in the article and I do not see how adding any more examples to the See also section benefits this article. In addition, as my edit comments said, this article is not the place for a list of pseudosciences. There is another article for that and there are good reasons for why we have made that separation. I may be completely off base, but it appears to me that some editors may have more interest in associating Dianetics with pseudoscience than in improving this article. Jojalozzo 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Brangifer, I once used the Scientology Celebrity Center in Hollywood to put on a fashion show, and (of course) got a sales pitch based on a bunch of pseudoscience gobbledy-gook, which was the most clear cut case of actual pseudoscience I have ever personally encountered in real life (and I knew Linus Pauling and owned the building across the street from his "Vitamin C Studies Institute" - my own name for it, so that is saying something). But the Dianetics article in no way makes it clear, implicitly by describing Dianetics, or explicitly, that Dianetics is a pseudoscience, so the link as it stands in the pseudoscience article has no value at all for a reader, and I tempororily deleted it[3]. When I have time to read up a little on what I actually saw being argued as practiced, I will add to that article, and put the example back in this one. Or if you can add a brief RS description of the pseudoscience methods into the Dianetics article, then put it back in the list in the pseudoscience article, this will actually help users understand what a pseudoscience is. PPdd (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you haven't looked carefully at the article. The word appears three times in different places, it is in the Category:Pseudoscience, and it has the pseudoscience template at the bottom, and it's properly sourced. This was mentioned in the edit summaries more than once. Otherwise I have no problem with the cleanup of the See also section. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The "See also" section is supposed to provide leads to further reading that might help expand the reader's understanding of the topic and direct them to related topics, and one of the things a reader might be thinking is "I wonder what topics are generally considered as pseudoscience?". To satisfy that, we have a link in the "See also" section to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, which I think is quite sufficient - I see no additional benefit in picking out a small handful of examples to include separately. I also don't think we need "See also" entries for topics highlighted elsewhere in the article, as they should be wikilinked where they're mentioned, and so they don't need additional "See also" links - see Wikipedia:See also#See also section, where it says "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section". So I say leave out Dianetics and also remove the few existing links to specific "pseudosciences", as they are already linked in the article or are included in the list. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I think the main article List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is pretty thorough. Does the benefit from selecting a few from that list outweigh the drama caused in the selection? It seems like it will continue to make for these kinds of debates, as there is no particular logic to why 3 or why 5 or why these 3 or why these 5... Ocaasi (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the specific examples as redundant since already in the list, and arbitraily chosen (and to avoid "you're arbitratily picking on me" talk and edits). PPdd (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the "new editors" mentioned by User:Jojalozzo, having first contributed to Wiki nine and a bit years ago (as IP). I noted that he had removed Dianetics from the article and User:BullRangifer then restored it. Jojalozo reverted a little later with the edit summary "not ref'd in article, does not belong". This raised my antennae so I checked out the Dianetics article and saw it is considered to be pseudoscience. Deciding his edit reeked of censorship I restored Dianetics with the edit summary "Dianetics is definitely ref'd as pseudoscience in its article. See last sentence in 'Scientific evaluation and criticisms' ". Jojolozzo reverted, but found an entirely new reason, instead saying "we have enough examples here, please use List of topics characterized as pseudoscience". So once again I restored Dianetics to this article, leaving the edit summary "Restore valid entry. It features in "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and has a Pseudoscience Category on its own article. It is vandalism to remove valid information.". That was my last edit for yesterday (afternoon my time) and I see this morning Dianetics (and others) have been deleted. I'm not too fussed by that, but I just needed to explain why I edited as I did. I saw it as censorship, and acted accordingly for the good of Wikipedia. I I wasn't a newbie making rash edits. Moriori (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone took the new-editors piece too seriously. Any deletions of a known pseudoscience are cause for suspicion, but when it's one from a Scientology related enterprise there's an even extra level of hmm... Not to accuse anyone of anything, just to explain the level of attention these things get. I think the current state, with just the List and no examples works best, but not for the reasons suggested initially by those wanting to remove it. Ocaasi (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Does anyone care enough one way or another to even bother to comment? PPdd (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't we already have a list of pseudosciences? Since there are so many on that list, we can hardly mention most or all of them here, so I think listing one or two specific pseudosciences in "see also" will have more disadvantages than advantages - any choice would be arbitrary and it's a catalyst for miniature edit wars when we could all be doing something else more useful. bobrayner (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should vote on it, and tell our best personal adventures with pseudosciences as justifications for our vote... but on the list talk page, not here. PPdd (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see Moriori and Ocaasi have explained exactly the reasons why I saw red flags and edited as I did. We see this type of situation often and it often doesn't bode well, but this ended fine. It looks like we can mark this resolved. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I too am glad this has been resolved amicably. My POV radar lit up for the opposite reason. I guess that's what the Red Phone is for, eh? Jojalozzo 02:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by pseudoscience journals

Alt Med journals revisited: Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by pseudoscience journals is being discussed here[4]. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Suitable to include in the main text

According to this edit summary the text is not suitable for the lead. So, I put it in the main text with this change. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Did this change replace sourced text with WP:OR? Does the source say "may in some cases". Did the change fail WP:V? I do, however, I agree with the placement. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've removed this text, as it is an obvious misrepresentation of the source. Looking at the abstract in the link, three things are eminently clear:

1. This is a brand new article that has in no way stood the test of time
2. That the author is not discussing the dangers of pseudoscience, but is using that phrase as a casual introduction to his real topic, the psychological factors that lead people to accept pseudoscience
3. That at best this line would point to medical pseudoscience (it's published in PubMed), and at worst it would apply to a restricted subset of medical pseudoscience which the author describes in detail in the first sections of the article.

since I don't have access to PubMed at the moment I can't read the article to be sure what he's talking about, but I can say that as a research psychologist the author may not be qualified to render an opinion on the medical dangers of pseudoscience to the public, and if he is offering a new theorty on the psychological dangers to the public it's most likely not significant enough to use here.

In short, the statement may not satisfy wp:UNDUE and the source may not be reliable for the use it's being put to here. can someone post the entire article for me to read? thanks. --Ludwigs2 06:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff we're talking about:

• Pseudoscience, superstitions and quackery threaten public health.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092400 Matute, H., Yarritu, I., Vadillo, M.A.; ''Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience,'' Br. J. Psychol. 2010 Nov 18 Epub.]</ref>

Here's the abstract, where we are obviously drawing from the lead sentence:

• Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality of so many people that needs to be understood. The proposal we put forward is that these illusions arise from the normal functioning of the cognitive system when trying to associate causes and effects. Thus, we propose to apply basic research and theories on causal learning to reduce the impact of pseudoscience. We review the literature on the illusion of control and the causal learning traditions, and then present an experiment as an illustration of how this approach can provide fruitful ideas to reduce pseudoscientific thinking. The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better. Two different predictions arising from the integration of the causal learning and illusion of control domains are then proven effective in reducing this illusion. One is showing the testimony of people who feel better without having followed the treatment. The other is asking participants to think in causal terms rather than in terms of effectiveness. [5]

Ludwigs2, how do you interpret this? You're welcome to improve on our use of the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the above criticisms is that regarding the key sentence, "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved," it is not indicated by the abstract alone whether it is a passing observation or a key result of the study. If we're using this source for that claim, the relevant piece would come from the conclusion and not the background section. It's hard to tell how it the study approaches that statement without access to the full study, though... Ocaasi (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What is significant about this study is the casual learning approach to get patients active in identifying causes, over just describing the modality effectiveness. The intro is sensationalism, for demonstrating relevance and getting attention. The study does not appear to be designed to validate the "serious problem". To say it does and include in this article is a pseudoscience illusion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, brangifer, if you could post a public link to something more than the abstract? I recognize the style of abstract here; I've done it myself. when you compress a 12-15 page article down to 250 words you have to toss out a recognizable context quickly and briefly and then get to your main result, and this often means that you do not do justice to the context. as I (and others) have said, that first line is over-brief framing, not study conclusions, which leads me to worry that (a) we are taking the phrase out of the author's context and misusing it, and (b) that the author might not be qualified to make the claim that we are asserting s/he made. an examination fo the full article would clarify that. --Ludwigs2 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Users could download the original article here, assuming they had access rights. (Easy to find, given the title of the journal.)

I have placed a copy on my wikipedia website http://mathsci.free.fr/ludwigs2.pdf. Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed the copy. Ocaasi (talk · contribs) disclosed on my talk page that he had downloaded his copy from my website. Please ask Ocaasi if you need to view the whole article and do not have access rights yourself. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually just copied the text and pasted it from the first 4 paragraphs. I don't have my own copy. Ocaasi (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant excerpt

http://bpsoc.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/pre-prints/bjp898

The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience. As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality and effectiveness of so many people that needs to be understood. One obvious route for research that many have already explored consists on investigating the psychological differences between believers and non-believers in pseudoscience and the paranormal, under the assumption that some type of flawed intelligence or other, related problems, are responsible for these beliefs. This approach, however, has not yielded consistent results (see Wiseman & Watt, 2006, for a review). We suggest a different route. The proposal we put forward is that systematic cognitive illusions that occur in most people when exposed to certain situations are at the basis of pseudoscience beliefs. Systematic errors, illusions, and biases can be generated (and thus reduced as well) in the psychological laboratory and are the result of the normal functioning of our cognitive system as it relates with the world and extracts information from it (see Lo´pez, Cobos, Can˜o, & Shanks, 1998, for an excellent review of biases in the causal learning domain). The main benefit from encompassing this approach is that much of what is already known from rigorous laboratory studies on causal and contingency judgments can be fruitfully incorporated into programmes designed to reduce the impact of pseudoscience in society. To this aim, we will first review laboratory studies both on the illusions of control and on the more general topic of causal learning in normal individuals, in order to show that these research lines provide convergent evidence and interesting suggestions that can help understand the illusions responsible for pseudoscientific thinking. A very simple experiment will then be reported as an example of how predictions arising from those laboratory traditions can be used to reduce the illusions and to design effective programmes to combat pseudoscience.

