Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Biofeedback

Biofeedback is most definately not a speculative theory--at least not anymore. It acquired a reputation for crack-pottery back in the '60s when alpha neurofeedback was embraced by the New Age crowd. But these days, biofeedback is used very effectively for the treatment of neuromuscular, stress, and elimination disorders in clinical practice. The Wikipedia articles on it are pretty out of date, but it provides real effects, tested under placebo-controlled conditions.

Neurofeedback is also a rapidly growing field. SMR training offers treatment for epilepsy, oftentimes where traditional anticonvulsants have failed. Likewise, SMR and beta training is used for the treatment of ADHD, with results comparable or better than stimulant medications. Even alpha training is making a comeback--not for meditation or "enlightenment", but for the treatment of anxiety, addiction, and insomnia. There's an entire peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the subject, Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

But don't take my word for it. Here's some references:

Fox, D.J., Tharp, D.F., & Fox, L.C. (2005). Neurofeedback: An alternative and efficacious treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 30(4).

Hammond, D.C. (2005). Neurofeedback treatment of depression and anxiety. Journal of Adult Development, 12(2/3), 131-137.

Linden, M., Habib, T., & Radojevic, J. (1996). A controlled study of the effects of EEG biofeedback on cognition and behavior of children with attention deficit disorder and learning disabilities. Biofeedback and Self Regulation, 2, 35–49.

Lubar, J.F. (1995). Neurofeedback for the management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In M.S. Schwartz & Associates (Eds.), Biofeedback: A practitioner’s guide (2nd ed., pp. 493–522). New York: Guildford Press.

Lubar, J.F., Shabsin, H.S., Natelson, S.E., Holder, G.S., Whitsett, S.F., Pamplin, W.E., & Krulikowski, D.I. (1981). EEG operant conditioning in intractable epileptics. Archives of Neurology, 38, 700–704.

Peniston, E.G., & Kulkosky, P.J. (1989). Alpha–theta brainwave training and beta endorphin levels in alcoholics. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Results, 13, 271–279.

Peniston, E.G., & Kulkosky, P.J. (1999). Neurofeedback in the treatment of addictive disorders. In A. Abarbarnel & J. R. Evans (Eds.), Introduction to quantitative EEG and neurofeedback (p. 346). London: Academic Press.

Sterman, M.B. (2000). Basic concepts and clinical findings in the treatment of seizure disorders with EEG operant conditioning. Clinical Electroencephalography, 31(1), 45–55.

Sterman, M.B., & Egner, T. (2006). Foundation and practice of neurofeedback. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 31(1).

Page protected

Please add interwiki [[fi:Luettelo näennäistieteistä]] --Zzzzzzzzzz 11:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Natalya 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

I'm not sure if Noah's Ark should be considered pseudoscience, because unlike most pseudoscientific theories, theories surrounding it do have much evidence to support their theories. Please put any responses on my talk page so I can get them without constantly checking.mikey 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This should be removed from the psuedoscience list. Two Columbia University researchers uncovered evidence suggesting that there was such a flood and ark:

(See Black Sea deluge theory.) See William Ryan and Walter Pittman's book, "Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History," and review at [1] Dogru144 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see two items in this article that have to do with your flood. Mount Ararat is one, but your book there doesn't place the ark on Mount Ararat, so that stays. Flood geology is the other, but your book there doesn't talk about a global flood, so that stays. Both concepts remain pseudoscientific. Hope that helps. — coelacan talk — 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark is known only from religious texts. These texts do not purport to be scientific, or state any compliance with the 'scientific method'. Therefore there is no pseudoscience here. What some people are thinking of is the Creation Science that puts forward evidence in support of the religious texts as historically accurate. Therefore until someone can show otherwise, I will remove Noah's Ark from this category. ^rossnixon 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The talk.origins review of Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study quotes the following passage:

"The absence of light and the anoxic conditions of burial must have facilitated the dormancy of seeds until unearthed by late-Flood and post-Flood erosive events. Furthermore, the absence of oxygen tends to greatly prolong the viability of seeds which are viable only for short periods of time under normal subaerial conditions. Had carbon dioxide percolated through some of the Flood-deposited sediments, it must have also imposed a narcotic effect on many seeds, including at least some that would not otherwise have survived prolonged burial in a viable condition. For instance, the rubber plant (Hevea braziliensis) is notorious for the short period of viability of its seeds under normative conditions. Yet when narcotized by carbon dioxide, the seeds can survive in a viable state for at least several weeks and, if present in sufficient numbers, a few individual seeds out of a great number of initially buried may have survived the Flood year." p. 156.

