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

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

Four groups


I pulled the link to Pratītyasamutpāda out from the article. This is because, while I am a fan of both Synchronicity and Pratītyasamutpāda, they are really unrelated. Pratītyasamutpāda is a strong assertion of causality - it may be summarised as "whatever is produced, is produced through causes". I believe that the article may be better linked to Indra's net, which is an interpretation of Pratītyasamutpāda as found in East Asian Buddhism (also cf. especially Huayan School). However, Pratītyasamutpāda has a broader scope, and is treated in very different ways by the Madhyamaka, as well as the Theravada and other schools.

Regardless, I would also consider correlating Indra's net with Synchronicity as bordering on WP:OR, but I am willing to discuss this further with this article's editors, if required.

(20040302 (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC))

TODO/MEMO to make draft about inconsistencies with current basic methodology of science very roughly[edit]

inconsistency with current methodology of western science very roughly expanding Tart's last statement in Criticism section

  • Kantian (roughly) "everything has cause and effect in categories meanings of natural minds"
  • Hume-an (roughly) "infinite(? -TODO) chain of cause and effect pairs"
  • Jungian Synchronicity (current western understanding of synchronicity (see Wikipedia current (13 November 2015)): "it's simply synchronicity, not every event should be investigated scientifically (in current meaning of having a cause)" (no algorithm receipt of further investigation/inquiry, so reduction or even as Tart (who is even sometimes "bamboozled" in paranormal investigations so is last person to be biased anti-synchronicity) calls it 'mental laziness')
  • original (obsolete currently AFAIK Marxists are basing on similar to Kant's line) old-Chinese science : something appears with something, (TODO: check source if additional word for instance "always" (I have it somewhere in quotations) was used, and lack of direction: basic diversity/differentiation/axiology/hierarchy of this two events, also check/find more sources then Jung's students)

Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph that does not seem to relate to the topic[edit]

The Criticisms section contains the following paragraph:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, and avoids information and interpretations that contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or is a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study, or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis. Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence that challenges a preconceived idea, but not to evidence that supports it.[1]

It seems unclear how this is a criticism of synchronicity. Is it inferring that the experience of synchronicity is really just an example of confirmation bias?

Seems that way. But since the source does not mention synchronicity, the inferring is done by the WP user who wrote that. Which WP users should not do.
Synchronicity is a bunch of baloney, and confirmation bias obviously plays a role, but the paragraph does not belong in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to delete it, but it is an integral part of the chapter, which is partly WP:OR and partly appropriate. Separating the wheat from the chaff needs more work than I thought. What do others think? Which parts can stay? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained redirect[edit]

The link "plate o' shrimp" redirects here with no reason given. That's linked from Baader-Meinhof, among other places, meaning that a search for the Baader-Meinhoff effect gives you an unexplained intermediate phrase before arriving here. Can anyone explain why or remedy that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It was a reference to a line from the film Repo Man. - (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Tim van Gelder, "Heads I win, tails you lose": A Foray Into the Psychology of Philosophy