Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Archive created on April 26, 2006:

Somewhat scientific?

I always thought that pseudoscience was a mixture of science and non-science, the result being something that has not been proven to be scientifically true but has not been proven scientifically false; therfore being a beleif that is supported partially by something that is science-based, but not science itself.

This article describes pseudo-science as something incorrectly assumed as scientific. If that is the definition, then what is the word for my definition, as described above. --Munchkinguy 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It can also be considered something philosophical or metaphysical that clothes itself in the garbs of scientific language and terminology, to give it an appearance of being scientific and respectable. Much of the use of the term "quantum physics" [1] [2] falls into that category. In fact those terms can be considered "red flags" in many discussions of so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM). -- Fyslee 12:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bohm

The article says "Since, historically, it has been applied to competing theories and interpretations of empirical evidence within the mainstream (notably, e.g., to the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics)" I don't think this is true, but I'm not positive. That is, I don't think Bohm's theory was called pseudoscientific. Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, its was never really widely considered pseudo-scientific I don't think; but it was, and still is, considered superfluous by many theorists. There is a difference between saying a theory is superflous and saying it is pseudo-scientific. The example is a bad example. Its a philosophical dispute that is apparently still going on--another way in which the example is misleading--but even so it was not a dispute that is a matter of pseudo-science vs. real science. Thats why they call the different interpretations of QM "interpretations". --Brentt 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it makes exactly the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, so there is no way to distinguish between the two. Since the original post, I asked a friend who knows a lot more about such matters, and he doesn't know of Bohm's theory being called pseudoscientific, but he says that it might have been. I think that it certainly doesn't fit our definition of pseudoscience. Bubba73 (talk), 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic?!

It seems to me that Chiropractic should not be under the list of pseudosciences. It is true that the American Medical Associaion once called chiropractic "unscientific", but it does not anymore. Generally, Chiropractic is cosidered as much of a science as Podiatry. Sure, there are some crazy people who think that getting their back adjusted will cure their flus, or something, but chiropractic is no longer an "alternative medicine". It is the treatment you get when your back hurts, or your spine is misaligned. --Munchkinguy 06:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The article on Chiropractic certainly goes into details about subluxation and how it's used to cure autism, ulcers and Parkinson's disease. [3] mentions that "More than 500 faculty members [at Florida State University College of Medicine] have signed petitions against establishing the chiropractic school, and some of them say they're willing to do more than just sign a petition. They see the move as fatal to the FSU reputation. The faculty as a whole has not yet officially voiced their concerns about the chiropractic school." So, I think it should be under pseudoscience, in some form.--Prosfilaes 07:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on how one defines "pseudoscience." If one includes paranormal phenomena of such great caliber that James Randi is willing to pay one million US dollars to the one who can provide evidence for the "truth" of their claims or existence, then we're talking about something that can't just be dismissed as a turf war or anti-chiropractic rantings (which is the old and invalid chiropractic defense against all criticisms):

The following things are paranormal by definition:

Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch (aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts. Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology. -- http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#2.3

While chiropractic is merely a profession (even though B. J. Palmer considered it a business....), the profession is based on a belief in chiropractic subluxations, which are more than just a physical entity, but are also a metaphysical phenomena. When a profession defines itself in such a phenomena, then it has an illusory foundation and qualifies as a pseudoscience.

Chiropractic is the most divided profession of any kind that I know of. This division is just one of the myriad ways it resembles religions and cults. What can one expect when the founder himself, D.D. Palmer, considered his creation a religion? It has been described as a biotheological cult, and I can't think of a better description. "The Big Idea" is where it's at. If you don't understand IT, you can't understand chiropracTIC.

Those who really understand chiropractic have called it a biotheology, and that description couldn't be more accurate. A chiropractic professor and the professions's foremost historian puts it this way:

"On the other hand, several of the largest and some of the smallest student bodies in the profession today are found at institutions that emphasize biotheology, vitalism, pseudo-science, and marketing values. I don't think they need to be identified here ... most in the profession are aware of where the "phooolosophical" leaders in chiropractic education reside. These schools are busy turning out "brand new, old fashioned chiropractors" (DeBoer, 1988), investigating Innate (that's capital "I") and "proving" what they always knew was true (no doubt about it: no questions asked)! We should perhaps not be too surprised at their financial success, for it is much less difficult to turn out new doctors in great quantity than it is to emphasize and achieve great quality in education. And, although many graduates of these theological institutions can be expected to reject the most absurd ideas promoted by their presidents and boards (if history is any guide), we are faced nonetheless with the alarming reality that a whole new generation of (well meaning) dingbat doctors, peterpan principles, advertising fanatics, and evangelical ideologists will be with us for many years to come." -- Joseph C. Keating Jr., PhD

It is actually very similar to Scientology. Chiropractic is to science, what Scientology is to religion. Chiropractic is just as much a pseudoscience, as Scientology is a pseudoreligion. They both combine religion, power, and money, with the real emphasis being on making money. They are both businesses, the one pretending to be a religion, and the other pretending to be scientific.

Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD, has more to say (my highlighting added):

Dynamic Chiropractic, February 15, 1991, Volume 09, Issue 04

Quackery in Chiropractic

Dear Editor:

The recent editorial suggestion (Dynamic Chiropractic, January 18, 1991, p. 22) that American Chiropractic Association (ACA) President Charles F. Downing, D.C.'s letter to "Dear Abby" has "picked clean the last vestiges of doubt about chiropractic and 'quackery'" is absurd. The so-called "quackery myth about chiropractic" is no myth. If anyone doubts the continuity of quackery in the profession, he has only to turn to pages 31 and 35 of the same issue of Dynamic Chiropractic.

On page 31, Dynamic Chiropractic has published Dr. Robert E. Connolly's advertisement for "my proven psoriasis treatment" and his unsubstantiated claim that "psoriasis can be cured" by his methods. Dr. Connolly also notes that his cure will increase doctors' income substantially. He offers several testimonials to buttress his therapeutic claims. Page 36 reveals that James F. Dorobiala, D.C.'s Ten Minute Cure for the Common Cold has made it to the Motion Palpation Institute's (MPI's) "Preferred Reading and Viewing List." This "difinitive work" on "The Cure and Management of the Common Cold" is available for a mere $75.

Wow! Cures for psoriasis and the common cold. Sure sounds like Nobel Prize winning stuff. A search of scientific sources (Chiropractic Research Abstracts Collection, Index Medicus), however, paints a very different picture. My scan of the literature reveals no experimental evidence from Drs. Connolly or Dorobiala to substantiate the wild claims made in these advertisements. Rather, these advertisements amount to for-profit promotion of unproven health remedies and thereby clearly meet the criteria1,2 of quackery.

I pick on Drs. Connolly and Dorobiala because their advertisements so clearly amount to "quackery" that they are easy to document. But the kernels of quackery (i.e., unsubstantiated and untested health remedies offered as "proven") are ubiquitous in this profession.3,4 I dare say that health misinformation (if not quackery) can be found in just about any issue of any chiropractic trade publication (and some of our research journals) and much of the promotional materials chiropractors disseminate to patients. the recent unsubstantiated claims of the ACA are exemplary.

"Chiropractic procedure not only corrects athletic injury but also enables your body to operate at peak efficiency without the use of drugs or medication" (ACA pamphlet #ST-3, 1990) and,

"Chiropractic is a drugless, non-surgical method of procedure which has been proven effective for improving performance" (ACA pamphlet #ST-4, 1990.

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this tradition of unsubstantiated claims is that those chiropractic remedies which may, in fact, be helpful to patients (i.e., safe and effective) go untested and discredited because of the profession's willingness to promote them with nary a shred of experimental evidence.

It escapes me entirely how Dr. Downing, the ACA, MPI, and Dynamic Chiropractic can suggest that there is no quackery in chiropractic. Either these groups and individuals do not read the chiropractic literature or have no crap-detectors. I urge a reconsideration of advertising and promotion policies in chiropractic.

- Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD[4]

That public domain Letter to the Editor was written in 1991, and much of that situation is unchanged. If I had a bird cage, I'd do what some chiropractors report that they do with Dynamic Chiropractic and JVSR, and use them to line the bottom. (No, not really, since I archive everything, including DC. It's interesting reading. To this day there is hardly a single page without some type of promotion of a quack method, get-rich-quick sales gimmic, practice builders, weird gizmos and machines, etc. It's still filled with pseudoscience, nonsense, and dubious stuff, with only a few writers really contributing stuff worth reading and learning from.

He has more to say on the subject:

Well, if you don't share the above sentiments, and felt angry and embarrassed by the most recent expose of chiropractic gobbledygook, what's to be done about it? If your ire is directed toward the "20/20" program for airing our "dirty laundry," I think it's misdirected. What about the dirty laundry itself, and the makers thereof? And, what about ourselves, the chiropractic profession-at-large, who have traditionally dismissed these shenanigans as the unfortunate foolishness of an unrepresentative and minuscule minority? Are we not ultimately responsible, by our silence and tolerance (grudging though it may be), for the outrageous claims and practices in our midst?[5]

Here are his archives, the largest in the profession. They are a goldmine for all parties!

Here is a bio page about him.

