Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Four groups
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Scientific Racism (Social Sciences)[edit]

I have before challenged the validity of calling the knowledge of differences between races pseudoscience. See I think a few things has been added since then but the description is still there so I will remove just that part now as it is not pseudoscience. I'm referring to "claim that scientific evidence shows the inferiority or superiority of certain races". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NumericalWarfare (talkcontribs) 15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


The author of the article "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" has put forward an immense amount of data from secondary evidence. Lots of factual errors are present in the page. It should be left to the discretion of the reader to decide how much of the information is to be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tej Sanyal (talkcontribs) 04:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no single author here. This is a collaborative project and we follow the policies and guidelines in the production of articles. Content is based on what reliable sources say. More information is found at the respective articles. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 08:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sungazing - Missing Pseudosciences[edit]

I recommend that sun gazing be added to the list of obvious pseudosciences. DrMattB (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not every crackpot idea needs to be listed here. Sungazing is only a problem for those that try it, and it doesn't need any more attention. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Sungazing is necessarily widespread enough to merit inclusion on its own, but it could be included in a section on Breatharianism (which it is related to and which is also currently omitted from this list) which is much more widespread, and should probably be added to the list as several people have died as a result of attempting it, a fact that gives it quite a bit of notability. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Sources calling it a major pseudoscience? This is not an exhaustive list. DreamGuy (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, as someone pointed out (in a now moved discussion) the sole qualification for inclusion on this page is "Is it described on it's own page as a pseudoscience?", which it is, and it is certainly more of a "major pseudoscience" (in terms of notability) than Lawsonomy or Penta Water or the Nibiru cataclysm, none of which (as far as I know) have lead to verifiable deaths.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Gender Studies?[edit]

According to the most scientists Gender Studies are a pseudoscience!-- (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

are they now? do you have sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)