Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Something is missing here.

Currently, the opening line of the article starts like this: "Pseudoscience is a term who claim, belief, or practice which is presented..." I have no idea what "term who claim" is intended to mean, but I suspect that there's at least one word, possibly more that are missing. If anybody knows what the author intended, a bit of cleanup would be appreciated.JDZeff (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I believe I have fixed the problem. In the last month or so, someone added some text making the first sentence nonsensical. I removed that text. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sry, it was me. Ain't that term a term? Or a philosophical concept? Is there such thing as pseudoscience or is it a concept in some phislosphical schools? When my add was wrong, why do you delate the source too? Curious. --WSC ^® 20:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary is the online dictionary. Wikipedia tries to leave the terms to Wiktionary and instead cover concepts. Naturally, there is a bit of overlap, but I saw nothing in the Oxford dictionary source that helped to make this article more informative. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I think you should accept first that Wiktionary is somth. different than this little The Oxford Companion to Philosophy one of the most cited and most recognized books in this subject area. And of course somthing different than this lousy self made dictionary called wiktionary. --WSC ^® 15:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is your source. As I said in my edit summary, it does not contain the content you added. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll cite it for you: "A term" --WSC ^® 18:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

TED exploited by pushers of pseudoscientific ideas

Comment moved to more relevant spot at Talk:TED_(conference)#Recent_.27controversy.27. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to find much better sources for this. To show that it's a notable development, or that it has affected significantly the field of pseudoscience, or it has affected the public perception of at least one pseudocientific topic, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget link to "Cargo Cult" science article

Because it is an important form of pseudoscience, please add a link to Feynman's "Cargo Cult" science in the list of related Wikipedia articles. Feynman's credentials to comment on this are unassailable.

Definitions (like the one given in the first line) are more effective in a dictionary or an encyclopedic context if they can be provided without immediate recycling of all or part of the term that is being defined. A reference to the excellent article on "Science" should appear in first line, because before one can understand the differences or similarities between science and pseudoscience, they must thoroughly understand the former. Danshawen (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)danshawen

Pseudoscience in the US military

Quackery and Mumbo-Jumbo in the U.S. Military

"Cupping, moxibustion, and battlefield acupuncture are endangering troops.

"The military uses some of the most technologically sophisticated machinery and innovative medical techniques in history. But a disturbing current of pseudoscience in the military is wasting money, perpetuating myths, and putting our troops in danger."

Brangifer (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is potential for some of this information, and the links within as a short paragraph. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this seems notable enough for a brief mention. --John (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless you plan on turning the article into a bunch of soapbox quotes rather than a "what it is" article, then I would stop trying to shoehorn in editorials.Tom Butler (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We already do have a section on examples in society, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Kudos!

My appreciation to all for a fine article on a subject in which I am deficient. After some study I hope to be able to contribute. Thank You all. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit to broaden given definition of pseudoscience

[1]

The main goal of my edit is to broaden the given definition of pseudoscience to reflect the cited fact that pseudoscience also (probably even mainly) includes doctrines that do not claim to be scientific, but that nevertheless conflict with science. I have no strong preference as to whether the material should be in the lede or elsewhere; I proposed the lede because per WP:LEDE, the proposed edit helps to define the topic and establish context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson (talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I would object to such a broadening. Pseudoscience is beliefs or practices erroneously believed to be based on scientific method, and that is all it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Man, by that definition, every belief or idea that is not science would be pseudoscience: every religion, all political parties, nearly every philosophy, the concepts of love and belief in good and evil, etc. That's not what pseudoscience means. If someone sloppily calls something pseudoscience that makes no claims about science one way or another that's an error, not an expanded definition that Wikipedia must recognize. DreamGuy (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The wording is "conflict with science", not just "not science". The literature's claim is that things like qi and clairvoyance are labeled pseudoscience conflict with science in a dramatic and fundamental way that, for example, liberalism and conservatism do not. A minority of qi and clairvoyance practitioners do claim that it is science-based, just as a minority of liberals and conservatives claim their ideologies are scientific, but this is not the reason qi and clairvoyance are labeled pseudoscience. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The current definition seems appropriate and adequate. Agree with Scjessey. Conflict with science does not equal pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If nobody else thinks the current definition will cause confusion as to why non-scientific nonsense like, say, therapeutic touch belong on the list, I'll drop the proposal then. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that something which overlaps into the magisterium of science is often characterised as pseudoscience. It is beyond merely "does not claim to be a science". Sources on demarcating pseudoscience that I have seen don't seem to waste any time on whether the proposed system is considered scientific or not by its proponents. If all astrology practitioners claimed astrology was a religion, but otherwise kept their practices the same, it would still be a pseudoscience in terms of the claims it makes etc. Second Quantization (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is more details about the proposal.

The issue here is not a matter of WP:V or WP:RS because Matute is a good source and the text is verifiable. WP:NPOV requires that the existing mainstream view is fairly represented. I checked the article history. This IP edit deleted relevant text from the article. This edit also deleted text that is related to demographics and to the article. This proposal lost interest. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources

• Barberia I, Blanco F, Cubillas CP, Matute H (2013). "Implementation and assessment of an intervention to debias adolescents against causal illusions". PLoS One. 8 (8): e71303. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071303. PMID 23967189.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) See: "Researchers have warned that causal illusions are at the root of many superstitious beliefs and fuel many people's faith in pseudoscience, thus generating significant suffering in modern society."[2]

• Blanco F, Barberia I, Matute H (2014). "The lack of side effects of an ineffective treatment facilitates the development of a belief in its effectiveness". PLoS One. 9 (1): e84084. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084084. PMID 24416194.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) See: "This behavior may be parallel to actual pseudomedicine usage; that because a treatment is thought to be harmless, it is used with high frequency, hence the overestimation of its effectiveness in treating diseases with a high rate of spontaneous relief."[3]

I think these sources are relevant to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Rescinding Proposal to expand section 4

Having looked at the article at some length, it seems to me that there is under "4 Identifying pseudoscience" a subclass which may be inadequately dealt with. Pieces of it seem currently to reside under "4.6 Personalization of issues" and "4.7 Use of misleading language". I propose to call it "4.6 Supporting or Disputing a Claim by Misuse of Logical Fallacies" and include the current 4.6 and 4.7 as 4.6.1 and 4.6.2. It could perhaps alternatively be called "4.6 Red Herring Fallacies and Other Misuses of Logic". Also under this would be:

• Disputing a claim by postulating an ad-hoc criticism which doesn't address any point crucial to the claim (Straw man fallacy, Ignoratio elenchi)
• Disputing (or supporting) a claim by presenting an argument which, though possible, is improbable, as though it were highly probable while ignoring more likely argument(s). (False dilemma fallacy? Argument from ignorance?)
• Claiming a scientific debate to have been resolved, usually without clearly indicating just how, in favor of one's preferred point of view. (Appeal to authority fallacy)
• Advertising that the claims of one's opponents have not been conclusively proven (as they cannot be in science) while neglecting to note that one's own claims have the same status. (Red Herring fallacy, aka Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase)
• Rejecting a claim out of hand because 'the subject is closed'. (Argument from repetition fallacy)

Now I'm going off to see what supporting sources there may be for these as that is an important thing in Wikipedia I'm told. Also, is this a correct forum for this discussion? Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the WP:RS guidelines? I'd advise starting by reading the existing literature first; for example, the sources already cited in this article might be a good starting point. The spirit of the guidelines, (and perhaps of science in general), is that ideally you should base your material on what your sources are saying, rather than making your own conclusions and only then later looking for sources for confirmation to back up what you've already decided the content should be. :-) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Rolf, thanks for your feedback. That is pretty much why I put this into TALK instead of just editing the article. As to WP:RS, the current 4.6 has 3 items, each of which has a reference, while 4.7 has 2 items, neither of which has a reference. So I don't think my suggestion as it stands is particularly out of line with the evident current practice. Also, while I understand the felt need for Wikipedia to be a reflection of current thinking in outside sources, yet each contributor, particularly the original authors, write because they think something needs to be included, and they will quite likely include things from a point of view with which they mostly agree. While being completely unbiased is a lovely ideal, I think it honored as much in the breach as in the observance. You can usually find sources that agree with your point of view. Are they in the mainstream? Having looked around Wikipedia a bit, I have noticed the furious debates that sometimes go on around whether particular sources are indicative of mainstream opinion and/or are authoritative.

So I expect to be able to include sources, hopefully meeting the expert/authoritative criterion. Those, if acceptable, will turn my POV into unbiased reporting. I just haven't got to that yet. Which is why this is still just TALK. Between Footnotes, References, Further Reading and External Links I count 119 entries. While there is some overlap, that's a formidable amount of reading. I doubt that most contributors are experts at that level (?)

I was actually hoping to elicit some comments on my suggestions, hopefully including some references, from those with a better knowledge of the relevant literature. Alternatively perhaps somebody will point out why any or all of these don't belong here. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You might consider starting at the Rhetoric of science‎ article instead.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Machine Elf 1735! That is an awesome article. Obviously I'm going to have to read Thomas Kuhn, at least. My enormous ignorance is showing once again, I fear. Are you further suggesting that I move my TALK ideas over there? Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Because this is a high profile article, it would be easier to have a good first experience editing there. You can link to this discussion (like so), but you would want to familiarize yourself with that article and start making (smaller) suggestions (a little at time) in regard to its content.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. By 'this' I assume you refer to this Pseudoscience article. 'that article' would be Rhetoric of Science. Not sure if my proposal has relevance there (?) or why I might wish to edit the article at all. I consider this to be a 'smaller' proposal here as it seems to just add a bit to the sense of 4.6 & 4.7 which nobody seems to be disputing. From what you say, you seem to think the proposal would be controversial. Why? Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

After due consideration, I see what Machine Elf 1735 is talking about. Whatever the merits of my proposal may be, I have no expertise in this subject nor a sufficient mastery of the relevant literature. I agree that one or both of these qualities should appertain to any Wikipedia editor. Thank you Rolf and thank you Machine Elf 1735. Maybe you'll hear from me again. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

last two sentences under "etymology" need clarifying

first:

"During the 20th century, the word was used rhetorically to ascribe to an action falsely maintaining scientific status." probably what is meant here is "used as a pejorative to describe explanations of phenomena which were claimed to be scientific, but which were not in fact supported by reliable experimental evidence." or something like that. "rhetorically" is certainly inaccurate, and "ascribe to an action" is difficult to parse.

second:

"From time to time, though, the usage of the word occurred in a more formal, technical manner around a perceived threat to individual and institutional security in a social and cultural setting.[26]" this is intended to summarize the linked article, which is hidden behind a paywall. my understanding from reading the abstract is that what still and dryden are saying is that the word "pseudoscience" was adopted as a marker to exclude outsiders and protect insiders, but that the strength of this marker has faded as "the growth of social constructionism denied science any special access to truth." in any event, one would not learn from the abstract that still and dryden viewed these usages as "formal" or "technical." if i had access to the article i would propose a replacement text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach bender (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Is economics a pseudoscience?

Seems to meet all the conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y2k1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Economics is a social science not a hard science, so it fails to meet the condition of saying it is science. XFEM Skier (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Social sciences use the scientific method and base their conclusions on observation, measurement, testing and revision. While they are not "hard" science, they are science. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How so? Please be specific. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Y2k1, why do you believe that? If you have a good reason to believe that economics lacks testable hypotheses, peer review, model-building, or empiricism, I would be very keen to see that reason. bobrayner (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

See also link to Wikipedia:Fringe theories?

I think it would be helpful to include a See Also link to Wikipedia:Fringe theories perhaps even better to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories. As per the editor's note in the article, I am asking here before adding it. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Wikipedia:Fringe theories is a Wikipedia guideline. More appropriate would be Fringe theory, or Fringe science; however, I think neither are necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for responding, but can you please provide reasoning for that? i thought it would be helpful so readers and editors could not only read about what Pseudoscience is, but easily see how we treat it on Wikipedia. I am not aware of any guideline or policy that discusses linking to a policy or guideline in Wikipedia. Are you? I've been editing quite a while and have never done it before nor seen it... Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SELF.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I see... thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Definition of pseudoscience

I took the definition of pseudoscience out of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which is used as a source) [4]. This was reverted by another editor on the grounds of their beliefs, Second Quantization (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

definition from stanford encylopedia is good as is the expression you made, 2ndQ. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The lead definition is most definitely not supported by your reference. It clearly states that you definition is not correct even if many authors conclude it is. The original I reverted to also was a direct quote from the source. On the actual definition the sources says "A comparison of the negated terms related to science can contribute to clarify the conceptual distinctions. “Unscientific” is a narrower concept than “non-scientific” (not scientific), since the former but not the latter term implies some form of contradiction or conflict with science. “Pseudoscientific” is in its turn a narrower concept than “unscientific”." So the lead you have changed it to is directly contradicted by this. You have made pseudoscience a single test in the sentence even when the source gives a number of 2 step tests. On the note from the source maybe including both the original and what you changed it to would be best. But in the end religion is not pseudoscience because it does not claim to be science, but it is non-scientific.

Note I have reverted it again because of this ongoing conversation until there is consensus here. XFEM Skier (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually serious, did you even read the article? Did you read the specific part of the source I cited which in fact supports my edit rather than reading an irrelevant section which you are quoting (that has no impact at all on my edit)? First it introduces the condition "2′) it is part of a non-scientific doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific". Then it specifically says "Sometimes the term “pseudoscience” is used in a wider sense than that which is captured in the definition constituted of (1) and (2′). Contrary to (2′), doctrines that conflict with science are sometimes called “pseudoscientific” in spite of not being advanced as scientific" in "a wider sense of pseudoscience". Then it introduces a replacement "(2″)it is part of a doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it represents the most reliable knowledge on its subject matter.", followed by saying "Common usage seems to vacillate between the definitions (1)+(2′) and (1)+(2″); and this in an interesting way: In their comments on the meaning of the term, critics of pseudoscience tend to endorse a definition close to (1)+(2′), but their actual usage is often closer to (1)+(2″)." See that. It actually states the usage most used is the one I put in. Second Quantization (talk)

2ndQ I know you are frustrated but please be calm. With BRD, we need to talk this through. XFEM Skier it is not clear to me nor to 2ndQ precisely how you get to "But in the end religion is not pseudoscience because it does not claim to be science, but it is non-scientific" from the Stanford definition. That is such a glaring thing that it is hard to even see the rest of what you are writing. Would you please explain how you find the following reads on religion at all?: "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice that conflicts with science or which is presented as scientific but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status." Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care about the note. It is just hard to read especially in markup (reading the orginal source makes it clearer). My issue is with this the first sentence. "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice that conflicts with science or which is presented as scientific but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status." The or greatly expands the definition to be outside the scope that is laid out in sources. It means that anything that is non-scientific is pseudoscience, which I don't see in sources. The examples laid out by the source in question include this "An otherwise reliable chemistry book gives an incorrect account of the structure of DNA." and states that it fails to meet either 2' and 2". But the sentence I have quoted from 2Q opening would have it be pseudoscience. That is my main issue. The or makes it exceedingly broad. Maybe a rework is needed to clarify that things that claim to have an better explanation the science but are not scientific are pseudoscience, but the edits that I reverted don't say that. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what "note" you are talking about. The second part that you are concerned about says "which is presented as scientific but ..." This is a) not huge (there are few things that present themselves as science and are not) and b) most importantly is direct from Stanford source. Do you see that? Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it appears you may have read the sentence in a way other than intended. Here I've added in a comma: "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice that conflicts with science or which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status" . Breaking it into two separate statements it would read: "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice that conflicts with science but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status", or "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status". Second Quantization (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your getting my point. I propose a more simply sentence to remove confusion for most readers. ""Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice that conflicts with science that purports to be science or is professed in place of the established science. Pseudoscience does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status." This would include changes that 2Q made to the reference (not currently active). Feel free to tweak or make other suggestions. XFEM Skier (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've boldly inserted it. Second Quantization (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how any of the options presented are an improvement over the existing. In particular, this is editorially unfavorable because it uses the noun "science" three times in one sentence to describe the word "pseudoscience". Can you please (re)explain the problem with the lede here? VQuakr (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't agree with the sources as already has been discussed at length. The older wording is explicitly narrower than what the stanford encyclopedia says is commonly used. Read the discussion. Second Quantization (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Your reply does not address my post above, and "read the discussion" is blatantly unhelpful. Per WP:BEGIN, the first sentence should concisely tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is. The older version is better at that, because it is less verbose and less repetitive. We have an entire article to flesh out the nuances of usage between explicit and implicit presentation of a pseudoscientific concept as "science". VQuakr (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"We have an entire article to flesh out the nuances of usage" This isn't nuance. The lead you reverted to has an explicitly more limited definition than the Stanford article uses (and what the stanford encyclopedia says is the common usage). The stanford source first introduces the condition "2′) it is part of a non-scientific doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific". Then it specifically says "Sometimes the term “pseudoscience” is used in a wider sense than that which is captured in the definition constituted of (1) and (2′). Contrary to (2′), doctrines that conflict with science are sometimes called “pseudoscientific” in spite of not being advanced as scientific" in "a wider sense of pseudoscience". Then it introduces a replacement "(2″)it is part of a doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it represents the most reliable knowledge on its subject matter.", followed by saying "Common usage seems to vacillate between the definitions (1)+(2′) and (1)+(2″); and this in an interesting way: In their comments on the meaning of the term, critics of pseudoscience tend to endorse a definition close to (1)+(2′), but their actual usage is often closer to (1)+(2″)."