Now if anyone doubts the above from Keating, then just read some of the replies from uncritical fans of chiropractic, that will no doubt follow this message.....;-) -- Fyslee 12:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the chiropractic article does cite scientific studies that support its claim to help with autism and ulcers. However, the article does not say chiropractic claims to cure anything. As a rule, chiropractors believe that only the body is capable of curing. Doctors can facilitate the healing process, but only the body can cure. Not drugs, not adjustments, not surgery, not diet, not x-rays, not therapy. All of these may aid the body, but only the body can cure. Chiropractic is mentioned on the pseudoscience article as a field often associated with pseudoscience. This is true. It is often associated with pseudoscience. But I believe this association remains because people refuse to recognize the science that's out there that supports chiropractic. Levine2112 18:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Only the body can cure" is evasive; in some sense, that may be true, but the whole question is what helps the body cure. The argument is that chiropractors misuse science to claim that chiropractic helps a lot of diseases it doesn't.--Prosfilaes 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Only the body can cure" is NOT evasive. Drug commercials that claim that they can cure this or that are evasive. They are deceptive. Doctors that claim that they can cure this or that are evasive. They are deceptive. I don't believe that as a rule chiropractors misuse science at all. To the contrary, the principles of chiropractic are extremely scientific. There are scores upon scores of peer-reviewed clinical and labrotory research supporting chiropractic and its claims to promote health. Therefore, labeling the entire profession "pseudoscience" is wholly inaccurate. Furthermore, the use of the word "misuse" is extremely subjective here and science - as we well know - is about objectivity. Levine2112 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you give a diabetic insulin, he lives. You don't, he dies. You give a schizophrenic anti-psychotics, he's sane; you don't, he stays insane. Diabetics don't care whether you think the drug commericials are evasive or deceptive; they know they will die without the drug. Nothing can be done to stop the ravages of scurvy without a diet change. All of this has been tested scientifically, and these are just the cases with immediate, obvious effects.--Prosfilaes 02:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But yet the diabetic is not cured with insulin. He's still a diabetic. A schizophrenic is still a schezophrenic even with the anti-psychotics. The drug does not cure his schizophrenia. Again, nothing cures but the body. There are procedures that can aid the body's healing. Drugs tend to just mask the symptoms and not address the actual problem. Sometime drugs are neccessary. More often they are over-prescribed. Levine2112 05:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing cures insulin-dependent diabetes and schizophrenia. Nothing. I noticed you didn't touch on the scurvy at all. I've read many accusations of chiropractors overprescribing chiropractic, and I'd like to see some evidence that chiropractic can even mask the symptoms, and not just stuff like the "scientific" case study on autism that was one person.--Prosfilaes 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Scurvy. It's a result of malnutrition. Eat correctly and body will heal itself. Once again, only the body cures. As far as more scientific studies showing chiropractic's effectiveness with Autism... well, we'll have to wait a year, but I am looking forward to this study's results: [6]. In the meantime, here's a link to over 100 scientific studies, clinical trials, abstracts and case studies that support chiropractic's claims to be effective with disease from Autism to Vertigo. [7] This is a great resource and I hope you find it enlightening. Yours in health, Levine2112 06:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A "Non-Randomized, Open Label, Uncontrolled" study? What's more, it doesn't even seem to have anything to do with chiropractic--it's a food allergy study. Every group commonly considered pseudoscience has such a page; we're discussing whether it's considered pseudoscience, not the factual matter of whether it is or not.--Prosfilaes 19:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying the "only the body can cure" is like saying about a broken car "only the car parts can be put in to place in such a way as they make the car run." or "only the car can make the car run". What you are saying about Chiropracty having some scientific basis may or may not be true. But saying "only the body can cure" is a trivial observation that applies equally well to any proactive approach to healing. --Brentt 12:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Except the difference between your body and a car is that your body is alive. It has a self-healing "mechanism" built in. If you scratch a car's paint, you could put all of the cortizone and bandaids you want on it, but the scratch won't go away. But you are right in that "only the body can cure" is not the point here. The point here is that chiropractic is based on science (as evidenced by the numerious scientific journals, research and studies pointed to in the article) and therefore should not be branded as pseudoscience. Levine2112 15:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is, every pseudoscience has journals and "scientific" research. It's part of the façade of science. The question is, are those journals and research accepted by other journals and researchers whose field is unargued science?--Prosfilaes 19:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, you're fighting an uphill battle here. I've already been through this with him and gotten nowhere. I even analyzed each of his so-called references and found most of them to not be worth keeping and suggested the whole section be purged. You'll find my reference-by-reference analysis here. He seems to think that single case studies and references from pseudoscientific "journals", like the so-called "peer reviewed" JVSR, are credible. Chiropractors laugh at it! -- Fyslee 21:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee calls them "so-called". Fyslee calls them "pseudoscientific". These are his opinions. Fyslee's "analysis" has amounted to him calling it bad science because he doesn't agree with the results. None of this detracts from the fact that that the studies I've pointed to and many, many more are scientific studies performed by chiropractors, MDs, PhDs, labrotory researches, et cetera. Chiropractic cannot be rightfully called pseudoscience anymore. Levine2112 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, those are your opinions. I agree with any good results, whether they seem agreeable to me or not. I go with the evidence. If the results say manipulation can treat or cure asthma effectively, then I'll start doing it on Monday to the next asthma patient I get. I am obligated to good research, and have no philosophical agenda to protect, unlike chiropractic, which has an anti-scientific, metaphysical subluxation ball and chain around its neck.

You believe that chiropractic research is legitimate. Rarely has that been the case, and it rarely gets published in legitimate journals, since one-case studies don't count for much. Even the few studies that favor manipulation don't justify the quackery that is so rampant in chiropractic. The studies you have pointed to have been shown by me to be a mixed up mess of subjects, most of them of poor quality.

If that's the best you can do (and I know chiros who can do better and who would fault you for making chiropractic look bad by your poor defense), then go back to doing whatever it is you do best, because this isn't good enough. As Grandpa Simpson said to Homer J. Simpson "You're a disgrace to the medicine show business."

Dr. Keating's messages above should suffice to put things in perspective for anyone who thinks chiropractic is so pure and scientific. It's not, and when the ACA president tried to ignore that fact, Keating called him on it. It's time you read the writing on the wall, because chiropractic is going down fast.

A study funded by the NCMIC entitledThe Future of Chiropractic Revisited: 2005 to 2015, provides figures for chiropractic utilization in the USA. The report team was led by Clement Bezold PhD, with support from NCMIC's Louis Sportelli, DC.

"Although four possible scenarios were given by Dr. Bezold, it’s clear the worst case scenario, Scenario #2: Downward Spiral, is the most accurate now inasmuch he said 15% of DCs have quit the profession. Meanwhile, there has been a 39% drop in chiro education student enrollment from 1969-2002 and, while the use of CAM in general has increased, the largest decrease occurred for chiropractic (9.9% to 7.4%) according to the recent Eisenberg study. Indeed, there’s little to cheer about when faced with the hard facts about this profession." - J. C. Smith, DC [8]

I think Dr. Smith is right. A 39% drop in enrollment, the failed attempt to slip chiroquackery into FSU, the greatest decrease in utilization rates (from 9.9% to 7.4%) - all tells its clear tale. If that weren't enough, competition is growing by leaps and bounds, and chiropractors are jumping ship like never before.

In 2002 there were 61,000 DCs and 137,000 PTs. The study estimated that by 2012 it would be 70,000 DCs and 185,000 PTs, and those PTs will be DPTs. Right now chiropractors are beginning to enroll in DPT programs, since that's where the future is brightest. They will get a real doctorate, not the fake "phoolosophy" (sp?) (Keating) one made up by their spiritist fishmonger founder.

Study this very carefully:

• Dangers of Chiropractic -- Fyslee 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

More insults from Fyslee. Typical. You opinions are your opinions. Mine are mine. Keating has his. It still doesn't discount all of the scientific studies that shows chiropractic's effectiveness. You have spent years of your life smearing chiropractic. Hours and hours of your life. You maintain and moderate a half dozen websites dedicated to defaming chiropractic. I hardly think your opinion will ever change. But the fact remains that this is an article about pseudoscience. Chiropractic is backed by hard science. Please look at over 100 studies performed by a wide range of researchers. [9] You can't dismiss all of these. Therefore it doesn't belong on this page. Levine2112 02:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Chiropractic is backed by hard science"?! That's a joke. There is very little "hard science" in the studies you chose. The realities of chiropractic research are quite a different matter. Keating knows chiropractic better than anyone - anyone! Here's what he has to say:

"In recent years this combination of uncritical rationalism and uncritical empiricism has been bolstered by the proliferation of pseudoscience journals of chiropractic wherein poor quality research and exuberant overinterpretation of results masquerade as science and provide false confidence about the value of various chiropractic techniques. These periodicals expand on the uncritical attitudes and unproven claims for chiropractic that have long been made in the magazines published by the national membership societies of chiropractors in the United States. It is practically impossible to read any of the trade publications within chiropractic without encountering unsubstantiated claims." -- Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience, side by side. Skeptical Inquirer 1997 (July/Aug); 21(4): 37-43, Keating JC.

"Lastly, the ACC claims that chiropractors use the "best available rational and empirical evidence" to detect and correct subluxations. This strikes us as pseudoscience, since the ACC does not offer any evidence for the assertions they make, and since the sum of all the evidence that we are aware of does not permit a conclusion about the clinical meaningfulness of subluxation. To the best of our knowledge, the available literature does not point to any preferred method of subluxation detection and correction, nor to any clinically practical method of quantifying compromised "neural integrity," nor to any health benefit likely to result from subluxation correction." Subluxation: dogma or science? Chiropractic and Osteopathy 2005 13:17, Keating JC, Charlton K, Grod JP, Perle SM, Sikorski D, Winterstein JF.

Unless Levine2112 will identify himself and his qualifications for determining what is accurate, inaccurate, good, and bad about chiropractic, I suggest his opinions simply be ignored. We have no way of knowing his qualifications from other than what he has written and his editing. So far he shows a poorer grasp of the history and current development of the profesion than is possessed by many average chiros, which isn't very good. If he would play with open cards, it would be easier to deal with him. All we know for certain is that he is from the Santa Monica area, and could just as well be a woman. -- Fyslee 21:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think I am in Santa Monica? Better yet... how did you ascertain this information? Levine2112 09:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't. Read more carefully. I wrote "Santa Monica area." LA is a big place.....;-) As for how I determined your likely location, that's a secret. Maybe my connections within Big Pharma; maybe the mystical and as yet unidentified "New York ad agency" (which Tim Bolen babbles on about); maybe my connections in Quackbusters of the Illuminati; maybe my connections within Google/Microsoft/CIA/FBI/AMA/CDC; whatever your favorite conspiracy theory allows you to fantasize about. Anything to flame your paranoia.....;-) I do have some answers as to who you are not, as well as why I was even interested in who you might be to begin with, not that it really interests me that much. -- Fyslee 20:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No conspiracy. If you don't have a CheckUSer status on Wikipedia, then finding out my IP address is impossible. You don't have CheckUSer status, therefore you must be getting it from someone who does have CheckUser status. Technically they are not allowed to do this and the both of you can get barred from Wikipedia permanently.

Oh, and given your input on the Vertebral Subluxation where it is compared to the theories of gravity and life, wouldn't it be more correct to say that it is a Protoscience rather than a Pseuoscience? Levine2112 21:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No CheckUser status was necessary, and no help from anyone at Wikipedia. No more help....time's up....game over.... Isn't paranoia fun!

It was your very persistent input at Vertebral subluxation that included the following assertions that only a chiropractor could come up with:

"This is not a unique state of affairs, abstract entities populate many branches of science..."

"Subluxations, genes, gravity, the ego and life are all heuristic devices, "useful fictions" that are used to explain phenomenon that are far larger than our understanding. We use them as long as they work for us and discard or limit their application when they become unwieldy or unable to account for new observations..."

This is rather tragicomic, since I was the one who repeatedly attempted to keep this section from being placed there. It was irrelevant to the point, but you insisted on adding it, even though the author hadn't authorized that version, and I knew it would make him look stupid.