As you can see, this is an attempt to make the Noah's Ark story scientifically plausible. Thus, I've reverted your changes. Seek consensus before removing the entry again. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely stating the obvious: Noah's Ark is a legend, not a pseudoscience. As a legend, it (or the phenomena which may underlie the legend) falls within established academic disciplines such as literary studies, biblical studies and archaeology. Therefore vote for removal from this list and adding to list of legends (which does not seem to exist at the time of writing). NB: what makes this more complicated is that pseudoscientific theories have grown out the legend (e.g. flood geology as a sub-field of creationism). Caravaca 06:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Kmarinas86's comments

NB bottom post please

sure, why not.Kmarinas86 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

List of most if not all definitions presented in this talk article

irrelevant

• theories purporting to be scientific A theory doesn't purport itself to be scientific. Only a person can purport it so.

examples, not requirements

• the theories given are cited as an alternative to science (by thier advocates)
• out of the mainstream of public thought (e.g. astrology) the mainstream may accept pseudoscience, but only if it is asserted to be science when it's not
• [does not involve scientists]
• Failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results. a characteristic of protoscience
• [advocating] over a falsified theory not all pseudoscientific theories are falsified

observers are relative

• is a characterization which was never subjected to any kind of strict criteria strict criteria which once were have lost standing
• it has [not] even been observed in nature by whom? including everyone you don't know?
• [does] not [try] to show how it could ever be proved wrong to whom? as of when?
• it fails to actually propose a scientific theory to whom? as of when?
• rather well defined other's "observe" that's not so
• Asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results; Experimentally estabilished results are information determined through the theoretical framework which used to understand the data. Using the same data, a different set of experimentally established results (even contradictory with preceding results) could be derived from the same data when viewed by future scientists.

viewpoints

• passing itself off as science but which is not falsifiable fasilfiability isn't static
• a line of thinking that claims to be science but that doesn't follow scientific principles the line of thinking may be reformed to be made in concordance with scienfitic principles in the future
• is not defined by its mainstream status but rather by its epistemic status
• guilty of discarding reason and ignoring evidence the "reason" may be based on vastly different assumptions which are related to a different philosophy of science. Disagreement can be confused for "ignoring the evidence".
• [not] considered by scientists this statement assumes that a person who, by profession, is a mainstream scientist cannot switch between his science job and psuedoscience hobby
• can be seen as a social phenomenon it is a social phenomenon, sure, such as the idea of the word planet, but not everyone agrees that it cannot be defined. After all the idea that's it just a social phenomenon doesn't help the ones trying to define what the word means
• by bogus certainty amongst its adherents
• [does] not [include] all non-mainstream endeavors
• [a classification] not inherently POV
• "not accepted by the mainstream scientific community", that is not part of the definition viewpoint, namely, "pseudoscientific theory may be accepted by mainstream scientists"
• a heuristic that many people apply when judging a newly encountered idea
• [done by] cranks [who] advocate all sorts of theories which are incorrect or wrong viewpoint
• [a label that] is an NPOV violation viewpoint
• should not be confused with unpopular or minority-opinion scientific theories viewpoint

judicial claim

• "crackpot" theories

requirements

• is based on the self-characterization ... as a science self-characterization may only involve people, not theories or conjectures
• [not] seen as plausible by the scientific community
• [it is] non-falsifiable requirement, if proposition "P" is falsifiable then the contrary proposition "~P" must be verifiable in principle
• something that claims to be Science, but isn't
• things misrepresented as science
• in violation of the scientific method
• something which purports to be scientific but is not
• Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;

Kmarinas86 06:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, we'll only add "K. Marinas' Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis" if anyone actually cares enough about it to condemn it! — Dunc|☺ 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Requirements:

• is based on the self-characterization ... as a science self-characterization may only involve people, not theories or conjectures

No because I never call myself a scientist. I never called my hypothesis scientific.