If you wanted to flesh out nuance, then you should use the more generic descriptor, rather than the specific. If you wanted simplicity and that adheres to the source: " Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice in the scientific domain that does not adhere to a scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.". That encompasses both definitions. Second Quantization (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

reading

my resurch is for shool I am in the 7th graid and I have to find the book chalk can you halp mr please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.49.234 (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Carl Sagan´s dragon

Please have a look at the statement about Carl Sagan´s dragon. I think the current statement is wrong talking about the presence of the dragon. That is not in line with Popper´s claim of falsifiability. I did a correction that you can see in the history but it was immediately reversed back to the wrong statement. Instead of just changing back to my version, you can leave your opinions first. Regards.Eda001 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you check the reference? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Haven't been able to check the reference (not available online -- might have to go to an actual library!), but the text as originally added did talk about the inability to prove the existence of the dragon, although this does seem to run counter to the argument being made (that the inability to prove the absence of the dragon is not valid proof of its existence). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference: https://7chan.org/lit/src/Carl_Sagan_-_The_Demon-Haunted_World.pdf. But that is not the important thing. His statement "your inability to invalidate…" says it all. Actually just before it he says: "If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experi- ment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?" The reason you try to put paint, measuring IR heat, foot-prints etc is not to try to prove the existence, but that you believe that a negative finding is in line with proof of non-existence, since any other interpretation is disobeying natural laws as we know them.Eda001 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Beg to differ. It is the important thing. What does it say? Please answer my question. Thanks -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Remember this is in the chapter of Falsifiability. Scientific reasoning: You state that you have a dragon. As a scientist I am obliged to find out experiments that falsify that statement. By doing so I can prove you are wrong. The opposite is impossible. Trying to find more and more experiments that proves the existence of an invisible dragon, you can carry on indefinitely. Now, every time I find a result supporting the view that the dragon doesn't exist, you evade by saying that natural laws as we know them don't apply to this dragon. This leaves your initial statement meaningless since there is no way that I can falsify it. As Sagan says: "Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?" Either you believe it or not, just based on your statement, true pseudoscience. Read the entire chapter (pp 160-), it is very enlightening.Eda001 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess I made my point. I'm now changing the part to the correct version i put in earlier. If you are still in doubt, please read the chapter "Identifying pseudoscience" in the article, the part where Popper discuss Einstein´s general theory of relativity and you understand what I mean.Eda001 (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You jumped the gun here, you should not really have done that per WP:BRD. Because you are new, I'm not going to revert you, but I may do so if I eventually figure out what Sagan was saying. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually by reading WP:BRD, it seems to me that I'm following it better than you. If you think that the number of edits a user has done is a true quality indicator, then I can't understand why you are protecting articles in the area of science. I found something wrong and corrected it. You reverted to the old version without any explanation and when I provide you with the reference you don't even bother to read it, just stating that since I'm a new editor I shouldn't edit. If you don't understand falsifiability, don't try to tidy up the article. The section with Sagan´s dragon is redundant and can be removed. It would be much better to move Popper´s example with Einstein's general relativity from later on in the article, since this is the original statement given to examplify falsifiability. Best Regards.Eda001 (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So, I changed it to be more universally correct. Since I'm not native in English, feel free to correct errors as long as the intentions are left unchanged.Eda001 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Learning styles as pseudoscience

Learning styles was introduced in the same set of edits as polygraph, being discussed above. No justification has been provided for that.

I note here that the IP editor who introduced that, 100.43.121.234 has apparently created an account, Puedo82 and is a new user who doesn't seem to undertand WP:BRD. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. I am new contributor. I added references in the 'talk' of your deletion of my edits. In order to avoid an 'edit war', I will add the references to support that both learning styles and polygraph are pseudoscience after a period of 24 hours.--Puedo82 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks so much for talking. Before just adding stuff to the article, please bring your sources here, so we can see if they are reliable and will actually comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are some sources : http://psi.sagepub.com/content/9/3/105.short http://www.changemag.org/archives/back%20issues/september-october%202010/the-myth-of-learning-full.html http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/learning-styles-debunked-there-is-no-evidence-supporting-auditory-and-visual-learning-psychologists-say.html --Puedo82 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

two of those sources concern the same study - the 2008 APS review. you should not present them as though they were different. You really have 2 sources there. What is also bizarre is that the study itself was published in December 2008; the related news piece is dated December 2009, and the Change article says the article was published in 2010. slop. But none of them use the term "pseudoscience". They come about as close as you can without doing so. Interesting. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason not to exclude something from the list of pseudoscience without there being a precedent. I was surprised to se Qi considered as a pseudoscience, as many would be afraid to be culturally insensitive. Widespread practice or industries practices should not deter criticism. In fact, this time of year, there is discussion in the media about fasting/cleansing, alkaline water, 'ion-exchange' water filters etc.

To add to the list of references above regarding learning styles: Schaler, J. A., ed. Howard Gardner under Fire: The Rebel Psychologist Faces His Critics. Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing, 2006. ISBN 9780812696042

(I was just looking in the Zotero library to see if there was a Wikipedia Citation style... Then on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#WP:CITEVAR - this is a learning process. ) --Puedo82 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that any of those sources call learning styles "pseudoscience". Do they? Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the problem with using the word "pseudoscience" - some people call it bunk, junk science etc. Some may use descriptions such as 'a lack of evidence to support the claims' etc. In stating that something is pseudoscience, proponents are asked to use the scientific method, be open to criticism and have some rigour in their practices.

In the following reference, one of many regarding neuromythologies, learning styles are grouped into the myths of educational practices.

Geake, J. “Neuromythologies in Education.” Educational Research 50 (2008): 123–133.

--Puedo82 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I suggest. See if you can succeed in having the word "pseudoscience" included in the lead of the learning style article. The word does not appear in that article, as of today. To have the word "pseudoscience" in the lead, you will need support for it in the body, per WP:LEAD (briefly, LEAD says that the lead is just a summary of the body; nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body). If you can do that, I think you will have no problem getting that listed here. But this is not the place to make the determination. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The polygraph is correctly considered pseudoscience

I see a recent edit asked another editor to discuss the classification of the use of the polygraph as pseudoscience. A definitive book on that topic has been available for quite a while. Lykken, David Thoreson (1998). A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. Plenum. ISBN 978-0-306-45782-1. Retrieved 14 January 2015. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) There are more recent sources as well. This research base is well known enough that in many states (for example mine) polygraph test results are not admissible in court for any purpose. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is true that in some states they are not allowed; the problem with labelling polygraph as "pseudoscience" is that in many states they are admissable. I don't think it is so black and white as to be able to apply the label. I will be interested to hear other editors' views on this. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We would need a source that calls is pseudoscience to include in the list. The summary at least does not do that. Being fallible and being pseudoscience are different. Drug test are fallible but that does not make the pseudoscience. The summary even points out uses of polygraphs so lumping it into pseudoscience seems aggressive. XFEM Skier (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. Polygraph tests being a fringe idea that has been rejected seems to be supported by the sources I've glanced at. We'd need a source the describes it being psuedoscience specifically (i.e., untestable mechanisms, etc.). Unless better sources come up, it seems like content basically saying the tests actually don't work that well and usually aren't admissible seem to be what we're shooting for. Adding psuedoscience on top of that would be another step beyond that, and I don't see any source demonstrating that yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

and it needs to more than just any old source... it needs to be an expression of a mainstream scientific view. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the definition of pseudoscience on the WP article, polygraph does indeed fit the description of a pseudoscience. It is not necessary that a philosopher, celebrity or expert defines a certain field as pseudoscience : -The polygraph's scientific method is flawed – experimental results cannot be reproduced -Lack of peer reviewed research. Publicly funded or university researchers have not got involved with the polygraph industry to avoid giving the field credibility or the circular nature not proving something that cannot be proven with the scientific method. -Obscurantist language – the Amercian Polygraph Association report would be a suitable example: 'Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques' 2011 http://www.polygraph.org/section/validated-polygraph-techniques/executive-summary-meta-analytic-survey-criterion-accuracy-val -Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation : The defenders of the polygraphs claim high accuracy, but cannot demonstrate whether or not the responses of the participants reflect their responses. -Absence of progress : The technology and theory have not evolved. While there have been significant innovations with regard to statistical analysis, or further suggestions that body language or vocal expressions can be included, the fundamentals of polygraphy remain subjective. There is no evidence which verifies whether or not the tested individual is thinking, feeling anything related to the interviewer's questions.

Iacono, William G. 2008. “Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques: Problems Using Confessions to Determine Ground Truth.” Physiology & Behavior 95 (1–2): 24–26. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.06.001.

“IEEE Xplore Abstract - Thermal Image Analysis for Polygraph Testing.” 2015. Accessed January 15. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1175139&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D1175139.

Meijer, Ewout H., Bruno Verschuere, Harald L. G. J. Merckelbach, and Geert Crombez. 2008. “Sex Offender Management Using the Polygraph: A Critical Review.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 31 (5): 423–29. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.08.007.

“The Polygraph and Lie Detection.” 2015. Accessed January 15. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=3.

“The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests).” 2015. Http://www.apa.org. Accessed January 15. http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx.--100.43.121.234 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Correction by Puedo82 (login cookie lost)--Puedo82 (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. That is what you are doing above, and we don't do that here. You need a reliable source that expresses a mainstream view that the polygraph is pseudoscience. Do you have any? Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are some sources which discuss the polygraph as pseudoscience :

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO; pp. 186-189

Farha, B. 2013. Pseudoscience and Deception: The Smoke and Mirrors of Paranormal Claims. University Press of America. pp. 140-141

Ford, C. V. 1999. Lies! Lies!! Lies!!!: The Psychology of Deceit. American Psychiatric Pub. pp. 229-235

Grossman, WM. Lies, damned lies, and pseudoscience. The Philosophers’ Magazine. 2013;2013(63):26–7.

Uttal WR. The Psychobiology of Mind. Psychology Press; 2014. p. 223

(editing time conflict - I have found more sources like you see above)--Puedo82 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Corrected reference to Langan's article. Langan, Michael Lawrence. "Junk-Science in the Medical Profession: The Resurgence of Polygraph “Lie-Detection” in an age of Evidence-Based Medicine." --Puedo82 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Jytdog, reloading the page to retreive my edits, caused your response to go missing. Please bear with me. I have been a offline warrior as of late. --Puedo82 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I just read our article on polygraph and it uses the term "pseudoscience" and the term has been in the article for something like 7 years. So I think it is OK to include it in the list. I've restored it. Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

comment

Lately I have removed several pages from Category:Pseudoscience; on the grounds that ‘pseudoscience’ is a judgmental epithet; also it is, IMO, a very stigmatizing label, so it should be used sparingly. Spanish Wikipedia says it well: “No olvide que para utilizar esta categoría debe de haber una referencia verificable, fiable en la materia y sólida que especifique que la disciplina categorizada es una pseudociencia.” Rough translation: “In order for a page to be placed in this category, there must be reliable sources specifying that said subject is pseudoscience.” I strongly support this policy; subjects should only be categorized as pseudoscience if a preponderance of reliable sources (as I pointed out, a source with a conflict of interest is not reliable) say they are such. In other words, the burden of proof should be on those who claim a subject is pseudoscience, not on those who claim it is not.

Some of the pages I removed: Continental drip, Steatopygia.

Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Good catches ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You might make some good catches, but your efforts would be better spent in finding those sources, because of my concerns below.

You're removing the meta-category for many things which are obvious pseudoscience (like astrology), and which are in subcategories of Pseudoscience (like Alternative medicine) (AM). Many (if not all) AM subjects belong in Category:Pseudoscience. It's best to leave them as they are. You risk being seen as a vandal. I suggest you do some fast backpedaling and undo a lot of what you're doing. Keep in mind that we don't care whether something is a pejorative or judgmental epithet, although with BLPs we are more careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to your two examples you also removed Vitalism. What is the list of items you removed? Lklundin (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed article Rudolf Hippius from Category:Advocates of pseudoscience; said category, it says plainly, should contain only subcategories.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not supposed to have articles only because the articles should be placed in more specific categories. Removing him from the category wasn't the best course of action here. Placing him in a more specific category was. I've gone ahead and done that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As I remember, the list was to provide examples and not necessarily be all-inclusive. Editors should know by now that "obvious pseudoscience" clearly betrays an agenda based on opinion rather than neutral editing. Once you begin an itemized list like this one, there really is no end. After you include the "obvious pseudoscience," then everything else begins to look as obvious.

Deciding something is pseudoscience and then looking for proof is certainly biased reporting. I call your attention to how User:Jytdog advised an editor in how to produce a usable reference to support an "obvious pseudoscience." I think more thought to the help User:Solomonfromfinland is offering would be more constructive than fear of missing a possible pseudoscience here and there. Tom Butler (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Health and education implications subsection

this subsection needs working over... rambly. FreeSamaritan it is not clear to me why you are trying to give specific examples - first a journal, then a specific homeopathy center - as a 'reference' for homeopathy. why are you doing that? neither of these are reasonable sources for what homeopathy is. thx. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Ayurveda is not pseudoscience. It is proven to be effective, it is practiced all over India and has been extensively successful. Please do not quote wrong information. I have seen, read and experienced Ayurvedic medicine and I can affirm this with necessary references to whom so ever who needs it. Please do not revert changes. You are not the only one who is concerned about the sanctity of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadly437 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC

ayurveda is prescientific Traditional medicine - diagnosis and treatment are based on prescientific notions of the body. to the extent that people limited their claims about ayurveda to discussing traditional medicine we wouldn't need to talk about pseudoscience. But to the extent that people - like you do in your message above! - claim it is "successful" you are making scientific claims that are without basis of evidence in science. hence, "pseudoscience." Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly pseudoscience when claims such as made here are made. Our article isn't categorised as such, though there is debate. I think it should be. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

May 2015

Editors are still trying to present this nonsense as not being pseudoscience. Ayurveda is to science as astrology is to astronomy. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone want to look here?

Someone with time on their hands needs to take a look at Talk:In the Beginning There Was Light and associated article. Moriori (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Fringe theories Noticeboard may be a better place to raise the issue.--McSly (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is not a pejorative

Neither of these article sources call the word "pseudoscience" a "pejorative."