You repeatedly accuse me of "hating" chiropractic, but my actions show otherwise. I even attempted to protect one of the most active promoters of chiropractic nonsense, the very one who won in a recent court case with Barrett. I may despise chiropractic as a profession (even B J Palmer didn't consider it a profession), but I merely consider chiropractors to be very different, and generally misguided, not evil or worthy of hate. (I know some very fine, sensible, and skilled chiros.) Those are your misguided conceptions about me, and say much more about you than about me. How about growing up and stopping all your ad hominem attacks? Start dealing with the issues rather than people.

Now, by adding those passages, you have again exposed chiropractic's dirty laundry (in this case unscientific thinking by a chiropractor).

To assert that genes and gravity are "useful fictions" is quite the joke. Only a chiropractor or someone else with as little knowledge of and confidence in science, would make such a statement. Placing them in the same category as vertebral subluxations is quite the joke as well. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of genes and gravity, but even the author expressly writes that....

"The vertebral subluxation cannot be precisely defined because it is an abstraction, an intellectual construct used by chiropractors, chiropractic researchers, educators and others to explain the success of the chiropractic adjustment."

Koren calls it "...an abstraction, an intellectual construct...." Impressive! (Not!) And to think that you believe this junk!

I can only think of one type of person that can be more brainwashed in chiropractic nonsense than a chiropractic patient, and that is a Chiropractic Assistant (CA). Are you one of them? Some of them are required by their employing chiropractor (along with their entire families) to get regular "adjustments" from that chiropractor, or they lose their job. (Information direct from several CAs.) This way the chiro can make sure they become thoroughly indoctrinated, totally loyal, and religiously devoted to their chiro. That way they can function as missionaries in the office, selling chiropractic to all the patients. It also means they become co-conspirators and accessories to the crime if their chiro does anything illegal, such as insurance fraud. Happens all the time.

As far as chiropractic being a pseudoscience is concerned, I have made it more precise by qualifying it. Now it says Chiropractic's Vertebral subluxations. That is what's pseudoscientific about chiropractic, and that happens to be the very foundation of the whole house of cards´- "No subluxations, no chiropractic." Period.

Chiropractor Koren admits it is only "...an abstraction, an intellectual construct....," yet you consider it real. Amazing! (Of course many chiropractors share your opinion, but mostly members of the ICA and WCA. BTW, the World Chiropractic Alliance has almost as many members as the NACM.) -- Fyslee 22:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats almost as silly as "only the body can heal itself", the same can be said about anyone on Wikipedia! --Brentt 22:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! You're right in a certain sort of way. Lots of users here are anonymous, and there is a growing antipathy to unregistered users having the ability to edit. Now he is a registered user, but since he holds himself out as knowing more (or better) about chiropractic than chiropractic's own top historian and a chiropractic professor (Levine2112 speaks disparagingly of Keating's knowledge as if it were merely "opinions": "You opinions are your opinions. Mine are mine. Keating has his."), I'm challenging his right to say that, and stating that he needs to provide some evidence that he actually does know more than Keating. Playing with open cards would help communication an awful lot. What does he have to hide? -- Fyslee 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, why do I have to tell you where I live in order to say that Keating (a top chiropractic historian in your opinion) has his opinions? Have I spoke disparagingly about Keating as you have claimed? I said he has his opinions. Is that an insult? You tell me. You seem to be the expert.

I have been a registered user at Wikipedia for about as long as you have been. I am not hiding who I am. I have posted banners describing my philosophy. (Turns out that we're not so different, huh?) It's actually become kind of fun watching you play detective. You seem highly motivated to find out who I am. You researched my IP address to find out (incorrectly) where I live. But for arguments sake, let's say you're right. I live in Santa Monica, California. Am I a man or woman? Maybe I'm a hermaphodyte? How is this relevant to my "right" (as you put it) to post on Wikipedia? I am confused; are you saying men have more of a right on Wikipedia or women have more of a right? Am I a professor of chiropractic at Santa Monica University or do I sleep on the street begging for money so I can frequent Internet cafes? Am I a chiropractor? Am I a PT? Am I dentist or an Indian chief? It doesn't matter. Because my opinion would still be my opinion even if I was the foremost researcher of chiropractic. But you see, I am not posting my opinions to defend chiropractic nor am I insulting you (as you continue to do to me). I am citing hundreds of scientific studies that support chiropractic in order to make up for all of the negativity you're putting out there. Don't I have a "right" to do that without you insulting and stalking me? Levine2112 18:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to do so. It's just easier dealing with a real person. Anonymity encourages improper behavior. I don't hide my identity.

The difference between our opinions is that I subordinate my opinions to top experts like Keating. You discount them and press on in your ignorance, as if your opinions were of as much worth as his. Sorry to pop your balloon, but his are informed opinions, while yours seem to be the product of reading too much chiropractic educational (brainwashing and indoctrination) literature.

While many chiropractors of the type you seem to believe are upset with his opinions, no leaders can refute his analysis of chiropractic when he uses the following words to describe aspects of the profession:

• a continuing enigma
• science
• antiscience
• pseudoscience
• quackery
• anti-intellectual traditions
• unscientific
• irrational
• confusion
• antiscientific mindset
• cult
• chiropractic's foibles
• religious overtones
• humbug
• uncritical dogma
• circus
• showmanship
• marketing
• unsubstantiated claims
• pseudoscience journals
• uncritical rationalism
• uncritical empiricism
• fuzzy thinkers
• health fraud
• student loan defaults
• paranoia
• xenophobia
• nonskeptical attitudes
• "anti-intellectual" traditions

He continues:

"After thirteen years of teaching and research at several chiropractic colleges, I can say with confidence that chiropractic is both science and antiscience. Yes, there is a meaningful science of chiropractic, but just as surely there is an antiscientific mindset and even a cult within chiropractic (for example, the cult of B. J. Palmer, son of the founder of chiropractic). Moreover, if University of Connecticut sociologist Walter Wardwell is correct (Wardwell 1992), the belief systems of a majority of DCs lie somewhere between these two poles: chiropractic as science versus chiropractic as unscientific, uncritical dogma and circus. Perhaps a consideration of the nature of science will aid in understanding how the chiropractic profession does and does not approximate the rigors of science."

"In recent years this combination of uncritical rationalism and uncritical empiricism has been bolstered by the proliferation of pseudoscience journals of chiropractic wherein poor quality research and exuberant overinterpretation of results masquerade as science and provide false confidence about the value of various chiropractic techniques. These periodicals expand on the uncritical attitudes and unproven claims for chiropractic that have long been made in the magazines published by the national membership societies of chiropractors in the United States. It is practically impossible to read any of the trade publications within chiropractic without encountering unsubstantiated claims."

"Coexisting with the obvious and ubiquitous antiscientific and pseudoscientific reasoning and rhetoric in chiropractic (Skrabanek 1988) are the genuinely critical, skeptical attitudes of the still quite embryonic research community in this profession."

"The conflict between medical doctors and DCs has also produced a penchant for marketing slogans in lieu of scientifically testable propositions. The classic example of this is the mindless reiteration that "chiropractic works," a vacuous claim which lacks specificity and is not amenable to experimental testing. However, confronted by charges that chiropractic is quackery, chiropractors have responded by insisting that "Chiropractic Works!" and have rallied satisfied patients to convince legislators and policy makers of the validity of their methods and the justness of their cause. Slogans like this are endlessly repeated not only to the public, but among DCs themselves (and to chiropractic students). To challenge the notion that "chiropractic works" is considered heresy in most corners of the profession. Rather than skepticism and critical thinking, traditional chiropractic education has sought to instill strong belief in chiropractic (Quigley 1981) among successive generations of students. In so doing the schools have strengthened the "anti-intellectual" (Coulter 1990) traditions in the profession."

J. C. Keating, Jr., Ph.D. [10]

You simply need to learn more about chiropractic. There is another side that you are ignoring and denying. If you knew more, you'd stop denying that these are serious problems to this very day. -- Fyslee 23:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with both sides. I am quite familiar with Keating. I am not ignoring or denying anything. I am not the only one who doesn't take all of Keating's opinions as truth. Read here. Besides, Keating does recognize that chiropractic is based in science. That he claims chiropractic is based on an unproven theory is his own opinion. I have read him and I don't agree with him. Some people don't call evolution a proven theory. Or atomic theory a proven theory. And I suppose you and they are right. To some extent, chiropractic, evolution, and chemistry are based in theory. But what can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? I have shown you a preponderance of scientific evidence supporting chiropractic. You have given me one man's opinion and a lot of chiropractic hate. Levine2112 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is really, honestly, irrelevant to this article what those studies say. Many people find chiropractic to be pseudoscience, so it belongs in a list about what many people think is pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not to decide right or wrong; merely to report opinions.--Prosfilaes 07:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I do think that list is inherently POV actually, even though I agree that everything listed is probably a pseudo-science and have contributed to it myself. --Brentt 09:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't been contesting that at all. At the very start of this discussion I said: Chiropractic is mentioned on the pseudoscience article as a field often associated with pseudoscience. This is true. It is often associated with pseudoscience. The rest of this is merely an explanation why chiropractic is not pseudoscience; its claims are based in science and proven by science. But is it associated with pseudoscience by people who don't know any better? Yes. Absolutely. Levine2112 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Allright. That was fun. Let's all step back and take a breather for a second. Given the fact that this is clearly A highly contentious issue, and the encyclopedia is built on general consensus (which CLEARLY does not exist in this isntance), I think we might need to agree to disagree for the moment and list chiropractic not necessarily as a pseudoscience, but as a discipline whose empirical/verifiable/falsifiable (or what have you..insert criteria for "scientific" here) nature is still being disputed. Enough said. Let's move on. Shaggorama 09:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not highly contentious; it's got one arguer. We could let one person take any one subject off the list, but every subject has one person who will argue it's not psuedoscience.--Prosfilaes 19:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am one person. Yes. Here's are entire organizations that would make similar points: JVSR, WCA, ACA, JMPT, ChiroWeb, ICA, Planet Chiropractic, Chiropractic Online, Palmer Chiropractic College, Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards. You and I both know that these represent a small fraction of the voices that are out there who would argue that chiropractic is indeed not pseudoscience. It is recognized by Medicare, health insurance companies and is even defended by a growing portion of MDs. Chiropractors can be found is hospitals and professional and Olypic lockerrooms. With all these people in support of chiropractic, I don't believe that your "one man, one argument" defense holds water. Besides, Wikipedia is greater than any one user - whether that user be you or me. Just because I have the time to make a case for chiropractic certainly does not mean that there aren't hundreds of thousands of people who would do the same given the time and knowledge of these discussion boards. -- Levine2112 19:36, 14 February 2006

Introduction?

