The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
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:
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.
I noticed a recent change in the Falsifiability section that brought my attention to the following sentence that has been there for quite a long time (there was skirmishing over this in July 2007):
For example, a statement such as "God created the universe" may be true or false, but no tests can be devised that could prove it either way; it simply lies outside the reach of science.
[The example statement was more recently changed to the current "God exists".] This example strikes me as a really poor one for scientific falsifiability, since it drags in various religious debates for no good reason. I find it hard to believe that a reliable source would have used this as an introductory example. As best I can see, this sentence isn't supported by the ref that follows it (Popper's Conjectures and Refutations).
In view of the maturity of this particular bit of the article, I hesitate to simply excise the sentence, but that's what I would like to propose, seeking consensus or if nobody objects. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 03:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I know that the FSM exists, nevertheless I wholeheartedly agree. Even he is not sure that he created the universe! RobP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This issue is not entirely moot; some efforts have gone into replacing the above-mentioned sentence with another attempted explanation, but also without support from sources. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 18:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Popper held that stuff such as metaphysics, ethics, philosophy, purely religious creeds is inherently unfalsifiable. So that has to be rendered, too. Since to most people God stands for religion, it is a germane example. But of course, he did not state that religion is pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I have removed the unsourced sentence. We probably need a better example, but this issue could simply be left un-elaborated here and outsourced to Falsifiability page. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 23:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not the only topic where I've noticed the tendency to cite the content of one author in longer and greater detail than the content of other authors. For example, an author named Popper has about three paragraphs describing a view on this topic while others have less content cited. I am not as familiar with this topic as I am with others so I am in no position to question the influence of one author over another. Is this undue weight? How would I know? Barbara (WVS)✐✉ 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Popper is a major thinker in this area, yes. -Roxy the dog.bark 19:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, an author can be very notable while also considered a reliable source, so articles don't necessarily need to try to keep a balance between authors. If that author contradicts the mainstream view, that is another matter, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 01:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Misuse of the term "science" for something that is not scientific
How would e.g. "Catering Science" or "Hospitality Science" be categorized? There are universities offering B.Sc degrees in these fields (though one may question the legitimacy of such universities). Is it a form of pseudoscience or does it fall under some other classification of fake science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science_in_Hospitality_%26_Catering_Management "Catering Science" may be something completely valid and useful in the context of training for the hospitality industry, but that being said it is not science because it does not involve the scientific method. This seems like a case of latching onto and mis-using the definition of science in order to make something that is not science seem more valid or impressive. This is also appears to be a growing trend in academia. How should it be handled in Wikipedia? An additional form of pseudoscience, or something else? Rotiro (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)