• Hansson, Sven Ove (2008). "Science and Pseudoscience Section 2: The "science" of pseudoscience". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Still, A; Dryden, W (2004). "The Social Psychology of "Pseudoscience": A Brief History". J Theory Soc Behav. 34 (3): 265–290. doi:10.1111/j.0021-8308.2004.00248.x. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--Lightbreather (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I found another good ref. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two cites given in the article saying that it is pejorative, and google can find more. Some indicate it is a pejorative used in partisan argument (e.g. "It is a term of abuse that is deployed by some members of a scientific community against individuals they consider threatening." here; or "Pseudoscience is a pejorative term that is bestowed upon a set of ideas, not used by choice by the holder of those ideas." here. Or "pseudoscience has such pejorative connotations it’s often seen as dark, even evil, or at least insidious" here.) Oddly, it is also used in non-science fields such as [WP:PSCI] mentining it for historical revisionism, and I also see it used by creationists as criticism of climate change here. It's just a vague accusation as mentioned here often confused with the demarcation of what is or is not science. Markbassett (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To me, if someone calls something a pseudoscience, it is very stigmatizing to the subject. Therefore I definitely consider it a pejorative, a pretty strong one at that. I have read at least one book, which would probably be considered a reliable source, that describes it as a pejorative.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

I have removed mention of psychoanalysis from the lead, per the explicit directions on this topic given by the arbitration committee: "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." It's fine to say that critics have called it a pseudoscience, but it's not acceptable to present their opinion as fact. The arbitration committee's rulings can be seen at Template talk:Pseudoscience. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

True, some people allege that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience, but pseudoscience is a pejorative and a contentious label, and calling a subject a pseudoscience implies taking a stand against it (potentially POV), so the burden of proof should be on those who claim a subject is pseudoscience, not on those who claim it is not. Therefore psychoanalysis should not be treated as pseudoscience, at least by Wikipedia. Btw, the large number of articles placed directly in Category:Pseudoscience seems to amount to a reverse burden of proof; such a pile of articles also violates the following template placed on said category:

{{catdiffuse}}

--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the red warning template. I was just showing the template that I found on the category page.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Its my opinion thereof

that the plethora of proposed terms are scientific and not pseudosciencetific. They have been derived from an specificity of undisciplined linguistics. I don't argue with most of its meaning. I think the page section here can share disambiguation as one points out the hapless and circumstansive cannalbalization. Sorry for my compatibalism but I share my strengthnns as a contributor. --Joseph L. Russell, Jr. 23:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetlifeWP (talk • contribs)

Scientific Evolution

Not a forum

I object to this purportedly “neutral” article evidently written with a strong bias for laymen’s beliefs as true “science,” and dissenting experts’ evidences shunned as “pseudo-scientific”. I want you to include verifying data, or remove the inflammatory labeling of your list of “pseudo” examples, unless you include the “Darwinian theory of evolution” in the list of false sciences. For example, I recall the 1970s, when Vitamin C deficiencies were poo-pooed as poppycock by the medical community… even a Nobel Prize by Linus Pauling didn’t sway the “scientific doctors” from labeling all the research and the general public’s functionally-proven recovery speed from the common cold -- when immune-system builders such as anti-oxidants were ingested upon the first sign of cold symptoms – as bogus… but even drug companies today admit it as true scientific fact. How curious. Don’t look now, but vitamin therapy is Naturopathic! (Give the body what it needs and it will build you a palace. Our bodies are designed to create balance, i.e. “homeostasis”.) For another example, I would like to know what makes the “scientific theory of evolution” credible, while all dissenting scientists are labeled as Pseudo-scientific in this article. Name one fact that proves evolution. One. I would like to know, because a simple letter by a friend of mine to the Evolution Science headquarters generated a response that said, “At this point, there is no evidence supporting evolution as fact.” There has never been any observable, repeatable, or testable demonstration of how nothing can explode in a big bang. Or how life can spontaneously generate from nothing, or from rocks and gases (which “suddenly appeared” after the explosion of nothing). Or how a fish can become a bird, or a bird can change into a cat, dog, horse or monkey. Or why there are two sexes to almost every creature. (Even sexless earthworms have different parts that must unite for reproduction.) Or how a firebug can blow an explosion from its backside without blowing itself up. Or how a firefly can illuminate without melting itself down. Or how the human eye evolved as a piece of the brain, with two lenses, no blood vessels (except in outer layer of the retina) and liquids (aqueous and vitreous humors, and tears from grief vs. tears from stress – there are different chemicals in each) found in no other places of the body. Sure, micro-evolution is all around us (beak variations in birds, style variations in breeds of dog, etc.), but macro-evolution – having an onion grow up to be a corn plant, or a monkey become a man – have missing links that will forever remain missing, because the hypothesis is illogical, bolstered by frauds (moth photos of the same dead moth pinned to different trees, faked pea-plant variations study, embryo photos from different stages of various life forms showing ‘similarities’ that are used as proofs but in actuality prove nothing – except maybe a common Artist/Creator, etc.), and generated by anti-God, anti-religion fruitcakes who pose as scientists without proving their claims of billions of years. (“See these two coat hangers? Throw them in the closet, give them a billion years, and they will become alive.” Seriously???) Creation science and Intelligent Design are new labels for old concepts of an invisible Deity (or deities) who pre-existed the world as we know it. Evolution is the new pseudoscience “developed as part of an ideology…or as a response to perceived threats to an ideology.” “Despite failing to meet proper scientific standards, many pseudosciences survive. This is usually due to a persistent core of devotees who refuse to accept scientific criticism of their beliefs, or due to popular misconceptions. Sheer popularity is also a factor, as is attested by [evolution], which remains popular despite being rejected by a large majority of scientists.” Unfortunately, the “peer-reviewed journals” are controlled by the persistent core of devotees who refuse to publish dissenting articles. (Because the publishers refuse to accept scientific criticism of their own beliefs!) It took one hundred years of babies and new mothers dying from germs before medical doctors decided to make hand-washing a common practice. 100 YEARS! Now, it’s commonly-known scientific fact. Merely labeling something “pseudoscientific” does nothing to advance truth. Truth is incontrovertible. Evolution is not scientific until it produces evidence, instead of merely spinning theories and “looking for evidence” that cannot be found because it never existed. There is enough information in each DNA strand of mankind to fill 8,000 standard library books. We know from computer science that information does not spontaneously generate, it does not self-generate, and it does not randomly appear. It must be written, coded, programmed. There must also be a system to read, decode, use the program. So from where did all that info derive? Who or what is the Source? If you writers are at all scientific, you will reverse your inclusion of evolution to the Pseudo side of the examples given. Or remove it, along with creation science and intelligent design, so as to remain neutral about an issue you obviously have not researched well enough yet.SkepticalProff (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)SkepticalProf No. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 07:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC) I don't think that this is the proper forum to discuss evolution and whatever alternatives anybody has in mind. The Web provides ample opportunity for that. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentences, first paragraph

I don't find the first two sentences of the article to be especially consistent, and wiggle words like "mainly" obscure things too. So instead of

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which lacks scientific status mainly either because it is incorrectly presented as scientific but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, or because it cannot be reliably tested."

I would say that

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice that is presented as scientific but which does not does not adhere to a valid scientific method."

I prefer this because the present first sentence seems to allow for something to be "pseudoscience" simply if it can't be reliably tested; the word "or" makes this interpretation possible. In fact, just because something is not testable doesn't make it pseudoscience. It is pseudoscience if it is presented as scientific (or testable) but isn't scientific (or testable). My draft sentence would, however, be somewhat overlapping with the next sentence in the paragraph.

Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I 100% agree with this. I further submit "mainly either" is excruciatingly awful English that made me wince in horror when I read it. The only change I would request is the use of "the scientific method" instead of "a valid scientific method". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I too, 110% agree with this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, but without the double does not bit. Vsmith (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked this slightly. I've made the second part of the sentence an independent clause (allowing a comma), and changed the "but" into "yet" (we have a "but" in the next sentence). Finally, I removed a "that" which did not seem necessary. The meaning of the sentence remains the same, so I hope everyone is okay with this. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

People

We shouldn't place articles on real people directly in Category:Pseudoscience. There is a dedicated category for that, Advocates of pseudoscience, which, BTW, should contain only subcategories. Pseudoscience is a pejorative and a contentious label; and Category:Pseudoscience, it is stated, should directly contain few if any articles -- and there is strong precedent for not putting articles on real people in said category.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed said category from the following pages: Stefan Marinov, Vine Deloria, Jr., Vani Hari, Viktor Schauberger, Viera Scheibner. In the case of Stefan Marinov, I left said article as a member of Category:Fringe science, and given that “Marinov succeeded in having his claims presented in numerous publications including peer-reviewed journals.”, Marinov’s claims might be better described as legitimate scientific disagreement (a neutral or even favorable label) rather than pseudoscience (a pejorative). In the case of Viktor Schauberger, there is nothing in said article that even mentions pseudoscience, or indicates that Schauberger’s theories are such. Calling his claims pseudoscience, without sources, even potentially unreliable ones, amounts to original research.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If there is a dedicated subcategory for such people, then why didn't you use it? Instead you simply removed the category. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. We would not, after all, want to obscure the fact that free energy, perpetual motion, and pretty much everything the FUD Babe has ever said, are pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The article Free energy suppression conspiracy theory mostly treat such exotic energy conspiracy theories as either conspiracy theory or legitimate scientific disagreement, not pseudoscience. The article Cold fusion likewise treats cold fusion as legitimate scientific disagreement more than pseudoscience. As for Viera Scheibner, why is her article placed directly in Category:Pseudoscience while the articles on other anti-vaxers are not? (Category:Anti-vaccination activists is currently a subcategory of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question: "Why?" Propaganda. That's why. To call anyone's information a "conspiracy theory" is simply a disrespectful ad hominem, unless that person's information is indeed a theory of conspiracy. This link might helpful for people that like to throw the word "conspiracy theory" around: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy --Aerozeplyn (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We based our articles on what we call 'reliable sources', see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Dictionary definitions are often not helpful as they can simplify issues (or, as in one case where a dictionary called archaeology the study of prehistory, simply wrong)> Are you actually arguing that there are no conspiracy theories? Doug Weller (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Good. People seem to have gotten the message about Viktor Schauberger.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This page is only to discuss this article, not categories or other articles or pseudoscience in general. Use the category talk page to discuss the category or WP:FTN please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup of References

Nice job OtisDixon on the cleanup of all the references. Appreciate the attention to detail. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Skeptics and non-traditional techniques branded as "Pseudoscience"

Spammed nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Skeptics have glommed onto the term pseudoscientific which was coined to describe psychotherapy. They claim to be unable to prove, or claim to disprove certain techniques. Unfortunately, for everyone concerned, most of the "professional skeptics" claims are equally pseudoscientific. The "tests" that the skeptics used are without exception invalid due to the fact that they remove the technique from its natural settings and then expect it to preform under unnactural conditions. This is like saying that the act of sex does not exist in most people. They would claim that people report having sex in the privacy of their bedrooms and enjoy the act. They then want to test if sex is real, so they put the couple in a laboratory and have group of scientists watch them try to have sex. They can't do it and so the scientists claim that the concept of sex is pseudoscientific and that sex does not exist as it cannot be repeated in the laboratory. The so called tests are almost without excpetion designed to ensure that the claimed effects cannot occur. All tests of so called traditional pseudosciences are invalid due to this without exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.204 (talk) Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

This section seems to be entirely about USA belief in pseudoscientific subjects. Are there any studies on wider prevalence or similar that could be added to make this section a bit more relevant to the majority of the population outside of the US? Ladyrelentless (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be great- but I am not familiar with sources and citations outside the US for this kind of thing. Do you have any areas you could propose we look at? Alex Jackl (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Gender Studies?

What about Gender Studies? Many Scientists of a lot of different disciplines critize Gender Studies as psueodscience.--95.113.234.158 (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a single reputable scientist saying any such thing. Please provide sources for this claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

the science and pseudoscience of sex differences http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20538246 Dougmcdonell (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, maybe that is what the OP was talking about? Specific gender-related pseudoscientific hypotheses? That might be overdetailed for this article, which is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Their initial post read like they thought the entire field was considered pseudoscience. VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Gender studies does not claim to be a science. It's an area of humanities.Kortoso (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

In other words, part of the social sciences. Anyway, that doesn't matter, as I've said below, it's the sources that matter. We shouldn't be making such determinations ourselves. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience???

I am sorry , but the whole idea of labeling vast areas of human knowledge as "pseudoscience" is in itself extremely unscientific and has been invented to discredit certain areas of human knowledge that have not been proven, or disproven one way ,or another. Certain scientists it seems are tired of discussing the problems and have therefore come up with a label: Pseudoscience, to dismiss things they don't like to discuss and labeling these areas as an already disproven area of knowledge. Nothing is pseudoscientific. There are things which are not scientific, and things which are. There are things which have been proven and things which have not been. There are just things that we know and those we have proven wrong. To label things as pseudoscience is simply just a form of laziness and purports to have proven things which have not been proved, or disproved. This article must have a disclaimer that it is just opinion and cannot be based upon true science. For instance, very often psychologists have said that astrologers predictions and interpretations are not verified, but recent examinations of studies undertaken by psychologists can only be replicated 40% of the time. This makes all of psychology a pseudoscience not just psychoanalysis, for which the term pseudoscience was invented. We must consider, also, that all of astronomy is pseudoscience, as most of it cannot be disproved, and so fits the moronic definition of what a pseudoscience. We cannot falsify the existence of the stars, they just are. We cannot falsify the existence of the universe itself. the criteria for the invention of the idea of pseudoscience is just a way of a few skeptics to make a name for themselves and make money by being deniers. It is an injustice to science to proclaim such things and the type of attitude implied by this article should not exist as a modern philosophy. We must remember Descartes when he said, "ergo cogit sum." We cannot falsify anything else, so where is this article coming from . Shame, Shame for such a pretense. Brian T. Johnston 206.172.0.206 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (and 206.172.0.204 and 206.172.0.205)

We define the word in the first sentence of the article. It is sourced to external sources. VQuakr (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Brian: The key to understanding what makes pseudo-science pseudo-science is the FALSE CLAIM that it IS scientific. Things that are not scientific but dress themselves up as science. As VQuakr said this is stated in the lead sentence of the article. In my opinion pseudo-science is VERY dangerous and preys on the under-educated and gullible. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the difficulties of classifying areas of interest as "pseudoscience" is that disproven scientific theories, even if they followed the scientific method from beginning to end (incurring the risk of being disproven) are routinely classed as "pseudoscience", having the potential of dampening research into certain subjects of scientific study. Kortoso (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

But that's not our problem. Our articles should reflect what the reliable sources say about a subject, we shouldn't use them to discourage or encourage research. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Phlogiston theory was not pseudoscientific in its own time, but it would be pseudoscience if predicated as true in the 21st century. Religion (e.g. "Jesus is God") is not pseudoscience, unless it claims that mental illness is produced by evil spirits, or makes similar claims which are roundly rejected by scientists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not about knowledge, it's about practice. Remember, too, the difference between knowledge and belief. Knowledge is understanding based on solid evidence, pseudoscience is creating "evidence" to support belief. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Deconstructing Social Psychology

I'm not sure if the link I used is copyvio or not, so I'm not including it. The GBooks link is here. This would need to be attributed, accurate and not copyvio to use. As I haven't read it all I'm not sure if we'd need to point out it's discussing social psychology, specifically "the psychological theories used to legitimate oppressive practices." eg many forms of " racist, sexist, heterosexist and class biased research". The author is arguing that "Instead of allowing ourselves to be deflected into arguments about scientific evidence and methodological technique, and thus participating in the production of normal science, we need to take an imaginative leap beyond the boundary walls of the positivist paradigm. Only if we can rise to the challenges of postpositivism can we begin to deconstruct social psychology’s oppressive structure and create practical alternatives which will offer real opportunities for radical social and political change." That wasn't conveyed by the summary, and might be hard to convey. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I did attribute well, and cited arguments from John Shotter's chapter. I do agree that it needs to be pointed out that his views come from social sciences. Here is removed content:

In Deconstructing Social Psychology authors argue that radical researchers should avoid rhetoric of pseudoscience. As one of the three main reasons they state that the term is used to dismiss the research of ideological or political opponents. Also, they state that demonstrating that researching is pseudo-scientific is not working as a method to discredit it. Authors claim that the rhetoric of pseudoscience is very attractive to many people because it appears to offer legitimate language to discredit oppressive research findings. It also suggests that if we demonstrate the assertion lacks scientific authority, we can remove its credibility, and it will be demoted from fact to fallacy, from truth to hypotheses.