• [not] seen as plausible by the scientific community

Clearly.

• [it is] non-falsifiable requirement, if proposition "P" is falsifiable then the contrary proposition "~P" must be verifiable in principle

Clearly.

• something that claims to be Science, but isn't

I don't claim it to be science.

• things misrepresented as science

Yes, in other people's interpretations, not mine.

• in violation of the scientific method

Quite so. But it is not in violation with philosophy.

• something which purports to be scientific but is not

Again, it does not purport itself to be. I did not say I was a scientist. Trying to sound plausible does not make one "inherently sound" scientific, only to those who don't understand science will think it's scientific.

• Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;

Quite so.

Not all requirements have been met at far as my "hypothesis" is concerned, so it's not psuedoscience. In fact look what I typed on the top of that page:

I, K. Marinas, am the founder of my Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis¹, in which I propose that universe is a fractal, as an alternative to the Big Bang Theory. My idea is not science as of yet, since the vast majority of detailed cosmological data and computing power is outside of my reach. Another reason why it is not science right now is because it is not being studied by staff of a university. This page is not something you can nor should cite for a school project. Meanwhile, I think that my idea lacks the errors of previous alternatives to the Big Bang Theory.

A pseudoscience cannot admit itself to be a nonscience. Also, just because a philosopher likes science and says good things about it does not make his or her philosophical or religious research pseudoscientific. If there is no actual claim to having science or being an actual scientist, there is no guilt of being a pseudoscientist. Making a hypothesis non-scientifically does not necessarily involve psuedoscience as long as science is not claimed. Assertations by outsiders that science is claimed by the individual do not apply.Kmarinas86 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I believe that the controversy over the word pseudoscience is an ethical matter rather than a scientific one.Kmarinas86 01:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Minority-opinion scientific theories !!

I've made a new page: List of minority-opinion scientific theories. I've done this because this list is now strictly about pseudoscientific theories, and not about "alternative, disputed, and speculative theories". Since the move there have been a bunch of theories that have no list to sit on. Like all the other "list of theories" pages the name is not fixed, and may be changed later (perhaps to "List of speculative theories").

Anyway, I invite everyone to help build the new list. Cheers. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A Word of Encouragement

Rather than merely a pillory for ideas which a few vociferous individuals happen to dislike, the article has improved beyond recognition. Well done to all concerned. Gordon Vigurs 09:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I moved this page in order to make it in line with Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Japanese blood type theory of personality

The Japanese blood type theory of personality is worth inclusion here. I have listed it under the Biology section. Jimp 19 October 2006

Contradiction: quantum mind

The quantum mind article says that the theory is protoscience, not pseudoscience, and I'm not really in a position to say which it is. Little help? --Awesome 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert, either, but until someone can point to a claim from a reliable source that most in the physics and/or neurology consider it a pseudoscience, I think it's best to err on the side of it not being on this list. I'll remove it now. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the participation of Roger Penrose does give the theory a bit of a bump toward respectability, so, to me, protoscience would be appropriate. (My personal opinion is that the theory will be falsified eventually, but my opinion and 60 cents will get a cup of crappy coffee out of a vending machine). •Jim62sch• 14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Stubborn

I would like to get some comments and help with my own addition here:

• Pseudoscience as stubbornly held obsolete or prescientific ideas

I'm not totally satisfied with my use of the word "stubborn" in this connection. It's true enough, but doesn't fully express reality. Many people who are true believers are't "stubborn" about it, but simply ignorant. How can this be expressed so as to include them, along with the "stubborn" believers? -- Fyslee 10:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

all inclusive list

I made a bold edit because this list is becoming part of the Pseudoscience article and is an attempt to be as all inclusive as possible. The PS label is used for all sorts of reasons (including by the scientific community) but by taking this sentence out, we should be able to safely include more without debating weasle word "scientific community". Each on the list can be presented in a NPOV manner, including describing who it is that is claiming they are PS. Hope this helps to decrease anxiety related to this issue, as that was the purpose of the edit. --Dematt 18:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. This should help to ensure more stability to the article. -- Fyslee 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Addition to intro

