| Revision as of 14:02, 27 December 2002 editEclecticology (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,056 edits Disagree← 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}} | |||
| "Sex is more important than imagination." Evolution | |||
| {{Talk header |search=yes}} | |||
| {{ArbComPseudoscience}} | |||
| {{controversial}} | |||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Top}} | |||
| {{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. | |||
| ---- | |||
| "Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein | |||
| ---- | |||
| "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan | |||
| ---- | |||
| 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 | |||
| <hr> | |||
| ] 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 ]. | |||
| How about adding ] as an example of pseudoscience? Specifically, his assertion that a rock 20 times heavier than another will fall 20 times faster. | |||
| 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>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 | |||
| *''']''' | |||
| *''']''' | |||
| *'''].''' | |||
| 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 (]). | |||
| <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> | |||
| 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 (]). | |||
| '''Notes to editors:''' | |||
| ----- | |||
| #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 ]. | |||
| 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? | |||
| #Please use ]. | |||
| :its in the 'Physics'. Heavier things fall faster than lighter things. Also, things only move if there is something in contact with it moving it, and the earth is stationary because if you drop a rock from a high tower it will fall at the base of the tower, whereas if the earth were actually moving, it would fall some distance away from the base of the tower. Aristotles ideas were scientific, but they didn't have a lot of explanatory power and gave rise to a large number of anomalous findings. oddly, it took almost 2000 years for that particular paradigm to shift. | |||
| }} | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| 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. | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 16 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 6 | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Creationism vs Creation Science == | |||
| 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. | |||
| If that view were espoused *today*, I would call it junk science, along with indivisible atoms and a Newtonian universe. | |||
| I understand that the list for pseudoscience's is a quote, | |||
| <i>These are "approximations" or "metaphors". Good enough to get you to work in the morning. Not good enough for Stephen Hawking.</i> | |||
| "that ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] are pseudosciences." | |||
| ---- | |||
| 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? | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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 | |||
| :] has sections on different types. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] are all pseudoscience. | |||
| ::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). | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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 | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| -- possibly we want to file acupuncture as a ] if anybody wants to flesh out that entry. | |||
| 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) | |||
| == UFO == | |||
| ---- | |||
| 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? | |||
| 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) | |||
| <i>One vote for "Skepdic is generally pretty darn good".</i> | |||
| :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) | |||
| 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 | |||
| == Pseudoscience on the Pseudoscience Article == | |||
| 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". | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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 | |||
| 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) | |||
| <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 | |||
| == Scientific Consensus == | |||
| ---- | |||
| What, exactly, do you feel is too "sweeping" about the definition, and how would you suggest changing it? It seems reasonable to me. --LDC | |||
| 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." | |||
| ---- | |||
| 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. | |||
| Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! ] (]) 19:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| So ignore my previous comment - 2 errors in one day :-( -- ] | |||
| :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) | |||
| 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 | |||
| :::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 == | |||
| ---- | |||
| :NB: Science is defined as "any body of knowledge organized in a systematic manner" and as such Dianetics falls into the category of science regardless of popular opinion or accepted scientific method. | |||
| "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) | |||
| Moved here from the main page. I don't believe you are using an accurate def. of science. Please think through this, there are lots of things organized in a systematic manner (my banking statment for example) which are not sciences. | |||
| :The quoted statement is true. But unless you suggest a specific edit based upon ], your request has to be discarded. | |||