212.200.65.108 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, copyvio - a copyright violation. The source says " It is sometimes suggested that if only we can demonstrate that a given assertion lacks scientific authority, we can remove its credibility: it will be demoted from fact to fallacy or from truth to hypothesis". You have neither quoted nor attributed (which means say who wrote it). You also left out the word "sometimes suggested" changing it to "also suggests", which is clearly not what she wrote. And if you cited examples from Shotter's chapter I have no idea what they were, you haven't mentioned him/attributed it to him, nor have you added relevant the relevant page number or numbers. And as he doesn't mention pseudoscience so far as I can see, why? Doug Weller talk 13:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

really confused! "John Shotter. (2015) pp 61-75." it is there pages 63-65. 176.221.76.3 (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you are confused, it clearly says "THE RHETORIC OF PSEUDOSCIENCE [pp. 61-75] Celia Kitzinger, a sociologist at if I remember correctly York. Shotter's chapter is pp 153-169. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my bad! Not sure how I got that wrong. 212.200.65.104 (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, easy to do. But any edited book will have multiple authors and references always should specify the author as well as the editor - and this isn't done nearly often enough, leading at times to editors being attributed, by name, to statements made by others. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think "rhetoric of pseudoscience" is a really weird way of saying "calling something a pseudoscience". At first I thought the term "rhetoric of pseudoscience" referred to the typical rhetoric pseudoscientists use - it really is typical - and it got me confused. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, their argument goes in line with this findings. And I didn't perceive it as limited to social sciences, only those examples being used.. although it may be.. 178.222.109.211 (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What you wrote has no connection to what I wrote. Why did you indent it as if it had?

It seems to me that there is no real reasoning in Eriksson's "findings". She simply disagrees with the categorizing of what those people do as non-science, but does not say why. This is shallow. Isn't it part of scientists' expertise to be able to say how to do science within their disciplines, and how not to do it? Why should sociologists be better at telling good biology from bad biology than biologists? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

References

article much much too long

Information displayed in any article, however well sourced, if too lengthy constitutes a form of undue weight, even if those sources taken as a proportion of the available facts have been given due weight. I read this article from start to finish after glancing through it, and my final feeling about it is that it expounds too heavily on areas of detail and although reasonably well sourced, it cites too many examples and expounds on more details than are necessary to make the point about what pseudoscience is. This article is important as "pseudoscience" is a widely used and highly contentious term on wikipedia. It's important that if a visitor or an author references this page that they get a succinct view of wikipedia's view to this subject. They should have an immediate impression and not be made to feel that they are being given a "hard-sales" pitch. I'll submit rewrite proposals as replies under this thread.Edaham (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

LEDE: (not too bad - one paragraph could go here) Pseudoscience is a term used to describe a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method.[Note 1][3] A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[4]

Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[5] because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[6]

Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[7] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[8] "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[8] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among science teachers and newspaper editors.[9] <--- seems to deep for the lede

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[10] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of discerning genuine health care from medical quackery, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[11]

The ability to distinguish scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, occult beliefs, and creation science when presented as combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[12][11]Edaham (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to entertain the idea that the article may be too long, but when I read it just now, it was not clear to me what could be omitted without doing damage to the overall picture it paints. Yes, some long sections might be split out into sub-articles, but that would probably require collaboration with other editors to succeed.

As for your first proposal, to eliminate the third paragraph of the lead and the two words from the final paragraph of the lead, I support these changes.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's my first time editing this article so I thought it better to test the water rather than to just begin hacking at it. I will look at the subsequent sections with a view to improve it in terms of brevity and clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a little too biased in favor of real science?

Before I continue, I will note I'm very strongly in favor of scientifically studying things and critically analyzing proposed theories, and that most of what this particular article covers are ill-formed at best. I'm not attempting to discredit anything here, but merely asking about the slightly distracting bias in the article.

I feel several portions of this article are a little too focused on trying to debunk the various pseudoscience fields and discredit those who believe in them without giving adequate background to understand what ideas and assertions it's debunking, in likely violation of WP:NPOV (especially WP:YESPOV). Not saying that any of these ideas are true (and I'd agree that it's best to make clear the lack of scientific support), but staying on topic is much better than attacking the subject and its believers, even if it's backed with reliable facts. Here's a few of the ones I'm referring to:

• In Pseudoscience#History, there's this paragraph, complete with sources:

Despite failing to meet proper scientific standards, many pseudosciences survive. This is usually due to a persistent core of devotees who refuse to accept scientific criticism of their beliefs, or due to popular misconceptions. Sheer popularity is also a factor, as is attested by astrology, which remains popular despite being rejected by a large majority of scientists.

I acknowledge and agree with this entirely, but I feel the emphasis is a little misguided here. In particular, the second sentence is taking a very derogatory tone towards those who believe the (usually false) theories despite evidence against, and because it's first, places undue emphasis on the minority case of those who ignore evidence versus the majority who just have the misconceptions. I'm fairly certain this is in violation of WP:YESPOV.

• In Pseudoscience#Pseudoscientific_concepts, there's this sourced quote:

Robert T. Carroll stated, in part, "Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their ideas with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts."

First, the raw quote doesn't really add much, and it doesn't flow stylistically with the rest of the section. Second, raw quotes are inherently emphasized in their very nature, and a full paragraph quote of a skeptic accusing them of not being serious at all in their work doesn't make for a particularly unbiased presentation. (In my opinion, it's borderline WP:YESPOV) A paraphrasing with less overt pro-skepticism bias would work much better, because it would be much less degrading of the pseudoscientists themselves (Wikipedia articles aren't the place for this) and it would actually fit in better with the surrounding text.

• In the list-only sections below that of the previous point (starting here), there's quite a bit of overlap, and the section breaks are rather awkward.

1. There should be a minor section break should be after "The following are some of the indicators of the possible presence of pseudoscience.", and the rest should just be subsections within that.

2. There is a lot of overlap inside each lists and between them, and several parts could be merged. "Assertion of a claim with little or no explanatory power" in the first section is just a subset of the previous point of "Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements", for example. Also, these are very similar to "Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment" and "Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict" from the second list. The duplication places some undue weight on certain aspects of the content anyways, but it's also a signal of needing revision.

3. The section headers themselves are not quite neutral. For example, "Use of misleading language" would be better labelled "Scientific unfamiliarity", with several of the other bullet points moved to it. "Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims" would be better labelled as "Lack of falsifiability or testability", so it doesn't place undue weight on the non-technical qualities of the claims. Similarly, "Absence of progress" could be replaced with "Apparent stagnation". (In this particular case, "absence of progress" would also almost falsely hit some areas of computer science, where several areas of progress are currently hindered by the P vs NP problem.)

• From the end of the lists to Pseudoscience#Health_and_education_implications, it appears pretty good, mod the {{over-quotation}} tag.

• Within that section, the last two paragraphs are a little too biased.

Scientists do not want to get involved to counter pseudoscience for various reasons. For example, pseudoscientific beliefs are irrational and impossible to combat with rational arguments, and even agreeing to talk about pseudoscience indicates acceptance as a credible discipline. Pseudoscience harbors a continuous and an increasing threat to our society.

This quote in the next-to-last paragraph may have a source, but it should be attributed to a person as their opinion, not written as if it were a factual part of the article. This is actually itself recommended by WP:ASSERT (in the NPOV FAQ), and is definitely an example of WP:WEASEL.

Pseudosciences such as homeopathy, even if generally benign, are magnets for charlatans. This poses a serious issue because it enables incompetent practitioners to administer health care. True-believing zealots may pose a more serious threat than typical con men because of their affection to homeopathy's ideology. Irrational health care is not harmless, and it is careless to create patient confidence in pseudomedicine.

There's similar WP:WEASEL and WP:ASSERT issues here in the last paragraph.

impinball (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those issues, Impinball. However, I feel the way forward is to tag and then tackle those particular instances of what you claim are POV, and to me seem more like issues of tone, one-by-one. You have identified a few problems in a very long and well-sourced article and I feel the POV banner is unnecessary and accords undue weight to these few lapses. Famous_dog (c) 12:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the generic tags. Please list (and/or tag) any specific statements that are problematic. It's clear that the article as a whole is reasonably good quality and should not be subject to an orange warning at the top. Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged the appropriate sections. I'm not sure if {{create-list}} was the correct template to use for the prose list in the first paragraph of Pseudoscience#Pseudoscientific_concepts (I'd prefer an inline equivalent), though. I'm not a frequent contributor on Wikipedia in general, so I'm not quite as familiar with everything. impinball (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Etymology Section -- has problems

The Etymology section appears to be in error. It says:

"...the term has been in use since at least the late 18th century (e.g. used during 1796 by James Pettit Andrew in reference to alchemy)..."

and

"Among the first recorded uses of the word "pseudo-science" was during 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine, I 387..."

I do not have access to the 2003 version of the OED of the first footnote. I hate to suggest the OED is wrong about this, but this scholarly work (which comes 12 years later than 2003) shows that the term was used at least as early as 1645:

In 1645, the French priest Pierre Le Cazre (1589–1664) , who was at that time rector of the Jesuit college in Dijon, took up the accusation of "pseudo". In his polemical work Physica demonstratio, which was 44 pages in length and included drawings, he depicted Galileo's laws of gravitation as pseudoscience. Le Cazre was prompted to publish this work, which carried the accusation of "pseudo-scientia" in its title, by the publication of the treatise De Motu Impresso by the mathematician, physicist and priest Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655)....

That site shows allows one to look at the title page of Physica demonstratio: here where it is easy to see the phrase "Pʃeudo-ʃcientiam."

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, but problematic as the source also says that "pseudo" had theological connotations at the time, so this was probably not the modern term. From a quick glance it doesn't seem to discuss the changing meaning of science, from "knowledge" to an alternative term for natural philosophy to the more modern meaning of methodology. Why not use all sources, and highlight the shades of meaning? . . dave souza, talk 16:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of "theory"

The word theory has a popular definition (actually meaning hypothesis) and a scientific one (a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.)[5]. This article uses the word in both contexts interchangeable and as we are talking science here (or lack thereof) I believe that situation should be corrected throughout to avoid confusion. (And don't bring up "String Theory" because that is NOT a theory.) RobP (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Problematic explanation of falsifiability

I noticed a recent change in the Falsifiability section that brought my attention to the following sentence that has been there for quite a long time (there was skirmishing over this in July 2007):

For example, a statement such as "God created the universe" may be true or false, but no tests can be devised that could prove it either way; it simply lies outside the reach of science.

[The example statement was more recently changed to the current "God exists".] This example strikes me as a really poor one for scientific falsifiability, since it drags in various religious debates for no good reason. I find it hard to believe that a reliable source would have used this as an introductory example. As best I can see, this sentence isn't supported by the ref that follows it (Popper's Conjectures and Refutations).

In view of the maturity of this particular bit of the article, I hesitate to simply excise the sentence, but that's what I would like to propose, seeking consensus or if nobody objects. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I know that the FSM exists, nevertheless I wholeheartedly agree. Even he is not sure that he created the universe! RobP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This issue is not entirely moot; some efforts have gone into replacing the above-mentioned sentence with another attempted explanation, but also without support from sources. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Popper held that stuff such as metaphysics, ethics, philosophy, purely religious creeds is inherently unfalsifiable. So that has to be rendered, too. Since to most people God stands for religion, it is a germane example. But of course, he did not state that religion is pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced sentence. We probably need a better example, but this issue could simply be left un-elaborated here and outsourced to Falsifiability page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Gender Studies

What about Gender Studies?--95.114.85.151 (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Gender studies You are welcome. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Undue

This is not the only topic where I've noticed the tendency to cite the content of one author in longer and greater detail than the content of other authors. For example, an author named Popper has about three paragraphs describing a view on this topic while others have less content cited. I am not as familiar with this topic as I am with others so I am in no position to question the influence of one author over another. Is this undue weight? How would I know? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Popper is a major thinker in this area, yes. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, an author can be very notable while also considered a reliable source, so articles don't necessarily need to try to keep a balance between authors. If that author contradicts the mainstream view, that is another matter, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 01:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of the term "science" for something that is not scientific

How would e.g. "Catering Science" or "Hospitality Science" be categorized? There are universities offering B.Sc degrees in these fields (though one may question the legitimacy of such universities). Is it a form of pseudoscience or does it fall under some other classification of fake science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science_in_Hospitality_%26_Catering_Management "Catering Science" may be something completely valid and useful in the context of training for the hospitality industry, but that being said it is not science because it does not involve the scientific method. This seems like a case of latching onto and mis-using the definition of science in order to make something that is not science seem more valid or impressive. This is also appears to be a growing trend in academia. How should it be handled in Wikipedia? An additional form of pseudoscience, or something else? Rotiro (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The leading paragraphs in Bachelor of Science are informative. Moriori (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pseudoscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623193431/http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/PeerReview.pdf to http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/peerReview.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090512203059/http://nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/pdf/volume2.pdf to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/pdf/volume2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110824105754/http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/00.12.JCST.pdf to http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/00.12.JCST.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211055201/http://www.positiveatheism.org//writ/pratkanis.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Social Science as Pseudoscience

Why is the view held nearly universally among researchers in the natural sciences that social science is a form of pseudoscience (cf. the famous Feynman interview on social science as a pseudoscience) not addressed in this article? 160.39.130.77 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Because 1) it is not "nearly universal" 2) the Feynman-reference is of a polemical nature and 3) there is a difference between pseudoscience in common parlance and in a technical sense. The objections to social sciences rest on specific aspects of the scientific method that cannot be applied to social sciences, an altogether different set of objections than those leveled against what is called pseudoscience in a technical sense. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Placing pseudoscience in the larger context

I added this sourced summary today:

In English, the word science is used to indicate specifically the natural sciences and related fields, which are called the social sciences. The large category of non-science includes all matters outside the natural and social sciences, such as history, religion, art, and the humanities. Unscientific claims are a subset of the large category of non-scientific claims, and specifically includes all matters that are directly opposed to good science. Un-science includes both bad science (such as an error made in a good-faith attempt at learning something about the natural world) and pseudoscience.

User:Rp2006 reverted it as being "unnecessary", which I disagree with.

(He also said that one of the terms isn't present in the article Scientific method. It is present in the first sentence of the third paragraph in the Scientific method#Predictions from the hypothesis section. I therefore consider that objection to be fully resolved.)

Here are some of the reasons why I think that this is necessary:

1. It is not good writing style to begin an overview of a subject with "Main article: <Some other subject>" and then go on about other subjects. Without some sort of introductory material, pseudoscience gets mentioned just twice during the first 600 words in that section.
2. A good encyclopedic summary places things in context. In this case, the context for pseudoscience is:
   1. that pseudoscience is non-scientific, and
   2. that pseudoscience is un-scientific (or even anti-scientific, in the sense of opposed to and contradicted by good science, but not in the sense of Antiscience).

There is much more that could be said here, but this is meant to be an overview, so I think that a few basic sentences is enough. Since the subject of this article is fundamentally about the Philosophy of science (i.e., how we divide up the territory of knowledge and what this particular piece borders on, as opposed to the many individual examples of pseudoscience), I think it is appropriate, encyclopedic, and very WP:DUE to include a few sentences about the fact that pseudoscience does not overlap with, say, equally wrong errors in history, that good science is its mortal enemy, and that it is near to (but still separate from) bad science. I think, in fact, that NPOV actually requires including this kind of contextualizing information, as it requires us to "describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship". This is the mainstream established-scholarship context for the whole idea of pseudoscience: It is not science, and it is an opposite of good science. Readers need to be told that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with an intro being added, however I think that yours has several problems. First, labeling everything outside the realm of scientific study as "non-science" (a red link in your text BTW) seems wrong and arbitrary. Do we say that everything outside the field of, say, art is "non-art"? Everything outside the field of films is "non-films"? Very odd. Also, I found "all matters that are directly opposed to good science" an odd phrase in more than one way. Also, you made up a word (or at best quoted back an unusual one): Un-science. Really? Where is that word in the main article as you claim? I would see an acceptable opening paragraph as shorter and something roughly (off the top of my head) like, "Psudoscience can be differentiated from science by its lack of adherence to scientific principles such as the following: (meaning the details in the sub-sections) RobP (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the reliable sources about this? I suggest starting with the one that I linked, which is a very simple, accessible, plain-English summary of the philosophy of science.

But, yes: Everything that isn't science is non-science. Everything that isn't art is non-art. Everything that isn't food is non-food. This is how basic classification works: you define a group that something is and isn't; you define sub-groups that it belongs to and doesn't belong to. Knowledge can be divided up in several ways, but the relevant division is first science and non-science, and then within the category of non-science, there is unscience (rather than art, history, poetry, etc.), and unscience is divided into bad science and pseudoscience. We could create a description like this for any number of science-related subjects (and we regularly do when describing, say, a disease: for a viral infection, we begin with infectious vs noninfectious diseases, followed by succeeding categories of infection, such as viral vs bacterial). Basic classification is a very normal, simple, and useful way to tell people what we're talking about.