I'd like to suggest this revision to the intro:

The following is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects. Some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community. Note that the pseudoscience label may be applied by disputants working in the same field to disparage a competing theory or form of argument used by a rival; by commentators from outside a field to disparage a whole field; merely to characterize the fact that a theory published in a popular book has no academic credibility whatsoever; or in reference to a theory now discarded. Thus, while valid scientific reasons may exist why concepts listed here are pseudoscientific, scientifically speaking inclusion here is due to opinion rather than methodologically correct and peer-reviewed scientific research.

I would have said "common opinion," but many paranormal concepts in fact have majority acceptance among scientists, much to the dismay of CSI(COP).

Martinphi 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this proposed introduction is soaking with weasal words, is argumentative original research, and, to the extent that it can be repaired, more properly belongs on the pseudoscience, protoscience, or pseudoskepticism articles and not on a list. Anything on the present is regarded by an overwhelming majority of scientists in a given relevant field as pseudoscience. Ideally, this will be substantiated on each of the linked articles. There is no point in the introduction saying something amounting to "some fields of endeavor are wrongly called pseudosciences" when everything on this list is supposed to actually be a pseudoscience (or else it shouldn't be on the list in the first place). If you disagree with any particular item being on the list, feel free to bring it up here. Heim theory stays, though. ;p Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Post script: Please don't mark significant content edits as minor and enter an edit summary of "spelling." It is considered misleading and is frowned upon. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's soaking with weasel words, which may be true, there is something wrong with the current version, because I only changed the last sentence. But if it is true that "everything on this list is supposed to actually be a pseudoscience," then there will have to be some support for that. If it's merely opinion, usually of an unknown number of people, then that would be fine to include many of these on the list. But, as a majority of scientists believe in paranormal phenomena, for instance, you couldn't include parapsychology. Nope, if these are all going to be called "actually" pseudosciences, then there should be sources which show 1) why exactly it's a pseudoscience beyond a reasonable doubt (which would be extremely hard), and 2) that most scientists believe it's a pseudoscience. But as I said, that's not the case with all of these. (You can't make assumptions here, because it's been shown that many scientists, for instance, believe in the paranormal.)

"Ideally, this will be substantiated on each of the linked articles."

This is very far from being true. So, either there is a major, major lack of verifiability in this article, or inclusion should in fact be a matter of there being a substantial amount of opinion among scientists (as the authors of the intro apparently knew). If this were the case, then the inclusion of parapsychology would be justifiable, because about 45% of scientists probably do think it is a pseudoscience. Otherwise, not. And there would have to be a huge amount of research, to prove that they are in fact pseudosciences. Even if a reaasonable person -whatever that means- would think them wrong, you'd be hard pressed to prove it unscientific, for instance with Crop circles.

I would say that the weasel words -which weren't mine-- are actually justified skepticism and caution, and are necessary if this article is to exist at all.

You seem to be of the opinion that I changed the intro to its current version. In point of fact, I only changed the spelling of one word, and that was indeed a minor edit. And, that intro has been around for a very long time.

Oops, wrong, I aparently forgot to hit ctrl-c at the wrong moment, so the spell-checked version didn't get onto the clip board, and I saved my edit. Sorry to all.

Martinphi 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We've worked together on other articles before. As you might recall from WP:CITE:

Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

Challenge what you think is challengeable, get choppy (that is, remove the material), and we'll get to work on rectifying the problem. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict when adding this:

P.S. My addition, above, is only a summary of the "weasel" concepts which are already present in the intro. This page has really extreme problems with sources if things are included because they are pseudosciences rather than because people have said they are. I see virtually no sources after the included subjects. Depending on the full articles is a very iffy proposition, I think. For instance, this from the Ufology page:

While many ufologists strive for legitimacy, and some are respected scientists in other fields, ufology has never been fully embraced by the scientific community, for a number of reasons. Despite involvement of some respected scientists, the field has seen very little attention from mainstream science. Most critics still consider ufology a pseudoscience or a protoscience. [1]

Well, I'm quite sure that "Most critics still consider ufology a pseudoscience", but that doesn't merit inclusion on this page. If this page is supposed to be about only real pseudosciences.

