Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pseudoscience: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:38, 13 February 2002 editConversion script (talk | contribs)10 editsm Automated conversion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:52, 10 January 2025 edit undoPhotos of Japan (talk | contribs)423 edits →Danger of Pseudoscience 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
----
{{Talk header |search=yes}}
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
----
{{controversial}}
"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan
{{Not a forum}}
----
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=B|vital=yes|1=
My impression of the usage of Junk Science is that it is primarily reserved for 'scientific' testimony in personal injury and malpractice lawsuits - maybe not, though. --MichaelTinkler
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Top}}
<hr>
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|logic=yes|science=yes}}
{{WikiProject Science|importance=Top}}
}}
{{tmbox|image=none|text={{anchor|Please read before starting}}'''Please read before starting'''


First of all, welcome to Misplaced Pages's Pseudoscience article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.
How about adding ] as an example of pseudoscience? Specifically, his assertion that a rock 20 times heavier than another will fall 20 times faster.


] to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a '']''. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid ].
<i>See ]. Somebody makes a claim, people work on it, the facts come out.</i>
:Aristotle was not ''pseudoscience'' simply because of the definition of the term. Pseudoscience is work which inaccurately claims to be "scientific" (ie. is in accordance with the accepted scientific method). As the scientific method really only began to take shape during the Renaissance, Aristotle is exempted. Also, the entry on the Socratic Method will better explain the approach used by the ancient great thinkers. And to be fair, Aristotle did not contradict any of the 'facts' as known at the time - it was only around 1500 when Galileo was the first (western thinker) to convincingly prove that acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass. As someone pointed out below, if someone put forward Aristotle's viewpoints *today* then it absolutely would be pseudoscience (or junk science)- MB


A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents the fields it lists as "pseudoscience" in an unsympathetic light or violates Misplaced Pages's '''Neutral Point of View''' policy (]). The sections of the ] that apply directly to this article are:
<i>Exactamente :-) Or perhaps more pointedly, if someone today maintained such views in the face of scientific study to the contrary (as opposed to saying, "Oops. I was wrong about that").</i>
*''']'''
*''']'''
*''']'''
*'''].'''
The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the ] guidelines.


These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (]) and Cite Your Sources (]).


Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (]) and to abide by consensus (]).
-----
That claim may well be pseudoscience. But did Aristotle really make the claim? I suspect what we have here is some pseudoscolarship as well. Who claimed that Aristotle made this claim?
----
The connotation I have for "pseudo" or "junk" science is that it refers to beliefs or ideas, perhaps wrapped in "scientific-sounding" jargon (Like the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet schtick I just saw on TV), that have no supporting evidence, and usually go so far as to conflict with current scientific thought.


'''Notes to editors:'''
Just assuming for sake of argument that Aristotle or a contemporary did say that ("rate of fall is proportional to weight") -- was that the commonly held "scientific" (or what passed for such in those times) belief, or was it contrary to it? If it summed up the current theory, I'd call it mistaken and later disproved, but not pseudo.
#This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see ].
If that view were espoused *today*, I would call it junk science, along with indivisible atoms and a Newtonian universe.
#Please use ].
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 16
|minthreadsleft = 6
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive %(counter)d
}}
__TOC__


== Creationism vs Creation Science ==
<i>These are "approximations" or "metaphors". Good enough to get you to work in the morning. Not good enough for Stephen Hawking.</i>


I understand that the list for pseudoscience's is a quote,
----
The Chinese government has put in a lot of scientific research in ] since the 1970s. Has those research proved the discipline as non-scientific? If not, what does it take to remove the pseudoscience label from accupuncture?


"that ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] are pseudosciences."
:Specific ''uses'' of accupuncture have shown positive results in tests. The problem is that the only tests that worked were for relief of pain, which is an inherently subjective hard-to-measure thing, so small statistical successes don't mean much (as opposed to tests on things like Aspirin, where results are ''huge''--as a friend of mine once put it, you shouldn't have to squint hard to see reality). Further, the ''theory'' behind accupuncture--flow of qi, all of that--is total nonsense; mostly unfalsifiable, and easily falsified where it isn't. If you want to know when "accupuncture" will be acceptable, define your terms: do you mean some specific use of a clearly defined procedure for a clearly defined problem with measurable results? Then name it, and do the tests. If it clearly works (and not just some small statistical subjective result), then that method will be accepted as a fully scientific method. If you mean the "theory" of accumpunture, the answer is "never", because those few aspects of it that were scientifically testable failed, and the rest is just religious nonsense. --LDC


but should the link for creationism be changed to ] rather than ], seeing that that page is dedicated to the specific pseudoscientific claims instead of ], which is more philosophical. ] (]) 05:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
::The definition of acupuncture as "pseudoscience" actually bothers me, simply because I do not know of any literature which claims that acupuncture defines itself as "scientific". My (to be fair, limited) knowledge of it tends to suggest that it does not attempt to defend itself in any way, it just goes on not giving a damn what science thinks. The term pseudoscience is generally reserved for belief systems that claim scientific backing when none is actually present (eg. dianetics, iridology).