Why does this article have an "introduction" section after the table of contents? isn't the introduciton supposed to come before the TOC? and if not, then what the hell is that blurb before the TOC suppsoed to be? For this article to be properly wikified, I'm pretty sure that anything introducing the topic needs to come at the head of the article. Sound right? Shaggorama 09:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Phrenology

Perhaps phrenology is not the best example of a pseudoscience for the introduction. Although phrenology is a pseudiscience today, it has also served as a proto-science, giving rise to fields in the medical sciences (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology). PJ 13:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That section on the phrenology page is silly. Phrenology only bears the most superficial resemblance to modern neurology--and thats even a stretch to say.--Brentt 21:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That, and being a protoscience doesn't make it any less of a pseudoscience. If anything, I think it makes phrenology an even better example of pseudoscience. --Marco Passarani 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You may very well be right, Brentt, that the article on phrenology is silly. I do not claim to know much about it. Please let me know, however, what particular aspects of that article it is that you find silly. Further, I agree with you Marco Passarani, that phrenology certainly is a pseudoscience. However, I do not see how you can draw the conclusion that given phrenology having been a protoscience, this makes "phrenoloy an even better example of pseudoscience". A psuedoscience is a field of study that does not adhere to the scientific method. But phrenology as a protoscience did in principle adhere to the scientific method. As Philip Kikuchi writes in the presentation of his UC Berkeley lecture on PHRENOLOGY: OF SKULLS AND PSEUDOSCIENCE (part of a course on Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes) "[B]egun as a scientific hypothesis, phrenology crossed into pseudo-science when its practitioners refused to accept the scientific evidence that disproved it" (http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/courses/classes/NE-24/Phrenology.htm). Thus, there was a time when some phrenologists tried to test their hypotheses scientifically. The problem was, just as with para-psychology, that the experiments never yielded any positive results. When the scientifically minded practitioners realized this they abandoned this unfruitful field of enquiry. Further, phrenology has had a certain historical value on our current sciences, that pseudosciences seldom have. That is, the basic premise of phrenology, that the mental faculties are dependent of the physical make up, has been further advanced by neurology. Kikuchi writes "[d]espite having been proved wrong, phrenology is an important part of the history of our current understanding of the brain" (ibid). PJ 22:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The list and the definition

I think this article has a lot going for it, but some work remains. Here are some thoughts:

• The definition seems to me to convey that pseudoscience is something that presents itself as scientific, but isn't. From there the article describes the difficulties of making those distinctions, and I'm left with the conclusion that pseudoscience is, in the real world, a semantic or rhetorical device more than an exact definition. Which is of course a rich irony, but that's life.
• I think the article is at its most valuable when it helps the readers think critically about claims that are couched as scientific, i.e., helps them be better skeptics.
• I have some problems with the list of fields most associated with pseudoscience, largely because I think it is a matter of time before we get into a tit for tat debate here, where someone makes the case that say, physics is also a pseudoscience. For example, I'd say that the Flat Earth Society is not pseudoscience at all, because it makes no serious effort to pass itself off as science to begin with. That's my subjective interpretation, as it my interpretation that Dianetics is a great example of a pseudoscience. But if I were going to argue the point with, say, Tom Cruise, we would surely never agree.
• So it's not as simple as saying that critics stamp a field as pseudoscience and adherents reject the stamp - intellectually honest people may disbelieve a theory but still refuse to allow that it's pseudoscience. Or they may believe it but allow that it remains unproven or even unfalsifiable with current technology.
• It would be great if WP could provide the caveat emptor for pseudoscientific theories, but I think it's going to be hard. --Leifern 18:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

I tried to remove "Chiropractic's Vertebral Subluxation" but got the edit reverted by Fyslee saying that the list is a critic's list not a true believer's list...whatever that means. Then I in turn added things that as a critic I (and many others) believe to be pseudoscience. Those got promptly removed. Hmm. This is very hypocritical. Who is this page for? It seems to only be allowed to present a one-sided viewpoint. I think this list of what some people consider to Pseudosciences is too subjective and should be removed. 72.129.6.122 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Majority scientific viewpoint is NPOV, according to Wikipedia policy

Quote from another user:

"Also remember, though, that (as is official wikipedia policy) we needn't give every view equal validity. The policy page even links to a humorous illustration of the "equal validity" issue. We are allowed to present the majority scientific view as the majority scientific view, and even give the majority weight of the article to that view.

Since the majority view is represented by established science and medicine, chiropractic's own unscientific viewpoints are not welcome on a scientific article. Your disruptive edits, where well-established scientific practices and subjects are claimed to be considered pseudoscience, are absurd, proving only how foolish the views of many chiros are, even though you aren't one yourself. You are again making chiropractic look worse than it is. -- Fyslee 21:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Insults aren't allowed on Wikipedia either. Please don't call my views foolish. The subluxation has a lot of supportive science behind it. That this science has yet to be accepted by what you call "the mainstream" only furthers my point that subluxation is protoscience and not pseudoscience.

As fas as using Wikipedia articles to make a point, I think you are more guilty of that here than I am. 72.129.6.122 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Only in chiropractic!" Your edit summary ok, as a critic I added disciplines that many agree are pseudosciences is extremely revealing. You are presenting an outdated version of chiropractic antiscience, which too many chiros still hold.

• Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side -- Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD
• Faulty Logic and Non-skeptical Arguments in Chiropractic -- Joseph C. Keating Jr, PhD
• Issues in Immunization - Lon Morgan, DC
• Chiropractors and Immunization - Stephen Barrett, MD

-- Fyslee 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any insults of yourself, only a description of "the views of many chiros":

"...proving only how foolish the views of many chiros are, even though you aren't one yourself. You are again making chiropractic look worse than it is."

Read more carefully. If you're trying to make chiropractic look foolish, you're doing a great job. Keep up the good work! -- Fyslee 22:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling my viewpoints absurd and foolish are insults. Oh, and I am a chiropractor. Why did you assume that I am not? And calling my edits disruptive is an insult as well. You need to work on your manners before you make comments. This is a place for discussion; not for attacks. 72.129.6.122 22:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you plan to edit here, get used to getting insulted by Fyslee. Also, get used to him making speculations about who you are and your credentials. He's big on stalking users and falsely accusing them of vandalism. He also likes to post messages about you on other websites to try to gain support for his attacks. example #1 example #2 I am glad to have you edit here, but I just want to warn you about this user and his tactics. Levine2112 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Spreading the seeds of extreme chiropractic hatred.

Welcome back Levine. Seems that PT fyslee is the Johnny Appleseed of chiropractic hatred, sprinkling his seeds in many articles on Wikipedia. I've made NPOV changes, but he or his recruits just strong-arm any ideas other than theirs and revert edits with warnings. You might want to look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_marketing&action=history

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology

Also check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=prev&oldid=41311860

So otherwise, nothing new. Steth 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Just remove the list. I'm a inveterate skeptic and think all of the pseudo-sciences listed are in fact pseudo-sciences (most of the time atleast, except when people try to put things like evolution or vaccination on the list), because people from my POV, i.e. the skeptic POV, dominate this article for obvious reasons, but I've got to admit that the list is very hard to defend from a NPOV standpoint, and it just invites revert wars. --Brentt 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Thank you for stepping back from your viewpoint and seeing this fairly. I will make your suggested edit and hopefully it won't be reverted. 72.129.6.122 22:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, thats not going to work. A consensus will need to be reached through a calm, respectful, and rational discussion. This discussion kind of got started off on the wrong foot, since it came from defending a particular entry for a proffesion that is notoriously pseudo-scientific. I've tried to raise the issue before, but the comments are ignored. I don't see whats so hard about admitting that the list comes from the skeptical POV, it doesn't negate the value of skepticism to admit that skepticism is a POV. Its almost always a correct POV (atleast I think ;)), as most things skeptics attack are in fact pseudosciences, but its a POV nonetheless.--Brentt 23:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

btw, can you please sign up if your going to do a lot of edits and participate in these discussions?--Brentt 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User 72.129.6.122 and Brentt. This list should go. Levine2112 23:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the supposed logic behind the motivation to remove the list of pseudosciences to be glaringly fallacious. By your reasoning we should delete the whole article because it represents 'POV of the skeptical viewpoint'. It's quite simple really, this article is about pseudoscience, there is a list of generally accepted things which are regarded as being pseudoscientific by the skeptical, scientific and medical communities. It is not difficult to understand that the article explicates the POV of skeptics by displaying this list, the article itself is not POV. There is nothing wrong with keeping this list in the article other than it pisses off those who dislike seeing the nonsensical ways of thier illogical beliefs listed as being regarded as such among a particular group of people (skeptics). The list is good and should stay. --Deglr6328 04:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep the list. Bubba73 (talk), 04:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you call my beliefs "illogical" and "nonsensical" and then tell me that you are being fair? My main concern is that "chiropractic's vertebral subluxation" is a scientific concept and stating otherwise is false. There are literally thousands of studies and research devoted to showing not just the existence of vertebral subluxation but it's effect on the body and the benefits of correcting it. Then there is the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research... a peer-reviewed scientific journal dedicated to the science of the vertebral subluxation. Here's resource of over 100 scientific studies supporting chiropractic's correction vertebral subluxations. This page provides some more conclusive research. What more do chiro-skeptics need? The research and science is out there. The evidence is undeniable.

Maybe 30 years ago, you could have called vertebral subluxation "pseudoscience" or more aptly "protoscience" (as it was an abstract concept used to explain the continued effectiveness of the chiropractic adjustment in labortory settings). Of course, 30 years ago medical doctors were doing cigarette commercials. But today there is enough research out there to safely call chiropractic's vertebral subluxation science.

Let's be honest about what is going on here by users who keep reverting edits to include it on this list. There is a clear-cut anti-chiropractic agenda motivating some (if not all) of these users. Wikipedia is not a soap-box. This is a place for encyclopedia fact. And the fact is vertebral subluxation is science.

And please don't threaten us with the 3 Revert Rule because you are just as guilty of that if not more. Levine2112 05:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How am I "more guilty" of the 3RR when I have only reverted twice in the last 24 hours? Anyway, my stance is unswayed by your arguments which seem to consist most entirely of a "subluxations are science" mantra. It doesn't matter how many timese nonsense is repeated. It remains nonsense. --Deglr6328 05:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I take it then that you didn't bother to even look at the hundreds of scientific studies that I have pointed to then. Turning a blind eye to science makes your views pseudoscientific. You provide no scientific evidence, just opinions in the form of your anti-chiropractic mantra. I can't "sway" your beliefs if I have no idea what your beliefs are based on. Look at the evidence that I have provided. Argue that and then give me some scientific evidence that supports what you beleive.