The extract of the Psychology paper that MathSci has been kind enough to put up here suggests that the paper is polemic in tone. In addition to its recent publication not giving it enough time to be peer assessed, this suggests that the paper may not yet have achieved the status of a source reliable enough for this article. I don't think that the article will be diminished by its omission. I have much sympathy with people like Quack-Guru [6] who conceive it to be their mission to save the world from the ravages of quackery, but I feel that this would be done best by keeping this article as neutral as possible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, it seems it was Ocaasi who posted the extract. It helps to sign posts at bottom. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

I pasted text copied from MathSci's link, and didn't want to implicate anyone in a possibly excessive instance of fair use reproduction. The only purpose of posting was so we could all read it, and discuss the source. Towards that end, MathSci's version was very useful. Ocaasi (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Another reference for causal learning ... about time to start this article. The pseudoscience label doesn't seem to help address the causation issues. Seems like it's mainly a stone to cast in a warrior's battlefield. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

'Cause and effect' subthread

This article neglects the causality attribution issues when distinguishing between pseudoscience and science claims. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your addition, which has the article state: "The basic notion is that all experimental results on cause and effect should be reproducible...", does not make sense. Please clarify. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your concern about cause and effect making sense; however, where are you mixed up? How would you suggest to improve? I was trying to keep it simple under the principle that empirical science aims to identify cause and effect relationships. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the sentence appears not to make syntactical sense. Probably the key problem is at "experimental results on cause and effect". Oh, and discussion of the atrticle belongs on article talk, not user talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, what syntax rule is being violated? Can you suggest an improvement? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(i) Not being a grammaticist, I have no idea -- all I know is that it does not parse into anything meaningful. (ii) As I've no idea what it is supposed to mean, no. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Having no idea, I guess we will all remain baffled by the tag's meaning too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then you should attempt to explain here what you were trying to say in the sentence in question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, based upon the premise that science is the process to determine or describe causes and effect relationships with empirical observation. Causality is at the origin of scientific thought. However, the Pseudoscience issues tends to place science at the boundary between Aristotle's four causes. The simple addition was an attempt to bring causality references into the article, from the existing sources, as prompted by the studies which applied "causal learning" Thanks for rearranging this talk. I suspect creating a "causal learning" article and then appropriately cross referencing between this article, without a POV fork, would help expand Wikipedia's goals and give adequate weight to causality as related to pseudoscience. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what you were attempting to say was that "The basic notion is that the cause and effect of all experimental results should be reproducible..." -- however, the "cause and effect" part of that would appear to be redundant -- as "The basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible..." is no less true, and would be the more general case -- as some scientific experiments don't seek to demonstrate causality, but merely correlation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Except when scientists can't keep up with tracking or measuring changes in causes to an effect, then there is a reproducibility issue. Some events have such an unusual confluence of causes, which experiments may find irrelevant or trivial; however, may unexpectedly, in unique conditions, affect the outcome. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, there are two separate issues here, which ought to be kept separate unless you're trying to develop a mental hernia. Replicability (the ability to reproduce a particular effect) is always pragmatic and evidentiary - we see (measure) an effect being reproduced, regularly and consistently. Causality is always theoretical - it's an assertion about the underlying unseen causation of that observable regularity. That's why the theory of gravity is just (and always will be just) a theory: despite the fact that the effects are massively reproducible (pun intended), we cannot see the causation; all we can do is create theories which describe what we observe as best as possible. What I think you're trying to get at is that there is a difference between a theory which describes observations poorly (which is science, if weak science) and a theory which tries to prescribe observations that do not exist (which is pseudoscience). or am I missing your point? --Ludwigs2 15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point, thanks ... I guess that is why causality can be theoretical expanded to absurdity, where as Replicability would assume a measurement standard. Can't wait to transform this discussion into content Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable peer reviewed journal

The British Journal of Psychology is reliable and the text is relevant to this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

QG - reliability is not a magic wand. Sure, BJoP is an well-established and credible journal, and I see no reason to challenge the credentials of the author. However, neither of those points matter because - as the entire discussion above shows - you are quoting the source out of context. Trying to use a quote to make a claim that the source itself is not actually making is a wikipedia nono, and you don't make things better by saying "...but the source I'm misquoting is a good source." Do I really need to explain this to you? --Ludwigs2 10:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I edited the addition, since some of it was redundant, and the 'serious threat' claim is not well supported by the source. I think it reads reasonably well, but check it out. Ocaasi (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't really care, except that entire paragraph is just plain wrong, in multiple ways. Don't get suckered by QG's one-man pogrom against AltMed into making compromises with silliness. rewriting it now. --Ludwigs2 11:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Much better, and clearly where the bigger picture is. Writing with a focus on 'the source in your hand' is great for WP:V, but not for WP:NPOV. One quibble, can we edit out 'ontological claim', as I think the average encyclopedia reader won't know what to make of it? Ocaasi (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - I just removed the polysyllab. I was tempted to rewrite it "... ontic/deontic validity assertions..." just to mess with your head, but I refrained (in deed, if not in thought...). --Ludwigs2 12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you show how the source was taken out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, can you show how the text was poorly sourced. Do you think the journal is a reliable source when you stated a source may not have to be MEDRS. So far no good reason has been given to delete the reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."[7]

The 'serious threat' claim is well supported by the source. The correct term is 'public health' because it is supported by the source. The text passed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, no. first, "Public Health" is almost invariably used to apply to things like sanitation problems, toxic spills, or epidemics, which affect large numbers of people indirectly and without their knowledge or volition. Pseudoscience would not be considered a public health issue in that sense since it can only affect individuals who seek it out. second, only a small subset of medical pseudoscience constitutes any threat to the health of individuals, so therefore the phrase does not fit when we are discussing pseudoscience more generally.

Finally (and for the last time), verifiability is an exclusion principle, not an inclusion principle. we can remove statements that cannot be verified, but the fact that a statement can be verifiable does not guarantee its inclusion. statements which are taken out of context, that are off-topic, or that are otherwise being used in a way inconsistent with the author's intent or the article topic should never be included. --Ludwigs2 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The term public health is sourced per V. Your own orginal research review of the source is not verifiable. Diluting the text is taking the source out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is being used out of context to begin with, so that hardly matters. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you show how the source is being used out of context rather than asserting it when the text is supported by the peer reviewed reference. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already shown that, repeatedly. As I've said, the article in question is specific to medical issues, and the claim you are using is not the focus of the article but merely a framing point in the abstract. Those two things mean that the claim cannot be used in an article about general pseudoscience, both because pseudoscience is a much broader topic than medical issues and because there's no reason to believe the author would make that claim even about all medical pseudoscience.

This is the last time I'm making this point. if you ignore it (again) and make the same comment (again), I'm gathering up diffs of the six or seven times I've said it to you and opening an RfC/U. either address the point or give it up; the discussion moves on productively or it ends. understood? --Ludwigs2 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your personal disagreement with the peer reviewed source is not a reason to delete the source from the article. The source is specific to the topic of pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a 'personal disagreement' with the source, QG, it's an assessment of the weight the source should be given on this article - which in my view is close to zero. this is not a wp:V issue, it's wp:NPOV. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When your edit summary claims 'public health' is the wrong term and the text you deleted is supported by the reference this suggests you do have a personal disagreement with the relevant source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what you think is 'suggested' by my edit summary; Please comment on the edit, not the editor. The NPOV issue I raised is a valid concern. Either discuss it, or drop the matter. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary did not match your edit. You claimed the text is not supported by the reference but the source does support the claim. The NPOV issue you raised is because you think the source is bias becuase you think the term 'public health' is wrong when it is supported by the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the NPOV issue is that the source (1) is not talking about pseudoscience in general, but only about medical pseudoscience, and (2) the source is not arguing that pseudoscience is a danger to the public, but merely asserting that in the abstract to frame the issue (making it a point-of-view opinion rather than an analytic conclusion). Thus we have a primary source making a POV-assertion about a small subset of cases of the topic at hand - that carries no scholarly weight at all. --Ludwigs2 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The text that was added to the article from a journal was sourced. The source does discuss pseudoscience. If you think the source did not discuss pseudoscience then I suggest you read the source again. The source is not arguing that pseudoscience is a danger to the public. The source is stating it is a serious threat to public health. I previously explained the term 'public heatlh' is sourced. You are engaging in OR analysis of the source which is not appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You just basically sidestepped what I said, and you are straying further and further from reason and common sense. If you keep pushing this point, I'm going to give up trying to talk to you and simply IAR your misuse of policy here as an inane detriment to the encyclopedia. If you like, let's get a wp:3O and lay out our arguments for a stranger to read - I can't imagine anyone who would find your logic convincing. --Ludwigs2 23:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that this discussion is veering into the area of silliness. It would be best to put an end to it before accusations of trollery start flying. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Ludwigs2, your arguments are not based on V. You seem to want to justify your inclusion oif unsourced text despite you claiming the text is sourced. It does not matter you think the source is asserting the statement. What matters is that the statement is sourced in accordance with V.