Unscience is the noun form of unscientific. I agree that it's an unusual word, but it's in the dictionary, and it dates back to Chaucer, so it's not just something I made up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is acting dogmatically and engaging in original research on "pseudoscience." Scientific American requotes a book: Princeton University historian of science Michael D. Gordin adds in his forthcoming book The Pseudoscience Wars (University of Chicago Press, 2012), “No one in the history of the world has ever self-identified as a pseudoscientist. There is no person who wakes up in the morning and thinks to himself, ‘I’ll just head into my pseudolaboratory and perform some pseudoexperiments to try to confirm my pseudotheories with pseudofacts.’” As Gordin documents with detailed examples, “individual scientists (as distinct from the monolithic ‘scientific community’) designate a doctrine a ‘pseudoscience’ only when they perceive themselves to be threatened—not necessarily by the new ideas themselves, but by what those ideas represent about the authority of science, science’s access to resources, or some other broader social trend. If one is not threatened, there is no need to lash out at the perceived pseudoscience; instead, one continues with one’s work and happily ignores the cranks.”

The article on pseudoscience must at least, for starters, open up a new section entitled: "contraversy" otherwise it is engaging in "authoritarianism" instead of scientific exploration.

Further the faiure of psychological research prior to 2011 to meet better standards than that of an ESP expreriment for other endevours and the doubt cast on al such research prior to the date further show that agreement of the "scientific community" can falsly cerifiy false science as true science, meaning that scientific standards themselves have to be evaluated. <https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html> <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029081> <https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/why-preregistration-makes-me-nervous/comment-page-1> — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's a bit more complicated than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's say that there is a correlation between electricity consumption in Bijlmer and the flow rate of Niagara Falls. What does that prove? Nothing, I guess. It's just a spurious statistical correlation having no plausible causal mechanism. So, we have causal claims that defy everything else from sciences, and causal claims which don't defy most of established science. See organized skepticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is generally fair, but I agree the lede as written could be misleading as it may give the impression appears to label everything that isn't verifiable by the scientific method as 'pseudoscience' i.e. it could be read as implying there is only science and the rest is rubbish. As a scientist, I would argue that's patently not right. The natural world is the proper domain of science, but there are other fields including those mentioned above - history, law, religion, art, philosophy, humanities - which are neither 'science' nor 'pseudoscience'. Although the body of the text makes that reasonably clear, I think it would be helpful to mention that up front. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone still object to the text that I added a couple of weeks ago, or have any ideas on how to improve it? I don't want us to get stuck waiting for perfection, so I'd be happy to see someone boldly have a go at saying that, as Bermicourt put it, the options aren't just science and rubbish. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a simple intro to the sub-sections is all that is needed there. Not a long philosophy lesson. Something like I proposed above: "Pseudoscience is differentiated from science by the lack of adherence to accepted scientific standards, including using the scientific method, falsifiability of claims, and adherence to Mertonian norms. So let's start with that, OK? RobP (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a little ambiguous what you mean by "intro to the sub-sections"? Do you mean the introductory paragraphs preceding the contents, the intro/lede? If so, you need to read WP:LEDE. Moriori (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@RobP. That sentence could imply everything that's not science is pseudoscience. It isn't. Even the article as it stands points out that pseudoscience is stuff that claims to be science. History doesn't, art doesn't, religion doesn't, philosophy doesn't. Bermicourt (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think that this "philosophy lesson" belongs somewhere in this article. (It's four sentences, so I don't think it's "long".) I think it happens to be a good fit at the top of the ==Overview== section, but if there's a better place, then I'd be happy to do that, too.
• Moriori, RobP is talking about the ==Overview== section. At the moment, there is the lead, a section on ==Etymology==, and then the ==Overview== section, which jumps right into sub-sections that talk about things that are not pseudoscience, with no intervening explanation of how those non-pseudoscientific things relate to the subject of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If only we could rename and rewrite this article to "demarcation of science and pseudoscience", it could be covered with far more depth and consideration. --10:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notgain (talk • contribs)

The title's not really the most important thing. If we want a complete article – the sort that could eventually meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria – then we should include that kind of information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Difference: Fake Science & Pseudoscience

Fake Science is redirected here to Pseudoscience. Is it a difference, if a researcher knows that the scientific results are faked (just look like scientifically sound) and publishes that with personal, institutional or commerical benefit (Fake Science). Fake Science

• provides non-reproducible "evidence",
• is generated in the context of reproducible scientific results (uses common scientifc structures like experiment design, methodology, results, conclcusion)
• to create counter arguments for a hypothesis within a scientific discipline that is not regarded as pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is a area, that does not follow the requirements mentioned the article. Fake Science and Pseudoscience have in common that they do not follow that basic principles mentioned of a scientific approach.

Scientist must be able to reproduce results mentioned in a paper (see Reproducibility) if it is a published experimental design with the results and conclusions. The peer-review is necessary to distinguish between pseudoscience and radical innovation in science like Einstein`s Theory of Relativity, who changed radically how we understand the physical world. Scientific evidence was found for that theory of relativity with new measurements, that were not available at the time, when Einstein developed that theory. --Bert Niehaus (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's true, Diederik Stapel was faking his papers, but he wasn't technically a pseudoscientist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

yes it is true. Further more we have an article on scientific misconduct I think fake science should redirect there and pseudoscience can be added to the hatnote of scientific misconduct. Opinions?

 doneEdaham (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A little late to the party but I agree with this distinction and the redirect suggestion! Thanks Edaham! Alex Jackl (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience examples in opening

The last line of the current article "Pseudoscience can cause negative consequences in the real world. Antivaccine activists present pseudoscientific studies that falsely call into question the safety of vaccines. Homeopathic remedies with no active ingredients have been promoted as treatment for deadly diseases." is I believe 100% accurate but it could really use some links and citations. I would have marked it on the main article but I didn't want to encourage bad faith interpretation of my criticism. Does anyone have some good citations to put in there? Alex Jackl (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Technically the lede doesn't need citations as long as it's summarizing material in the body of the article. Here there are quite a few in the lede, probably accumulated in response to complaints from proponents of pseudoscience. --tronvillain (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that makes sense - we just need to make sure it IS cited in the body. I will do a re-look at the body of the article. Alex Jackl (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I just relooked- Homeopathic medicine is addressed in the _Health and Education_ section but anti-vaxxers are not directly addressed. I will do some research but I would love for someone with more expertise to put some content and citations. Alex Jackl (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely need to have the content and references present the lede is citing. It seems this is a good catch and some work is needed.MrBill3 (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned here: WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Pseudoscience lede content not discussed and referenced in body MrBill3 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Update

I have added info on anti-vaccine movement using pseudoscientific research in the Health and education implications subsection. This new info is added in response to a request in the Fringe theories noticeboard, citing the need to expand on the anti-vac entry found in the lead section of the article. If you have questions, please let me know. Feel free to improve or modify the changes made especially if you have authoritative sources. Darwin Naz (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Alchemy

I think that the article is too harsh on alchemy without understanding it. Alchemy wasn't mainly about mysticism, it was encrypted chemistry. It was particularly dangerous to society because it offered the key to... counterfeiting money. It was also a vector of heretical ideas in a time when mobs were lynching heretics. See Lawrence M. Principe and Isaac Newton#Alchemy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm super surprised to see you advocating for an understanding of how dangerous it is to the dissemination of information when mobs are lynching heretics... Can you please supply a citation that supports the ideas you expressed about alchemy? Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That is not my view of it, that is how it was regarded by the authorities of that time. There are of course Principe's books, but if you want a shortcut, search YouTube for Newton Dark Heretic, there are documentaries from BBC and PBS. Also, astrology was half divination and half precise mathematical computations, i.e. what we now call astronomy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it was your view. Usually when someone wants to cite something they provide the exact text they propose and the source for it. If you could please do that in this case it would super helpful. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't read Principe's books, but I saw the documentaries. I just know that people usually object to using YouTube as WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed YouTube is not generally considered a reliable source. Perhaps you could check out some of Principe's books and come up with some text you'd like to add. You might also like to check out "The Forge and the Crucible: The Origins and Structure of Alchemy" by Mircea Eliade for information on this. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I know. But, BBC... PBS... professors interviewed... not all TV programs are crap. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Tantra

Greetings, everyone. A discussion has been opened about whether or not the article on Tantra should be expanded to include scientific criticism. You might want to join in. -The Gnome (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Gary Null

It's amazing that the modern day snake oil salesman Gary Null, with his discredited theories and commercialized "natural fixes," is not on this page.Dogru144 (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Gary Null has his own article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Addition of info to more fully represent citation.

I recently made and edit where I changed this;

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.

to this;

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications in relation to the institutionalization of criticism.

The sentence is support by this citation;

Lakatos I (1973), Science and Pseudoscience, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Dept of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method.

The complete relevant paragraph from the cited document is;

The problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience has grave implications also for the institutionalization of criticism. Copernicus's theory was banned by the Catholic Church in 1616 because it was said to be pseudoscientific. It was taken off the index in 1820 because by that time the Church deemed that facts had proved it and therefore it became scientific. The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party in 1949 declared Mendelian genetics pseudoscientific and had its advocates, like Academician Vavilov, killed in concentration camps; after Vavilov's murder Mendelian genetics was rehabilitated; but the Party's right to decide what is science and publishable and what is pseudoscience and punishable was upheld. The new liberal Establishment of the West also exercises the right to deny freedom of speech to what it regards as pseudoscience, as we have seen in the case of the debate concerning race and intelligence. All these judgments were inevitably based on some sort of demarcation criterion. And this is why the problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience is not a pseudo-problem of armchair philosophers: it has grave ethical and political implications.

The author is referring to the way that labeling things pseudoscience has historically been used to silence ideas. The original text doesn't actually say anything, "has implications" is very vague, so I added more information to contextualize what the source is actually saying. @MrBill3: has suggested on my talk page that I have somehow violated the requirements of discretionary sanctions. @Tornado chaser: has reverted my edit with the summary "unclear text". Can you please explain what you mean by this?Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Morgan Leigh: It is not clear what "institutionalization of criticism" means. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

To be clear I make no assertion that discretionary sanctions have been violated (they haven't been imposed). I do think it is appropriate to reach consensus here for a change to the lede of the article. As it seems the reference is available I will comment on the proposed change after reviewing the source and looking at the article more closely. MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I do apologise if I misinterpreted you. I made this assumption because you said on my talk page that the article was a "discretionary sanctions tagged article". Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh I also read the edit summary “unclear”. I think it’s a fair assessment. The phrase “institutionalization of criticism” makes an assumption, too common in academic texts, that the reader is informed about the institutions to which the term applies. In the quoted source paragraph you have used, context is added in the following sentences. When removed from the paragraph however the phrase becomes draughtly hollow, and a little confusing unless a reader is prepared to visit the citation. The alternative to reverting would have been to add a “needs context” tag to the phrase. You can try readding it with further contextualization and see if it stays. Edaham (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting point. I didn't read it that way. To me it seemed obvious that the phrase was referring to the weaponised use of criticism by institutions, like the Catholic church, to silence opponents. But then I'm an academic theologian so maybe I'm guilty of making the assumption you refer to. I do think readers would be able to gain something from the phrase even if not intimately acquainted with the historical instances of such repression. Perhaps the text later on in the article on this matter is sufficient to elucidate this point. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there’s published support for the idea that the term pseudoscience is a “weaponized” term, as you put it. “Institutionalized criticism”, as it’s used in the text you provided seems to be academic shorthand for what the author then goes on to describe. I think an encyclopedia reader would be more interested and able to access/comprehend the second part (or a short summary thereof) than the term referring to it. I make no comment as to whether an inclusion based on the source is due or not. Given your field of study, you’d have a much better idea than I. Edaham (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The term "institutionalization of criticism" is indeed incomprehensible to a person who has not had a very specific education. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a fascinating point. The article right now properly deals with pseudo-science as a negative thing but mostly as a matter of a lack of perception and education. The idea of pseudo-science being a weaponized term used to squelch ideas the controlling institutions do not like is also a legitimate thing that has happened in history and deserves a mention here. I don't believe it should be blended into the opening as was suggested above but it might warrant its own section in the history section. Thoughts? Alex Jackl (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

To me this seems like a conspiracy theory of institutionalized censorship vs education and critical thinking to distinguish between proper science and pseudoscience. Accusations of pseudoskepticism are similar, and Wikipedia's WP:PSCI policy is of course an attack target on a daily basis (with WP:ARBPS showing an example use of pseudoskepticism). I don't think the previously proposed source is enough for this, but if there are better and more recent sources about it, that are not from pseudoscience proponents, it can be considered. Also, if it's a notable claim of a notable person, it could be added as that person's opinion or criticism with attribution... —PaleoNeonate – 19:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There are arguments that pseudoscience is differentiated from science

Starting this thread in relation to recent (now reverted) edits. When I read it, this seems to present a WP:FALSEBALANCE of opinion vs opinion. Pseudoscience would not be such, if it adhered to the scientific method, etc. This also contradicts the first sentence of the lead, which is in the spirit of WP:YESPOV, to not confuse opinion and fact and at the same time keep the text concise. —PaleoNeonate – 01:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

warning

a psuedo science facebook group is planning on vandalizing this article. we might have a bit of reverting to do. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Or, when/if it happens, wp:Requests for page protection. - DVdm (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clone commando sev: can you tell us which? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

it was a group called: homeopathic treatments for diseases that big pharma is hiding. the members would share their treaments and circle jerk about how vaccines are evil and that kind of stuff. i saw the group on the R/vaxxhappend subreddit. hope this helps to stop them! Clone commando sev (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

for more detail i saw them on the subreddit. so i looked at the group on facebook because it was so funny how dumb those people were. when i went on the group i saw a facebook event that was LETS SAVE PEOPLE FROM PHARMA BY STOPPING BIG PHARMAS PROPAGANDA! and the picture was of the wikipedia logo. so i assume that wikipedia is their target. the time was at may 12 3:00 PM UTC. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Metaphysics

Since I noticed an attempt to mention this in the lead but that it was reverted I'll explain why I agree it's not really WP:DUE. While a philosopher may catalog and describe various metaphysical doctrines and that this could be considered part of their scientific field, those doctrines are not equal to eachother when tested against reality. Some are wild as idealism and quantum mysticism, some are used as tenets to support pseudoscientific claims. Since a discussion of this and the demarcation problem is complex, it's not very useful to claim that metaphysics is not pseudoscience, especially in the lead. Similarly, it would not be better to say that mathematics isn't pseudoscience, as it can be used in science as well as to describe pseudoscientific ideas. —PaleoNeonate – 02:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

agree. physics isnt a game that has a meta. or a book that has a metanarritive. metaphysics is psuedoscience. and it doesnt deserve a mention Clone commando sev (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand why Hypnosis is considered pseudoscience.

The hypnosis you see in movies and TV is false. Hypnosis isn’t magic nor is mind control.

Hypnosis in a nutshell is basically like someone motivating you to think this way or that way. (Honestly it’s hard to make an analogy.) CycoMa (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

In other words, it's one person telling another what to do, and the other person doing it, plus a heap of hocus pocus. There is nothing special about people obeying others, it happens all the time without hypnosis. But hypnosis is hyped to be more. For example, there are claims that hypnosis helps you remember stuff more clearly (or remember it at all), which is not true. See Repressed memory and Past life regression. That is the pseudoscience part, the rest is showmanship. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Convictions based on the pseudoscience of hypnosis allow for the miscarriage of justice

BBC Science Focus: Is there any scientific explanation for hypnosis?

Hypnosis: Science, Pseudoscience, and Nonsense (alternate link 1, alternate link 2)

Psychology Today: The Trouble With Hypnosis

Rational Wiki: Hypnosis

Skeptic's dictionary: Hypnosis

Is hypnosis pseudoscience?

Please note that that last one is a pro-hypnosis site. even they admit that it is pseudoscience, and argue (poorly) "Since when is pseudoscience a four-letter word?" and "Pseudoscience is not necessarily bad science". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Weird paragraph in "Etymology"

In July, User:Lindsay658 inserted this in the Etymology section, but I cannot fathom what it has to do with etymology.

