Template talk:Pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Arbitration ruling on "pseudoscience"

The Arbitration Committee has issued several rulings on guidelines for the presentation of material that might be labeled "pseudoscience":

  • Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
  • 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • 3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Template-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018[edit]

Kdc612 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Chiropractic should be removed as a category from this list. It is a state and federally recognized health practice that is reimbursable by state and national health insurances. Chiropractic is also utilized within the Veteran's Administration Hospital system. Chiropractic education is made up entirely of State and National accredited and recognized social science, science and technique courses. Nothing about the practice meets Wikipedia's, or any other recognized definition as "Pseudoscience." It's entry on this list appears be to the work of online detractors and has no factual basis.

 Done L293D ( • ) 19:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Chiropractic is clearly pseudo-scientific as stated in the first paragraph of the article: "Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science". To remove it from this list, the first step would be to remove the mention from the target article. in the meantime, I'm re-adding it--McSly (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree. If some legal or national bodies still support it that is not a valid reason to consider it science when it's not proper medicine. —PaleoNeonate – 10:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2019[edit]

Remove Naturopathy from the list of pseudosciences. Aneomon (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Not done. That is what sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Polygraph test[edit]

All Psychological testing has a limited reliability. That one is not an exception. The science may be weak, but hardly a pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see the Polygraph article, which states: "In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience." with this statement being reliably sourced. Two Thirds is an overwhelming majority, it doesn't need to be everyone much in the same way we don't need 100% of everyone to accept that Climate Change is real and we don't remove Flat Earth theory because some people still believe in it. If the vast majority of mainstream experts in a field agree something is pseudoscience then it is. OrgoneBox (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Our page uses this ref to support the statement. The ref is an analysis of the "control question test (CQT)", only one type of polygraph. Based on the abstract, I doubt they conducted a sociological study to come up with the 2/3 number. In general, the technique is described as weak science/unreliable, claims of "pseudoscience" are not common [1]. My very best wishes (talk)

Precognition, parapsychology and dowsing[edit]

The articles on precognition, parapsychology and dowsing, presumably among others, all transclude this template but are not themselves listed in it. This breaches WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Is this acceptable, or should either the articles or the template be changed accordingly? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If the articles' subjects are not sufficiently core to the topic in question so as to be listed in the navbox, I don't think the inclusion of the navbox is appropriate. After all, we wouldn't include the navbox on all of the tens of thousands of articles in the Category:Pseudoscience category tree. (With a depth of just 4, PetScan finds 34,414 articles in the category tree. With a depth of 6, that increases to 85,596.) In the case of the first two articles you mentioned, the inclusion of {{Parapsychology}} is more than sufficient given the current state of the templates.
That being said, I am agnostic on the question of whether any or all of these articles should be added to the navbox. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)