On the vertebral subluxation page, user Fyslee cites a quote in which the author calls the "vertebral subluxation" a theory used to explain the repeated positive effects of chiropractic adjustments. Fyslee seems to agree with this point-of-view as he fought so hard to include it in the article. Well, let's suppose that this POV is fact. One would still have to say that Vertebral Subluxation is not pseudoscience but rather protoscience. Protoscience is used to describe theories such as gravity and chemistry. No one has seen gravity or completely understands it, but it seems to always work. No one has seen just how many electrons are circling each element and how many protons and neutrons the nucleus contains but atomic theory seems to work over-and-over again. Well, even if you were to agree with Fyslee's POV here, you would have to say that the vertebral subluxation is protoscience... that is unless you want to include gravity and atomic theory on your list of so-called pseudosciences. Levine2112 05:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

mmhm.--Deglr6328 06:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I take that last remark as your way of communicating that you are digesting what I have written above. You are taking the time to look at the scientific research that I have pointed to and either have it change your opinion or give you fodder for more discussion. I await...Levine2112 06:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No it just means I'm not going to argue about this anymore.--Deglr6328 07:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, [11] mentions that "More than 500 faculty members [at Florida State University College of Medicine] have signed petitions against establishing the chiropractic school, and some of them say they're willing to do more than just sign a petition. They see the move as fatal to the FSU reputation." Time Magazine [12] says "Hundreds of professors have signed petitions against establishment of the school, some threatening to resign, and 29 of the school's most distinguished faculty members, including two Nobel Laureates, took a full-page ad in the Tallahassee Democrat decrying the proposed new school. Their gripe: chiropractic is a pseudo-science that leads to unnecessary and sometimes harmful treatments, and that embracing it would do irreparable harm to FSU's reputation." Reading that whole article is useful; when a university turns down 9 million dollars a year, it's a big deal. I don't see how that leaves much question about whether or not it's considered a pseudoscience. We're not going to evaluate the scientific research; it's irrelevant.--Prosfilaes 07:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So one school in Florida makes a decision and you're going to just ignore research from over a 100 different scientific sources. Okay. I see no point in continuing with your logic. Levine2112 20:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the research is irrelevant to proving whether or not it's considered a pseudoscience. And I don't think two Nobel Laureates and 500 faculty members represent anything specific to one school in Florida.--Prosfilaes 20:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What does Nobel Laureates have to do with the science of chiropractic? And why is scientific research irrelevant to deciding whether something is pseudoscience or not. This guy Prosfilaes' logic is bass-ackwards. I am also in favor of deleting the list entirely from the article as it does nothing but list one-sided opinions and basically incites anger and unrest here as evidenced by this discussion. TheDoctorIsIn 05:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, scientific research is irrelevant to determining whether something is considered pseudoscience. Before criticizing someone's logic, especially in a form that violates WP:NPA, it's useful to actually read it. It would be absurd to have an article on pseudoscience and no examples of what pseudoscience is.--Prosfilaes 05:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV + NOR means that WP does not originate Opinions

• JA: I repeat: NPOV + NOR means that WP does not originate opinions. So it is utterly pointless for WP editors to conduct opinion polls about the value of any external matter. Jon Awbrey 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• JA: WP statements must be sourced. Saying "such-&-such is widely considered to be so" does not count. WP can say "so-&-so criticized such-&-such in so many words": <insert so many words here>. That's just fine, it leaves readers to consider the source and to make up their own individual minds as to what they think of so-&-so. Otherwise WP is just playing yet-another-man-behind-the-screen. That is widely considered to be Toto-tally-tarianism. Jon Awbrey 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Pseudosciences--one more rename

I just realized that this article is the PSEUDOSCIENCE article, for some reason I was thinking it was the SKEPTIC article. Keep in mind I wrote the following thinking it was the SKEPTIC article, but I think most of what I said still applies:

OK, after disputing the list above, I think that someone did make a good point above about this article being about the skeptical viewpoint--which is different from saying it should be written from the skeptical viewpoint--and therefore has some value and need not necessarily be POV. But the title of the list now does state positively, albeit weakly, that the things in the list are "associated" with pseudoscience. I know it has been renamed in the past for this reason, but I think the renaming fell short as it still can be percieved as making a positive statment, just now more timidly than before, about the fields that are pseudoscientific (inserting "commonly associated with" is still bordering on stating positively that the fields listed are pseudoscientific ). I propose we make it clear that this is a list that the mainstream skeptical movement (modern skeptical movement) believe have a pseudoscientific element, without actually stating that the fields listed are pseudosciences. Something like:

Fields often critisized by the skeptical movement as pseudosciences

This is stricltly speaking true, and what I think is the intent of the list, and well neigh impossible to dispute. "Evolution" or "vaccination" would clearly not belong in the list, as it is not commonly critisized by adherents to the philosophy that this article is about (evolution would belong in a list about fields critisized by fundamentalist christians as pseudoscientific, vaccination in a list about fields critisized by innumerate people as pseudoscientific--hehe OK scratch the last one, you get the point). Chiropractic Veteral Subluxations would clearly belong in the list, whether or not it is really pseudoscientific, as it is in fact critisized by the skeptical movement as pseudoscientific. And if there is any doubt about the fields that should be included on the list, as per Jon Awbrey's argument above, then it shouldn't be hard to find an issue of one of the periodicals of the skeptical movement, such as The Skeptical Enquirer, to source a criticism. Of course sourcing a fundamentalist christian periodical to include evolution in the list of fields critisized by the skeptical movement... would not fly.

As it is the revert wars have been over what should be labeled pseudoscientific. Wikipedia of course should not be labeling anything pseudoscientific, as thats originating an opinion (as Jon Awbrey kindly reminded us of above) and is clearly NPOV. It should be made more clear that the intent of the list is not to categorize fields as pseudocience (or atleast it shouldn't be the intent, although unfortunately that has seemed to be the intent of some contributors), but instead to give a list of fields that are commonly critisized by adherents to the philosophy which this article is about, i.e. the modern skeptical movement (of course that criticism often culminates in skeptics labeling certain fields and practices pseudosciences).

There is a more general problem, which is the source of much confustion to be adressed here. There is a little bit of ambiguity concerning exactly what this article is about. Most editors have been writing about the modern day skeptical movement--which is what I think we should go with. Not what it means to be skeptical, as that is obviously open to interpretation and wouldn't provide much substance for a encyclopedic article. And its not about what it means to be pseudoscience or real science, as that too is open for interpretation and the subject of tomes of epistemilogical debate, none of which are absolutely authoritative and all of which differ somewhat. Of course we have the scientic method and all, which is a generally agreed upon custom, but not really as rigourously defined or adhered to as 8th grade science class made it sound. --Brentt 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we walk a trecherous slope if we allow this article to only present a skeptical point-of-view. I understand that the term "pseudoscinece" has become part of the collective skeptics idiom, but it is not only a skeptical term. It has legitimate usage outside the world of people who just doubt. The scientific communtiy uses it to label fields that have absolutely been debunked or are based on clearly fallacious assumptions. This isn't a matter of opinion, but clear-cut fact.

Above and within the edit comments, there is talk of "protoscience". A protoscience is a set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science. These are new sciences working to establish themselves as a legitimate science. I see that there is a WP article for this and that "Chiropractic's vertebral subluxation" is more aptly listed there. Given all of the scientific research that has been present by proponents of Chiropractic during the course of this discussion page and the countless more research out there, Chiropractic and it's verterbral subluxation (VS) is certainly at least a protoscience (if not just plain "science" at this point). I haven't seen any strong evidence of scientific research refuting chiropractic or VS or anything showing that they are operation of fallacious assumptions.

I think there is more to this than just the chiropractic POV however. I agree with what the abouve user (Brentt) is getting at. I think if this list is going to remain, there needs to be a clear message that states that this list is POV coming from a group of people collectively calling themselves skeptics. (But still, I am uneasy about this. You see, I too am a skeptic. However, I have been presented with enough scientific and first-hand evidence to convince me that chiropractic works and that it is real and that it is based on wholly scientific principles.) So who is a skeptic? I think that most people would claim that they are. And therefore would they not be entitled to come here and add what they feel is pseudoscience to the list? This is the slippery slope. Because it is opinion and inherently POV, this list cannot function within the guidelines of WP. Who is to say who is part of the mainstream skeptic movement? That they subscribe to a certain magazine or read a certain website? How large is the group and whose opinions do they represent?

Why do we need this list at all? Shouldn't the desciption and the history of usage of the term "pseudoscience" be enough? I think the point of WP is to provide researchers with factual information about a subject, not opinions. Instead of of a particular group of skeptics deciding what they think is pseudoscience and forcefeeding their opinion to WP users, I think this article needs to be tightened, the list needs to be dropped and then we should all trust users to formulate their own opinions on what disciplines can fall under the label of pseudoscience in their world. For some people pseudosciene is evolution and for others it is creationism. For some it is medication and for others it is homeopathy.

In other words, trust the users. Lose the list. This page shouldn't be opinion driven but rather state that pseudoscience can be a very subjective label and not a definitive category. TheDoctorIsIn 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

For some people, arsenic may be poison, and for others it's food.--Prosfilaes 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Any intelligent comments would be welcomed now. TheDoctorIsIn 18:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience says represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. I think that the vast majority of scientists view the things on the list as pseudoscience, and scientists have not received them well. Bubba73 (talk), 19:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so let's give the scientific view of what pseudoscience is; not opinions of what is pseudoscience. There is a subtle difference there. But as the reference link above says, WP is not a forum for scientific POV but rather neutral POV. Again, a subtle difference. This just furthers the argument to strike the list completely. Clearly, it is an opinion piece and is not coming from a neutral POV... it even says that it enumerates what some people consider to be pseudoscience. Undeniabley, this is POV (and not even a scientific POV but rather some skeptics POV). Can we agree to strike it now? TheDoctorIsIn 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course this list has been used to demonize items on the list by those who are self-appointed arbiters of science vs. pseudoscience, therefore it is a very biased POV and clearly NOT NPOV. Striking it seems to be the only way to restore this to an informative, neutral article. Fine with me. Steth 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Informative? I hardly think trying to talk about a subject without giving any examples is informative. "Mammals are warm-blooded creatures like pigs, elephants, humans, dogs and cats." is worth pages of example-less material on what mammals are to someone who doesn't know what mammals are.--Prosfilaes 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So then let's use psychiatry as the example! Steth 23:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be stupid, you know that doesn't help the discussion. We are trying to resolve a serious POV issue here, and trolling doesn't help. --Brentt 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nasty name-calling won't help either and it's judgemental. Don't be impolite. Steth 00:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's stay civil. Name-calling is always inapproriate. I don't think a list is appropriate on this article either. If it must remain, then remove all of the debatable and extremely subjective ones...including the chiropractic one. Enough has been presented to show that it is indeed a poor example of pseudoscience if it is indeed an example at all. Let's keep this list to only the very best examples. That's my two-cents. 68.3.136.145 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. They are all "debatable".--Deglr6328 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I was a little disappointed by your recent modifications to Pseudoscience. The section has clearly been marked with comments asking that no one make modifications until a consensus has been reached on the talk page. This was due to the recent edit warring and disagreement going on in the article. Please respect WP:CON. --Hetar 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• JA: I copied the above from my talk page as I prefer to discuss article-related issues on the article talk pages. But it's way too late where I am, so I will have to put off a more complete reply until tomorrow. I respect the principles of WP. The current state of the article and the general tenor of the proceedings that I've read on this discussion page violate so many of these principles, and violate them so egregiously, that it simply has to be flagged with some sort of reader advisory on the front page. The scope and purpose of WP:CON limits it to consensus about internal procedural matters — it cannot be applied to substantive external subject matters, in the manner of an opinion poll as to what honorifics and pejoratives to grant to what, without rendering the entire set of WP maxims utterly inconsistent. I take this very seriously. Jon Awbrey 07:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• JA: From WP:CON:

Consensus vs. other policies
Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken.