Dismissing the separate issue of intentional fraud—such as the Fox sisters’ “rappings” in the 1850s (Abbott, 2012)—the pejorative label pseudoscience distinguishes the scientific ‘us’, at one extreme, from the pseudo-scientific ‘them’, at the other, and asserts that ‘'our’ beliefs, practices, theories, etc., by contrast with that of ‘'the others'’, are scientific. There are four criteria:
     (a) the ‘pseudoscientific’ group asserts that its beliefs, practices, theories, etc., are ‘scientific’;
     (b) the ‘pseudoscientific’ group claims that its allegedly established facts are justified true beliefs;
     (c) the ‘pseudoscientific’ group asserts that its ‘established facts’ have been justified by genuine, rigorous, scientific method; and
     (d) this assertion is false or deceptive: “it is not simply that subsequent evidence overturns established conclusions, but rather that the conclusions were never warranted in the first place” (Blum, 1978, p.12 [Yeates' emphasis]; also, see Moll, 1902, pp.44-47).

References

If this is to be somewhere in the article, it needs to be integrated somehow, but I don't know how. This is supposed be an article, not a collection of unconnected thoughts. Also, why is it indented? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling It is indented because (i) the entire section is a quote, and (ii) the (a), (b), (c), and (d) points were indented in the original.Lindsay658 (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor quibble: per WP:INDENT you should add one additional colon when indenting. You used two in the quote and four in your response to Hob. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding too many colons makes the thread very hard to read on devices with small screens. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

As for the above text, it is a bit unwieldy. Can you suggest a short, encyclopedia-style paragraph that contains the basic idea and isn't already in the article? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Fringe science into Pseudoscience

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fringe "Science" is Pseudoscience, same topic. Acousmana (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. These are distinct (albeit related) topics that both have sufficient source material to warrant their own articles. A classic example of formerly fringe science is plate tectonics, which was once considered fringe and eventually gained acceptance. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "The term 'fringe science' covers everything from novel hypotheses which can be tested by means of the scientific method to wild ad hoc hypotheses and mumbo jumbo." --Fringe science Novel hypotheses, while usually wrong, are not pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The assertion that fringe science is the same topic as pseudoscience doesn't appear to be supported by the content of the articles. --tronvillain (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose two differing subjects should not be merged. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, scrap that idea then. Acousmana (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Pseudoscience (physics)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pseudoscience (physics). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#Pseudoscience (physics) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent addition of Racism section - too big and irrelevant info should be trimmed

Hello @Elliepreston:, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!!

In my opinion, the section you added is about twice to three times as big as it should be...this article is about PSEUDOSCIENCE, and those paragraphs veer off into more detail about certain racist organizations than is helpful in THIS article. There may be other articles (Racism in the United States, or White genocide conspiracy theory) in which some of that content would be more pertinant/relevant, but the section in this article should concentrate on their use of pseudoscience.

Specifically, this is not relevant to pseudoscience: Collin was later arrested after child pornography and other evidence of sexual abuse against young boys was found in his possession. He was expelled from the American Nazi Party and served three years in prison [73]. After he was released, he began a career as an author and editor in chief for Ancient American Magazine from 1993-2007 [74]. However, before publishing works, he changed his name from Frank Collin to Frank Joseph. Joseph became a successful writer....though if that info isn't in the article about him, it could be added.

Thanks again for contributing!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I removed over 4 KB of redundant or irrelevant information. Some of the sources in the section are also quite poor. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A user @Rp2006 reverted the above removal of irrelevant content, claiming that this needs talk page discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"Pseudophysics" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pseudophysics. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 22#Pseudophysics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No mention of New age movement

The New age movement is one of the most significant pseudoscience in the 21st century, I think it deserves to be here. 223.184.77.204 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If we included this, we would be obliged to include Islam, Christianity, American Christianity and Morris Dancing as Pseudoscience too. All of those are of far more significance than the New Ageists. We do label most New Ager types and their ideas as pseudoscience in the articles concerned, but adding the wooly thinking new agers to this article requires a shift in consensus too far imho. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

A common misconception that teachers in the United States often enforce is that one must sit in good posture (sagittal neck sitting posture) frowning down upon the (the slumped thorax/forward head) what was commonly referred to as bad posture. Studies have shown that the slumped thorax/forward head is more protective of neck pain compared with upright posture. KhalidManZCornell (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Reincarnation pseudoscience???

Why is reincarnation considered as psudoscience? Reincarnation is a religious belief, it can neither be proved or disproved by scientific means till now, Science have not proved or disproved it either... Neutrality about religion should be maintained in Wikipedia. If a religious belief is pseudoscience...then whole of religious concepts of God, souls, etc are to be included in psudoscience...thus defying Wikipedia's neutrality. Subhobrata Chakravorti (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There are people who claim it can be proven scientifically. Those people are pseudoscientists. It does not follow that reincarnation itself is pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the properly sourced content. The text says that a cited source calls these *pseudoscientific beliefs*, not pseudoscience. So I have restored the inappropiately removed relevant content. - DVdm (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Subjectively written

It is quite clear the author/editor of this article has a politically-biased predisposition and fails to accurately delve into the depth of pseudoscience. Leave your subjective biases to your Facebook and off of Wikipedia please 173.80.204.77 (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Your suggestion employs a lot of words, but says nothing in particular. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree entirely with User:tgeorgescu, IP is writing something while saying nothing. If you have issues, please specify these exactly with clear examples that illustrate your argument. Sadke4 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo-science and wikipedia

Given the particular connotations of the term "pseudo-science," it feels useful to have a section about "The Use of the Term Pseudo-science on Wikipedia." For those without scientific literacy the term "pseudo-science" can indicate something is simply untrue, as if there is some unquestionable authority, some scientific supreme court, that hands down final decisions on what is science and non-science. Having reading about the demarcation criterion in philosophy of science the use of the term "pseudo-science" on wikipedia now seems to borderline propagandistic. Whose pseudo-science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.186.89.141 (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Any information provided by Wikipedia is based on information derived from a reliable source. The introductory paragraph clearly defines pseudoscience as "consisting of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method". The incompatibility of any such claim which can be verified by a reliable source is considered to be pseudoscience.

Laptudirm (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

removal of the following paragraph (paragraph 3 on page):

"Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatments with demonstrable health benefits, leading to deaths and ill-health.[7][8][9] Furthermore, people who refuse legitimate medical treatments to contagious diseases may put others at risk. Pseudoscientific theories about racial and ethnic classifications have led to racism and genocide."

references 7,8 and 9 do not support the argument but simply link to opinion pieces about homeopathy, no scientific proof of harm or dangerous effects are mentioned

paragraph is dangerously overgeneralising by linking homeopathy with death, racism and genocide, despite the referenced articles claiming it is medically unhelpful but not dangerous Goldediting (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've told you a million times, "dont exagerate", so no. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 17:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I would only add that the introduction need not have references as long as the text agrees and has good citation. I would expect general refs in the intro for the general audience who only reads that far. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and therefore need is to address rather than reject their claims, like polio vaccine campaigns, and avoid their religio-political use. Nadir Mehmood (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is the line between science and pseudo-science so blurry?

I used to think that pseudo-science, or "quackery" was reserved for dogmatic claims such as: earth is only a few thousand years old, the world is flat, earth is the centre of the universe, global warming is not man-caused, all vaccines are bad, nicotine is not addictive/sugar is safe (both views embraced in last decades). When there is plenty of verifiable evidence to debunk such claims. Why are academics insisting on blurring the line between science and pseudo-science?

Why can't esoteric studies such as astrology, numerology, tarot, or other ancient mystical languages, used for self-knowledge or spiritual guidance, be a legitimate therapeutic tool for gaining personal insight? Freud and Carl Jung must be quacks too, because they used ancient symbolism to help understand psychological issues. Haven't Joseph Campbell given us enough evidence of its importance? The blunt dismissal and quick categorization under one big umbrella of pseudo-science is biased, if not just pure ignorance. And rigid in itself.

Homeopathy, or other alternative health treatments, with acceptable scientific studies to back efficacy, again gets lumped up the same way. Isn't the political/financial interest at play, deciding what is good-science, and what isn't, obvious enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepovtourself (talk • contribs) 01:44, August 20, 2021 (UTC)

source behind homeopathy having "acceptable scientific studies to back eiffcacy"? Clone commando sev (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems that you want to call things pseudoscience only if you yourself are able to see the mistakes in it. That is not a good way of doing things because you will support pseudosciences in areas where the scientific methods used are outside your areas of expertise, such as medicine or psychology.

There is a reason why Wikipedia uses reliable sources for deciding those things and not the judgment of Wikipedia users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It can help many scientific, pseudo scientific, artistic, philosophical as well as Theo spiritual people to consider all these areas of actual, proven or proclaimed knowledge, and try find links and share with others after elaborating the phenomenon for themselves without bias and vested material or any kind of interests. The spirit of science has this strict criteria with rigorous scrutiny using all sorts of logic, mathematics, mechanics and theoretical models. The so called pseudoscientist as well as their believing creeds need not to shy off behind their queer self or just getting individual gratifying results. In this way, culture and traditions have survived in practice and benefited the humanity, despite being a kind of pseudoscience, and may still continue to survive, or may die out, if proven, considered or consensuses is achieved of its futility or serving the function it originated for. Nadir Mehmood (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Your attempt to write English has failed. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Parascience"

I have re-removed a list of "parascience" topics for being inadequately sourced, synthesis, and self-contradictory. It describes "parascience" as "non-scientific practices" that are not strictly "pseudoscientific" while listing astrology, cryptozoology, etc. — examples that are clearly and strictly pseudoscientific. XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@XOR'easter, if this is a persistent problem, then it's often effective to put some content in that addresses the question – sort of an unlabeled List of common misconceptions for an article. At the moment, parascience is only mentioned in a footnote, and I'm not sure that footnote is correct. See:

"All non-science is not pseudoscience, and science has non-trivial borders to other non-scientific phenomena, such as metaphysics, religion, and various types of non-scientific systematized knowledge. (Mahner (2007, 548) proposed the term “parascience” to cover non-scientific practices that are not pseudoscientific.)" [6] Specifically, Mahner wrote that he wanted a "term which subsumes both the pseudosciences proper and all the other fields producing bogus knowledge.  I suggest using the term parascience for this purpose", [7] despite acknowledging that the term parascience was already in use for subjects that were hard to classify as being pseudo- vs proto-. In Mahner's distinction, "this vehicle runs without gas because <quantum physics nonsense>" is a pseudoscientific claim, and "this vehicle runs without gas because of magic" is a parascientific claim. "This vehicle doesn't run without gas" is non-science (of the "ordinary knowledge" variety).

Another source says, after an introduction to the concept of pseudoscience, "However, there are non-scientific activities that are not false.  Such, for example, contribute to the production of systematic knowledge related to metaphysics and religion.  Parascience is the recently developed word to use for non-scientific activities which are not pseudoscientific.  It became known as 'the field of study concerned with phenomena assumed to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, or for which no scientific explanation exists'." [8]

This definition aligns easily with a source on alchemy, which might prove handy. It labels "alchemical texts carrying a religious, esoteric and psychological meaning and which deliberately sought to cut the historical ties of the alchemists to practical experimentation" [9] as para-scientific, in contrast with the experimental, origins-of-chemistry proto-scientific work and the "disorderly collection of superstitions, myths and chemical practices bordering on magic, an aberrant cultural singularity practiced by charlatans, or dreamers" that is pseudo-science. Being able to use a comparable example for all three of these topics might help people figure out which one is which. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge from Pseudo-scholarship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given that Pseudo-scholarship is broader than Pseudoscience and that the current structure is better for readers. Klbrain (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Pseudo-scholarship is a WP:POVFORK WP:DICTDEF that surprisingly survived a (pretty old) AfD. I don't think this term differs significantly from pseudoscience, and I'd suggest to merge the referenced parts here (or just redirect it, it's not like a loss of that DICTDEF would matter). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I would say it would depend on the sources used, if the definitions they use differ or conflict significantly then it would make for a fair argument in favor of keeping them separate. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep - Pseudo-scholarship currently links to six different articles, of which Pseudoscience is only one - I think that having an all-encompassing article,is useful, and more useful than a simple list, albeit that it is currently brief and could be expanded. If the "other" five disciplines were incorporated into this article, they would be swamped by the existing text, and, in time, might well be deleted as "irrelevant to Pseudoscience", which would be a loss to the encyclopedia. - Arjayay (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

What sources are saying those are separate disciplines? Having links is not a reason for keep in such discussions. It looks like it was more of a just a very loose list article, of which each article link is to a type of pseudoscience. KoA (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

What sources are saying that history is a science? It's not. How about archaeology? Whether linguistics is a science depends on which definition you use for the term "science". Karl Popper wouldn't have recognized linguistics as an actual science. Most fields of linguistics attempt to be systematic and objective, but having just a fraction of science's qualities does not make a field scientific.

I oppose the merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep separate subjects. Existing list article can be kept as is, or even expanded into its own article if there is consensus to do so. 100% not a DICDEF, and not at all surprising that it survived AfD, BTW. Out of curiosity, where did you get POVFORK from? VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-sciences

As a scientist, I think it's important to call out practices that claim to be scientific but lack the evidence to back that claim. However, the lede gives me at least the impression that the world binary i.e. divided into science and pseudoscience. There is a small section on boundaries with other disciplines – the non-sciences – and I wonder if that should be summarised clearly in the lede. Bermicourt (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the lead is long enough, and complies with WP:LEAD. I dont think that the boundaries section merits summarising in the lead, though others may differ. - Roxy the dog 18:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

My reading of the lead didn't give me the impression of a binary world of science and pseudoscience. Religion is not mentioned, but (other than creationism) religions don't generally purport to be science. If you can suggest a sentence you'd like to add that would be more helpful...then we'd know what to discuss. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody want to start the stub for medbed?

Does anybody want to start the stub for medbed?

Strange corners of the internet are awash with chatter about miracle devices that can cure nearly any ailment you can think of using the power of mystical energy. Some companies charge thousands for these "medbeds" - but their claims are far from proven.

...

The idea of medbeds - short either for "medical beds" or "meditation beds" - has become increasingly popular on fringe medical channels, on mainstream social networks and chat apps.

But people have very different ideas about what they actually are. Some insist that the technology is secret, unlikely to be encountered by mere mortals, hidden from the public by billionaires and the "deep state". The more conspiratorial theorising includes speculation about "alien technology" and bizarre claims like the idea that John F Kennedy is still alive, strapped to a medbed.

A separate, more earthly avenue of thought holds that medbeds are very real and publicly available, just not part of the medical mainstream.

Etc.

BBC News - https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-64070190

- 189.122.243.241 (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I've had a go. Now let me return to my slumber. Zzz. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Definition in first sentence

The current definition in the first sentence states pseudoscience needs to claim to be scientific. This would mean that works or theories not claiming to be scientific or even claiming to be an alternative to science, are not pseudoscience.

Various definitions do not include this need for a claim to be scientific:

• "a system of thought or a theory that is not formed in a scientific way." Cambridge Dictionary
• "a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science." Collins Dictionary
• "any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis." Dictionary.com

The main issue with the current narrower definition is an internal conflict which may mislead readers: For instance, the works of Erich von Däniken are called pseudoscience in the wiki article, which links to pseudoscience, which implies Däniken claims his works to be scientific, which isn't the case. Hypnôs (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no need of, and no rule for, Wikipedia articles to be consistent with each other. Each article is based on its own sources. If the sources for Erich von Däniken contradict the sources for this article, there is no problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no need or rule to keep them inconsistent either. Since broader definitions exist and are used by RS, I don't see the downside of more consistency. Hypnôs (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have source-based reasons for not calling Däniken a pseudoscientist, bring them (not here, of course). If you have source-based reasons for omitting the "claim to be scientific" condition, bring them. Unless one of those things happens, it needs to stay as it is. Consistency is simply not an issue. Wikipedia is based on sources, not on your ideas of consistency. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, definitions in reliable sources omit the "claim to be scientific" condition. The consistency is merely a positive side effect.

Däniken is a pseudoscientist according to the broader definitions. But according to the one used in the first sentence, he is not, since he doesn't claim his works to be scientific. Hypnôs (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The article uses sources that include that condition. So, you are demanding that we sweep those sources under the rug and only use sources containing your preferred definition?