Xxanthippe, it would be best if you explain why sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal was deleted in favor of text that seems to be unsourced. The NSF website is not peer reiviewed and did not verify the text after I tried to verify the text. I am still waiting for verification and no reasonable explanation was given to delete sourced text. Xxanthippe, you seem to support Ludwigs 2 continuing to ignore V. QuackGuru (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

QG:

1. did you seriously just say that a primary source article is more reliable than an NSF-derived secondary publications?
2. did you seriously just imply that wp:V trumps wp:NPOV?

If I didn't think you were serious I'd be laughing my ass off. well, I'm am laughing my ass off anyway, but it's tinged with a certain sympathetic sadness.

I'm done talking to you, because it's not going anywhere. if you want to do the wp:3O I suggested above, I'm game; if you don't, you're SOL, sorry. Your argument just doesn't have a leg to stand on, and you're the only person here who doesn't see it. --Ludwigs2 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are not based on Wikipedia policy. Your edits are also based on Wikipedia. This content dispute shows you are not able to provide verification for your edit and refuse to comply with both V and NPOV. You have repeatedly ignored the concerns that you replaced sourced text with unsourced text. You seem to think you can delete sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal and replace it with with whatever unsourced text you want. Please restore the sourced text and try to summarise the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary: I am making a perfectly valid argument per wp:NPOV - you simply refuse to acknowledge it. I've heard your argument, and I've responded to that as well - you simply refuse to acknowledge my response. so be it. We aren't discussing this anymore, QG. You can either choose to accept my offer of wp:3O (or some other wp:DR process, if you prefer), or you can choose to go away. Or I suppose you can choose to keep blathering on here, but I'll simply dismiss any future posts you make (I'll simply respond with a 'piffle'), unless it looks like you're really giving proper consideration to my NPOV issues.

choose. --Ludwigs2 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the reality of the debate. Please try to choose to respect Wikipedia policies. You seem to be ignoring the real NPOV issues. Your edit summary claimed editing paragraph; 'public health' is wrong term; source removed as it does not support claim being made; refocusing on the NSF, which is really where this paragraph wants to go. You claim the source does not support the claim. The text is supported by the reliable peer reviewed journal. For example, Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. You claim 'public health' is the wrong term when the source does specifically use the term 'public health'. Your personal disagreement with the source is not a good reason to delete the source. Do you agree in the future you will not replace sourced text with unsourced text. You claimed the NSF website verified the text you added to the article. When I looked closer at your edit it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and it seems you replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed and I could not verify the text with any of the articles from the NSF website. Is there some reason you are not going to try to verify the text or delete the unsourced text you added to the article after the text was challenged. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. Do you agree is was a mistake you deleted sourced relevant text from a reliable journal. I don't think you have provided any good reason a peer reviewed journal should be deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS. When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources there would be no reason in the future to add attribution in the text because you claim the source is asserting the claim. A personal disagreement is not a serious dispute among reliable sources. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you agree to follow V and NPOV policies better in the future. Do you think the text you added is inaccurate and unsourced. Do you think unsourced claims it is appropriate to replace sourced information with unsourced text when there is already an reliable journal available. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is taking the source out of context. It looks like you diluted the meaning of the text because you disagree with the claims the source makes. Do you agree with WP:NPOV that it says do not remove sourced information because you think it seems biased. See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." See WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." See WP:IRS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." See WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." You seem to not understand that the reference is from a reliable peer reviewed journal that similar to other references found in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

piffle. --Ludwigs2 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You have ignored my request that you provide verifiaction for the unsourced claims not found on the NSF website. Do you agree the text you added should be deleted or replaced with sourced text such as from a reliable peer reviewed source. Do you agree with WP:V when it says "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Do you agree with WP:NPOV when it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I've come to the conclusion that discussing the matter with you is a waste of time - you seem immune to discussion, and there is no hope of resolving the issue through normal methods. Do you agree to use Dispute resolution processes such as wp:3O for this issue, or do you refuse? If you refuse DR, then kindly stop filling the talk page with the Same-Old-Crud-You've-Already-Written-A-Double-Dozen-Times. thanks. --Ludwigs2 15:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Uninvited third opinion: I think we all agree that pseudoscience can be harmful but we need a reliable source to make the claim. The brief mention of public health in the journal article is unsupported and not intended to be authoritative. If that is the only available source for the claim, then we should not make the claim. Rather than argue this, everyone's time would be better spent seeking an authoritative and notable source. Jojalozzo 06:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The text added by Ludwigs2 is unsupported by the NSF website. It is obvious to me the journal does use the term 'public health'. Jojalozzo, does the source say "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."[8] A peer reviewed journal is reliable according to WP:V. Jojalozzo, do you really support the unsourced text added by Ludwigs2 rather than sourced information from the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my 2 cents here: both versions are wrong. The journal was not an adequate source for that text, but Ludwigs2 compounded the situation by making an unsourced edit made from his memory. He claims that it is the NSF position, but he refuses to source the text himself. Also, what Jojalozzo says.

Proposed drama-less solution: someone reads chapter 7 of NSF report (49 pages) and rewrites the text according to the actual source. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that myself if no one else gets around to it first - I've just been a bit busy lately. maybe over the weekend? I'm not certain that will resolve the problem, however. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You claimed the text you added was sourced but what you added was original research. Is there a reason why we should not include the peer reviewed journal. If there is no real reason why the journal was deleted then it should be restored. Ludwigs2, do you agree that the text that failed verfication can be deleted from the article now. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, and as Jojalozzo suggested above, the journal article you want to use is not all that reliable for this topic. It really can't be used in a general discussion of pseudoscience. As fr the other... you can wait a couple of days for me to provide proper referencing. If I haven't done so by monday we can reopen the discussion. --Ludwigs2 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As WP:V explains "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." You have not given a good reason why the original research you added to the article can continue to stay in the article. You previously claimed the text you added to the article is sourced but now you think it should be rewritten. I previously told you that the text failed verification but you ignored me. You wrote "If I haven't done so by monday we can reopen the discussion." No, there is no reason why editors should wait for you to remove the OR you added to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

QC: Please locate a proper source and add it to the article. Spending time arguing here instead of adding a proper citation is unconstructive. Jojalozzo 22:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I did locate a propoer source that is peer reviewed. Would you like me to add it to the article. I have a copy of the PDF file. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DNFT Jojalozzo 02:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DNFT is not an appropriate response to the proposal to using a peer-reviewed source. The original research was replaced with relevant sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourced text was replaced with unsourced text

Ludwigs2 thinks his opinion is more reliable than the journal according to this edit against WP:V and WP:OR. We should write with a focus on the source at hand per WP:V. Relevant text from the source was also deleted in a previous edit. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 now says he will have to look up the source. So, indeed the text is unsourced. We had sourced text from a reliable journal in accordance with V. There is still no good reason to delete reliable sourced text from a journal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Failed verification?

Pseudoscience generally requires some unjustified and unsupportable claim to scientific standing or experimental rigor.[citation needed] Superstitions, traditional beliefs, religious ideology or similar claims are not generally considered to be pseudoscience, even where they involve magical thinking or questionable cause-and-effect relationships, unless they actively claim to be scientific or supersede science.[original research?] Medical pseudoscience (sometimes called quackery) can in some cases pose a threat to health.[original research?] Many different scientists and scientific organizations, including the National Science Foundation, have called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud.[citation needed]

I tried to verify the text with articles from the NSF website. I was unable to verify the text. If we look closer at this edit it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed. To be fair, another editor previously diluted the meaning of the text from the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources are great QG, but just because you find one doesn't mean we should take any sentence from it and represent it as the whole truth of the entire subject. With Ernst as well it results in articles that can seem pointy and unbalanced. I think it helps to look for all relevant sources which describe an issue rather than just the ones that support one perspective. Not all unquoted writing is OR, some is just summary, and it's a part of the encyclopedic process. So, you might be overly focused on Verification, to the exclusion of NPOV. If the NSF website is not the only relevant source for the recent changes, but there's general agreement that the recent text is a better reflection of the majority of sources out there (which many of us have encountered but may not have on hand to cite), then it's worth tracking down those sources rather than clinging to a verifiable but biased version. Ocaasi (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You think the previous version was verifiable but biased. According to V, editors are simply to present what the reliable sources say. I see you were not able to provide verification for the text. You think requesting V or pointing out that the text failed V might be overly focused on Verification. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say."

See WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

See WP:IRS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

I don't think there is any good reason a peer reviewed journal was deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS.

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my analysis. I wasn't commenting on the source's bias, I was commenting on the bias in the resulting Wikipedia text from only relying on one source to make a broad claim about the subject. When we use sources which have bias, we attribute the views so that readers know where the bias is coming from. That's NPOV. So, if you'd like to use attribution, that's one way to incorporate the view proportionately. I think you are misreading V: it does not tell us what to do with sources we find, it only tells us that material must be verifiable. I think Ludwigs' exclusion/inclusion framework is accurate and useful. NPOV tells us what to do with the sources we find, assuming they are RS, and we are supposed to present their views with attribution if they have a bias and in the context of all significant views. Academic sources are usually reliable, but thus is not a gold standard academic source by any means, and editors must useddiscretion to evaluate where sources fit on the spectrum of reliability. That's at the heart of MEDRS and RS. As for V, context matters. You try to string V and RS/MEDRS and Weight together so that we are "forced" to include the sources you present. But that won't result in an encyclopedia which reflects all reliable sources in proportion to their relevance, reliability, and significance. There's a difference and it involves trying to craft a balanced article rather than just making a legal case for inclusion. Ocaasi (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources you do not add attribution in the text. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you think Ludwigs' inaccurate WP:OR and unsourced claims is approporaite and useful. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is not adding context. The text was diluting becuase you disagree with the claims the source makes. It is not right for an editor to delete the text or source because you don't like it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, this is looking like crap, can't we just have QG blocked for WP:SOAPBOX? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think deleting sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal and replacing it with original research soapboxing. Ludwigs2 claimed the text is sourced but never was able to provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors were given enough time to provide verification for the unsourced text. Since no verification was provided for the original research and there is a peer-reviewed source that meets V I replaced the unsourced text with sourced text in accordance with V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a PDF copy of the source if anyone wants to read it. Please e-mail me for a copy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a better source that gives a definition of pseudoscience? Some Elsevier dictionary of science, or stuff like that? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked since there has been confusion what type of sources are reliable in accordance with WP:V. We are currently using a peer-reviewed source that gives an overview of pseudoscience. "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." See WP:SOURCES. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A dictionary by Elsevier would be an academic publication..... --Enric Naval (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please DNFT... Jojalozzo 03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A dictionary would give a definition but not an overview of the topic. This reference did not verify the claim. A lot of sourced text was deleted without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health." This recently added text seems to fail WP:V.