| Mark - thanks for fixing that - the rules of "Dungeons and Dragons" are also a science under this definition. This is one of my pet articles, but as I'm presently in India I can't monitor the article closely. I'm mildly perturbed about the statement "parapsychology is on the border between proto and pseudo." I can't see any justification for this statement. Most parapsychology has been refuted completely - hence it is pseudoscience. Thoughts? - ] | |||
| :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. | |||
| re "The motivations for the promotion of pseudoscience range from simple naivety about the methodological rigour of the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial exploitation (e.g., ?)." The very specific reference to psychic surgery here suggests that this group's practitioners perform exclusively for financial exploitation. The range of motivation in this group is as varied as in any other group mentioned in this article. Some psychic surgeons have refused payment because they believed that such a motivation would limit their abilities. I plan to delete the example.<br> | |||
| :There is always a danger in believing something is absolute, wether scientifically backed or not. ] (]) 08:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I hope to say more on this subject, but I shall tread very carefully so as to to maintain the neutral view. I don't really like the word 'pseudoscience' because of its implicit value judgements, but it will have to do for now until something better comes along. I can also live with the short definition in the first paragraph. I am especially pleased that the writer of that paragraph has not committed the logical falacy which claims that not proven means false. ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| I continue to puzzle over how to fairly approach this topic where the comments of opponents tend to be just as pseudoscientific as the topic they try to attack. The article as it stands is full of gratuitous claims that some practice or other is pseudoscientific, as though merely making such a simple statement were all that was needed to establish that as fact. I like the general tone of the article as long as it is giving a broad outline of pseudoscience, and establishing broad criteria for examining the credibility of a particular status. After that it falls apart because people abandon and ignore the criteria they have just laid down. | |||
| ::To cut a long story short, we edit according to the ]. Your request does not comply with our rules. | |||
| One very important criterion is that someone who is broadly respected by the adherents of that practice must have made a claim (perhaps even implicitly) that it is scientific. How can we establish that something is pseudoscientific when nobody claimed ot to be scientific in the first place? The respected spokesperson concept is important, because it prevents us from basing our judgement of an entire subject on the claims of a local practitioner whose application may not even be consistent with the broader practice. See ] | |||
| ::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) | |||
| My proposal is that after an introductory section the article should include a brief comment about each mentioned practice. (Anything more would appropriately be in a separate article) | |||
| A possible '''format''' for each might be: | |||
| <h3>Scapulomancy</h3> | |||
| *'''(Observation) What it is:''' An ancient chinese practice of divination by examining the pattern of cracks on animal shoulder blades when these were cast in a fire. | |||
| *'''(Hypothesis/Prediction) Claims:''' No current claims. | |||
| *'''(Verification) Analysis of Claims:''' Not applicable. | |||
| *'''(Provisional Evaluation) Conclusion:''' An abandoned ancient practice. | |||
| :] | |||
| :Eclecticology, you are quite correct in stating that we should be careful about how we label things in this article. However, I disagree with your proposed solution. | |||
| :Firstly, the ] policy suggests we shouldn't be trying to reach conclusions on anything. It's not for us to judge whether dianetics is pseudoscience or not. It's far better to have the main article on each subject examine any scientific claims in detail and let readers make up their own mind, rather than trying to reach a one-sentence opinion on the subject here. | |||
| ::What seems to have been most gravely wrong wrong with my approach to the subject is the use of the word "conclusions". Perhaps in the spirit of the steps outlined in the ] article I would have done better to use "Provisional evaluation" as the last heading of my outline. (See the revised format proposal at scapulomancy above.) I agree that none of the mentioned subject can be adequately discussed in the context of this article, but something more than a bare dismissive name in a list seems warranted. At least one should say enough to make the reader want to view the more detailed article. | |||
| ::As to the specific example of dianetics, it may be obvious that I am no supporter of the practice. There was, nevertheless, an interesting point arising from this example. The previous writer, after sticking it on the end of the paragraph deating with revelation and theology, arrived at the conclusion that dianetics was pseudoscientific. On the face of the situation I would have reached a different conclusion, but still not that it was scientific. I would rather have left it fall with the Bible into the realm of revelation and inspiration. Even Hubbard's own claim to be scientific doesn't pull it from that pit. | |||
| :However, it is a fact that most scientists consider astrology, numerology, etc. as pseudosciences, and it's not a violation of the NPOV policy to say so. | |||