Fact is that there is no consensus about the definition. The article states that it is like this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a change based on RS. There's no need for your assumptions of bad faith.

The point of using a broader definition is that is applies to a wider range of cases that RS call pseudoscience, like Däniken.

A narrower definition can still be used in the article for cases it applies to. Hypnôs (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what exactly you want. Does the article "apply" the definition? Maybe you should simply say what you want to change into what. Your last change to the article - reverted here - deleted the "claim to be scientific" condition, replacing one definition by another, so my assumption that you wanted to delete the "claim to be scientific" condition, replacing one definition by another, seems justified. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Since you ignore my arguments, let's see if others want to chime in. Hypnôs (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge, we define terms as defined by RS's in the article, not necessarily as dictionaries define them. When we have conflicting sources, we state that. How about changing the definition from "that claim to be both scientific and factual" to "that MAY claim to be both scientific and factual"? ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

None of the RS cited seem to define it in the way the first sentence does.

I think "may" is too ambiguous, as the only definite criterion remaining would be being "incompatible with the scientific method."

I listed a sources below, which state that pseudoscience either appears to be scientific, or tries to create the impression that it represents the most reliable knowledge on a topic. Hypnôs (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries are poor sources. Are there other scholarly sources that state the viewpoint that pseudoscience needn't claim to be scientific? VQuakr (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

From the notes in the current article, the impression is sufficient and no explicit claim to be scientific is required:

• Point 1: Oxford dictionary, as you said a poor source (poor sources should be removed?), but it just says "mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method"
• Point 2: According to Hanson, major proponent merely need to "try to create the impression that it is scientific." 3.4 is about "A wider sense of pseudoscience": "Hence, Grove (1985, 219) included among the pseudoscientific doctrines those that “purport to offer alternative accounts to those of science or claim to explain what science cannot explain." and "In this sense, pseudoscience is assumed to include not only doctrines contrary to science proclaimed to be scientific but doctrines contrary to science tout court, whether or not they are put forward in the name of science." [10]
• Point 3: "Claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility"

Additional sources:

Alan Sokal defines it in Beyond the Hoax (p. 266) as: [11]

...I shall use the term pseudoscience to designate any body of thought [...] that

• (a) makes assertions about real or alleged phenomena and/or real or alleged causal relations that mainstream science justifiably considers to be utterly implausible, and
• (b) attempts to support these assertions through types of argumentation or evidence that fall far short of the logical and evidentiary standards of mainstream science.

Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem gives three criteria: (p.70-71)

• pertains to an issue within the domains of science
• suffers from such a severe lack of reliability that it cannot be trusted
• part of a doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it represents the most reliable knowledge on its subject matter

Hypnôs (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No, dictionary sources need not be removed. We don't base entire articles or lead sentences on them. "Try to create the impression" is reasonably summarized as "claim". I'm not seeing adequate reason to change the lead sentence from these sources, and the specific diff you've proposed is quite wrong. If there's more nuance to be had here that is currently missing, that should be in the article body, not the lead let alone the first sentence and short description. VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The current lead sentence has three criteria:

• claim to be scientific
• claim to be factual
• are incompatible with the scientific method

The adequate reason to change it, is that none of the sources define it that way. It is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH (Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.)

I do not care what it is change to, except it should reflect RS.

I would propose the definition of note 3 is used (the one adopted by the National Science Foundation), which captures the essence of most other definitions:

"Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are presented so that they appear to be scientific, but lack supporting evidence and plausibility." (Shermer 1997 p.33) [12] Hypnôs (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

All three of those criteria are covered by the NSF source. You're confusing paraphrase and summary with synth. VQuakr (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the NSF quote: "What Is Pseudoscience? Pseudoscience is defined here as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" (Shermer 1997, p. 33)."

Everything else in the NSF source isn't about the definition of pseudoscience. The three criteria are certainly not covered. They are also not the product of paraphrasing or summary.

On the contrary, it includes topics that are not claimed to be scientific, and topics that are not incompatible with the scientific method. Hypnôs (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing first sentence

Cited source for the first sentence is . An entire chapter is cited that does not support the content of the first sentence. The author concludes with "In this chapter, we have explored a number of attempts to demarcate science from pseudoscience. But the results have been curiously inconclusive."

Any reasonable objections to changing it to a source ( p. 4) that supports a definition similar to the first sentence? Hypnôs (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We have several other cites extant in note 1. I removed Curd as redundant. More cites in the lead aren't necessary. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

None of which include "claim to be scientific", but " try to create the impression that it is scientific" and "appear [to be] scientific".

They also don't include "incompatible with the scientific method", but "mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method".

I'm adding citation needed tags for those phrases so they can be properly sourced. Hypnôs (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed those cn tags. I can't really understand the issue you have with the wording, it looks like a reasonable paraphrase to me - we can't use identical wording to sources. Can you explain what you think is wrong with it? Girth Summit _(blether) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There is an important difference between making a claim and giving an impression/appearance.

That's why reliable sources (Hansson, Schermer, Sokal/Grove, etc.) formulate the definition in a way, so that they include pseudoscience that does not claim to be scientific. To quote Hansson: "pseudoscience is assumed to include not only doctrines contrary to science proclaimed to be scientific but doctrines contrary to science tout court, whether or not they are put forward in the name of science."

Same with the "incompatibility". Pseudoscience is not necessarily incompatible with the scientific method, hence the definitions don't have incompatibility as a criteria.

So the problem is that, while it may sound like paraphrasing, it actually changes the meaning to the point where it doesn't represent the cited sources anymore. Hypnôs (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Already discussed in the section above. This is weird and you're in WP:STICK territory here. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:STICK applies to you I would argue. First you asked "Are there other scholarly sources that state the viewpoint that pseudoscience needn't claim to be scientific?" When I gave multiple sources that do, you ignored them and saw no reason for change.

Then you claimed the criteria are "covered by the NSF source", which is objectively untrue.

Then I tried to cite the definition, but you reverted it, reinstating the non-source, which you then removed again.

All I want is for it to be properly cited and reflect the sources, which you seem to vehemently oppose.

You brought forward no reasonable arguments or sources for your position, so I'm not discussing it any further with you. Hypnôs (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You're the one arguing with multiple other editors. See WP:SATISFY and WP:ONUS. VQuakr (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hypnôs here. The current statement is poor para-phrasing, which changes the meaning of the sources. This paraphrase is fundamentally changing the meaning of the definitions, as looked at logically by a set-theory approach (is this element part of this set or not, does this claim belong to the pseudoscience set or not) and should be changed to more appropriately reflect the sources. Additionally, if multiple sources use the same wording, than so can we. Calling a dog a "four legged animal" because every source says that is not copyright infringement.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Would a bit of wordsmithing assuage the concerns? I suppose that 'claim' probably isn't the ideal verb, since the subjects (statements, beliefs and practices) don't strike me as things that can actually claim anything themselves. I'll have a ponder, but wouldn't have a problem considering proposals to improve that sentence. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Avatar317: all sources do not say the same thing as in your dog analogy, and to my knowledge no one has listed copyvio as a concern. VQuakr (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well then I agree that we should do some wordsmithing. If we can have (I'll work on this also) a list of quotes from sources that we intend to use to support the definition, then maybe we can reach agreement on a better (more accurate) statement. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Avatar317: the three extant sources cited in note 1 are probably a reasonable starting point. @Everyone else: any others that should be included? VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Holocaust denial is a pseudoscience

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to the Wikipedia article Why People Believe Weird Things about this book "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" there is ample content dedicated to the topic about Holocaust denial.

Furthermore, if history is a science, denial of a documented historic fact like the Holocaust is pseudoscience. I suggest that we add Holocaust Denial to examples of practice of pseudoscience in contemporary times. DTMGO (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No. History is not a science. Pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology are distinct albeit related topics from the topic of this article. Pseudohistorians sometimes employ pseudoscientific principles in reaching their conclusions. A book merely having "pseudoscience" in its title and also covering Holocaust denial is not sufficient to change this categorization. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that the opinions are evenly divided upon whether history is a science or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

In Wikipedia itself, we consider history to be a science, for example in this article Social science DTMGO (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Noted; not relevant. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be consistent with itself. DTMGO (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if we accept that principle, Social science says that it's contested whether History belongs to the sciences or the humanities. As it applies to Holocaust denial, we ought to leave it out. Some things are just wrong without rising to the level of a pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope, Wikipedia should be consistent with the relevant sources. We don't reference ourselves per WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit @VQuakr @Roxy the dog Here you have a reputable source backing up the statement that Holocaust denialism is a pseudoscience: "There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences." [13] DTMGO (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You've pinged me, but I did not revert your addition of holocaust denial to the list, just your addition of the word 'anthropogenic' (with a typo in it) to qualify climate change denial. To be clear, I'm not saying that the use of the word is wrong exactly, but sources tend to just call it 'climate change denial'. If someone isn't sure what is meant by that phrase, they can click on the link to read the article.

I don't have any particular problem with including Holocaust denial in this article, but I do wonder whether that particular list sentence is already rather too long, and the addition of potentially contestable subjects isn't helping that. Even the source you've provided describes Holocaust deniers as pseudo-historians, and it draws parallels between them and pseudoscientists, rather than flat-out saying that they are pseudoscientists. I'd be happy for it to be discussed in context somewhere in the body of the article, but I think that this sentence in the lead needs pruning rather than extending. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I added the term anthropogenic, because to deny climate change, and to deny human-caused climate change, are two totally different and separate actions.

Now, you say the list of pseudosciences is too long, we need to prune it, but give no specifics. And you are not trimming it, but don't think I can add to it. The outcome is now that holocaust denial, which is explicitly as per quotes, listed as a pseudoscience by Stanford, is not being allowed to be in the list, but other more fringe and past theories like dowsing are on the list, while there are holocaust deniers even in government power today, see Iran. Seems like it is not giving due weight to the issue. DTMGO (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Climate change denial, as the phrase is commonly used, is the denial of anthropogenic climate change. This is discussed, with sourcing, at our article about the subject. We don't need to use qualifiers like that when we can simply link to the article, as we do.

You're correct, I'm not giving specifics; I have floated an idea, and now I will wait and hear what other people think. Why don't we both do that? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there are several flavors of climate change denial. See Climate change denial#Taxonomy of climate change denial All of them have the same goal: protect the free market from regulation. The denier chooses which flavor to use depending on which of them seems to be the most promising. If the mark knows very little science, one can tell him that the climate has always been changing and that there is nothing special about the current climate change. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

DTMGO, when I look at the source you provide (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#toc), I am not convinced. To make sure we understand each other, I'd like you to cite very exactly the parts you see as justifying adding "holocaust denial" (HD) to this article. I don't see it. It's certainly pseudohistory, which is often used to illustrate the errors also made in pseudoscience. That doesn't mean topics properly described as pseudohistory can be equated with topics described as pseudoscience. Just because both words end up in the same paragraph or sentence doesn't mean they are synonyms. Be very careful when parsing such wordings. If HD is truly pseudoscientific, not just pseudohistory, then it should be easy to find multiple very RS to prove it. One or two sources won't be enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Here it is, again: "There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences." [14]

If one of the best universities in the world is not a good enough source, I am not inclined to waste my time on this. There are multiple bullet points in the article in question, that have no references whatsoever, so why the double standards on my edits, but not those? DTMGO (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't find widespread agreement, probably because there isn't much. No, holocaust denial is just that, lying out of ignorance, or unconscionable malicious nastiness. There is no excuse for ignorance either. There isn't a trace of science or pseudoscience in the subject. - Roxy the dog 11:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Holocaust denialism is abhorrent, and I am not trying to give it more status or prominence, but that is not the topic.

So you looked in past practices too? There have been "academics" within academia with titles and public positions, in large universities, spewing out Holocaust denial work.

For some examples, look here:

Holocaust denial#Significant individuals and organizations

What I would like to address, is this point: there are multiple examples of pseudoscience in the article in question (ancient astronauts, climate change denial, dowsing, evolution denial, astrology, alternative medicine, ufology, and creationism), that have no RS whatsoever that say that they are a pseudoscience, so why the double standards on my edits, but not those? Is it because my entry is new, and new entries have higher standards? DTMGO (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

No, not because it is new, because it is wrong. - Roxy the dog 13:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to have an ownership problem.

In addition to the Stanford source , , and call Holocaust denial a pseudoscience, for instance. Hypnôs (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I've already said that I don't have a problem with describing holocaust denial as pseudoscience; I have a problem with adding it to a sentence in the lead that already lists eight different subjects. That sentence should just give a few prominent examples, three or four would probably be enough - it shouldn't be including every type of pseudoscience, even if they can be supported with sources. I'll also note that our article on Holocaust denial does not use the word pseudoscience/pseudoscientific anywhere - surely this discussion ought to be happening over there? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That sentence should just give a few prominent examples, three or four would probably be enough That is actually the most relevant point here. We should not discuss about which new entry to add, but which etries to remove. A nowiki comment not to add any new ones would be a good idea too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is one more "Holocaust revisionism enlists a wide variety of strategies and assumes many different forms adapted to the history and political cultures in which it operates. It has nonetheless developed into an international movement with its own networks, gatherings, public forums, propaganda, and pseudo-scientific journal"

[15] DTMGO (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

People seem to have lost sight of the purpose of this article. It is not List of all Pseudosciences. It is Pseudoscience, and any addition to it should be adding value to the reader's understanding of the subject. Whether holocaust denial is a pseudoscience or not, the question is; "What value is it adding to this article"? If it's a disputed matter of just another example in a list of examples, then I'd suggest the answer would be "not much", and is possibly actually a distraction. If it is a pseudoscience, the place to start is in the holocaust denial article, not here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I brought up the point in this article> List of topics characterized as pseudoscience , and User Valjean instructed me to only discuss here in this article's talk section. DTMGO (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@DTMGO, Escape Orbit is right. If we are to include this anywhere in the List, (not in this article), then the best thing to do would be to inlcude mentions of how pseudoscience has been employed in Holocaust denial at that article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that the reference right after the examples of pseudosciences is actually the Stanford RS [16] DTMGO (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

DTMGO, I should modify my advice to you. Strictly speaking, if you want to document that RS call Holocaust denial a pseudoscience (PS), then that is the article to start with. If you also want to do the same at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, then this is the place to start, as this is the mother article, and listings at the list article should find some form of backing here, not that this article can be used as a source, but candidates will often be listed in both places. Because the sourcing issues would be the same in both cases (PS is the topic), it's nice to deal with this discussion here first, as you'll get plenty of input on the pseudoscience angle, which is the common thread in both cases. Then, after you've gotten more ammo and developed your arguments, go to Holocaust denial article and try there. Does that make sense to you?

In all cases, it's ultimately not about "truth", but "veracity". If you can get several good sources, then you can justify an edit. I say "several" because, contrary to what the Stanford source (a very good one) says, there is not "widespread agreement" about Holocaust denial as a pseudoscience. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary/more evidence/sourcing. One good source isn't enough. Gather several and you'll have a strong case. What I wish for you is that you don't end up wasting your time. Build a strong case and you'll get support from others. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. This is spot on, despite my forthright attitude here. -Roxy the dog 20:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: It's worth noting though that the Stanford source does not claim there is widespread agreement that HD is a pseudoscience, except in the specific context where the adjacent "pseudos" are lumped together as described earlier in the source (section 2). The misrepresentations of history presented by Holocaust deniers and other pseudo-historians are very similar in nature to the misrepresentations of natural science promoted by creationists and homeopaths. To paraphrase, the Stanford source notes that if pseudohistory is considered pseudoscience, then there is widespread agreement that HD is pseudoscience. VQuakr (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that. They are discussed together, but we can't get away from the fact that they placed HD in a list of famous examples of pseudoscience. I think much of the issue is the confluence and similarities of logical fallacies that occur in both pseudohistory and pseudoscience. They are the same types of fallacies. There are also border issues. Also, how does one define science? There are several types: hard, soft, natural, social sciences, etc. My background is medical science, not social. I am not an expert at discussing all the epistemological angles of this stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorta similar; physics and biochem background. We're not getting away from the list by putting that single sentence in context. VQuakr (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

If my point wasn't clear enough: it is useless to debate here whether history is a science, since this is an issue upon which rational people just cannot agree, there is no consensus in sight, so people are arguing for arguing's sake. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

a very salient point. I would probably side with OP in that some form of entry is warranted but specifically focused on the pseudoscientific evidence often provided to defend HD. But I think arguing it here in the absence of a source review and a draft of the entry is pretty meaningless. I would suggest OP take an overall discussion of this (with sources and a draft) to the Talk:Holocaust denial page and tag us all there. That would satisfy many of the participants here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In essence, all I have done was try to add the words "Holocaust denialism" to the list of examples of pseudoscience, as per the reference that existed right after that sentence itself, and the sentence itself has these words in its text, literally. So it is a small change, that was reverted, and highlights that the list of examples of pseudoscience seems to be too long. I realize it is a thorny controversial sensitive subject, and I rather not continue pursuing it too much. Again, all I did was edit a list that was referenced itself in the preexisting source of that sentence. It is not a major change or a significant change. But it has called the attention of so many experienced editors. This source (Laqueur Walter Judith Tydor Baumel-Schwartz and Mazal Holocaust Collection. 2001. The Holocaust Encyclopedia. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp 300) says that holocaust revisionism has its own pseudoscientific journals. There is one article in Wikipedia with an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Historical_Review DTMGO (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverts

Hi. I tried to add relevant information to the topic of pseudoscience but I have been reverted a couple of times. Said info is about a case where mainstream experts ridicule someone for advocating handwashing. For some reason I keep getting reverted. The latest revert has an edit summary with a completely distorted interpretation of the proper part of the reference (maybe User:Black Kite only read the title of the citation). Even though the main topic of the reference is about masks, in its body of text the situation of Dr. Semmelweis is narrated. For example it states, "But fate did not reward Semmelweis for his intelligent and humane work. He was harassed and despised by his peers, professionally destroyed by office politics, ignored by the medical community and ultimately driven insane."

The relevance of this regarding the topic of pseudoscience is clear and illustrates that sometimes the community of experts at large is driven by pseudoscientific beliefs and not by science. According to the current lead of this Pseudoscience page, "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.". The WP:NPOV policy states, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

I request that the content be reinstated. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Semmelweis had a genial intuition. But that belongs in the context of discovery. In the context of justification, no, he wasn't persuasive, so what he posited did not count as as science, simply because he failed to convince the scientific community, aka organized skepticism.

You should know that science is never about WP:THETRUTH, but about epistemologically responsible knowledge.

While there is a Romantic opinion that adversities and strenuous opposition drive one insane, I don't think that's how psychosis works. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thinker78, what happened in prescientific days should not be conflated with what happens now. Accusations of "pseudoscience" in old times are misplaced and somewhat off-topic here. Anti-maskers are not like Semmelweis in any sense. They don't understand the basics of science, pathology, or medicine. If you want to be classified in the same category as Semmelweis, you must understand ALL of that BETTER than the best scientists and physicians. Only then do you have the right to a place in the pantheon of great minds.

This discussion reminds me of this Sagan quote: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, and anti-climate changers are Bozos. They are ignoramuses. If they want to convince us or other scientists, they must be able to prove they understand and explain ALL of the current evidence, and then intelligently prove it is deficient and their explanations are better. Do they ever do that? Never. They just display their ignorance every single time they open their mouths. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean, you stated, "Anti-maskers are not like Semmelweis in any sense". I think you epically misinterpreted the referenced article. I mean its title is self-evident for goodness sake, "Today's anti-mask activists have much in common with anti-handwashing doctors of the 1840s". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Thinker78, sorry for creating confusion. I wasn't directly addressing the article. I haven't read it and only saw what was mentioned in this thread. I was discussing more about the principles involved and the "reasoning" we frequently encounter with believers in pseudoscience. They think the PS ideas pushed by their favorite guru or alt med therapist will be proven true, and that the mainstream medical community is like those who rejected Semmelweis. Read in that context, maybe my comment will make more sense to you. Anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, and anti-climate changers think their POV will win out, and that all the mainstream scientific and medical world are like those who opposed Semmelweis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Delayed acceptance of a new belief until the underlying mechanism is understood isn't pseudoscience. See also plate tectonics and paradigm shift. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It was not just delayed acceptance. It was actually as I pointed out, "statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method". Dr. Semmelweis was "harassed and despised by his peers, professionally destroyed by office politics, ignored by the medical community". Thinker78 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty crappy source; it only mentions Semmelweis as an analogy, only mentions pseudoscience in the byline, and is Salon.com. Yes it sucks that Semmelweis was maltreated but bullying isn't pseudoscience either. VQuakr (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Unwarranted faith in empiricism can amount to little more than dogma. It must be acknowledged that here is little in the way of evidence to date that demonstrates that an empirical approach can eliminate the dangers inherent in human interpretation and subjectivity. The pervasiveness of medical denialism, and well-known historical cases, such as the rejection of Semmelweiss's empirical evidence of how to reduce infections in surgicalprocedures, seem to highlight this problem. Thinker78 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78: African Health Sciences: Makerere Medical School seems like a borderline source indeed. Compare with the perspective in PMC1743827: Semmelweis made salient observations and identified a significant need for improvement in the process of patient care. There can be no doubt about that. However, he lacked change agent skills. First of all, and even though it proved to be one of the great medical publications of the 19th century, he did not publish his findings until 14 years after his observations. Without this evidence, his arrogance and dogmatism were not sufficiently convincing to overshadow the other competing theories of puerperal fever at that time. Failure to provide empirical support for a surprising finding isn't pseudoscience. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr, you stated, "Failure to provide empirical support for a surprising finding isn't pseudoscience". Re-analyze your statement, I am not sure if you meant that. You are directly implying that failure to provide empirical support for a surprising finding is pseudoscience. I would think the opposite is true. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

To rephrase/better phrase: rejection of claims that are unupported by empirical data is not pseudoscience. Semmelweiss made important observations but did not effectively communicate those observations, and conjoined his findings on handwashing with other theories regarding cadaverous tissue, [17] (Medical History, which doesn't refer to the slow acceptance of Semmelweiss as pseudoscience). These facts are often overlooked in popular science articles about him because it isn't aligned with the "one genius against the establishment" trope. Which is why we use high-quality sources. VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The medical establishment at large of the time wasn't very much into the scientific method though. A claim was made with positive results as backing, they chose to ridicule and attack the notion they needed to wash their hands to perform medical procedures. They should have instead make scientific studies about the hypothesis.

Per the article Ignaz Semmelweis, "Toward the end of 1847, accounts of the work of Semmelweis (as well as the similar conclusions of Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., working in America) began to spread around Europe. Semmelweis and his students wrote letters to the directors of several prominent maternity clinics describing their recent observations."

"The rejection of Semmelweis's empirical observations is often traced to belief perseverance, the psychological tendency of clinging to discredited beliefs. Also, some historians of science argue that resistance to path-breaking contributions of obscure scientists is common and "constitutes the single most formidable block to scientific advances."" Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Also from Ignaz Semmelweis: In fact, Semmelweis was warning against all decaying organic matter, not just against a specific contagion that originated from victims of childbed fever themselves. This misunderstanding, and others like it, occurred partly because Semmelweis's work was known only through secondhand reports written by his colleagues and students. At this crucial stage, Semmelweis himself had published nothing. Takeaways: the actual story of what happened isn't simple, and isn't a good candidate for inclusion in this article as an example of pseudoscience. VQuakr (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agreed previously to add info on History of Pseudoscience, but my focus when I first added the text here is on the behavior of the medical community at the time, which was not scientific and there are sources stating it was thus pseudoscience. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we can't really talk about pseudoscience when dealing with the prescientific era. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the article History of science, Science's earliest roots can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia around 3000 to 1200 BCE. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course. The exceptional people who really moved knowledge forward understood certain aspects of what we now call the scientific method. I was thinking of the full implementation of the scientific method in all the scientific disciplines, especially medicine, which is a relatively recent phenomenon. Some elements have been used by certain people since ancient times.

Experimentation is an ancient concept, but alone often proves nothing related to the wider population. The conflation of association and causation has always created problems, and modern scientists have developed better ways to screen for those problems. In alternative medicine and other pseudoscientific areas, they still conflate those matters. To them, anecdotes and popularity are proof. They don't realize that "The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner) or that "Humans have brains that are built to work on anecdote rather than real data." (Jeffrey P. Utz, MD) or that "Anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses." (Pediatric Allergy & Immunology, 1999 Nov;10(4) 226-234) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The article History of pseudoscience starts in the 19th century. Semmelweis has a dedicated paragraph in History of medicine. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he's an important figure in medical history. If RS describe his critics as pseudoscientists, then those sources could be used to mention his critics in the first article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References

why is the image of the history of the universe?

I had thought that it was generally accepted and had some pretty good real science backing it, or maybe its not of the history of the universe in which case could someone tell me what it's supposed to be? Caucasianhamburger (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That image is part of the science infobox, which points to a lot more than just pseudoscience. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Both the hard and soft sciences have problems with pseudoscience

Forgive me if I have missed coverage of this in the article, but the strong opposition to adding Holocaust denial to this article/subject leads me to think we need to deal with this topic in this article. I suspect that we tend to think of pseudoscience only from the background of denial of the facts in the hard sciences.

Because "Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge" (Sagan), we need to get away from focusing on the "denial of facts" common to all pseudoscientific claims. It's more about "wrong thinking" (logical fallacies) than "wrong facts". The wrong facts of pseudohistory (as in holocaust denial) are often completely different than the wrong facts of pseudoscience (like homeopathy and chiropractic "vertebral subluxation"), but the logical fallacies are the same, ergo both types are pseudoscientific.

I think much of the problem is related to various demarcation issues, differing terminologies, and the confluence and similarities of the logical fallacies that occur in both pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Also, how does one define science? There are several types: hard, soft, natural, social, etc. I am not a good person to do this, as I am not an expert at discussing all the epistemological angles of this stuff. My background is in the hard sciences, specifically medical science, not the soft/social sciences.

So we need coverage (maybe one good paragraph would be enough) of pseudoscience as wrong thinking, per Sagan. If something involves wrong thinking, it might be categorized as pseudoscience. That should be our inclusion criteria. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would agree. The demarcation problem is a central thing here, and I think we should provide several different methods of it from the most salient thinkers on the subject.

Good sources for such a paragraph would include:

• Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World
• Michael Shermer's Science and Pseudoscience: Revisiting the Demarcation Problem and The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience
• Brian Regal's Pseudoscience : a critical encyclopedia
• Massimo Pigliucci's Philosophy of pseudoscience : reconsidering the demarcation problem
• Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science
• Scott Lilienfeld's Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology
• William Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience : From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy
• Ben Goldacre's Bad Science

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that the way to mention these subjects would be to take Pseudo-scholarship out of the ==See also== section and explain its relationship to this narrower subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

External links

There are ten entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.

The "External links" section needs trimming. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

We're not in linkfarm territory as the links obviously don't dwarf the article. Which links are you proposing to remove and why? VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Reply: I apologize for any sarcasm that might seem evident, and I mean this in the nicest of ways, but I cannot (or will not) discuss or debate with someone that would argue that blue is not really blue. Your reply causes me to be flabbergasted. Nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links, unequivocally doesn't mean 6, 8, or 10. See: ELNO #1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page. As an afterthought; everything looks great. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Not what I said but ok. VQuakr (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Three or four may be a typical number, but there is no rule saying that 10 can't be offered. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Feyerabend

I have removed the line about Paul Feyerabend under ===Criticism of the term===, because the cited source does not criticize the term, or even say anything about it. A quick search indicates that the entire book contains exactly one instance of the word pseudoscience, in the preface, when he says that Kuhn's terminology has "turned up in various forms of pseudoscience". Feyerabend using the term without comment does not make sense as a source to support a claim that he criticized the term, and the question of the dividing line between Science (e.g., physics) and Non-science (e.g., theology) does not make really sense for an article that is neither about science nor about non-science nor about the dividing line between the two. I have wondered whether it might have been added primarily as a coatrack for the quotation in the note, which is about a different source. If someone feels strongly about Wikipedia including that information, I suggest that you move it to an article like Demarcation problem instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal Cargo cult science

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No consensus to move, bordering on consensus not to move; either way, the merge is not on. JBW (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Cargo cult science into Pseudoscience. Cargo cult science (not to be confused with Cargo cult) it is just a definition (WP:NOTDICTIONARY) and the whole article is based entirely on Richard Feynman speech. A quick mention in pseudoscience would be enough. Another option would be to RM cargo cult science into somehting like "Feynmans's 1934 commencement speech". --ReyHahn (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to merge. Feynman's thoughts on the topic might merit more than a quick mention here; perhaps a paragraph.--Srleffler (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I don't think the speech is notable as a speech; unlike, say, "We choose to go to the Moon", nobody talks about the build-up to it, the process of writing it, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

One could also compare to Feynman's own There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. I don't think we can write a similar article from references to this speech. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I link to this article frequently. I like it the way it is. WP:USEFUL says usefulness is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for including an article on Wikipedia, so I concede that the mere fact that I find this article useful may be insufficient reason to refrain from putting a thumb in my eye. The reason I look at Wikipedia is because I find it useful. I wish there were a way for the number of off-site links to a Wikipedia article to count for something. My first question is: who or what is being harmed by the existence of the Cargo cult science article? That is, what purpose does the proposed merge serve? And "enough" for what? (With reference to the evidence-free assertion "A quick mention in pseudoscience would be enough.") Feynman made points in this speech that resonate to the current day and which bear on the Replication crisis in social psychology and related fields. Feynman anticipated that crisis decades before it came to light, and he might have prevented it, had more people heeded his advice. The talk was also reprinted verbatim in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (an article that links to Cargo cult science, naturally) and is arguably part of what made that book a best-seller in its niche and keeps the book relevant. Also, the year for the speech was 1974, not 1934. --Teratornis (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The question is about notability, since the whole article is based on the speech itself. Before this discussion, there was some preliminary discussion at WT:PHYS#Cargo_cult_science. Btw, WP:NOHARM is another argument to be avoided.

That being said, I am a bit uncomfortable with merging to Pseudoscience. That article should focus on the big picture, and a brief mention of Feynman's talk there may seem like trivia. The book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! might be better target for merge. It would also allow more of the current content to be preserved. Perhaps have a section of its own there. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I can understand if this is not the right target but an article just to provide a definition does not seem right WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Either the article is about the speech or about pseudoscientific practices. As an alternative I would agree with merging it into Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would you merge it into a 1985 book, when it comes from a 1974 speech (which was reprinted in the campus magazine at the time, and other places later)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: because it is adapted and discussed in that book.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: cargo cult science is such a typical Feynman thing that is deserves its own article, as it has now. It definitely needs to be mentioned and wikilinked in this Pseudoscience article. - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

But then if you oppose could you provide your opinion on what the article should be about, is it about pseudoscientific practices or about Feynman's speech?--ReyHahn (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I.m.o. the current article is just fine as it is. DVdm (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you be against rewriting the lead to make it about the Feynman's speech?--ReyHahn (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• I just went through the articles that link to it, only 7 article cite it without relegating it to "See Also" but except for one, all the rest link to cargo cult science by making a reference to Feynman "Feyman in his speech...". The article seems to be just an easter egg to Feynman and not about cargo cult practices.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

(deprecated vote) Oppose, Cargo-Cult Science refers to action where researchers do not know what to do and refer to methods where it resembles scientific ones while it is actually an imitation of scientific thought. It does not always happens in fields where it is accepted as pseudoscience, for instance it can happen in physics. Cactus Ronin (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Should cargo-cult science remain as it is? Is it truly a term if it does not refer to Feynman?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

While this has become a common metaphorical interpretation of the phrase "cargo cult" it is not what Feynman described in his address. The entire thing is just a colorful description of confirmation bias. 2601:642:4600:3F80:80FC:12CB:6E21:D6E2 (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Vote Change, Support

I got scolded by my professor. She and I had a talk about the definition of term. Cactus Ronin (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What was the conclusion?--ReyHahn (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I am convinced that the term "Cargo Cult Science" is a description of Pseudoscience. Cactus Ronin (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Cargo cult is a specific type of pseudoscience, and a reasonable place to have an article per WP:SUMMARY. It is not (as of this writing) a mere dictionary definition of the term. VQuakr (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Would you be against rewriting the lead to make it about the Feynman's speech and not about cargo cult science in general (if that even exists)?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.