Martinphi 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Simoes:

Well, yes, but I think I believe in at least giving warning of that kind of hacking. What I'm trying to say here, is that we could keep this good useful page if it only had a few weasels in front of it, like I suggested, and actually as it already partly does. The problem is people thinking that this page is supposed to only include verifiable pseudosciences.

Martinphi 02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a problem. By WP:V, that really is only what this page is supposed to include. What this amounts to is citing documents showing that a majority scientists in a relevant field consider a given concept or field of endeavor to be pseudoscientific. Might this mean that we need to strike an entry from the list until its respective article includes a referenced statement calling the article subject a pseudoscience? Sure. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How to perserve the page?

It's been asserted here that:

"everything on this list is supposed to actually be a pseudoscience (or else it shouldn't be on the list in the first place)."

I've reviewed several of the pages for the things listed, and often they really offer no proof, or even evidence that the thing, however doubtful, is actually a pseudoscience. See for examplePhotoreading.

This page is basically trying to assert that the things listed have no scientific validity. This is an assertion of fact, and has to be proven for each thing listed. It needs, for each topic, a complete and thoroughgoing survey of the field, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt both that the field as a whole is pseudoscience, and that there is no scientific research going on in parts of the field. This will be virtually impossible to do for most fields. I doubt you could even do it for Astrology.

So the page either has to be deleted, or it has to be about hearsay. It could be a list of fields which a "significant" (19 of 20?) portion of the "scientific community" (what's that exactly?) feel, and can be proven to feel (by a survey for instance) are pseudoscientific. Even this is virtually impossible to do.

So, perhaps the page should list fields which can be proven to have had a lot of accusations of pseudoscience thrown at them. That's basically what the current, and longstanding, intro says this page does. But this should be made a bit more clear. Then anyone can include basically anything. But it must be very clear that this page says nothing about the fields in question, except to say that they are controversial. Perhaps it can stand as a warning to those who might be into pseudoscience. Or, it could be useful as a guide to those looking for pseudoscientific fields to peruse.

So what will it be, everyone? How can this page be preserved?

Martinphi 06:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article just seems like a bunch of topics that the editors wanted to attack. The list is a mixture of things that I'd call pseudoscience, together with scientific hypotheses that were proved wrong, hoaxes, frauds, fields that don't even pretend to be scientific, etc.

In some cases, the field actually has some good science in it, but the field has been oversold or become disreputable. There is no accepted definition of pseudoscience. Roger 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? Have sources for that? Strikes me as personal opinion, since those on the list have sources identifying them in their articles. FeloniousMonk 18:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not correct to use other Wikipedia articles as sources. I can't find the ref for that just now, maybe someone else has it. Also, as it stands, this page violates NPOV.

Martinphi 20:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right (from WP:CITE: Wikipedia articles may not be cited as sources.), but convention has it that lists don't usually justify each item with a reference (thus doubling the article length). Arguments over whether an item belongs on a list involves looking at the item's corresponding article. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, great, lists are exceptions.

And including anything on this list constitutes a strong statement that it is a pseudoscience, period, and does not have any pockets of real science. Correct?

Martinphi 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It just means that pseudoscience is justified over on the article's page, that's all. It's a strong statement, but the statement is made on the article's page first and then copied here. What we have here is essentially exactly the same as what you get with Category:Pseudoscience tags, except we've organized it by subject and added little explanations. But we don't need to copy justifications over to Category:Pseudoscience and the same applies here. — coelacan talk — 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with not referencing each item on this list is that this is not merely a list of items, like say the different kinds of corn. Each item included constitutes an absolute and deep and very controversial assertion about a (usually) very broad field of human endeavor. And the article ref might change, too.