| ::I would change "most" to "many" or even "a large number" There is clearly opposition to the view or we wouldn't be having this discussion. In all likelyhood few scientists have ever given the matter enough serious consideration to have an informed opinion one way or the other. Using the fact that these people are scientists as an argument is just another form of ].''(q.v.)'' | |||
| **It's a fact. I am a scientist (in training). I have worked with scientists from around the world, from a variety of cultural and religious backgrounds. Never have I heard a scientist regard the above practices as anything other than at best amusing nonsense and more often a way to take money from the gullible. | |||
| **Why does it matter what scientists think, then? Because their profession is to determine the nature of the universe and the objects that inhabit it. They have a very long tradition and a highly evolved methodology to do so. Their track record, collectively, is outstanding. Finally, the scientific profession has, on many occasions, had to discard long-held ideas when they have turned out to be wrong. Plenty of scientists have investigated pseudoscientific ideas, and found them wanting. In fact, most scientists consider most such areas so thoroughly debunked that they consider that they have better things to do with their time. | |||
| :::The science is more important than the scientist. The argument, "Scientists say ...." tends to reverse that. There is little doubt about the general reputation that you establish about scientists, but reputation alone doesn't prove anything. Reputation may even be an adequate first hypothesis in any study; it is, after all, "falsifiable" within the understanding of that term in the scientific method. | |||
| :::If you are a biologist, you probably don't need to take it any further when it comes to the inner workings of neclear physics, and you are probably content to let others carry on the debate of wave vs. particle theories of matter. The biologist, however, is unlikely to engage in public pronouncements about nuclear physics. If a survey of scientists asks the question, "Do you believe in astrology?", the result is predictable. If it turns out that the survey is sponsored by a marketting firm, that also asks them if they eat Corn Flakes for breakfast, what can inferred from the statement, "Scientists who don't believe in astrology prefer Corn Flakes for breakfast?" | |||
| :::If you choose to join the battle, being a scientist does not absolve you from the scientific method. | |||
| :Finally, there seems to be a need to narrow down pseudoscience to quackery that claims scientific credence and exclude quackery that rejects scientific methods and embraces personal endorsement as more compelling evidence. It's all still unscientific quackery and scientists are just as entitled to debunk it. --] | |||
| ::Regretably I had difficulty understanding what point you were trying to make in the first part of this paragraph. Some narrowing down of just what falls into pseudoscience would be useful. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between the terms pseudoscientific, unscientific, and quackery. Pseudoscience would imply false claims of being scientific, unscientific may merely reflect a naïve reliance on anecdotal evidence, and quackery may imply a reckless application of pseudoscientific or unscientific concepts. (Applied vs. pure pseudoscience, if I may make such a parallel.) Yes, scientists are allowed to debunk pseudoscience, but as you have already said that should be discussed at the relevant article for the practice sought to be debunked. ] | |||
| ----- | |||
| Hence, I've removed your entry on dianetics here: | |||
| <h3>]</h3> | |||
| *'''What is it:''' A system invented by ], founder of the ], to explain the workings of the human mind, and to offer ways of overcoming its difficulties. | |||
| *'''Claims:''' Hubbard made specific claims that it was scientific. | |||
| *'''Analysis of claims:''' Alleged evidence of the validity of these claims has not been made public. | |||
| *'''Conclusion:''' This is an idiosyncratic body of knowledge. | |||
| ==== | |||
| ::''There have in many cases been rigorous scientific studies conducted in these areas which have failed to substantiate many of the claims.'' | |||
| This statement is overly broad after such a long list of diverse practices with varying levels of acceptance. Similar statements might be more appropriate in specific contexts. | |||
| ---- | |||
| I have removed "exobiology". Sure, it is mostly speculation at this point, | |||
| but the Viking experiments and the examination of the Martian meteorite, | |||
| for instance, were scientific, and the continued investigation of extremophile | |||
| bacteria in an effort to determine the most extreme environments life might | |||
| conceivably be found in, are science. | |||
| Sure, this field has attracted a huge number of quacks, but that doesn't mean | |||
| the whole premise of scientific investigation of this area is wrong. --] | |||
| :I put exobiology back on the list. Just before the list the criterion '''"fields of knowledge that many consider in varying extents to be pseudoscientific"''' is indicated. What you say could easily apply to several items on the list where the evidence has failed to support the existence of the processes in question without proving it false. The scientific method puts the burden of proof upon the proponents of unproved phenomenon. If we start exempting people's pet "sciences" from the list it will soon have nothing left. ] 07:31 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with Robert, and took it off again. Exobiology follows scientific method. It is not necessary for life outside the earth to exist for it to be a valid science. | |||
