Category talk:Ancient astronaut speculation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This category is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Category-class)
WikiProject icon This category falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Category page Category  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated Category-class)
WikiProject icon This category is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Category page Category  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Category-class)
WikiProject icon This category is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Category page Category  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Ancient astronaut theory part of Pseudoscience?[edit]

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this category, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume, that as with a cite tag, you won't do this hastily, but here is a start [1], [2], [3], [4]. Doug Weller (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm in no big hurry. I can't get into any books.google.com site cite. any quotes you can present here or aim for some other URL print-text that has substance? That the theory receives negative criticism from scientists is obvious and agreed. That it relies upon pseudoscience (particularly pseudoarchaeology) seems to be likely. That the theory itself is pseudoscience is something i am attempting to determine.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
And my copy of Cult Archaeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs About the Past by Francis B. Harrold and Raymond A. Eve explicitly calls such claims pseuodoscientific, pp ix-x. I'm not at all cleaer why you have raised this, as it appears that almost everyone who has written about pseudo-science includes ancient astronauts as an example, or why you didn't check yourself before raising the question. Doug Weller (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, what is the background and authority of these two authors?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
really, this is sufficient. asking for more than this is simply POINTy.DGG (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
no, it isn't really. here's the bit from which i am operating:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

the background for Professor Eve is Sociology and Psychology (arguably soft sciences). the background for Francis B. Harrold appears to be Archaeology and Sociology, which is marginally better. Why would they be the ones who would know about the general scientific community's attitude toward this or whether this silly theory is based on or constitutes pseudoscience? I am not sure. You haven't explained that part, just expected me to believe that they are reliable. In any case, thanks very much for the reference. It seems quite reasonable.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hard vs. soft science? No such thing. There is science. And there is no science. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept that. The two categories i think we've agreed are relevant now for these are 1) a general reference such as an encyclopedia which references a thing as pseudoscience (Arbcom: 'generally presumed pseudoscience') or 2) a specific reference from a scientific board such as an academy of sciences which indicates that a thing is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community (Arbcom: considered such by the scientific community).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Can't get into any Google books site? They are verifiable references, I don't see why I should waste any more time on this. Still, the first is Rational Changes in Science By Joseph C. Pitt and Marcello Pera, who was professor of philosophy of science at the University of Pisa Doug Weller (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it seems like you are wasting your time, Doug. Since this category tag is pejorative, i'm taking steps to clean up its usage a little. I did see the reference below from Malcolm and this is a positive indicator that some people regard this as generally agreed to be pseudoscience, so as i take this discussion to the Talk page of the subject i'm sure you won't have to be bothered with it any further. No worries. :)-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Nagasiva, as far as I can tell, this source [5] is reliable and says that Ancient astronaut theory is a pseudo-science category. I do not think anything more is needed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The author is a philosopher, not a scientist. His assessment isn't one from a general source such as an encyclopedia, nor is it from a scientific board, such as an academy of science. This is therefore insufficient for our purposes. Can you direct me to any others? I'll be taking the query to the Talk page of the subject but will watch this page to see if you come up with anything that fits our criteria. Thank you for your time and patience.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with a philosopher of science saying what is pseudo-scientific? Who better? You've had 6 so far. I don't understand the bit about not being able to get into Google books, but they are verifiable. Wanting one from an 'Academy of science' is ridiculous, I wouldn't expect a body like that to 'pronounce' on this. I note that you are no longer asking for authors as sources. Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm siding with Doug Weller on this. He's given good enough sources, let it rest, Self-ref. Abyssal (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No chance. He's moved to Talk:Ancient astronaut theories without even the courtesy of mentioning that there had already been a discussion. Except there he is starting with a demand for a reference from an encyclopedia or 'Academy of Science'. Doug Weller (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

\ Has anyone ever though about tagging it as a pre-scientific theory... explanation being as follows. I think that the only research on this matter is archeology or anthropology, but its application in the life of the people who either A) experienced as depicted or B) artistically depicted their beleif was to explain something out of lack of science--Kr4ft (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)