Martinphi 21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If the article refs change to the point that "pseudoscience" is removed from the article, then we should change them back, unless consensus establishes that they were truly justified in removing pseudoscience from the article, in which case we should remove it from this list. I don't see what's difficult about that. — coelacan talk — 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Astrology, just as an example. The Astrology page says:

Within the contemporary scientific community, astrology is generally labeled as a pseudoscience,...Astronomer Carl Sagan did not sign the statement, noting that, while he felt astrology lacked validity, he found the statement's tone authoritarian. He suggested that the lack of a causal mechanism for astrology was relevant but not in itself convincing.[27][28]

This is not a strong enough indictment to merit inclusion on the list if, as stated here, "everything on this list is supposed to actually be a pseudoscience (or else it shouldn't be on the list in the first place)." We need a better source for claiming, without modification, that astrology is a pseudoscience. And I don't believe in Astrology, either.

Martinphi 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Martinphi, your hard-line-break-then-signature system is breaking the indents. — coelacan talk — 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. You're going to have to do better than that. One popular scientist not liking the "tone" of the statement does not weaken the "astrology is generally labeled as a pseudoscience" part. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't have to do better than that. Either this page lists things that are known, without doubt, to be pseudosciences, or it lists hearsay, that is, things that a lot of scientists believe to be pseudoscience. If the first, the edit stands. If the second, my clarification of the intro shouldn't have been labeled weasely.

Most everything on this page either has to get deleted, or the claim made about it's being pseudoscience has to be modified to "There are a significant number of claims the field is a pseudoscience."

Please see my reasons above. Doesn't look like they're being engaged.

Martinphi 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is known without a doubt to be anything, except perhaps some mathematics. Your standard is too high, and I know that you don't live your life to such a standard so you can hardly demand it from others. — coelacan talk — 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Martin, where are those quotes about "being" pseudoscience in the article? I can't find them. (I just removed the only one I could find, which was at Dianetics.) I do find words like "have characterized", and "is considered by". As long as it is clearly stated that it is an opinion, then there is no problem, since that's what Wikipedia is about. The NPOV policy requires that we document opinions on all sides of the issues. -- Fyslee 00:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Coelacan is right. Furthermore, unless we are to engage in some kind of original research to somehow indisputably establish that a field of endeavor is pseudoscientific, saying something is a pseudoscience (which is implicitly done here by including items on the list) amounts to, for the purposes of this encyclopedia, appeals to the relevant authorities. If you would like to dispute the inclusion of anything here, please do so. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This list allows mention of a number of items because true believers who have taken the articles hostage won't allow mention of pseudoscience or the placement of the pseudoscience category tag in the articles themselves. Such editing is forbidden here, but it happens. Those editors should allow such mention, but they won't. Therefore absence of such mention or of the tag is not evidence that the subject is not relevant for this list. This list explicitly states that the mentioned subjects are "characterized [by critics] as" or "considered by" someone as, and does not explicitly state that they "are" pseudoscience. Thus NPOV is preserved, and the list can be used by those interested in the subject. Readers can then study for themselves and make up their own minds. -- Fyslee 00:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. This whole discussion arose because I tried to make that more clear, and Simoes rv'd it because, as he stated, "everything on this list is supposed to actually be a pseudoscience (or else it shouldn't be on the list in the first place)." To me that's the whole issue here. I only began this because when I tried to make it more clear that inclusion is about a significant ammount of opinion in the scientific community, it was rv'd (and the original paragraph presented as weasel words). So all is well.

I would like to modify the intro a little, to make things perfectly clear. Martinphi 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If he had written that in the article itself, then we might have a POV problem, but he said it on this talk page, and he's obviously right.If editors aren't serious (in their personal opinion) about their inclusions here, then this list could include anything any vandal or disruptive idiot chose to place here, without it even remotely being related to the subject.

I'm not suggesting this be done, but his statement could be allowable in the article if it were slightly mofified (the part in parentheses):

• "everything on this list is supposed to actually be (considered by scientific critics to be) a pseudoscience (or else it shouldn't be on the list in the first place)."

... but it wouldn't be very encyclopedic to include that statement. That's what this talk page is about.