| Proving, or disproving the existence of life in particular places, according to the scientific method, is part of it.--] 07:45 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC) | |||
| :You are still ignoring the point emphasized above. Why should your pet "pseudoscience" be exempt? ] | |||
| I also must agree with Robert - exobiology is a valid field of study in biology. | |||
| However there are more kooks who call themselfs exobiologists than there are real exobiologists. Maybe this should be mentioned somehow. --] | |||
| ::Similar comments can be made about parapsychology, applied kinesiology and psychic phenomena. ] | |||
| : I tend to agree with Eclecticology here. Also mentioned on the list is ], which also is a valid field of study (as mentioned in that article), but also attracts a lot of non-scientists and isn't really considered scientific. The same probably holds for several of the other pseudosciences. It would help to annotate the list and say something about the "pseudoscientificness" of each of the listed items. ] | |||
| I've changed the wording a little, to make it clearer that an entry | |||
| existing in that list isn't necessarily a condemnation of the field | |||
| in its entirety. I suppose it's too much to hope for that that will | |||
| keep everybody happy? :-) -- ] | |||
| ::You failed to use the same wording to the items that you reinstated, which are clearly no less scientific than exobiology. ] 15:40 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC) | |||
| You're right, of course. How about we remove all the annotations from the list, since they're all covered by the wording at the head of the list anyway? (and since they're inevitably subjective) -- ] | |||
| :That's been exactly my point in this discussion! ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| Ever since I started watching this subject I've had concerns about the lack of NPOV implicit in the title itself. It suggests from the very beginning that we are dealing with concepts that are necessarily false, rather than ones which have only failed to be proven true. The doctrine of falsifiability from the philosophy of science is of no help because of the misleading connotations of fraud that a word such as "falsify" carries in the public mind. However strictly a philosopher may apply that term, it does not follow that the same rigour will be applied by non-philosophers. | |||
| I would propose that most (not all) of the material in this article be moved to a new article under the name ]. The present title could then be restricted to those studies which have been established as false (squaring the circle) or fraudulent (crop circles). ] 16:34 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC) | |||
| :"]" is a (perhaps <i>the</i>) standard term for this subject, and the info in the article follows general discussion of the matter. IMHO, the term "pseudoscience" does not refer to whether a concept has or has not been proven false, but the <i>manner</i> in which its enthusiasts approach it; it specifies methodologies which appear or claim to be ] but are lacking in one or more crucial particulars. "]" is not a standard name and frankly, I don't understand what it should mean. If a "scientific" activity follows the standards of science, it might be strange, but it's science. If it doesn't follow the standards of science, it might be anomalous, but it's not science. Why invent an idiosyncratic new term in an encyclopedia? -- Respectfully awaiting your reply. | |||
| "Pseudoscience" reflects the POV of people in the mainstream sciences. The prefix "pseudo-" literally means "false", and that alone introduces a bias into the subject. In one sense I can find the definition of pseudoscience at the beginning of the article to be perfectly acceptable, but I don't have faith in people's abilities to strictly adhere to that definition; connotations are not as easily controlled as denotations. To say that we are talking about the ''manner'' of approach seems to make sense at first sight, but despite the common origins of the words it seems more applicable to the adjective ''pseudoscientific'' than to the noun "pseudoscience". "Science" often relates to the knowledge itself in the broadest sense, while "scienti'''fic'''" relates to the making or producing of knowledge because of the suffix from the Latin verb ''facere''. | |||
| It may very well be that the problem lies in having a list at all in the article. Many forms of fortune telling are not pseudocientific because the practitioners believe themselves to be "spiritually inspired" without any claim whatsoever of being scientific. On the other hand, some of the other subjects, such as parapsychology, include entusiasts who make great efforts to apply scientific rigour. All of the topics also have enthusiasts whose belief is beyond belief. | |||
| I know better than to introduce an idiosyncratic term into Misplaced Pages; they ''never''' fare very well. I at least made a point of finding some references for the use of the expression "anomalous science", either directly or as "anomalous" + some specific science. | |||
| * http://www.science-frontiers.com/ | |||
| * http://www.amasci.com/weird.html | |||
| * http://www.alternativescience.com/alternative-science-news.htm | |||
| * http://bob2641.tripod.com/anomalous.html | |||
| * http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~leeuwlp/index0.html | |||