• JA: To continue. I am not a lawyer. I am merely a person with some experience of how things are in the real world. Let me explain my understanding of how some things work in the real world. People read the articles that are published in WikiPedia and they also read the statements of editorial policy that are published in connection with Wikipedia. Whatever the status of those utterings and publishings with regard to the usual norms of accuracy, ethics, legality, and morality, people will regard them on a par with advertising claims, and they will hold the entire WikiPedia enterprise accountable, one way or another, for the extent to which the the conduct of WikiPedia editors, by and large, conforms to the claims that are published. People may be tolerant for a while, but when the conduct of WikiPedia editors begins to deviate from the claims that are advertized, then either one of two things had better happen with all due diligence: (1) Change the conduct to fit the claims, or (2) Change the claims to fit the conduct. Jon Awbrey 04:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Novel (I think) POV Conflict Resolution Proposal

I think I have a solution that everyone might find acceptable. Lets keep the list, but move it to Scientific skepticism, since the list represents the majority Scientific Skeptic view. Since this article is about a label which is variously applied by various groups, it shouldn't have a list from one particular view, even if it is a majority view. But the list does have value, its just in the wrong place, as having it in the pseudoscience article obviously implies a tacit POV. We can have a reference to the list, since many people coming to this article will likely be interested in the list. And maybe something like a see also to other articles that represent minority views as to what is and isn't pseudoscience (for example a link to the Intelligent Design article to represent the minority view that evolution is pseudoscience).

I can't see any other obvious solution. Otherwise the revert wars are going to be endless. I cringe when I see people add evolution to the list, as I'm sure others cringe when they see thier pet fields added--precisely because the list implies a definite label. If the list is clearly representing a view, which is perfectly acceptable, by being in the scientific skeptic article then there shouldn't be a problem.

Please don't start making changes until objections have been heard and agreeement has been reached.--Brentt 00:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the list should be removed. I'm not sure about moving it to the other page, but it would be a good start. At least this article would be less POV. Good suggestion, Brentt. 68.3.136.145 00:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Did sanity take a vacation recently? Jim62sch 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What would be POV about having the list in a article that is about the view that the list is coming from? Its perfectly acceptable from a NPOV standpoint to represent a view. The list obviously is from the scientific skepticism POV, so having the list in an article about that POV should be acceptable. The only problem with having the list here is that this article isn't about the scientific skepticism POV, so it it doesn't really belong here, and thats the only reason its been contentious I think. --Brentt 00:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the proposal. Framed this way I think most everyone could find the article acceptable. ike9898 01:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of this suggestion as well. TheDoctorIsIn 01:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So, what one of your pet pseudotheories has been labeled as pseudoscience? After all, isn't that really what this is all about? Pseudoscience has a rather strict definition, and I'm sure that adherents of phrenology and ID and Astrology and Pyramidology are upset with those false sciences being listed herein, but, well, too bad. And I'm sure that there are a few benighted folks who see evolution as pseudoscience, but their number is so infinitessimal, their arguments so irrational, their viewpoint so, well, unscientific and uneducated that there really is no need to include their opinion.

I realize that science is scary -- it has all of those facts and things and takes the supernatural mystery and aura away from so many things -- but absent science, we'd not be having this discussion. Jim62sch 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that moving the list to the other article is a good idea. What's to keep from having the same objections over there? The items on the list are examples of pseudoscience, which is what this article is about. As far as being POV, the policy says that majority scientific opinion should be represented as the majority. Although there are a few items on the list of which I'm not familiar, probably all of the items are considered pseudoscientific by a vast majority of scientists. Bubba73 (talk), 02:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The section even has the weaselly title "Fields often associated with pseudoscience". Does anyone deny that the fields listed are "often associated with pseudoscience"? Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't see the appeal of this option at all. This is a list of thigs which are regarded as pseudoscientific by the general medical and scientific community. There is no more appropriate place than this article, the article ON pseudoscience to have such a list. Merely secreting it away in another article in hopes of placating those who don't like seeing X on the list will only have the effect of moving the next war to that article. I much prefer RfC at this point. (one also wonders how much sock-puppetry is going on in this coversation)--Deglr6328 02:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems that the proposal would as mentioned above, jut move the edit warring elswhere - no solution there. The list is of fields or whatever that are considered pseudoscience by mainstream science. As such this article is the logical place for it. Obviously, those who practice or hold dear to a field labelled as pseudoscience are going to continue to object. If their source of income (or prestige) depends on gullible people buying into their vocation then obviously, they are going to raise vigerous objections. Perhaps we should add solid references for at least the most contentious items, stating why they are on the list and noting controversies. Enough for now - keep it here. Vsmith 03:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• JA: POV is POV no matter where you stick it. Jon Awbrey 16:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the move. A list of examples of (alleged) pseudosciences belongs on the pseudoscience page. However, perhaps the POV charge can be avoided by documenting the list. The claim that, say, subluxations are pseudoscience is POV. The current claim (they're "often associated with pseudoscience") is made without support. Let's instead state clearly who makes these associations (actually, "associated" is a weasel-word). Then there is much less controversy.

The downside to my proposal, of course, is that the resulting list of citations will become unattractively large, but some sources can be cited repeatedly (say, "Fads & Fallacies").Phiwum 18:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I still say to move it. I don't think it will cause an "edit war" on the Scientific Skepticism page as it has done here because (as Brentt) said - this list is the POV of the so-called "Scientific Skeptics". "Pseudoscience" is a label and a pejorative one at that. From my stance - Chiropractic - this pejorative label is being wrongly applied to "Vertebral Subluxation" which is backed by proven science. Other users and myself have provided links to research and science to support this. Chiropractic is the number one used Alternative Medicine in the US. It is covered by health insurance, has one of the lowest rates of malpractice and is recognized legally on a state and federal level as a legitimate healthcare alternative. Rrecently, chiropractors and medical doctors have worked side-by-side in hospitals and private practice. I'm not sure what else is required to convince you all that VS doesn't belong here. TheDoctorIsIn 17:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue about the scientific evidence for subluxations, since it just isn't relevant. The fact is that some influential and well-respected authors (e.g., Martin Gardner -- I think) have claimed it's pseudoscience. That is all that matters for this list. Phiwum 18:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

the secion heading says "ofen associated with pseudoscience", and that is true, isn't it? Bubba73 (talk), 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a hopelessly vague header. After all, skepticism and philosophy of science are also fields "often associated with pseudoscience". How about an honest header? These are fields that are alleged to be pseudoscience. And then, if that's the claim, how about references? Just makes sense to me. Phiwum 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I can probably provide references for almost all of them, if (1) I am given some time, and (2) the list is going to remain here, so my work won't be wasted. Bubba73 (talk), 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be great. But if I were you, I wouldn't start on this project just yet. Obviously, there's some dispute around here (as you mention).

Is there any good argument against Bubba's project? Any persuasive objections to leaving the list here (perhaps changing its description) while citing the allegations of pseudoscience? Phiwum 21:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Documenting is great. But it still doesn't mitigate the POV issue in this case. See below. --Brentt 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Here are the main arguments against the move.

This is a list of thigs which are regarded as pseudoscientific by the general medical and scientific community. There is no more appropriate place than this article, the article ON pseudoscience to have such a list.

The list is pretty clearly from the scientific skeptic POV. Of course the scientific skeptic POV is the majority POV among scientists. As JA pointed out, and seems pretty obvious, NPOV is not about writing from the majority POV, it is about representing the majority POV as the majority POV and the minority POV as the minority POV (in this case we are only talking about a majority of scientists of course, as the general public is quite credulous)--its not MPOV or mPOV, its NPOV. As it is, the list only represents the majority POV. So why not just add a list that represents the minority POV here? Not only would it get deleted by those of us who have no tolerance for the minority POV pretty quickly, but there would be to many minority POV lists to represtent--and just about every field has at one time or another been called pseudoscience by some minority. There are significant minority views to represent here. For example, there is a significant minority of scientists--scientists who couldn't spot a fallacious argument, or a good argument, if it hit them in the face (see Behe) , but scientists nonetheless--who think evolution is pseudoscience. Scientific skeptics simply can not lay claim on the term pseudoscience.

Seems that the proposal would as mentioned above, jut move the edit warring elswhere

It might, but the people causing the edit war would not have a leg to stand on (and I thik they'd realize this soon and leave it alone). What scientific skeptics consider to be pseudoscience is pretty clear, and in an article about the scientific skeptic POV one would be hard pressed to justify adding evolution, or not adding chiropracty, as evolution has never been critisized by any significant portion of scientific skeptics, wheras chiropracty is under the constant criticism of scientific skeptics.

perhaps the POV charge can be avoided by documenting the list.

Documenting doesn't mitigate POV. For example, there are plenty of sources that make the claim that evolution is pseudoscience, referencing those sources would still mean the addition was coming from a ID POV (and in this case almost always fallacious) just like referencing, say, Skeptic Magazine would be coming from a scientific skeptic POV (even if the reasoning is more solid). You can "document" just about any claim from any POV. That doesn't mean you should write from the POV your documenting. Documenting would only serve the purpose of showing that the view in question is in fact the view of the group your representing the view of (in this case scientific skeptics). The crux of the problem here is that there is no metascience to definitively determine what is and isn't pseudoscience, so any claims that some field is or isn't a pseudoscience are necessarily coming from a particular POV, even if its a majority POV.