Ladimer, Irving (1965). "The Health Advertising Program of the National Better Business Bureau". Am J Public Health. 55: 1217–1227. Retrieved February 25, 2011. page 1219.

I was unable to verify this claim using this reference. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The letters dnft is not an explanation to deleting relevant sourced text and replacing it with a source that did not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(bashes head on keyboard) ornirtdfrtifgtthuirti9thju9rbtj9prbgt9p8 Damm it all, there is not a single source apart from this one that can qualify to source that statement?????? Agggggh, I'll try to check if I can find something in some book. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Enric, I recently edited that section and provided a couple of good references but they were removed. Please feel free to put them back. Jojalozzo 22:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean Ladimer, Irving (1965). "The Health Advertising Program of the National Better Business Bureau". Am J Public Health. 55: 1217–1227. Retrieved February 25, 2011. page 1219. It was restored when Ludwigs reverted back to his version [9] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I previously explained the text added by Jojalozzo failed verification and verifiable content was deleted without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Replacing source text with original research continues

• Ludwigs2 replaced peer-reviewed sourced text with original research against WP:V and WP:OR.

• The 1965 reference did not verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health."

• The 1965 source does not verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health."

• The source did not verify the claim "may in some cases".

• No source can verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery can be a serious threat to public health." The part "can be" failed verification.

• The IP 68.122.154.94 deleted sourced text and replaced it with a source that failed to verify the text.

• The text [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=next&oldid=416996275 "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions, and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." failed verification.

Editors continues to ignore V and OR policies. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I added another recent OR diff. QuackGuru (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I added another recent OR diff. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources

OK, so, how about:

• Matt Young, Paul K. Strode (2009), "Chapter 5. How pseudoscience works", Why evolution works (and creationism fails) (illustrated ed.), Rutgers University Press, pp. 49–53, ISBN 0813545501, 9780813545509 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

• Raimo Toumela (1987), "Science, Protoscience and Pseudoscience", in Joseph C. Pitt, Marcello Pera (ed.), Rational changes in science: essays on scientific reasoning, Volume 98 de Boston studies in the philosophy of science, Volume 98 de Boston studies in the history of philosophy (illustrated ed.), Springer, pp. 83–101, ISBN 9027724172, 9789027724175 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

• Michael Martin (1985), Concepts of science education: a philosophical analysis, University Press of America, pp. 40–43, ISBN 0819144797, 9780819144799 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

All academic publishers, the last one gives a definition of "pseudoscience". Are these sources useful to solve this problem? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not explained what is the problem with the current source giving an overview rather than just a definition like a dictionary. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

Reference 18, Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience, looks like original research to me. The abstract is full of "We propose" references. Tom Butler (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The text is sourced and in one of the above threads you can read a cut and paste of part of the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You can read this part of the ref too. QuackGuru (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

First, the talk page is on a scheduled archive and I want this subject to be as new as it is. So QuackGuru, please do not move my comments without asking.

It seems that you are highjacking this article for your own campaign against Chiropractic.

I do not care about the previous discussion. It appears to have been pretty much you outlasting those who did not agree with you. The fact is that reading the available parts of the article, it is clearly original research. If I see that, someone else is going to come along and start this again.

The phrase, "We suggest a different route." is clearly an expression of opinion leading to a new point. If the article has good sources, then use those good sources for your reference. Otherwise it just looks like you are trying to preserve an article that has the maximum amount of hate to support your subject.

How long should I wait before posting tags? Tom Butler (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep things civil, Tom. We're all operating under good faith. WP:OR doesn't apply to sources, only Wikipedia editors. Are you suggesting the source is primary, and shouldn't be used on that basis? We do use primary sources for some things. Do you, perhaps, have better sourcing to replace it with?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, WP:OR doesn't apply to sources - it only applies to Wikipedia editors doing their own original research (but we always welcome better sources if you have them). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OR may not apply to sources, but it does apply to the way that editors use sources, and if in fact this source is just speculative maunderings then it is probably disqualified under wp:UNDUE or wp:FRINGE. I'll have to take a closer look at it, however. --Ludwigs2 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We expect many sources to do OR. This is an article about pseudoscience, right? Some of the best sources of all, on matters of science as on so many other subjects, are those which have done extensive research of their own and then analysed, summarised, and drawn conclusions or comparisons. WP:OR applies to editors on wikipedia, not to the external sources that they use.

Crick and Watson did OR, and they did a fine job. However, somebody writing a wikipedia article on DNA should not do OR. That's where the boundary lies. bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, three points:

1. It was not me who moved the post. Reference 18 has been cited 10 times and I will wage every citation was by Quack The reference was contested above at length and apparently only settled by other editors giving up. I had not read the above discussion and am not obligated to do so because the article must stand on its current merits. The first example Quack used was about quackery. He is famous for his single-minded and often overly aggressive campaigns against alternative medicine, especially chiropractic [[10]]. I think my comments were in balance with the situation.

2. Is the contention here that OR applies to editors and not to content is symptomatic of the condition of this article? From WP:OR:

:This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. I did not notice that this only applies to editors. Since you think it does, it would seem fair to request an audit of all of the references here. Obviously you all have been building this article on questionable references.

3. Quack defended the reference by arguing that the authors used (presumably good) sources. If that is true, and there is obvious grounds to discard the article as OR, and if Quack is editing in good faith, then he should move the support for his venom to those other sources ... that is if they actually stand up to review. Jess, it is not my obligation to do the research for him or to defend his words.

There are serious issues with how science is done and how people perceive science. If this article addressed specific kinds of problems--people thinking they are doing science and why they are not, people doing science but the results not being vetted--then you would serve your readers. But that is not done here. All I can see is a well developed article about branding people you do not agree with. Try a little self-editing. Tom Butler (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom, wikipedia is collaborative by nature. If you spent as much time and energy focusing on specific instances of misuse of sources, rather than characterizing the behavior of other editors, I assure you that more people would be willing to work with you, and more would be done to advance your position. As it is, there other other areas of the site which better compel me to devote my time than sorting through personal attacks here. Please try reading over WP:AGF again. If you can cite specifics in the sources which are inappropriate, as opposed to calling for a broad "audit of all sources", and can do that without calling into question the intentions of other editors, you might get more done. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you are assuming bad faith on my part by accusing me of only being interested in "specific instances of misuse." I understand the collaborative concept. I also understand that collaboration is regulated by basic rules. It is individual editors who disregard or selectively interpret those rules. I would not be nearly as strident if the majority of editors here were not so happy with the edits I complain about. Tom Butler (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of any such thing. I said, pursuant to WP:PA: Comment on content, not contributers. If you have issues with editor conduct, then take it to an appropriate noticeboard. Here, you should be discussing specific instances where the article could be improved. Requests such as "an audit of all references" are unhelpful, particularly combined with WP:ABF.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a soapbox

In my view and, I believe, in that of many others, the paragraph in the overview on pseudoscience and public health is poorly written and poorly sourced. I thought I had improved that section with a rewrite and some good sources but my edits were reverted. I would not presume to suggest anyone replace what I had done without consensus among those who do not have personal agendas. It seems we risk being worn down by persistent advocacy for wording and sources that are not Wikipedia quality. I propose that while we ignore the soapbox we do what we can to fix that paragraph. If the soapboxing gets too persistent perhaps administrative action is in order. Jojalozzo 22:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. I have given up attempts to edit this article because of the persistent and obsessive inclusion of the irrelevant material referred to above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

I agree with you both, and that the revised version is far superior. I think this qualifies as a budding consensus, so I will go ahead and revert now. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

P.s. - the last paragraph of that section (beginning "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health"): I could have sworn we had consensus to delete that before. It's a complete misrepresentation - most pseudoscience and superstitions are of no threat to public health whatsoever (the belief in UFO or the abominable snowman pose no health threats, nor do superstitions about walking under ladders or avoiding black cats), and medical quackery is only a threat to public health where it explicitly tries to denigrate conventional medicine. Sourced or not, it's an embarrassingly ridiculous passage presented in this context in this particular way. does anyone object if I remove it? --Ludwigs2 23:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Go ahead and do that. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

I think the "danger to the public" concept is addressed pretty well in the Belief in Pseudoscience section of Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. Specifically, "...The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks (NIST 2002). (See sidebar, "Sense About Science.")" The "Losh et al" can be read here Tom Butler (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Source may be sound but is peripheral for this article. I suggest you turn your attentions to Quackery. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