| On a ''preliminary'' basis I would tend to define "anomalous science" as the study of those phenomena that are not adequately explained by mainstream science. The scope of this topic can be very broad indeed. As I've mulled over this matter over the last while I considered the expression "alternative science" but rejected it as representing a POV in the other direction. ] | |||
| :What your objection ignores is the fact that the information regarded as 'scientific knowledge' is largely socially constructed. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to deal with the ideas of science and pseudoscience from the perspective of the scientific community. What is pseudoscience? put simply, it is any theory about the functioning of the natural world which claims to be scientific but which is rejected as unsatisfactory by the scientific community as a whole. ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| I changed the opening sentence. I see a lot of discussion regarding what the definition of the term should be; I did not change the definition at all, I just phrased it the way an encyclopedia would, instead of the way a dictionary would. -- ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| I'm removing the babbling sophistry about Fluffy. It imposes a POV by the use of ridicule, and cannot be considered a serious treatment of the subject. ] 00:46 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Kuhn is vastly more important in the philosophy of science than lakatos, I'm going to reword that section a bit and include a bit about what kuhn thought of as the criteria by which a new paradigm becomes accepted as normal science.] | |||
| I may have gotten a little bit overzealous. I added quite a bit to the demarcation section. reread the structure of scientific revolutions this week and it has a tendency to turn me into something of a missionary. I think what I added might be able to be stated in a clearer way, but I think I managed to stay fairly NPOV with my examples. If anything is unclear about what I meant by something, please lemme know and I'll take another crack at it. | |||
| ] | |||
| ''"Kuhn is vastly more important in the philosophy of science than lakatos..."'' | |||
| The section in question is about the problem of demarcation. I think Lakatos probably said more about this than anyone. No matter; Kuhn is interesting and I'm glad you said something about him. --Chris | |||
| ---- | |||
| Here's some feedback I got from another forum on my contribution to the demarcation bit. I've not had time to do anything with it, but it might be of interest: | |||
| '''I appreciate the opportunity to comment on your proposed entry. I was a student of Popper, Lakatos and Feyerabend -- doing my undergrad at UC Berkeley and grad work at University of London.''' | |||
| '''An encyclopedia-type entry must of course be concise and compartmentalized.''' | |||
| '''Let me say first that there is nothing objectionable in your entry.''' | |||
| It is important to note that what marks the boundaries of science, and | |||
| therefore what defines pseudoscience, has never properly been settled. | |||
| '''This is your best statement. I might have phrased it as follows: ''' | |||
| '''"After more than a century of active dialogue, the question of what marks the boundary of science remains fundamentally unsettled. As a consequence the issue of what constitutes pseudoscience continues to be controversial. Nonetheless, there is reasonable consensus on certain sub-issues."''' | |||
| Criteria for demarcation have traditionally been coupled to one philosophy of | |||
| science or another. Logical positivism, for example, espoused a theory of | |||
| meaning, which held that only statements about empirical observations are | |||
| meaningful, effectively asserting that all metaphysical statements are | |||
| meaningless. | |||
| '''I am fine with this up to the point where you tacitly imply that non-empirical statements are equivalent to metaphysical statements. The difficulty with the LP criterion confronts us long before we consider traditionally metaphysical questions. Most of mathematics and virtually all of the humanities are problematic. History is curiously problematic because of the the ?repeatability? issue ? an apparently apriori standard of what is accepted as ?empirical?. And finally since science itself embodies its own "scientific metaphysics", the criterion was self-defeating.''' | |||
| Later, Karl Popper attacked logical positivism and introduced his | |||
| own criterion for demarcation based on falsifiability. This in turn was | |||
| criticised, most notably by Thomas Kuhn, but also by Popper supporter Imre | |||
| Lakatos who proposed his own criteria that distinguished between progressive | |||
| and degenerative research programs. | |||
| '''This is fine. People need to look up these references (elsewhere in the encyclopedia) to understand the claims.''' | |||
| Lakatos perhaps marks the start of a trend in the philosophy of science to | |||
| relax the demarcation criteria. This trend has continued with some | |||
| philosophers, including Paul Feyerabend, adopting the view that there is no | |||
| single benchmark for the validity of ideas and that this segregation of | |||
| knowledge is unhealthy for science. | |||
| '''What you say is fine. I think the thrust might come across better if you point out the implicit challenge: Lakatos and Feyerabend suggest that science is not an autonomous form of reasoning -- but is inseparable from the larger body of human thought and inquiry. If so, then the questions of truth and falsity, and correct or incorrect understanding are not uniquely empirical. Many meaningful questions can not be settled empirically -- not only in practice, but in principle.''' | |||