This list is for items considered by scientific critics and scientific skeptics to be pseudoscientific in whole or in part. It's not a list for the nominations of non-scientific critics, true believers, or proponents of items already listed here as pseudoscientific. They already have articles where they sell their weird ideas and theories. This list represents the POV of scientific critics, not their opposers. It is presented as their opinion, since Wikipedia is all about presenting opinion and labeling it as such, which is done quite nicely in the article. -- Fyslee 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-submit addition to intro for consensus

Add this to the end:

• Thus, while valid scientific reasons may exist why concepts listed here are pseudoscientific, scientifically speaking inclusion here is due to opinion rather than methodologically correct and peer-reviewed scientific research.

-- Martinphi 03:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that this entire statement is flawed to the bone. The inclusion of any given pseudoscience here may in fact be specifically due to the results of methodologically correct and peer-reviewed scientific research having proved the pseudoscience's claims untenable. Flat Earthism, for an obvious example. — coelacan talk — 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also flawed by implying that inclusion due to opinion is somehow improper, when in fact Wikipedia is all about documenting POV (opinion). Since this is the way Wikipedia works, it doesn't even need to be mentioned, as it is a given for all things here. Inclusion here is because scientific critics and scientific skeptics consider the scientific evidence to be strong enough to consider the item to be pseudoscientific, or the claims made by proponents to be so unscientific and/or unfalsifiable as to be pseudoscientific on the face of it without any need for scientific evidence proving their falsity. -- Fyslee 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Acupuncture

I removed acupuncture.

Acupuncture is as much a pseudo-science as Newtonian physics is. The effects are repeatable and observable and the theory was developed scientifically. It just so turns out that modern technology has revealed a lot more behind the scenes than we could've ever seen with the naked eye. You either list Newtonian physics as junk-science or remove Acupuncture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.108.178 (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Reverted. The acupuncture listing already says that it has documented theraputic effects, but that qi is what is pseudoscientific. And next time you feel like removing something, discuss it here on the talk page before removal, and wait for other editors to respond; build consensus. And add new talk sections at the bottom of the page. And... — coelacan talk — 05:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also expanded it, since not only is qi questionable, acupuncture points and meridians are as well. The whole concept reeks of a prescientific belief system, and to the degree that it is believed in this modern day and age, it is pseudoscientific, and when marketed and practiced using false claims it becomes quackery.

This has nothing to do with any possible effects of needling, just the TCM theory behind it. Needling may well end up having some form of usefulness, but right now you can still get the same effect by patting the spot, scratching yourself, or sticking a needle in any nonspecific part of the body you wish. The only part missing would be the placebo effect (with its exclusively subjective effects) achieved by the mysticism surrounding some non-existent specific points and their supposed specific effects, which are as yet unproven. -- Fyslee 09:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with acupuncture is that like a number of other items currently on the list, it falls, with crystal clarity, into a grey area of thick fog between science and pseudoscience. It is an excellent example of the need for grey-scale categories such as "list of possibly/probably pseudoscientific theories" with annotations such as "not proven yet" or "has elements of truth" or "otherwise better explainable phenomenon" as distinct from "clearly ridiculous" or "proven wrong". I vote for transfer to a more appropriate grey area. Caravaca 06:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What is Pseudoscience?

This article casts its net too wide. Not all nonsense is pseudoscience. To be a pseudoscience, the nonsense must have scientific pretensions. For example, astrology in its common form is not pseudoscience. But astrology cloaked in a theory of lifelong inexorably persistent biorhythms is pseudoscience. I think the mere superstitions should be culled from this article. OinkOink 16:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

String Theory

Should string theory go in this article? Theoretically, since it can't be proven, it's not science, but there are plenty of people who believe it. It's not exactly alchemy, but... 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs).

No. None of its proponents claim it's a theory-proper except in the sense of it being a mathematical model. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

String theory should not go here. String theory predicts particles that are partners to the familiar particles. The new accelerator at CERN that is to be finished this year may be able to detect some of those particles. Bubba73 (talk), 01:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnation

Should reincarnation be included in the list? I think people tend to see it more as a religious belief--closer to, let's say, the way some Chritians literally understand resurrection or some Roman Catholics see Transubstantiation.

I'd say it probably shouldn't be here. The Reincarnation article doesn't mention any pseudoscientific invocations of the idea. I'll go ahead and drop it from the list. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)