It's hardly peripheral since medical quackery is often rooted in pseudoscience. There is definitely no consensus to remove that. Maybe tweak it, but not completely remove it. It used to be sourced properly, but because of all the tugging back and forth that's been going on the same words have ended up changing sources several times, often meaning that the remaining ref didn't justify the wording, when the original source did. You've all got to be more careful how you make large wholesale guttings of this article (especially considering the COI of one editor who would like to get rid of the word pseudoscience altogether). The problem could have been solved by minor tweaks of wording, keeping the sources, and thus everything would have been fine. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no portion of Tom's quoted text which indicates that the "danger" is only from Quackery. On the contrary, it appears to be explicitly referring to Pseudoscience. Furthermore, quakery is explicitly identified as containing pseudoscientific ideas within our lead. This section appears to be perfectly justified for inclusion in the article, and is properly sourced to address WP:Weight concerns. So I can get a better idea of how this section could be cleaned up to address any concerns -- What specific sections of the removed text are most contentious for editors here?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The main problem I had with that paragraph is that it was extremely over-stated. only a very small proportion of pseudoscience is a risk to public health, directly or indirectly; the rest has no relation to public health at all (unless you count driving skeptics crazy as a public health threat). therefore 'threat to public health' is not really one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience, and so doesn't belong in the overview. If you wanted to include a much more understated and constrained section dealing with the threat that certain forms of medical pseudoscience may pose that might be workable, but it's both hyperbolic and incorrect to stand up and claim that all pseudoscience constitutes a serious public health problem. it just aint true.

Jess, the quote is from a PubMed article, is which context it is fairly clear that the author is only talking about medical pseudoscience. besides, mere common sense will tell you that public health issues are medical issues by definition, and the claim could not refer to anything except quackery. --Ludwigs2 01:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to discuss the costs and impacts of pseudoscience in this article. Since quackery often (not always) takes the form of pseudoscience, we should include the harms caused by this form of pseudoscience as well as its other forms. Perhaps it would be useful to create a new section on the topic of impacts to help us and readers focus on this aspect. Jojalozzo 03:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• What belongs (or not) in this article - Xxanthippie et al’s point about quackery and alt med not being appropriate in a pseudoscience article has some merit. But this is only insofar as public perception is shaped by veneration of the authority of the quack, or through veneration of the “time honored” practices of traditional alt meds. Insofar as the "public susceptability" is shaped by veneration of science, and pseudoscience is used to shape that "public susceptability", it does belong here, and as a health risk. (“Serious” health risk might be WP:peacock.)
• Second kind of health cost of doing pseudoscience - Alt med research (not practice) is often pseudoscience, and has a high dollar cost. This is often doing pseudoscience, and is different from practicing alt med. It takes away from researching more promising treatments, only to try to shore up the feelings of alt med believers. This cost of doing pseudoscience is over and above the costs of "the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks". I read somewhere that US taxpayers alone have thrown away billions on such pseudoscientfic research. This cost to health is over and above the cost of alt med industry self funded pseudosceintific research like this, to try find something, anything, no matter how small the "significant" effect may be, only to justify its own continued existence as a practice with the veneer of scientific respectablity through the massive dollars spent on useless and often biased studies. PPdd (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience occurs in or near many fields, and only one of them is medicine. On one hand it is perfectly proper to discuss medical pseudoscience as a notable example of pseudoscience. On the other hand it's totally inappropriate to hijack the present article and write it as if all pseudoscience were medical quackery. It's certainly not OK to abuse sources that are specifically about medical pseudoscience by taking them out of context and presenting them as if they were about pseudoscience in general, even when they indicate the restriction to pseudoscience only implicitly, e.g. in the context in which they appear. Hans Adler 07:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to avoid "hijacking" better placement might be in its own section below, and not in the "overview" section. Pseudocience based alt med and quackery (as different from just tradition and authority based alt med and quackery) is more than just one example of pseudoscience, it is an entire category of examples, and a big category; i.e., a "pseudoscience in medicine" section. "Pseudoscidence in the courts" (Junk science) is a category of examples that should also have its own section. So should the category "lying with statistics", which is very much lacking in the article. Perhaps also "pseudoscience in social science" ("hoodoo science"), although this may require much more development than the first three suggested category sections. Similarly for any other very broad category of pseudoscience that has enough well developed material as to merit its own article, which could be considered a WP:Daughter article of the pseudosceince article.

As to the stretching of the source, Hans is correct. But there should be plenty more sources to use for the given language, or better language that is more in line with the source. PPdd (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Following up on Hans here, let's not get hoodwinked by vague terrors. the only cases where pseudoscience becomes a public health risk are (1) when a form of quackery prescribes a 'treatment' which is directly harmful to the patient (e.g. should some quack prescribe taking oral mercury to cure the boubons), and (2) when a quack tries to convince patients to use an ineffective or unproven treatment in preference to a proven, standard medical treatment. And even the second one is not actually a public health hazard, but is actually closer to a criminal activity. These account for a very small portion of medical fringe science, and a vanishingly small portion of fringe science as a whole. Yes, people spend money on fringe treatments; yes, people are sometimes dumb when it comes to considering fringe treatments. But spending your money on stupid crap is not a health hazard, otherwise the surgeon general would have to ban video games and Adam Sandler movies.

Writing a blog about space aliens does not create a health hazard. Trying to prove that Sasquatch exists does not create a health hazard. Even things like acupuncture, TCM, chiropractic, and (heaven forbid) homeopathy are not health hazards. They may not work, they may be a waste of money, but... they are licensed and regulated (in the US and Europe), people use them regularly without suffering any ill effects, and they do not normally detract from, supersede, or interfere with normal medical procedures. If none of these things that are frequently cited as examples of pseudoscience are public health hazards, how can we say that all pseudoscience is?

Of course, the other argument you're making is that people are too stupid to make informed choices, so we need to force them to turn to western medicine by making unjustified and exaggerated claims about the badness of even innocuous forms of fringe science. I don't think people are that dumb, personally, but if you follow that line you'll be forced to leave encyclopedic writing behind and start writing authoritative scripture (Wikipedia as The Bible of Science, if you will). However, that is antithetical to the core principles of the project. And honestly, if people are really that stupid, I'd just as soon we let Darwin have his way; otherwise we really will evolve into eloi, and who wants that? --Ludwigs2 07:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that alt med does not increase health risk except in the instances Ludqigs2 cites.

But it is not up to editors to determine if alt med is a health hazard or not. It is either in a reliable source, or it is not, and that is all we should be considering. However, talk pages can be useful for expressing these soapbox thoughts in that they may lead to paths for finding RS.

Examples Ludwigs2 does not mention are a "succeptable public" member considering dollar cost, which might induce health risks, such as seeing an acupuncturist for extreme pain when one cannot afford an MRI, or seeing a much less expensive TCM related doctor to have one's tongue examined for almost anything TCM related alt meds like acpuncture claim, or taking a toxic TCM based "TCM powder pill" that is some "scientifically" altered mix of ore of mercury, ore of asbestos, pinch of cyanide, and strychnine tree nut exctract, all really being done. Also wasting billions of health research dollars on studies like electrically stimulating astrologically derived acupuncture points and waving a magnetic wand over them, then diluting mugwort 10 to 1 and shaking 60 times then burning it on the skin or an acupuncture needle, etc., all real stuf being done with scarce health research funds. Alt med research is a category of pseudoscience, not just an example. PPdd (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

that's a naive assessment of sourcing policy, that neglects UNDUE and FRINGE. If you will not use common sense on this issue, then I'll make a very proper argument that your source's viewpoint is either (a) unrepresentative of standard scientific opinion, or (b) being taken drastically out of context to to support a claim that the author never intended to make. I would hope that you would be more reasonable in the face of such an extreme distortion of obvious facts, but I can duke it out on a point-by-point refutation of your position if you make me. are you going to make me?

to your other points:

• someone who cannot afford an MRI, cannot afford an MRI: their choice is between seeking treatment they can afford, or not seeking treatment at all. that has nothing to do with altmed
• In the US and Europe, a patient who went to an acupuncturist for extreme pain would suffer no harm from the acupuncture and would be directed to a medical doctor after a couple of treatments if the treatments were unsuccessful. any other behavior would cost the acupuncturist his license
• TCM herbalists never to my knowledge use raw minerals in preparations or medicinals.