| '''(It may move beyond this entry, but I think that Lakatos?s realization that ?bias is good? captures a sense of the new direction. Indeed, bias is essential. Anyone who accepted naïve falsificationism would never get out of the lab. This really muddies the waters concerning pseudoscience ? although you keep us open with the introduction of the notion of proto-science.''' | |||
| On the other hand, there has been some reluctance to declare the concept of | |||
| pseudoscience bankrupt. | |||
| '''The questions of truth and falsity, and correct understanding remain, but appear not to be reducible to, or settled by any of the simple empiricist models of inquiry and belief.''' | |||
| Science seen, instead, as a rich tradition of logic, | |||
| empiricism, experimentation, individualism , opportunism and many other | |||
| things, still has to reject (at least provisionally) some ideas and support | |||
| others. | |||
| '''I lot could be said about this sentence. You are offering a definition of science by reference to a series of -isms and "many other things". It is unhelpful. You seem to be seeking a closure. Integrity requires you to leave it open.''' | |||
| '''I do like the last part (modified): Yet even when one considers science as an integral part of the broader enterprise of human reason and inquiry, one is still confronted with the need to reject some ideas and support others.''' | |||
| Scientists who want to remove ideological contamination from this process, need only recognise that there is no such thing as the scientific | |||
| method, no definitive philosophy of science and no clear and agreed-upon | |||
| distinction between science and pseudoscience. | |||
| '''I think you should be more blunt here.''' | |||
| '''Those who consider themselves scientists need to recognize that there is no such thing as an autonomous scientific method, no definitive philosophy of science and no clear and agreed-upon distinction between science and pseudoscience. --Terry Bristol''' | |||
| ---- | |||
| Just a note to JFQ. I reverted your change to the Feyerabend text. Maybe a feyerabendian metacriterion can be formed, but certainly not the one proposed. Feyerabend has written whole chapters defending ancient ideas and dead philosophies! His epistemological anarchism should make formation of a metacriterion problematic: ''"Given any rule, however 'fundamental' or 'necessary' for science, there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite."'' | |||
| --Chris | |||
| ---- | |||
| I appreciate the effort that you have put into this article, especially in the light of the prejudices that are often brought into the subject. I still find the title prejudicial, but that's another story. | |||
| I do have one question. Given that Popper was an Austrian, does the German terminology that he uses for "falsification" have the same connotations of fraud and wrongdoing that it does in English? It seems to me that Popper's falsification is used to define science, but that in the popular mind science is used to define falsification. ] 18:57 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC) | |||
| ''(Apologies for the delayed reply.). I can't really answer your question, being an Englishman (don't be fooled by the name) with a very poor command of the German language. My guess is that the negative connotations are unintentional, but who knows? --Chris'' | |||
| SETI and exobiology differ from the other fields listed in that most scientists consider them perfectly scientific undertakings, with a few people using these fields as cover for pseudoscientific undertakings, much as there are pseudoscientists who claim to be physicists or biologists. The other fields are almost universally considered to be pseudoscientific by people in the relevant neighboring scientific fields (e.g. cryptozoology by biologists, astrology by astronomers etc.). I am absolutely not willing to tolerate legitimate fields of scientific inquiry like SETI and exobiology listed next to cryptozoology and creationism. --] | |||
| :I agree. Those are valid fields of study that are merely the victims of more than their share of cranks who claim to be experts. --] | |||
| I disagree. We had this argument before and the heading of the list was a compromise wording at the time. Others will have a different perspective about which items should be removed from the list. Who says that biologists haven't objected to exobiology as much as to cryptozoology? Most of the subjects on the list have varying degrees of acceptance, and many also have people using scientific means to investigate them, even if often without success. It doesn't do to have something removed because of a personal whim that his pet subject is being criticized. ] 14:02 Dec 27, 2002 (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. |
|
| 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:
|
 | 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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:
|
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)
- 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)
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)
- Sorry, I am new to this. Should I delete the question, if it is possible? Lenderthrond (talk) 18:33, 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)
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Top-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Top-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- B-Class paranormal articles
- Top-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class logic articles
- Mid-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of science articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- B-Class science articles
- Top-importance science articles