:] has sections on different types. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] are all pseudoscience.
::I do not see the difference between the "]" energy (and related concepts) which underpin acupuncture and, say, the existence of God, Angels, etc which are regular features of any theological belief system. So in summary - if acupuncture is a belief system (with related practices) then it is not pseudoscience, BUT if it claims to be "scientific" then it is, because its therapeutic powers cannot be scientifically verified. That's my $0.02 - MB


:changing the link seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. and if creation science is what we use for that subject on wikipedia, i think it makes sense for the text to also be changed to Creation Science. ] (]) 04:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
-- possibly we want to file acupuncture as a ] if anybody wants to flesh out that entry.
::We use the term "creation science" for creation science and "creationism" for creationism. Both are pseudoscience (see my contribution above; I moved yours down because it is newer, see ]), so there is no good reason to replace it. --] (]) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
:::According to ] guideline, it is better to use a more accurate language rather than pseudoscientific one. So, ] and ] is better to classified as ] rather than pseudoscience. ] and ] is better to classified as scientific speculative rather than pseudoscience. ] is better classified as traditional ] or ] rather than pseudoscience. ] is better classified as ] rather than pseudoscience. The term "Pseudoscience" is better reserve for only those theory that really look like science but actually are not science or rejected by science, say ], or ] ] (]) 07:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Furthermore, there are critical difference between real pseudoscience vs religious concept like creationism, or traditional superstitions concept like astrology. A Real pseudoscience is difficult to differentiate from real science, say most people who believe ] think they are real science and widely accepted by mainstream scientist. However, most creationism believer and advocator are well-informed and they understand creationism are religious concept not current science concept, but they believe bible is more reliable than science when we study the origin of species. Astrology believer are also well-informed that it is being criticized as superstitions. Better language can highlight which one is the real pseudoscience. ] (]) 08:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::::The gist is that we (meaning Wikipedians) aren't the ] who establish demarcation. ] (]) 18:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)


== Race ==


About recent edit. The removal based on the edit summary appears incorrect, if ] is merely a ] then then logic goes that it is not scientifically valid. ] (]) 14:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
----
I would classify Skepdic as pseudoscholarship. They are pretty much written by one guy and often are pretty biased. should we be hesitant to link to an inferior source from here, even if its more comprehensive?


== UFO ==
<i>One vote for "Skepdic is generally pretty darn good".</i>


Hello, there's a topic on this subject already, but I still wonder, why are you people claiming UFO are pseudoscience? Clearly, life doesn't exist only on this planet, and the UFO sightinghs are real... so it may not be a science, but it's not false either. ] (]) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Their hearts are in the right place, and they are pretty comprehensive, but the treatments of each topic are pretty shallow and openly biased. --LDC


:Strictly speaking, the claim that there are flying objects which have been not identified is not pseudoscience. Claiming that aliens visit the Earth ''without very good evidence'' is pseudoscience. ] (]) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed - I think the text accompanying the link makes this clear. - MB
----
I re-instituted the word "factual" because that is a key defining element of a pseudoscience - they '''present''' themselves as being "factual".


== Pseudoscience on the Pseudoscience Article ==
Also Lee introduced the idea that a scientific theory that remains to be scientifically verified (ie - it is compatible with current evidence, but makes predictions not yet tested) constitutes pseudoscience. This is simply wrong - this is what is known as ]. A pseudoscience is characterised by its claims of accuracy and validation, when such claims are erroneous and/or deliberately misleading. - MB


The section ] heavily relies on ], presenting it as if the popular science book ] and its proposed terminology and concepts were widely accepted as fact. Special attention should be paid to ] and ]. At the very least, the paragraph should be changed to contextualize the statement as being made in the view of dual process theory, and not simply throw out "System 1, our default operating system which requires little to no effort" as a phrase with no wiki links as if it was an obvious well-established concept.
<i>Do you think so? When we read about claimants for ]'s million dollar prize they often seem quite evasive about accuracy and validation.</i>
: Well then '''that''' is pseudoscience. If you are in accordance with the scientific method "as far as is possible", then you are working in protoscience. Pseudoscience is characterised by its attempts to circumvent the rules, or its claims of accuracy where such claims have not been (or cannot be) validated. If I say "here is a hypothesis, here is the supporting evidence, and here are the predictions based on it" then that is good scientific work waiting to be supported or refuted. If I say - "here is my theory and it is correct, so there!", then that is pseudoscience. - MB