Categorization is always a hairy question, but I don't see pseudoscience being any different here than art, philosophy, religion, or indeed science itself. There are fairly clear rules set out in this article as to what is and what isn't a pseudoscience.--Prosfilaes 22:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

fairly clear rules set out by the scientific skeptic POV. Is there any question that the list comes from the scientific skeptic POV? Brentt 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the definition of the word. I don't think there is a definition of the word from another perspective, and the discussions on this talk page have used those ideas and definitions. If there is a different defintion, then we're obviously talking about two different concepts.--Prosfilaes 01:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

p.s. please don't get into arguments about what is an isn't pseudoscience here. Its irrelevant to this particular discussion, and just starts a flame war.Brentt 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• JA: I do not intend to get into any arguments in this forum about the scientific status of any of these subject matters, since I have already pointed out the fact that it's not the WP editors' job to do so. Right now I am far more concerned with the question of whether WP editors can follow their tacitly espoused policies, and maybe even whether those policies are consistent in any practical sense. Jon Awbrey 22:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I really like what you're getting at. Let's move the list to the Scientific Skeptic's page. It is a list aht is wholly their POV and thus belongs there. No one could argue the list being there. Leaving the list here only shows one side of the issue - what scientific skeptics believe to be pseudoscience... thus it is POV. The only other solution would be allowing a bunch other other lists of what other groups deem pseudoscience. That would be a free-for-all field day and the page length would get quite unruly.

I truly don't see any holes in the logic to moving the list to the Scientific Skeptics page. It's not a matter of hiding the list. It's a matter of moving it to where it belongs. TheDoctorIsIn 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream scientists consider these topics pseudoscience too, but probably most scientists are not active scientific skeptics. Most mainstream scientists don't even bother with pseudoscience. Bubba73 (talk), 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• JA: I don't know who the SS are, and see no reason to care at this point. WP is not a platform for advocacy or propaganda of any kind, under any banner. The same norms that editors implicitly submit to every time they type some text in one of these edit boxes — which is literally the subtext of every submission, to wit: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable" — simply applies with all due ubiquity to every e-dictum in WikiPedia. Jon Awbrey 03:16, Ides March 2006 (UTC)

No move. Scepticism is one thing, it is an approach, or a philosophy, if you will. Pseudoscience is another thing, and it can be defined, and very simply and clearly, too. It is something which is presented as scientific but does not meet the criteria for the Scientific method. The two are different things; conflating distantly related but completely disparate items is not a Good Idea. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What conflict resolution in WP is not about

• JA: (In a discussion this long and winding, it helps to introduce new headings every now and then to cut down on browser overflow and edit conflicts.)

• JA: Conflict resolution in WP is not about coming to a consensus on the scientific status of any subject matter. WP editors who are under that impression need to abandon the notion that WP is a place for deciding the scientific status of anything. WP is not the place where claims about the doctrinal, legal, moral, scientific, theological, <fill in the blank>, status of any body of teachings or writings are adjudicated. It is illegitimate for WP editors to engage in any form of so-called "conflict resolution" that by its very nature conflicts with the overriding principles of WP participation. Jon Awbrey 17:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• JA: What WP editors can do under the norms of grounded research or source-based research is to report on the proceedings of communities of inquiry that do in fact evaluate claims about the scientific status of this or that hypothesis or theory:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.
However, research that consists of collecting and organizing
information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is
strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should
be based on information collected from primary and secondary
sources.  This is not "original research", it is "source-based
research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
WP:NOR

• JA: There's a difference that makes a difference here. Jon Awbrey 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How to source a statement

JA: The proper form for sourcing a statement is like this:

Martin Gardner (journalist) wrote "<insert ipse dixit here>" (Fads and Fallacies, <year>, <page>)".

JA: Jon Awbrey 18:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Another example of how to source a statement:

Bubba73 wrote "I think that the vast majority of scientists view the things on the list as pseudoscience, and scientists have not received them well", (WikiPedia Discussion Page: Pseudoscience, 13 Mar 2006).

JA: Maybe some people would recognize why writing that on the article page is deprecated, then again, maybe not. So why try to achieve the same effect with less forthwrite means? Jon Awbrey 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: There is a continuing problem with failing to cite sources in accordance with WP:CITE. Citing sources in a sine qua non component of grounded or source-based research, which is one of the guiding principles and fundamental policies of the entire WikiPedia enterprise. Of course, one cannot put a "(X, Y, pp. ZZZ)" after every assertion, and nobody expects that. Many statements can be "grounded" in common knowledge and common sense — a preponderance of mathematical theorems, which no sensible person would call "pseudoscience", are grounded in the rigor of proof, for example. But proof is ultimately just an appeal to critical, disciplined, educated, and reflective common sense. But those commonalities of re-source and re-sort extend only so far as they quite honestly claim to in their very first names, to wit, to what is truly "common". How can you decide what is common and what is not? Well, one flagrant symptom of a sense not being common is when there is persistent and well-distributed dispute among people of good will, and we are all people of good will, until it is proved otherwise. Now, just because there a dispute, it does not mean that the appeal to common sense is overturned utterly, that nothing at all is common sense anymore — some measure of commensurability may yet remain, and typically does, and that can form the locus of common resort. Still, and all, not everything can be derived from armchair common sense, in scholarship as in science, one has to get off one's prior analytics and get the lead out of one's posterior analytics and at least get thee to a library or the moral e-quivalent thereof. Jon Awbrey 15:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if judicious uses of the word "pompous" would violate the "no personal attacks" rule. Probably, but it sure would be accurate, I tell you what. (Just hypothetical rambling, mind you.) Phiwum 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Critic of critic ≠ adherent

• JA: I clarified the logical point that a critic of a critic of X is not of necessity an adherent of X. Jon Awbrey 21:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding a new header for every response! --Brentt 21:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• JA: The term "psedoscience" is pejorative. Everybody knows that, not just the adherents or practitioners of a given position or practice. A person does not become an adherent of X simply by criticizing some of the critics of X. Jon Awbrey 16:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it is pejorative. The prefix "pseudo" means "false". A "pseudopod" is a "false foot". The things labeled "pseudoscience" are beliefs - not real science. Bubba73 (talk), 17:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jon here. Pseudoscience is used almost exclusively as a pejorative. We do not label arbitrary non-scientific beliefs (say, religions or philosophies) as pseudoscience. Rather, a field is called pseudoscience if it is presented as a science but fails to meet some demarcation criteria. This judgment seems naturally to have a negative connotation.

Plus, let's look at the sentence under discussion:

"The term is seen as pejorative by adherents of fields so labeled, who claim that application of the term is contentious and may have ideological connotations."

That's just bloody well awkward. Adherents of disputed fields don't claim that every application of the term is contentious. And they're not the only ones that claim the term is pejorative. Quite frankly, Jon's reverted sentence is better than this one. But I'd suggest the following replacement:

"The term is usually seen as a pejorative, rejecting the scientific status of theories to which it is applied. Adherents of theories called pseudoscience often dispute the claim and suggest that the criticism has ideological basis."

My replacement isn't too well written either, I'm afraid, but maybe it can be fixed. I don't like my own use of the term "theories", since that term has scientific connotations. Phiwum 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Religions and philosophies are clearly different from pseudoscience. They are clearly beliefs. Bubba73 (talk), 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, duh. That was my point. Recall your own comment: "The things labeled 'pseudoscience' are beliefs - not real science." There are many things which are beliefs and not real science and it isn't pejorative to point this out. Calling something pseudoscience implies something else, namely that it is attempting to pass itself off as science (unlike most religions and philosophies). It is this feature which adds a pejorative element to the claim. Adherents to a pseudoscience pretend it is science, but isn't. Phiwum 19:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, how is that pejorative? It is telling it like it is. Also see this. Calling pseudoscience "pea-brained" would be pejorative.

A few years ago on TV there were advertisements for jewelry for $19.99. They had "faux diamonds". "Faux" means "false", but they could appear to be diamonds. Similarly, pseudoscience can appear to be scientific, but it isn't. Religion and philosophy don't appear to be science (and don't claim to be). We could call pseudoscience by different names - "faux science", "false science", "beliefs-that-masquerade-as-science", etc. But "pseudoscience" has been the standard term for decades. I don't see how calling something that is pseudoscience "pseudoscience" is pejorative.

When one calls a theory pseudoscience he is asserting a lot of different claims, among them: that the theory is not, in fact, science; that it is nonetheless presented as science and therefore that those defending the claim that it is science are either wrong or liars. Put differently, a pseudoscientific theory is one which fails to meet the norms of science although it aimed at being a science (pardon the personification). Saying that religion isn't a science carries no negative connotations, but saying that, say, cryptozoology isn't a science does, because cryptozoology is "supposed" to be a science.

I really don't see any controversy in saying the term is pejorative. That doesn't mean that claims of pseudoscience aren't factual. But they come with a clearly negative normative component. Phiwum 06:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Merchandisers who want to sell rocks that are simulated diamonds but not bona fide diamonds are constrained by laws regardinng "Truth In Labeling" (TIL) from advertizing them as diamonds, so they have to label them something else. Being clever Mad Ave types, they naturally resort to foreign languages (French "faux"), or even faux-foreign languages (Häagen-Dazs®), or other distortions of natural languages (Natural Lite), or phrases that connote genuineness without really claiming it ("I Can't Believe It's Not Butter®), and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. That is just honest enough to sneak under the increasingly lax laws of the US, at any rate. People who sell you simulated diamonds labeled as "diamonds" may be one of two things: (1) perpetrators of fraud, (2) people who are the innocent dupes of diamond counterfeitors. So when you say that someone is trying to sell simulated science under the label of science, you are saying something negative about them: You are saying that they are either (1) Frauds, or (2) Dupes. That is pejorative by any standard. It may be true, but it's still pejorative, and you can look it up in any dictionary. The tests for diamondhood are fairly clear cut. If you bring charges against someone for selling simulated diamonds as real diamonds, you can be pretty sure that one side or the other will be proven right in court — all Pink Panther sequels aside. Are the tests for what qualifies as science equally clear cut? Are the tests for what qualifies as NPOV equally clear cut? Nowhere near that clear cut. Hence there is reason for extra caution before making claims that someone is a fraud or a dupe. Jon Awbrey 03:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fields associated - first sentence

The first sentence is: "The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which their critics criticize as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another." I don't think it should say "critics criticize", it is obvious (and redundant) that critics criticize. I propose making a small change to "... endeavor which is criticized as ..." I would go ahead and make the change, save for the current controversy over the section. Bubba73 (talk), 04:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• JA: I subbed a synonym. I think it's best to keep active voice, as "Weasel Weltanschauungen", aka "God's Eye Views" (GEVs), have a tendency to sneak in with the passive voice. Jon Awbrey 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line

JA: Just for the record, it was FeloniousMonk who deleted the Unreferenced tag the first time, and Duncharris who deleted it the second time by reverting to a version of Pseudoscience by Jim62sch. So it appears that I misread the differential history display and misplaced the Drmmt tag on Jim62sch's talk page when I should have placed it on FeloniousMonk's talk page. So I make my heartfelt apologies to Jim62sch, but even mistakes can be made by a person acting in good faith. Also, I still don't know why some people refer to Fact and Unreferenced tags as NPOV tags, as asking for references is a pretty routine thing in source-based research, and it should be possible to do so without prejudice either way. And I am not trying to make any sort of WP:POINT in the pejorative sense, but continue to ask that statements be sourced. Finally, all of these events are things that occurred pursuant to working on a particular article, so I do not see the reason why this discussion should be userfied. Jon Awbrey 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Move?