As I have noted elsewhere, your understanding of TCM is very distorted, along the lines of someone trying to evaluate western medicine by analyzing spam emails and late-night infomercials. I cannot make you assume good faith with respect to it, but I will not allow you to cynically reduce the entire centuries-old practice to tiger-penis viagra and silly eternal life elixirs. If you cannot take a more balanced view than that, you should not be editing these articles at all. --Ludwigs2 08:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, undue and FRINGE should be addressed in considering RS on this if applicable. You should try your argument out on the critically endangered siberian tigers themselves, and try out what you call a "fringe" and "undue" on National Geographic publishing on TCM, not me. ( If I might help you to help me better to understand the benifits of TCM medicines, point to the Salix spp. to aspirin history; never point at someone's penis, as you might find yourself in the maw of a tiger, or as Chef said in Apocalypse now, "F-ing tiger. Never get off of the f-ing boat, man". :) ) Also, you called it a "budding consensus" with only two comments within a single hour after starting this section; L2, your comments are typically much better reasoned than that (comments by some others have not been so well reasoned). PPdd (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia is not the place to save the siberian tiger, and attacking TCM would not be an effective means of doing that anyway, since most TCM practitioners are just as much against those kinds of bogus medicinals as you are (and the idiots who buy them would buy them even if you managed to stamp out mainstream TCM practices completely). and yes, three editors can represent a budding consensus, particularly where common sense and basic logic support their perspective. And none of that matters here anyway. please keep focused on the content discussion at hand. --Ludwigs2 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The thread is waffling. Ludwigs2, referring to the paragraph in the overview, you say above "but it's both hyperbolic and incorrect to stand up and claim that all pseudoscience constitutes a serious public health problem. it just aint true." That's a smokescreen if ever I saw one because the paragraph makes no such claim. It says "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery can be a serious threat to public health......(and).....the book Trick or Treatment records several occasions where patient's faith in medical pseudoscience has led to complications, further injury and death." That doesn't say anything near what you wrote, but what it does say is verifiable. Moriori (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Focussed summary so far -

• 1 Soapboxing is bad. Accuracy of citing and RS is needed for assertions about health risks.
• 2 Sources so far given are not accurately summed in the overview section.
• 3 Editors are tired of soapboxing here, and of constant tweaking which leads by WP:article creep to refs no longer applying to the line as ultimately worded, when they started off being applicable.
• 4 There is RS for, from "nsf.gov Belief in Pseudoscience" - "The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks", which from the context, appears to be only about medical pseudoscience to some editors.
• 5 Quackery and alt that relies on authority other than scientific appearing authority is less of a pseudoscience than that which does.
• 6 Quackery and alt med have a special status as pseudoscience. (See next section)
• 7 Quackery and alt med are entire categories of examples of pseudoscience, not just a single example.
• 8 All pseudoscience is not alt med or quackery, only a significant portion.
• 9 "'threat to public health' is not really one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience"it is an effect of a significan part of pseudoscience, so it "doesn't belong in the overview", and the best placement might be in an idependent section.
• 10 "Serious health risk" may be WP:Peacock for "health risk".
• 11 There are multiple kinds of health risk, getting harmful treatment, not getting helpful treatment, using up pocketbooks on the useless, spending scarce research funds on pseudoscientific studies, etc.
• 12 There are "costs and impacts of pseudoscience" in addition to those of alt med and quackery that should be stated in this article.
• 13 RS is needed to make any of these points in the article, not just editors' opinions.
• 14 One editor will not admit to secretly drinking tiger's penis tea like the rest of us do. PPdd (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current status of the subject paragraph. Jojalozzo 23:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Moriori: The 'can be' was added after I deleted the paragraph and it was reinserted. regardless, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how UFOlogy or cryptozoology "can be" considered health risk in any way, shape or form. If that cannot be done, then we cannot blandly assert that pseudoscience is inherently a health hazard.

with respect to "Trick or Treatment": there are numerous cases in the literature where standard medical practices have produced ugly complications - in small percentages of cases, a simple prescription of aspirin has lead to death from liver failure. One can always find "Oh Shit!" examples from every kind of medical practice; such examples do not add up to a condemnation of the practice unless they are more like the rule than the exception. Literally hundreds of millions of people have received TCM care with some positive results and no adverse effects, so enough of that silliness.

@PPdd: again, bolded, because you refused to acknowledge these points when I raised them above: extra cost is not a health risk; poor science education is not a health risk. These may be issues that can be addressed in the article, but we do not address them by claiming they are health risk when they clearly are not.

and incidentally, quackery is pseudoscience by definition, but not all altmed is quackery and not all altmed is pseudoscience (some of it is non-scientific, some of it semi-scientific).

@Joja: I am not satisfied with the current status of the paragraph. More to the point, the paragraph is a misrepresentation of the subject matter, and so it doesn't matter whether you or I are 'satisfied', does it?

seriously people, this is not a vote - I've given you a very clear and reasonable explanation of why this paragraph has to go (recap: it misrepresents both the subject matter and the author of the source being cited - that violates sourcing policy and abuses the central purpose of the encyclopedia). unless one of you gives a better explanation of why the paragraph has to stay, I will remove it again. And yes, I will keep removing it until I get such an explanation, so... --Ludwigs2 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Ludwig, I don't always read as carefully as I should. Often I stop reading when the verbiage gets too thick or arguments too heated. I think you are making the point that superstition and quackery may be threats to public health but pseudoscience is not except when it supports quackery. If I have that right, I see your point. Jojalozzo 05:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The source stated Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. The sourced text decided quackey is a type of pseudoscience. So, it is indeed relevant to this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@ jojo - yes, hat's precisely what I meant. though I'd qualify that not even all quackery is a threat to public health - no one is likely to suffer any effects (ill or good) from magnetic healing bracelets, for instance. Apoogies, I am sometimes both long-winded and hot-tempered.

@ QuackGuru - no one is objecting to that point. the problem is that those forms of quackery which constitute public health hazards make up only a tiny portion of pseudoscience as a whole, so we cannot call all of pseudoscience a public health hazard. That would be like saying all cars are bad because some people drive drunk. --Ludwigs2 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are objecting to that point when you continue to have a persoanl disagreement with the source because you claim "those forms of quackery which constitute public health hazards make up only a tiny portion of pseudoscience as a whole, so we cannot call all of pseudoscience a public health hazard". The article does not say a tiny portion of pseudoscience is quackery. What the article does say is sourced in accordance with WP:V. That would be like saying all cars are bad because some people drive drunk? No, drinking and driving is all bad. QuackGuru (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru: that's such a mindless argument, it doesn't even call for a critique. no one is questioning the validity of the source - I am questioning the relevance of the source to the article. This quote has been taken out of context and used to defend an claim on wikipedia that the source itself does not make. THAT is pure, unadulterated, obvious, and reprehensible ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I've heard you use this argument on multiple articles, and I'm sick of it: if you cannot understand basic sourcing and content policy (much less tha basic principles of scholarly reasoning), then you should not be editing wikipedia. Keep pushing this POV-ridden line and I will take you back to AN with a new community ban proposal. understood? --Ludwigs2 16:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The source covers pseudoscience and its many forms. The quote was not taken out of context. The current text is well sourced and relevant despite your vague objections. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote is taken out of context, as I have demonstrated several times. your failure to understand is irrelevant. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated at any time what was taken out of context. I provided verification for the text. You deleted relevant content and claim a source about pseudoscience and its different forms is irrelevant. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No Warring

For the a third time today good faith attempts to improve the last paragraph in the Overview section have been overwritten with material that has been rejected by the consensus. I believe the concerns of the disruptive editor have been heard and addressed repeatedly and extensively. I would ask that the paragraph be returned to it's last good state and that we continue to improve it from there without further war or soapbox. Thanks, Jojalozzo 02:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is so much toing and froing that I have lost track. Can you say which version you want restored? Who is the disruptive editor? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you are suggesting but we should not restore original research or text that failed verification. See #Replacing source text with original research continues. QuackGuru (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jojo - it's time for an RfC. Not that that will solve the dispute, but it's the necessary step to move this discussion up the ladder so that punitive actions can be taken against the more tendentious participants here. I'll begin the RfC below. --Ludwigs2 19:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention needed at Osteopathy

Attention is needed at the Osteopathy article per this. PPdd (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Special status of alt med in pseudoscience

A person may follow authority in medicine. A person may follow authority in the courts. If the authority claims a scientific basis, and uses pseudoscientific methods to do it, then this is pseudoscience in both cases. But if the authority does ‘’not’’ claim a scientific basis, the former is ‘’still’’ pseudoscience, and the latter is ‘’not’’, because medicine is a branch of science, and law is not. Alt meds have a special place in pseudoscience because there need not be a claim of scientific methodology, yet it is still pseudoscience, since it is medicine. PPdd (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct, and also because alt med makes falsifiable claims of efficacy which are not proven to be true. It is defined as unproven or disproven methods. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I.e., tautologically special, too. PPdd (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! -- Brangifer (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There is extensive philosophical literature on the nature and definition of pseudoscience, and while I can't claim to have read and understood all of it, it seems clear to me that your reasoning is at odds with the mainstream expert opinions and of a much lower intellectual quality. Defining pseudoscience is a tricky problem, and it's generally not helpful to promote ad hoc definitions on this talk page. If you are not familiar with the discussion, I suggest that you get an overview by reading Sven Ove Hansson's article Science and Pseudo-Science in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It appears to me that the definition of pseudoscience that you are using is even more general than what Hansson discusses under "3.4 A wider sense of pseudoscience".

One key problem in your argument is that you are begging the question when you assume that the standard for comparing and classifying CAM is "medicine", i.e. scientific medicine. Modern scientific medicine has grown out of the art of treating patients so that they hopefully get, or at least feel, better. Large parts of CAM have grown out of the same art, but without becoming scientific, and sometimes even without trying to become scientific. It's unfair to hold the narrow definition of "medicine" as a scientific discipline against fields that are part of medicine only in the original, wider sense.

Your argument would lead to absurd results. If we take it seriously, a number of practices of mainstream medicine would have to be classified as pseudoscientific merely because they have no scientific basis. Is charging money for treating a patient pseudoscientific? Maybe you can fix your definition to get rid of this particular artefact, but there are others that will make more work: How about palliative care for the terminally ill who cannot express their wishes? If we take your definition of pseudoscience seriously, that's a pseudoscientific practice, and the only rational way of dealing with them would be to dump them alive on some rubbish heap, or whatever is the cheapest way of disposing of them allowed by law. Hans Adler 09:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What "your definition" are you talking about? PPdd (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I now see that you used the words "pseudoscientific methods". For some reason I read this as "non-scientific methods". Sorry for the misunderstanding. I obviously need new glasses. (Seriously. I lost my glasses the day before yesterday.)