I'd change the paragraph myself and remove any mention of Dual process theory as per the fringe theory policies outlined at ], but the page is protected, likely due to similar content continually being added to it. ] (]) 16:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
----
What, exactly, do you feel is too "sweeping" about the definition, and how would you suggest changing it? It seems reasonable to me. --LDC


== Scientific Consensus ==
----
Ed, I don't think protoscience is actually an exception. It hasn't ''failed'' the definition, it just hasn't entered for it yet. -- ]
----
LDC, sodium: At a glance, it is not easy to distinguish pseudoscience which "has failed to be validated" from protoscience which "has yet to be properly tested and either supported or refuted." ]
----
Yes - I misread the definition. It says "failed to be *validated* in accordance with," not "failed in accordance with," meaning any knowledge purporting to be scientific but not rigorously tested yet. Protoscience would (without your sentence) be pseudoscience until it was tested.


I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in ] that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority."
So ignore my previous comment - 2 errors in one day :-( -- ]


Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! ] (]) 19:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
----

You're right, though, that it's hard to distinguish sometimes. And that's for good reason: there isn't much to distinguish them except intent. "Protoscience" is often conjecture that ''can't'' be tested yet because of lack of technology or resources, or things currently undergoing testing, but that its proponents fully admit is speculative and intend to reject if those tests fail. Pseudoscience generally ''avoids'' testing, or uses bad tests, or uses techniques of rhetoric to support its contention with no intention to ever discard the theories for any reason. An experimental drug, for example, is a protoscience if its makers are currently undergoing good double-blind studies to determine if it works. An herbal remedy that is sold with testimonials (which are known to be invalid evidence) and which its sellers avoid doing good controlled studies on is pseudoscience. --LDC
:Thanks for your question. And welcome to Misplaced Pages. You've also asked this question at ] and it is receiving response there. Please don't ask the same question in two different locations. ] (]) 08:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry, I am new to this. Should I delete the question, if it is possible? ] (]) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's fine. Personally, I would just leave this conversation here. It shows that the issue is noted and resolved. ] (]) 18:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

== Danger of Pseudoscience ==

"Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects." This seems like an incomplete statement to make that leads the reader to believe that, conversely, Science does not have dangerous effects and is therefore superior. Countless products of the scientific process have caused dangerous effects on humans, animals, plants, and the environment (csuch as chemicals in our food, side effects of vaccinations, radiation, etc, all of which have evidence of harm to ). Pseudoscience is not necessarily more beneficial or harmful than science, but rather has different processes leading to it. ] (]) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:The quoted statement is true. But unless you suggest a specific edit based upon ], your request has to be discarded.
:Namely, the evil consequences (real or purported) of science amount to ]. ] (]) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:I totally agree. That part of the article is totally biased and pointless, and if not modified, it should simply be removed.
:There is always a danger in believing something is absolute, wether scientifically backed or not. ] (]) 08:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::To cut a long story short, we edit according to the ]. Your request does not comply with our rules.
::Our article does not violate anyone's right to believe as they please. It simply renders what is pseudoscience according to mainstream ].
::And it does not even claim that your God does not exist. ] (]) 13:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::This article is about pseudoscience, it is not about science. If you are looking for a place to write about the harms of science, then that would be the science article. Also, it is ] to state that "Pseudoscience is not necessarily more beneficial or harmful than science". ] (]) 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:52, 10 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pseudoscience article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pseudoscience. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pseudoscience at the Reference desk.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconAlternative views Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconParanormal Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Logic / Science Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Logic
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of science
WikiProject iconScience Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Misplaced Pages's Pseudoscience article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents the fields it lists as "pseudoscience" in an unsympathetic light or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

Notes to editors:

  1. This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Theory.
  2. Please use edit summaries.

Creationism vs Creation Science

I understand that the list for pseudoscience's is a quote,

"that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences."