So are we moving the list to Scientific Skeptics or what? That still is the best proposed answer to all of the contraversy surrounding the list. TheDoctorIsIn 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree. This is a page about pseudoscience. I don't see why a list of alleged pseudosciences should go anywhere else. Phiwum 11:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposed move also, non-skeptical scientists also view conjecture and claims which are presented as science without meeting the criteria for the scientific method as pseudoscience; and skeptical scientists are often skeptical of science which does meet the criteria. This would be conflating two very different things. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Info to add

I'd like to add this:

"Pseudoscience" is hard to strictly define, but it is a doctrine or belief that pretends to be science. Pseudoscience has some common characteristics:

1. The most common characteristic is that its hypothesis is not falsifiable.
2. The proponents are unwilling to look closely at the phenomenon they claim exists. Careful, controlled experiments are not done and the reality of the phonomenon is uncritically accepted.
3. Usually the proponents of a pseudoscience will not change or update their theory in light of new evidence (Hines 1988:1-6).

--References--

• Terrence Hines (1988).Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence, Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-419-2

but it needs to be incorporated into what we already have. In particular, there is already a lot of disucssion about falsifiability. Bubba73 (talk), 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Writing something like "X pretends to be a science", where the verb "pretends" calls for an animate subject, is faulty on grammatical grounds, usually criticized as an instance of "anthropomorphism". Jon Awbrey 06:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not faulty on grammatical grounds. Things don't have to make sense to be grammatical; "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." is completely grammatical. I think "X pretends to be a science" is perfectly clear in any way that merely rephrasing the sentence will help.--Prosfilaes 07:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: I am of course using the term "grammatical" in the old-fangled sense which included semantic considerations, as opposed to the new-fangled sense a la Chomsky that abstracted syntactic grammaticality from them. Those usages are widely criticized, just to be passively weasly about it, you might even call them "pseudogrammatical". Jon Awbrey 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not even semantically wrong. It is a statement that an English speaker would produce and understand. Some people object to it as a matter of English style, but that's stylistic, not grammatical.--Prosfilaes 07:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

'Scuse me, Guv, an' har ay ban gang oof a' ha'cocknied an' taut we ban 'ritin' sum kinda high-falutin' 'cyclopede er sumting! Jon Awbrey 14:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

• JA: I count several cyclic reverts as of this point in time. Looks to me like it's time for RfC, donchathink? Jon Awbrey 04:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

List move reverted

I reverted the move of the list of fields... by anon User talk:68.3.136.145. Such a move without consensus by an anon looks a lot like POV vandalism to me. Vsmith 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fields often associated with pseudoscience by scientific skeptics

I like changing the name of this section rather than moving it to another article, and I think this change (adding "by scientific skeptics") is a step in the right direction. However, there are other groups of people too, i.e. scientists (much larger number than scientific skeptics), plus critical thinkers outside science. Bubba73 (talk), 15:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No that's a silly idea. It makes it sound like "scientific sceptics" are somehow unusual or different or be "wary" of them for being scientists, and um experts on science. The scientific process is largely dependent on the scientists being sceptical of ideas. Attempts to negociate or "compromise" on WP:NPOV#pseudoscience will get you nowhere. — Dunc|☺ 17:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. All of this concern about the list seems much ado about nothing. The article is supposed to give an idea what pseudoscience means. It's hard to give that idea without examples. Naturally, believers of these alleged pseudosciences will disagree, but one cannot disagree that these fields have been called pseudoscience by influential thinkers (scientists, philosophers, etc.). So the old title seems perfectly reasonable to me. Phiwum 23:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Finally, something we agree on. I have gone ahead and made the corresponding change. Jon Awbrey 03:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I go along with the change you made to the title of the section. I like "called" better than "associated with", and I like "influential thinkers" better than "scientific skeptics" only, as I stated above. I am in favor of leaving the list in this article, with its current title. Bubba73 (talk), 04:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem now. The sentence reads: "The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which their critics fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another." Okay, there are plenty of critics out there of vaccination. They cite specifically why the science behind it is wrong; how disease isn't prevented but caused; how viruses are force to mutate into things more insidious in order to survive; how the length of plague is extended rather than quelched. Given this and the topic sentence, couldn't "Vaccination" be added to this list? After all, if we are to show one POV in this article, we must then allow them all in order to remain neutral. TheDoctorIsIn 19:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Read WP:NPOV#pseudoscience again. — Dunc|☺ 19:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

I asked for a citation of "the theories of plate tectonics and evolution - were criticized as being pseudo-scientific when they were first proposed". I think this was in this article a long time ago, and was removed by consensus. Bubba73 (talk), 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: I added a couple of citations. More can be supplied and more detail if you wish. There is of course a subtle issue here. Most scientists don't criticize a theory as being "pseudoscience", they criticize a theory as being "wrong". Being human, they do of course heap ample abuse and redundant ridicule on those who support theories that they consider wrong at any given point in time. But that is more human nature and human nurture than any nature native to science. "Pseudoscience" is not a scientific term — scientists, qua scientists, are far too sophisticated and you might even say "measured" in their critiques of reason for such crudely dichotomous and imperious gestures as the "Thumbs Up" versus "Thumbs Down" of popular acclaim that are clamored about in the popular Arena. In short, "pseudoscience" is not, properly speaking, a scientific term, though it may of course be used by people who happen to be scientists, qua mere mortals, when they are speaking ex ex cathedra, or out of the lab. Jon Awbrey 20:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fields that have been called pseudoscience by influential thinkers

Now it says "influential thinkers". Who are these so-called influential thinkers? This reeks of POVism. I think "scientific skeptics" is a better choice than "influential thinkers". TheDoctorIsIn 05:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is why I think the above title is more clear than the previous one. For my part, I don't know what "scientific skeptic" is supposed to denote. The term by itself strikes my ear like a tautology, if "skeptic" is taken in a Modern and popular sense, but like a contradiction in terms, if "skeptic" is taken in the Classical sense. And that's not even counting one or two Scholastic and Enlightenment senses of "skeptic" that I'm not even going to get into here. Then again, there seems to be a more recent popular or quasi-political sense that I'm even fuzzier on. But I cannot deny the fact that this or that influential thinker has called this or that item on the list a pseudoscience. That's a fact, much like the facts that we collect when we cite sources. All that remains is to say who said what in some statistically fair, impartial, unbiased summary fashion — unless of course you consider statistics a pseudoscience, which at least some thinkers of influence have from time to time called it. Having once derived my income from that dark and dismal art, I must recuse myself on that score. Jon Awbrey 05:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No it's a stupid idea (the first one (see above) was silly; this is really dumb). How can I put this any other way: There is no negotiation on WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. There is no "compromise" between mainstream and non-mainstream. — Dunc|☺ 12:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Influetial Thinkers seems really POV. "Influential" sounds like a good thing and so does "Thinker". Together they sound like a way of praising someone. Perhaps "Influential People" would be better? After all Fidel Castro is influential. And so was Hitler. Just the same, Lincoln and Einstein were influential. Influential People is certainly less POV than Influential Thinkers.

Oh, and not to nitpick any more, but would User Dunc please refrain from making personal attacks? Calling other users' ideas silly, dumb and stupid is a unneccessarily rude and (I'm sure someone as well versed in WP policy as Dunc knows) it is prohibited by Wikipedia. Thanks. TheDoctorIsIn 16:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Duncharris has just reverted a change that was suggested by Phiwum, made by Jon Awbrey, supported by Bubba73, and objected to by TheDoctorIsIn. I count 3 to 2 in favor of the change at this point. WP:CON is all about negotiation. I agree with Duncharris that the guideline of WP:CON cannot trump the overriding maxim of WP:NPOV, nor can it trump the overriding norms of WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, etc. The submaxim WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience says that majority scientific opinion should be represented as majority scientific opinion. Fine, that's just common sense again. But WP:VERIFY requires editors to document what majority scientific opinion is, not just assert the individual editor's opinion of what majority scientific opinion is. One of the problems with the list in question is that it creates a category, to wit, "Pseudoscience", that is not a scientific category. Scientific categories, concepts, and terms do not generally exhibit that high level of generalization about complex and heterogeneuos phenomena. Whatever level of generality they do exhibit, evidence is required for including each individual item under the category, concept, or term in question. Now, we are not charged to do science here, so we do not have to meet the standards for forming scientific concepts. But we are charged to do grounded research here, and that has analogous standards for how to WP:VERIFY the inclusion of a given subject under a given predicate. Saying "Duncharris says it's Mainstream" simply does not wash as far as WP:VERIFY goes. Jon Awbrey 16:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't care for the phrase "influential thinkers" much either. "Influential" seems reasonable, but "thinkers" is a bit too vague and vaguely positive. I don't have a better suggestion yet, but let's be explicit who we're talking about here. Our "thinkers" consist of scientists, philosophers (of science), various skeptical authors and popularizers (like Gardner). What's a good way to refer to this group? Phiwum 11:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually BEING a scientific skeptic myself, and for years a frequent reader of magazines and books coming from the scientific skeptic POV, I've been really dissapointed at the complete inability of the people coming from the skeptical POV editing this article to be able to distinguish the difference between writing an article from a NPOV and endorsing the opposing POV. The skeptical POV is not the only POV people...admitting that isn't going to give any credability to pseudo-science. So far the dominating editors of this article have proven an inability to recognize their position as coming from a POV (the scientific skeptic POV.) I think a request for third party arbitration regarding the list should be submitted. Considering the fact that I AM a skeptic, and agree that everything on the list is in fact PSEUDOSCIENCE, yet am STILL able to recognize the list as inherently POV, I'm confident that any disinterested third party will probably see it the same way if they have a subtle understanding of what NPOV is. So far the arguments against the proposal to move the list the scientific skeptic POV have amounted to nothing but denying that the scientific skeptic POV is in fact a POV. Not that the people supporting any particular pseudo-science arguing in its favor have been much help in arguing in its favor (actually I think they are the only reason the scientific skeptic POV has been resisting seeing it as a POV.) --11:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)