But I fail to understand what you mean by "special status of alt med". How is its status any different from pseudoscience in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, ...? Hans Adler 19:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As to your glasses, looking for glasses without glasses borders on being a logical paradox. I recently had to fix the little screw in my reading glasses, which takes reading glasses to see.

How it differs is that (1) those particular pseudosciences make false claims to scientific methodology, whereas an alt med does not need to make such a claim, but since medicine is science, it implicitly makes the claim, which is a "special status" of alt med. (2) Brangifer points to a second way in which it is special, in that since medicine is about efficacy, and efficacy is established scientifically, alt meds by deifinition make unestablished claims, so are by definition pseudoscience. PPdd (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he's using the standard skeptic-lite argument that medical science is somehow 'ontologically' true, and therefore anything which disagrees with medical science is explicitly false and consequently pseudoscientific. but frankly, I found this thread to be pointless and confused, and decided (as I think you're finding out now) that it would take too much effort to untangle the confusion (which would have to happen before we could even start having a meaningful discussion about the issues). but...

P.s.: skeptic-lite - that great skeptical taste without all that philosophical substance to weigh you down. Lifestyle choice of the modern skeptic-on-the-go. --Ludwigs2 22:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I'm not quite that naive. Modern medicine isn't all EBM. It's a blending of art, experiment, old inherited practices, serendipity, and solid, research-backed, practice. Where it fundamentally differs from alt med is that it is constantly seeking to become more and more evidence-based, well-knowing that such will never be completely possible or practical. Some of the "art" will always be necessary, but it should at least not be contrary to EBM.

This is a relatively modern movement in medicine, in keeping with the developing and pervasive practice of using the scientific method as a winnowing tool to separate all the inherited practices within modern medicine. Some of them are very old and never been tested very well. Some of it is chaff and must be discarded (that never happens in alt med), while other is worth keeping and improving, and still other is promising and deserves more research. It's a never ending process. So yes, there are likely some pseudoscientific aspects to certain old medical practices that haven't been discarded yet, but we can't be sure of that before it has been reassessed to determine if that's the case. If so, then we need to get rid of it.

The application of all this to alt med occasionally results in preventing some alt med practices which clamor for acceptance from being included in mainstream practice, since so much of it is blatently or fundamentally based in pseudoscientific ideas. The complementary and integrative medicine movements seek to counteract this use of the scientific method to make and then keep modern medicine as free from pseudoscience and quackery as possible. They use muddled thinking and confuse the picture, often to the detriment and even unnecessary death of patients.

Is that all clear as mud, or should I shake or stir it along with your favorite brand of skeptic-lite and drink it down? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You left out of what medicine is - "... external profit driven advice, succeptability to pharmaceutical advertisement, math and statistics phoia, laziness, intentionally veiled ignorance, and thirst for personal profit". :) PPdd (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry, BR, that was my assessment of PPdd, not you. he's been having a bit of an "energizer bunny" moment on TCM (and I assume other altmed articles); I've been waiting for him to settled down into a more conventional editing style before putting serious effort in to repairing his worst misconceptions.

Point of order, though: EBM is not really a movement or a practice - EBM is an anti-altmed idea that has been floated as though it were part of the philosophy of science, but in fact hasn't made much traction there or anywhere. It's by all measures a fringe concept (advocated primarily by its proposers and adherents, largely ignored by mainstream science and philosophy, presenting itself as true without actually measuring itself against other more established theories in the field). The central tenets of EBM do not really stand up to analytic scrutiny, and while it's a reasonable enough idea in its own way it is not applied in a self-consistent fashion (otherwise TCM and acupuncture would qualify as EBM - the primary critiques of those practices are theoretical objections, not evidentiary ones). I'm just sayin'... --Ludwigs2 16:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hans - I thought the "energizer bunny" ad was for an erectile dysfunction med, and the idea is that bunny never runs out of juice, so it may be a long wait for settling down. :)

There really should be two pseudoscience articles. One would be oriented to a general readership, the other oriented to the highly technical philosophical analysis of what science is or is not. (I just had the bad memory of plodding through some technical response to Lakatos as an undergrad and thinking, "do I really want to be doing this? If not, what else is there except superficiality?" PPdd (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing can "stand up to analytic scrutiny", but if a realist throws real rocks in a scuffle with an idealist, the idealist should "duck" (and quack out a complaint). Wouldn't it be more appropriate to cite an "integrative synthesis" example instead of a differential analysis to attack EBM? :) PPdd (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... your first line seems to have disposed of all of science and philosophy. skepticism that approaches the point of nihilism is not really useful.

with respect to your other... I don't mind EBM as a concept. but as it stands it's definitely fringe. There are too many people involved with it (both analytically and casually) who consistently redefine it just so that it continues to exclude altmed. Currently it's more the medical equivalent of the 'No Homers club', and doesn't command a lot of respect as a philosophical approach to medical science. maybe that will change over coming decades, but that's not a reason to give it undue weight as of now. --Ludwigs2 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC - problematic paragraph

A long-running dispute involving the application of wp:V to a particular source (Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol). Granting that the source is clearly from a good journal, its use on the article is disputed because it is being used to promote a perspective not consistent with the author's intent and outside of the scope of the published article. opponents note the following:

• The article is a psychological piece about the the mistaken perceptions of causality, and does not concern itself with the the health risks of pseudoscience outside of the first line of the abstract
• The article explicitly only deals with medical quackery - "The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better..." - and yet is being used to advance the position that all pseudoscience is a public health risk (pseudoscience covers a broad range of topics - e.g. UFOlogy, crypotozoology, cold fusion - which have absolutely not relation to health issues)
• The source is new (2010), and no other sources make similarly strong claims, so the source fails wp:UNDUE
• The source and its associated paragraph are being used primarily as an extension of conflicts over alternative medicine that have little or nothing to do with the topic of pseudoscience.

proponents largely argue that it is it is a valid, reliable source, and so cannot be excluded from the article.

There is a larger policy issue here about the proper use of sources. Does the mere fact that a source said something in a decent-quality journal mean that that quote can be used with this kind of liberal disregard for context? It seems obvious to me that Matute et al simply included this line as toss-off line to begin their abstract, and that it is not an analytical claim that they defend as a matter of scholarship. That point is apparently not obvious to others in the dispute.

link to article abstract link to first removal of paragraph in this incarnation of the dispute, though note this has been going back and forth for months. --Ludwigs2 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Instead of deleting, why not just reword it per WP:V as to its context as pseudoscience used in medicine, and put it in its own section so it would not be WP:UNDUE, as suggested in the above talk page discussion? The view that pseudoscience used in medicine is a health risk is certainly not fringe in any way. PPdd (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(PS, Ludwigs2, why did you notice "religion" for comment on science and medicine, and not notice the relevant boards? That's like intentionally calling out the kooks.) PPdd (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have said several times, I'm not against having a separate section that deals with the public health risks of medical quackery, but this paragraph does not belong as part of the overview for pseudoscience, where it suggests (incorrectly and unfairly) that this is a significant consideration for all pseudoscience. That's just irrational.

I added religion because that's also where philosophy RfC's go, and this question would have meaning to people in the philosophy of science. And please don't suggest that your fellow wikipedia editors are "kooks" unless you want some of them to give equally frank analyses of your personality. That would be fun, mind you, but it would not be conducive to civil discourse. --Ludwigs2 20:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re kooks. Question:What's the difference between a weirdo and a kook?... Answer: ...I am not a weirdo. :) PPdd (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If the issue is placement in the article, rather than inclusion, then why not try moving it to a new section and see if that gains consensus. Clearly, removing it entirely has not.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you try putting it elsewhere rather than reverting it? I don't want this in the article at all, but I'd be willing to compromise if anyone tried to work with me

it's not a good idea to expect me to to do all the work here, Jess - I am not your wife or your mother. compromise and common sense cut both ways, so if you see an opening to solve the dispute, take it and do it. otherwise I'll happy to lower myself to the 'revert monkey' level of communication that seems to be the norm for this page. --Ludwigs2 00:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Sounds like a good Signpost headline - "Ludwigs2 Admits He Is Not Jess' Mother". PPdd (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

P.s. See Jess? you needn't have worried. Predictably, some random idiot came by and reverted again without discussion [11]. I swear, mindless skepticism drives some of the worst frigging revert-monkies on wikipedia. damned science trolls - lol - Karl Popper is spinning in his grave... --Ludwigs2 01:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the dispute is not just about placement but an insistence on some editors part to attribute health risks to pseudoscience in general rather than just quackery. I agree that the article would be improved by a separate section on the impacts and risks of pseudoscience (including quackery but only in those cases when it is based on pseudoscience). Jojalozzo 00:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Every attempt to reword that I am aware of has been reverted with repetitive insistence on the validity of the existing construction with little if any acknowledgment of the validity of alternative views.
2. In my view any rewording that includes the disputed reference would be inappropriate.

Jojalozzo 00:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I support deletion or replacement. The present version is just inappropriate here. It might be suitable for another article. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

Ludwigs, I feel I have to point to WP:Civil again. Additionally, regarding your edit summary, I referenced WP:EW not 3rr. This very much is an edit war, and it's unconstructive and combative to continually remove it while discussion is ongoing. Personally, I remain unconvinced that there is any legitimate issue with it remaining in the Overview section, but considering your comment above that placing it elsewhere would be acceptable to you, I think my suggestion to try moving it is a reasonable one. If you'd rather pick fights than work with a compromise which you've admitted would be acceptable, then I don't know what else to tell you. To everyone else, is the main problem the sourcing or the content itself? In other words, if all the claimed sourcing issues were to be addressed, would there still be objections to the content? I'm trying to get a better handle on what sorts of avenues we have for solving this dispute, if indeed one is necessary.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

point to whatever you like. I have logic, reason, and policy on my side, and because of that I will keep pushing this point until something snaps. You'd best find some reason that convinces me I'm wrong (I'm open to that), or come over to my side of this argument if you dispute this issue to end. --Ludwigs2 01:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility is not optional, even if you have "logic on your side", and it's not a good way to win over editors. If you do wish to work collaboratively, you could try answering my question above regarding sourcing, or try your hand at the proposed compromise. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My last comment for the day, in/re sourcing: I don't have any problem with the source itself (except, as noted, that the article is only from 2010, and one would be hard-pressed to make a case that this is a broadly-held viewpoint). The problem is that the quote is being taken drastically out of the context of its source to serve a very different purpose than it serves in the source. I mean drastically - on a level with taking Marx' famous "Workers of the world unite!" and adding it to the homosexuality article as evidence that Marx supported gay marriage. You can make any source look like it supports anything if you quote selectively enough, with enough blatant disregard for context. --Ludwigs2 02:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is comment is tangentially related to the discussion: I welcome help from editors who until now have not been involved in this dispute but I would like to know why they are only reverting to the current construction rather than reverting back to any of the good faith attempts to reword it and avoid the disputed citation. In my view reverting with the comment that there is no consensus is unhelpful. I'd prefer editors take the time to look back in the history and revert to a version that they think works and say so. If they like the current construction then argue for it. Likewise, I hope we can agree that consensus is not served by one editor or some small minority holding out for their position without consideration for alternative views - i.e. that consensus is not the same as unanimity. Jojalozzo 01:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to reword it per the source and start a "pseudocience in medicine" section for it (and start a pseudoscience in courts section, and a "pseudoscience misusing statistics" section, and a "pathological science" section), but I thought it best if Ludwigs2 did this, as this might avoid future disputes. PPdd (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors who reverted, I have no problem with the section being reworded. However, I don't know which specific revision you find acceptable. My only reason for reverting was that the content was entirely removed, primarily by one editor, all while discussion was still ongoing. For the most part, I simply undid the removal and left the section in its previous form. Could you point to the "last good" revision, so I could take a look at the differences between it and our current wording?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

After the last deletion I added an Impacts and concerns section with the most recent rewording (just by chance one of mine). That new section is now existing in parallel with the reverted disputed version at the end of the Overview section. Jojalozzo 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How many times are you and other editors are going to continue to add OR to this article. The source you used failed verification. See #Replacing source text with original research continues. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't follow all the links to links, etc. Since we have number of new participants and I wasn't able to follow everything in previous discussions, please restate your position here for me with referencing past discussions, especially 1) identify the OR and 2) identify which source failed verification. Jojalozzo 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor who removes a passage that misrepresents a source by taking it out of context is not obliged to otherwise fix the passage and add it elsewhere. This is particularly true when it's not even clear how relevant the thought in question is to the article, as is the case here. (Remember, this is the article about stuff like astrology, supernatural bicycles and homeopathy, not the just the article about medical pseudoscience.) Any editor who knowingly restores a paragraph that misrepresents a source assumes responsibility for the policy violation. Hans Adler 06:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Vague objections show there may not be any policy violation The text is sourced in accordance with V and no reasonable effort was made to improve the paragraph. For now, I trimmed the paragraph based on the concerns of other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which part of "The source isn't reliable for the claim being made" and "the source doesn't make the claim being made" are you finding vague? I see no reason to try to 'improve' a paragraph that should simply be deleted under policy. --Ludwigs2 21:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This thread seems to have deviated a bit from the question at hand. Regarding the source itself: the source appears to be reasonable and reliably published, and as such there is no reason to exclude it from the article. Regarding weight: I agree that it is a single source and as such doesn't belong in a prominent position such as the lede. It does, however, belong somewhere in the article. Regarding interpretation: I don't have the full source available, but the abstract does say 'Pseudoscience' and not 'Some pseudoscience'. The author's intention may well have been limited to medical context but making assumptions about the author's intention would be original research at best. Sources must be verifiable, and I just don't see the abstract verifying in any capacity that the author was referring to a subset of pseudosciences. If the full source makes it explicitly clear then great, but applying implicit interpretation on the source is only going to cause problems down the line.

An appropriate phrasing would indicate that it is the source that asserts that pseudoscience (along with the other elements it listed) are a health risk - this is a fact based on verifiable evidence and makes no assertions as to whether or not the source is correct. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The full source makes no mention of risks to public health. The comment in the abstract appears to be an expression of the authors' basic motivation for the work but is not addressed in the full source. Because of that the comment is poor support for the claim of health risks. Jojalozzo 02:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside view: Just a quick comment. The source is reliable, however, the paragraph as written is problematic. As a single source, the weight given by that long paragraph is undue. Phrasing can also be improved. Also mention that the source is talking about medical risks. LK (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The source may be reliable from a letter of the wikilaw perspective but it's not a useful source since the reader cannot use it to find out about the health risks of pseudoscience in general or even those of quackery. The source is not about health risks! Most editors here wish to replace this source with others but every attempt to do so has been reverted. Outside perspectives are helpful but I'd prefer they be as informed as possible. Please read the full source not just the abstract and then tell us whether you think it's useful in this article. Jojalozzo 14:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, back to calm discussion.

LK - reliability is not a magic wand that automatically confers unconsidered inclusion. Reliability means that a source is high-quality with respect to a given topic, as determined by a number of factors. The source in question is in a reputable psychology journal which increases its reliability for psychology-related issues. However, this article is not a psychology article, and the source is being used to make non-psychological claims, and so it cannot be considered a reliable source for the purposes in which it is being used on wikipedia. yes? --Ludwigs2 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The disputed source could easily be replaced with something that truly supports the claim of health risks with just a few minutes on Google (see Pseudoscience#Impacts and concerns for one attempt to do so). Does anyone who's read this source in full believe it's the best support we can find for a claim of health risks due to pseudoscientific quackery? If so, please explain - I missed something. If not, let's stop cooking this trollish feast. Jojalozzo 04:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Occam’s Razor vs. Alice in Wonderland

Violation of scientific principles such Occam’s Razor characterizes some pseudoscience publication conclusions (also misuse of statistics and logical invalidity). An “Integrative Medicine” article abstract goes like this, (paraphrasing slightly) - “Weight reduction and exercise are known to reduce the risk of heart disease. We did a study that added 'mindful meditation' to weight loss and exercise, and the total intervention reduced risk. This shows Integrative Medicine methods can be used to reduce risk of heart disease, possibly by incorporating weight reduction and exercise.”[12] How should this kind of publication style, typical of pseudoscience pubs, be dealt with in the article? (This particular example is a primary source study, but the same reasoning is typical of such secondary reviews of such primary studies.) PPdd (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article or just at the abstract? A lot of non-mathematicians have serious problems with expressing simple connections, often while intuitively getting some of the most important things right anyway.

I suggest that you find a reliable source of high quality that discusses "this kind of publication style", and then propose including it in the article. Hans Adler 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article, but the abstract makes it pretty clear that "integrating" in integrative medicine can be to take a known medical effect, throw a confounding factor alt med treatment on top and do more studies, then declare victory for the integration. PPdd (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd - in fact, if a study could demonstrate statistically that weight reduction and exercise + meditation significantly reduced the risk of heart disease over weight reduction and exercise alone, that would be both scientifically meaningful and interesting. Occam's razor is a principle of selection - it says that we should select the simplest explanation that accommodates all the available evidence. if available evidence were to show that meditation had a measurable impact on incidence of heart disease, then Occam's Razor would suggest that the standard medical model would have to be rejected or revised, since it would no longer adequately accommodate the evidence.

In other words, one needs to show that the study itself is flawed; one can't simply assume that that the study is flawed because the study's presumptions conflict with conventional models. doing so would be unscientific. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A study comparing an adjunct to a known effective treatment with the treatment alone is reasonable (although maybe a waste of money for some alt meds). This study did not do that. Adding an adjunct to what is already known to be an effective treatment alone, then making claims about the efficacy of adding an adjunct, without comparing it to the treatment alone is pure pseudoscience. A child whould be able to understand why it is bogus. It was also "edited" and "peer reviewed" in a major CAM/IM journal, indicating how pervasive pseudoscience is in CAM and IM. PPdd (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I went and looked at the abstract, and I don't see what you're talking about. The study appears to be comparing what they call an 'integrative approach' (which seems client-centered health coaching using non-conventional techniques) to well-established statistical averages for conventional medical care, for a population of individuals with a particular kind of health problem. There's nothing wrong with that from a research perspective that I can see. Of course, the problem they ought to address is the 'attention' factor - there are numerous studies which show that extra attention (as would be the necessary case with a client-centered approach) can by itself have a significant impact on outcomes. But overall this seems like a standard medical preliminary research model: take a group of people with a condition, give them a treatment, and compare the results to established standards of treatment. of course, normal medical research would then go on to a double-blind paradigm for further testing; that would be impossible to structure for this kind of approach, since it requires patient participation in the treatment. That being said, their conclusion is not exaggerated with respect to the research (they are not making any extraordinary claims, but simply noting that their 'integrative' approach reduces risks, including the possibility that the personalized attention merely got patients to follow the health and exercise routine more diligently). Unless there's some deeper flaw in their methodology that I can't see from the abstract, this seems fine. Not too earth-shattering, maybe, but fine. what precisely are you objecting to in it?--Ludwigs2 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)