but should the link for creationism be changed to Creation Science rather than Creationism, seeing that that page is dedicated to the specific pseudoscientific claims instead of Creationism, which is more philosophical. Chip K. Daniels (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Creationism has sections on different types. Young Earth creationism, Gap creationism, Day-age creationism, Progressive creationism, Creation science, Neo-creationism, Intelligent design, Geocentrism, Omphalos hypothesis are all pseudoscience.
changing the link seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. and if creation science is what we use for that subject on wikipedia, i think it makes sense for the text to also be changed to Creation Science. Handpigdad (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
We use the term "creation science" for creation science and "creationism" for creationism. Both are pseudoscience (see my contribution above; I moved yours down because it is newer, see WP:THREAD), so there is no good reason to replace it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
According to Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience guideline, it is better to use a more accurate language rather than pseudoscientific one. So, Creationism and Creation Science is better to classified as religious belief rather than pseudoscience. Ufology and ancient astronaut theory is better to classified as scientific speculative rather than pseudoscience. Astrology is better classified as traditional superstitions or pseudopsychology rather than pseudoscience. Homeopathy is better classified as pseudomedicine rather than pseudoscience. The term "Pseudoscience" is better reserve for only those theory that really look like science but actually are not science or rejected by science, say Ten percent of the brain myth, or Neuro-linguistic programming Cloud29371 (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore, there are critical difference between real pseudoscience vs religious concept like creationism, or traditional superstitions concept like astrology. A Real pseudoscience is difficult to differentiate from real science, say most people who believe Ten percent of the brain myth think they are real science and widely accepted by mainstream scientist. However, most creationism believer and advocator are well-informed and they understand creationism are religious concept not current science concept, but they believe bible is more reliable than science when we study the origin of species. Astrology believer are also well-informed that it is being criticized as superstitions. Better language can highlight which one is the real pseudoscience. Cloud29371 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The gist is that we (meaning Wikipedians) aren't the authorities who establish demarcation. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Race

About this recent edit. The removal based on the edit summary appears incorrect, if race (human categorization) is merely a social construct then then logic goes that it is not scientifically valid. Gotitbro (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

UFO

Hello, there's a topic on this subject already, but I still wonder, why are you people claiming UFO are pseudoscience? Clearly, life doesn't exist only on this planet, and the UFO sightinghs are real... so it may not be a science, but it's not false either. 46.97.168.128 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the claim that there are flying objects which have been not identified is not pseudoscience. Claiming that aliens visit the Earth without very good evidence is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience on the Pseudoscience Article

The section Pseudoscience#Education_and_scientific_literacy heavily relies on Dual process theory, presenting it as if the popular science book Thinking, Fast and Slow and its proposed terminology and concepts were widely accepted as fact. Special attention should be paid to Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Replication_crisis and Dual_process_theory#Issues_with_the_dual-process_account_of_reasoning. At the very least, the paragraph should be changed to contextualize the statement as being made in the view of dual process theory, and not simply throw out "System 1, our default operating system which requires little to no effort" as a phrase with no wiki links as if it was an obvious well-established concept.

I'd change the paragraph myself and remove any mention of Dual process theory as per the fringe theory policies outlined at WP:FRINGE, but the page is protected, likely due to similar content continually being added to it. Sprintente (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus

I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in here that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority."

Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! Lenderthrond (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. And welcome to Misplaced Pages. You've also asked this question at Talk:Creation science and it is receiving response there. Please don't ask the same question in two different locations. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I am new to this. Should I delete the question, if it is possible? Lenderthrond (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
That's fine. Personally, I would just leave this conversation here. It shows that the issue is noted and resolved. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Danger of Pseudoscience

"Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects." This seems like an incomplete statement to make that leads the reader to believe that, conversely, Science does not have dangerous effects and is therefore superior. Countless products of the scientific process have caused dangerous effects on humans, animals, plants, and the environment (csuch as chemicals in our food, side effects of vaccinations, radiation, etc, all of which have evidence of harm to ). Pseudoscience is not necessarily more beneficial or harmful than science, but rather has different processes leading to it. 2600:1014:A020:7D9F:EDB3:C4AE:45A6:1A57 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The quoted statement is true. But unless you suggest a specific edit based upon WP:RS, your request has to be discarded.
Namely, the evil consequences (real or purported) of science amount to WP:COATRACK. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I totally agree. That part of the article is totally biased and pointless, and if not modified, it should simply be removed.
There is always a danger in believing something is absolute, wether scientifically backed or not. 109.142.174.140 (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
To cut a long story short, we edit according to the WP:RULES. Your request does not comply with our rules.
Our article does not violate anyone's right to believe as they please. It simply renders what is pseudoscience according to mainstream epistemology.
And it does not even claim that your God does not exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This article is about pseudoscience, it is not about science. If you are looking for a place to write about the harms of science, then that would be the science article. Also, it is original research to state that "Pseudoscience is not necessarily more beneficial or harmful than science". Photos of Japan (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: