Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:44, 5 January 2009

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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, 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.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 31, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives
Archive 1: 2003 — August 2006 Archive 2: August 2006 — December 2006 Archive 3: December 2006 — March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 — April 2007 Archive 5: April 2007 — July 2007 Archive 6: July 2007 — October 2007 Archive 7: October 2007 — January 2008 Archive 8: January 2008 — April 2008 Archive 9: February 2008 — September 2008

Examples

There is a discussion at Talk:Pseudoscience#Examples which may interest editors of this article. -- Levine2112 19:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Read, agreed, and, I repeat: "WP:PSCI". Said: Rursus (☻) 16:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

Shouldn't wikipedia belong to the article too? It's not a scientific work, but it alleges as such, and might be mistaken for science, while it in fact only repeats pseudofacts that are written outside wikipedia? Said: Rursus (☻) 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you can find a pair of good WP:RS sources for that... :D --Enric Naval (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, I'll see what I can do. Said: Rursus (☻) 06:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that Brittanica should also be listed then, I mean it fits your definition above. Just for the record, wikipedia does not claim to be a science, nor does it even claim that to tell the truth; it claims to report what verifiable sources say. Finally, whether, or not, it can be mistaken for science is irrelevant to its status as pseudoscience. Phoenix1177 (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda?

I don't see a source meeting this list's criteria (in the "skeptical groups" section or any other). AMA doesn't call it anything at all close to pseudo, and I think we've already established that Quackwatch is unsuitable for our purposes here: it's been called a partisan and unreliable source Arbcom (who, in that ruling, were right to criticize Quackwatch but wrong to criticize the editor who had used it in good faith as a V RS, as many had prior to that ruling). The final cite calls unlicensed practitioners "quacks", which is a term that can be fairly applied to unlicensed or otherwise improper practitioners of any medicine, including the modern kind (c.f. chelation therapy). --Jim Butler (t) 12:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I wrote that entry with those sources, see Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive_9#Ayurveda). The AMA source is only sourcing statement-of-fact explanations of what Ayurveda is. The Quackwatch source was added later, and it was repeating some of those statements, so I added it also there. (Mind you, the AMA source cites Carl Sagan lamenting "the rise of pseudoscience and superstition")

If the complaint is that it should be sourced from the CSICOP, then see that their newsletter had an article where Ayurveda was given as an example of the "scientification" of pseudoscience, and Skeptical Inquirer had an article on how alternative medicine misrepresented alternative medicine (aka pseudoscientific claims) (it cites ayurveda as the source of certain beliefs). Would that be enough to verify CSICOP's opinion?

Other sources that could possibly be used: the Skepdic Dictionary lists Ayurveda as an example of "pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims" website online version of paper book. The Skeptic, the journal of "Australian Skeptics" group, mentions it tangencially page 40, bottom half of middle column, and the same group listed two promoters of Ayurveda as valid reader-submitted nominees for their Bent Spoon Award (search "ayurveda" on the 2005 nominations and 2006 nominations) The Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking has an article mentioning Ayurveda while reviewing the pseudoscientific aspects of an article on alternative medicine. The National Council Against Health Fraud gives zero scientific legitimacy for Ayurveda, albeit all mentions are either cites of other authors or tangencial mentions. James Randi also criticized it on his newsletter (ok, Randi is neither a "body" nor a "group" :D ) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enric, thanks for gathering all those sources. For purposes of this list, my concern is that while there are quite a few of them, they don't appear to be the right kind. They (i.e., all the sources saying Ayurveda is PS) are all comments by individuals. Regarding CSICOP, while it's probably true that they wouldn't publish something that the editorial board violently disagreed with, the same is true regarding the Massachusetts Medical Society and NEJM. However, we don't assume that papers published in NEJM necessarily reflect the views of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and therefore we don't accept such sources for the first, "sci consensus" tier. Obviously (well, to most people), one author's opinion is not self-evidently the same thing as consensus of a scientific or skeptical group (it's maybe even kind of the opposite). The opinions of even prominent individuals do not suffice for meeting WP:PSCI; cf. Carroll's observation that Karl Popper called psychoanalysis pseuodscientific: WP:PSCI spefifically says that that topic should not be so characterized (and nor should any topic that is neither trivially obvious PS nor "generally considered PS by the sci community"). Putting a topic in category:pseudoscience or on this list, presently titled "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts", in fact amounts to characterizing a topic as PS. That is indisputable.

So, if we can't cite Popper in this particular case (i.e., saying a topic *is* pseudoscience), we can't cite some random dude writing for CSICOP either. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't necessarily use those sources elsewhere on WP: e.g., in a topic's own article, or in a list like this but with an appropriately qualified title, e.g. "List of alleged pseudosciences" or "List of fields or concepts that have been labeled as pseudosciences and pseudoscientific" or something. Do you see what I'm getting at? Under the WP:PSCI part of NPOV policy, we can't designate topics as pseudoscience without being able to hit a certain threshold of source, i.e. one showing general scientific agreement. (See also WP:RS#Consensus; NPOV and VER are completely intertwined.) This issue has been a point of contention for practically the lifetime of this article, despite WP's mission to present facts about opinions, not opinions as facts.

To be honest, I'm also pretty dubious that the "statements from skeptical groups" are really indicative of general scientific agreement. I've been willing to live with including them as a sort of metastable solution, i.e. one that's the least offensive to most editors, but I would have significant problems with loosening the inclusion criteria even more, e.g. by taking articles attributed to single authors as being the voice of the publishing org. I still think the best solution would be to either retitle the article as above, or have two articles and only keep the first section (and maybe the trivial examples, following the curious logic of WP:PSCI) here. However, experience shows that such proposals always degenerate into polarization and the forwarding of proposals even worse than what we have now. So I think the best thing is to hold the line and keep the inclusion criteria from getting much broader or narrower. regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, noes, not this again, please. That section is clearly labelled as "considered by skeptic groups" to clearly separate it from the part that has statements from scientific bodies and academies, there was already a RFC on splitting the list where all those arguments and some more were put forward. About why it's silly to dismiss the statements of skeptic groups when talking of pseudoscience, see my comment at the RFC. (as an example, search for the "Hongcheng Magic Liquid" entry, which only has a book by Sagan as source, as nobody on academia commented on it)

About WP:PSCI, it looks like a strawman in this case: Popper also called Marxism a pseudo-science for the same reasons as Psychology, and nobody argues to list marxism here (among other things because 1962's Popper's definition of pseudoscience differs a bit from 2008's CSICOP's definition). Also, you ought to show that Ayurveda has a "substantial following" on mainstream, so you can show that it's only "some critics" that are saying that it's pseudoscientific....

About using statements by individuals, you see, as far as I know, CSICOP doesn't have an editorial stance (apart from a very general list), so I can't really point you to a CSICOP-sanctioned statement. We will have to do with pointing at what articles they decide to publish on their official journal and newsletter, or pointing at statements by founding members like Randi or Sagan, unless you can think of a better way to decide it. Also, it's pretty clear to everyone that CSICOP considers pretty much all of alternative medicine to be pseudoscience, and ayurveda is an alternative medicine, so I don't think that this part is open to debate... unless you want to argue that CSICOP actually considers Ayurveda as serious science :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Oh noes"? I don't think you understood my statement: I said that while I had serious reservations about the skepticial society section being included in this list as currently titled, I'm cool with keeping it as a compromise, but not with expanding the inclusion criteria further to include statements by individuals.

The point with Popper is that statements by individuals don't suffice, per WP:PSCI (part of NPOV, not quite a strawman). It's pure original synthesis, not to mention utter absurdity, to argue that "hey, no one contradicted that guy, so his views must represent sci consensus". That's why this edit of yours is wrong in practically every respect possible (WP:UNDUE, WP:RS#Consensus, WP:SYN). We may have to go to article RfC over your fanciful attempt to redefine scientific consensus.

There's a very fundamental point you're just not grokking, Enric: verifiability, not truth. Sure, lots of scientifically-minded types think lots of things are bullshit, if they even consider them at all. Guess what? We don't say, "hey, no way CSICOP could possibly think Ayurveda is for real, let's put it on the pseudoscience list". There's this thing called WP:V that says we have to find a suitable source. And we follow NPOV, which includes WP:PSCI. Topics like Ayurveda (which, from a worldwide view, certainly have a substantial following) don't necessarily have to be assumed pseudoscientific until proven otherwise, or assumed scientific until proven otherwise. They don't have to be characterized as one or the other at all, unless we can find the proper source saying so. If you can't find that source, you don't "make do" with what you have just because you really want to list as many pseudosciences as possible: instead, you work those sources into WP where you can, in ways that are consistent with NPOV. regards, Jim Butler (t) 23:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The Hongcheng thing clearly belongs on a list like this, but we should tweak the inclusion criteria of that section to include statements by groups (like governmental organizations) that aren't official scientific bodies, but that do, like sci-skeptic groups that are composed of both scientists and laypeople, carry some weight of consensus. --Jim Butler (t) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I opened an article RFC below, as it seems the best course of action. I agree that statements by bodies like governamental organizations can be added.

About Ayurveda, I need to check other sources and tweak that entry, can't do right now. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the entry to "Maharashi's Ayurveda", as that's the most pseudoscientific part of it. I need to check some stuff, like a JAMA article destroying Maharashi's and Deepak's version of Ayurveda. It seems that Maharisihi's version of Ayurveda is probably different from what traditional ayurveda was, but I'm unsure on whether the Ayurveda being teached at India's medicine schools is based on Marasishi's version or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We should be careful about government statements, though: slippery slope, especially from dictatorships, or for that matter highly idealogical governments that have taken anti-science positions for political reasons (cough Bush administration cough). IMO, Hongcheng Magic Liquid falls under WP:PSCI's "obvious pseudoscience", so we don't have to worry about the specific source.

However, the Ayurveda entry, Maharishi or not, still lacks a source fitting the inclusion criteria of the section it is in, or indeed any section on the list; and more importantly, it lacks a source fitting either of the two categories permitted under WP:PSCI. That's a simple fact; the only thing to debate is whether to expand the list's inclusion criteria, or whether to include such information someplace else on WP in a way that doesn't violate WP:PSCI by "characterizing" them as pseudoscience, as inclusion on this list plainly does. Our discussion seems to be hung up on that point, as well as the RfC below, and to some extent the very existence of the skeptic-group section; so perhaps the next thing to do is ask ArbCom for a limited comment clarifying the relevant ruling, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. I think there's an avenue to do that, someplace... I'll try and find it. Let's discuss the wording before submitting it. (I thought you did a very nice, neutral, accurate job of presenting the issue in the RfC, btw. I just want to make sure we include all the relevant issues so we don't have to pester ArbCom more than once.)

A bit more re Ayurveda: (1) No, Maharishi's style isn't taught in Indian med schools, fwiw. (2) If we have a suitable source for "quantum" stuff, then whatever Chopra said might go under that. --Jim Butler (t) 09:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, government statements have to be taken in context.

Chopra is already under quantum mysticism, search for "Quantum Quackery" on the article. For CSICOP's position on Chopra, see . On the meeting of the American Physical Society, a panel was presented by CSICOP where he was talked about while explaining "some of the wackier attempts to misuse physics" .

For CSICOP's position on Maharishi's Ayur-veda, it seems that CSICOP centrates mostly on his TM and not on his ayurveda, see . However, it turns out that "Maharishi Ayur-Veda is a registered trademark for a line of TM products and services. Dr Chopra had been the sole stockholder, president, treasurer, and clerk of the company that sells Maharishi Ayur-Veda products". So, I'll be damned if skeptic groups like CSICOP don't consider it as clear pseudoscience, as it's owned by Chopra and thought out by Maharishi, and CSICOP considers the ideas of both of them as pseudoscience, even if there is not any "smoking gun" that I can point at. (And the Indian CSICOP published on "Indian Skeptic" two articles relating Maharishi Ayurveda with TM and Chopra respectively: "From Spiritual Sadhana to Maharishi Ayurveda: Transcendental Meditation Evolves" and "Deepak Chopra and Maharishi Ayurvedie Medicine"). And the list is about stuff that groups like CSICOP consider pseudoscience, while WP:PSCI is about what wikipedia should consider pseudoscience.

Traditional Ayurveda would not be considered pseudoscience, as I initially believed. For example, an article on Annals of Internal Medicine explicitely includes it on a different section (I need to tweak the entry again to reflect that and make what it makes reference to).

See also "The authors misrepresented Maharishi Ayur-Veda to JAMA as Ayurvedic medicine, the ancient, traditional health care system of India, rather than a trademark for a brand of products and services marketed since 1985 by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's complex network of research, educational, and commercial organizations." --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement in a nutshell (re: title a/o inclusion criteria)

(de-indent, continuing from above) Enric, I think this comment of yours sums up our disagreement:

"And the list is about stuff that groups like CSICOP consider pseudoscience, while WP:PSCI is about what wikipedia should consider pseudoscience."

Ah, but this list falls under Misplaced Pages's rules, and its title unambiguously states that the topics are pseudosciences, not that they are "considered pseudosciences (according to certain groups)". Do you see?

To clarify: If this list is about what groups like CSICOP, then it should have a title reflecting that, e.g. "List of topics considered pseudoscientific by skeptical organizations". Instead, it has the title "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts": in other words, its title explicitly says "this is what Misplaced Pages considers pseudoscience". The present inclusion criteria violate NPOV, which is why I intend to seek comment from the ArbCom.

For the last two years or so, we have had quite as few editors who believe their own views about pseudoscience, and not WP policy, should dictate what goes on the list. Some (not you) have tended to !vote with little or no explanation of their reasoning, and at least one editor, ScienceApologist (cf. below and recent edit history), has additionally engaged in varying degrees of incivility, WP:TE and edit warring to try and get his way. In a situation like this, there's only one thing we need: more cowbell! more WP:DR, specifically a limited ArbCom comment on how the relevant ruling, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, applies to this and perhaps a few related articles.

(Footnote re Ayurveda and CSICOP: I still don't see a group statement from CSICOP, but please correct me if I'm wrong.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 04:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Can we use individual staments to measure scientific consensus on pseudoscience

On the Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus, there is a dispute (see section above) on WP:NPOV/WP:PSCI interpretation and on what type of sources are sufficient to WP:V verify properly the "scientific consensus" on a topic. This part is undisputed:

The following have broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status. Indicative of this are assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science

And this other part was removed as a violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:RS#Consensus and WP:SYN (see section above):

or, in the case of non-notable concepts that have received no attention from those bodies and academies, and only then, the indicative can be that expert scientists have challenged the legitimacy of these ideas and no other expert scientists have contradicted them.

The question is, should we keep this text or remove it?

• keep there are topics notable enough to get an article, but not notable enough to get a statement by a scientific body declaring them pseudoscientific (and/or unscientific), so it's impossible to meet that level of verifiability. WP:PSCI does not require statements from scientific or governmental bodies, if there is a statement by a notable scientist of the field on a reliable source saying that it's pseudoscience, and no other notable scientists saying that it's not, then that should be enough. There is no requirement anywhere that sources for scientific consensus can't be from individual scientists. WP:RS#Consensus says, for example, that consensus can be determined from "independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion", and it just warns about using reliable sources for claims of "most scientists". The section of the policy has never required anything other than "a reliable source for the consensus" (or a version of that wording), see the creation of the section on December 2006, and versions of January 2007 and April 2008. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If we are talking about "non-notable concepts", how can there be scientific consensus? WP:N is the criterion for whether an article per se should exist, not whether it should be on a list. Non-notable things can be on the list, per WP:PSCI, but it seems to me that those would go under "obvious pseudoscience" rather than "generally considered pseudoscience" by the sci community. (The exception would be for obscure topics that belong to a an established pseudoscientific superset, e.g. perpetual motion machines, and our existing wording does cover that.) "Generally considered" requires a high threshold in terms of sourcing; "obvious" does not. You say "There is no requirement anywhere that sources for scientific consensus (or "most scientists") can't be from individual scientists" -- is there a V RS, anywhere, saying that they can or should, and when they should? Per WP:BURDEN, you need to provide one if you want to put single scientists alongside scientific academies. Otherwise there's a huge WP:UNDUE problem. Or we can just go with "obvious pseudoscience", which stuff like "Hongcheng liquid" obviously is, and put it under the "idiosyncratic" heading or something like that. regards, Jim Butler (t) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Enric's arguments. Statements that this is contrary to the ArbCom findings are incorrect, and it is misleading to say that we are taking one persons view and using it to represent consensus. Protestations that we should wait for the Royal Society or similar to declare something PS grossly misunderstand the nature of these organisations and are unreasonable demands that would damage the Misplaced Pages project. Verbal chat 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  Also Keep current name. There are no NPOV, V, or RS problems with the article content or the name. Renaming has been the subject of other RfCs, and has not gained consensus. Verbal chat 07:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  Also keep in current location. There are no NPOV, V, or RS problems with current placing or usage. Basically No Change. Verbal chat 20:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  Question You seem to have a novel notion of "scientific consensus": you're saying that somehow we can infer it from one scientist's stated opinion. Wow. One dude = consensus. That is amazing -- it's like that scientist must have superpowers or something, to be able to impose the sheer force of his will upon reality, thereby forging a sort of singular consensus. Hey, consensus means agreement, right? And no good scientist would disagree with himself! The implications are profound... so, um... got a source supporting your position? --Jim Butler (t) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  Isn't it obvious? Since all expert scientists are always objective and fully informed when talking about science, and there is only one, objective, scientific truth, a statement by a single expert scientist is of course enough. The qualifications ("non-notable concept", no contradiction) are only needed to prevent damage in case someone is not actually a real expert scientist. Sadly, that's not such a rare phenomenon, after all.

  More seriously, Verbal, there are plenty of brilliant scientists who are openly racist, antisemitic, antiislamic, etc. Would you trust their judgement about a somewhat dubious field that is tangential to their main area of expertise? What if we don't know anything about the expert scientists character? Scientists may stay away from a subject because they think it's not sufficiently promising, or because of funding problems. It's unfair to take this as prima facie evidence it is pseudoscience, and to lower the bar for applying this pejorative label so extremely. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  Maybe in this case "scientific consensus" is like a singularity or a unitary executive.  ;-) --Jim Butler (t) 07:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  Where have I said or supported the use of a single persons opinion to describe scientific consensus? Verbal chat 07:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  I think it was the part where you supported keeping the proposed wording, in the RfC, under the indicated section. --Jim Butler (t) 08:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  Note the plural: "scientists". Don't link to inappropriate and silly essays please, it's rude. A better link would be one where I say a single persons say so is allowed - which I haven't done. That isn't what the wording asks for. Scientists are multiple people, a scientist is a single person. m:Don't_be_dense indeed. I am therefore fully endorsing the view that Enric has given. There is another essay that might be relevant for you behaviour, Jim, but I'm too polite to link to it. Indeed, I specifically stated "it is misleading to say that we are taking one persons view and using it to represent consensus". Verbal chat 10:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  That sounds like a distinction without a difference: using two or three scientists (or five or fifty, if they're just signing a petition or something) to indicate "consensus" is just as ridiculous as using one. (Yes, such sources have weight; no, they shouldn't be used under the "consensus" header.) If some alt-med article wanted to cite a study involving a few self-selected patients, "skeptical" editors would nuke the source, and rightly so; yet those same editors are saying they want to use the same type of source here?? Seriously, the irony astounds me.

  So, I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position, but you did say you agreed with Enric's comment above (emphasis mine), which included the statement that "if there is a statement by a notable scientist of the field on a reliable source saying that it's pseudoscience, and no other notable scientists saying that it's not, then that should be enough." And above, you again said you are "fully endorsing" Enric's position, while in the next breath you contradict yourself and reiterate that "it is misleading to say that we are taking one persons view and using it to represent consensus". So maybe you'll excuse my confusion. Where do you and Enric agree, and where do you diverge? Maybe one scientist isn't consensus, but at what point when you add the second or third or tenth or whatever, does consensus emerge? How exactly does that work? What RS says things work that way? This reminds me of a quote on Eldereft's user page: "The plural of anecdote is confirmation bias".

  I'm not meaning to be a WP:DICK, but I do find it unhelpful when editors just state their opinion and don't explain their reasoning with detail or consistency. If I've misunderstood, let alone misrepresented, your position, my apologies; please assume I'm dense and explain specifically how WP policy supports your position, and why my interpretation is wrong. And again, please show us a source supporting your position regarding what constitutes "consensus we can believe in", so to speak. --Jim Butler (t) 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  I agree (more or less) with Jim Butler that this is what the RfC is about. You even seem to be endorsing Enric's clear statement: "There is no requirement anywhere that sources for scientific consensus can't be from individual scientists." The problem is that we can't rely on such statements to be interpreted reasonably. Do you remember the spiteful Nigerian quackery article, the abstract of which was for a long time our only source for claiming homeopathy to be pseudoscience? If that's not what you have in mind, you should be more careful about what you endorse.

  BTW, you may be wondering why I didn't comment elsewhere in this RfC. That's because while I think the current wording is no good, the question is complex and I am not sure what would be the best solution. (Short of removing everything non-notable from this list, that is. I am generally deletionist wrt lists and categories, and most of this article seems to be an excuse for labelling. I don't see why it's encyclopedic to list non-notable and borderline pseudosciences. But that's really an argument for merging into pseudoscience.) --Hans Adler (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  Hi Hans. I agree with you that the word of one person generally shouldn't be used (possible exceptions for people like Feynman, and perhaps the head of the RS, or similar, but those would need discussion). Jim has (AGF) misunderstood my comments and the original wording, and the RS policy, where it has always been plural; "from individual scientists" not "from a scientist". I think this distinction is important, but seems to have confused a few people. Verbal chat 10:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  The text we are discussing (the one in bold above) has "expert scientists" in a context that is already plural ("in the case of non-notable concepts"). Given the context (for non-notable pseudoscience it's hard enough to find even one expert; a history of label pushing related to pseudoscience; no details about the number of experts required) I don't think it's correct to read it the way you seem to be doing, and even if it was correct, many would misread it.

  Moreover, I can't find your statement about individual scientists in WP:RS. What I found instead under WP:RS#Consensus: "The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source." After reading the sentence in context I think it says even if there is unanimous agreement among all physics textbooks and all physicists (who talk about the topic) that things tend to fall down, saying there is a scientific consensus on the question still requires a RS that says there is such a consensus. (In this case I would say WP:IAR, but not in a contentious matter.) --Hans Adler (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There are some things that are clearly pseudoscience that the academies have not yet issued statements on. It would be disingenuous to not label these as pseudoscience just because the academies have better things to do. -Atmoz (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment We can do that under a different section than the "scientific consensus" one. WP:PSCI mentions two categories: "generally considered PS by the sci community" and "obvious pseudoscience". Isn't it more encyclopedic to be a bit more selective with the former? --Jim Butler (t) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Well formulated and necessary given the amount of pseudoscience cropping up on this wiki. Pcap ping 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but not in this section (and that's a compromise: personally I'd rather see this wording, and all the stuff outside of rigorously-sourced sci consensus statements, split into another article. Or, keep everything in this article and retitle it, per archived RfC.)

(see proposal below) On reflection, the particular sentence debated in this RfC sounds OK to include in the list as titled, but why don't we just stick it under the Idiosyncratic ideas section instead of the "scientific consensus" section? I agree with all the other editors who have commented so far that we should include the info on WP, but we shouldn't overreach: it cheapens scientific consensus to throw the term around casually and WP:SYN-ishly assume it exists. We can just go with WP:PSCI's "obvious pseudoscience" for topics that are obscure and flaky enough for just one major dude to have commented on, no? As I mentioned above, how can "scientific consensus" exist over obscure things, except for those that belong to a an established pseudoscientific superset, e.g. yet another perpetual motion machine?

However, if someone can produce an RS supporting the position that uncontradicted statements by notable scientists really can indicate a scientific consensus position on fringe topics, then sure, let's do it. (My objections, expressed in the section above, to expanding the inclusion criteria without changing the list's title apply to including sources like the one disputed for Ayurveda, i.e. individual, non-notable scientists writing for CSICOP, or any single source commenting on a notable topic, like chiropractic, etc.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 19:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Drop, or any alternative solution that solves the problem I will describe. It took some time for me to get an opinion about this, but by now I feel very strongly that we have no business diluting WP:RS#Consensus:

The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.

Consensus claims based on original research is exactly what we are discussing here; and in the context of a pejorative label, too. We are discussing the following argument, which is a clear case of WP:SYN: "A, B, C said X is the case. A, B, C are experts on the subject. No other experts contradicted them. Therefore A, B, C is scientific consensus." --Hans Adler (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Completely agree. I too am dubious about many aspects of this list, and while I'm open to compromises (cf. below), my own views are very close to yours. Couldn't have said it better. regards, Jim Butler (t) 02:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been listed on the Fringe theories noticeboard. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Drop: if these topics are truly non-notable then they should not be included in this article. If, on the other hand, they are notable then there should be demonstrable scientific consensus to deserve inclusion here. Individuals' opinions may well deserve mention on the topic's own page, but are not justification for inclusion here. hgilbert (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously these topics are notable in the sense of Misplaced Pages, since they all have articles. Notability in the field of science that is qualified to talk about them is an entirely different matter, though. I think something like the section "idiosyncratic ideas" really is in order here, but its introduction should explain (in guarded language!) the connection to the article's title. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean notable as examples of pseudoscience. If they are notable in this respect, sources (generally more than a single individual scientist) will have mentioned this connection. If they are not, they don't belong here (this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every topic in connection with which someone has used the term pseudoscience, or an equivalent!) hgilbert (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Hans Adler's and Hgilbert's comments in this thread. --Jim Butler (t) 09:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but word it less prescriptively. There will obviously be borderline situations, and it will depend on the degree of authority. DGG (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG - can you explain why you mean by "word it less prescriptively"? Also, would you be open to moving the wording to a different section, cf. below? thanks, Jim Butler (t) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I've suggested just above, under the preceding section, that if we can't resolve this RfC we may want to go to ArbCom. I think there's a particular, limited avenue for asking them to clarify a particular ruling, which in this case is WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. I'll try and find out how to do that; anyone else know? regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remove This list is of poor quality and would be best deleted. But while it exists, it should be held to a high standard and so the statement of a single person is not enough to establish such a POV. For one thing, who are "expert" in such cases? For example, consider faith healing. It doesn't seem to me that this is a science of any sort - it seems to be a practical art inspired by religious ideas. But who would be the experts on such a categorisation - philologists; philosophers; historians of science; theologians; etc? We need a broad consensus of such, not a narrow one, in order to make such a finding. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Per Colonel Warden. In general, a list of what some skeptic groups or persons have labeled "Pseudoscience" seems trivial. Further, as lists are subject to NPOV, the compilation of a list based solely on unconfirmed opinions seems a bit POV-forkish. We should keep the criteria high and - as per WP:PSCI - only include topics which are generally considered pseudoscience or an obvious pseudoscience. And in that case why have this when we already have Category:Pseudoscience? -- Levine2112 23:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Drop per Hans Adler. Unless there is a reliable source stating that consensus exists, we shouldn't be stating that one exists. DigitalC (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed alternative, re RfC above: keep the wording, different section

Proposal: include the disputed wording (italicized below) under the section Idiosyncratic ideas, in the spirit of WP:PSCI's "obvious pseudoscience":

• The following concepts have only a very small number of proponents, yet have become notable; or have enjoyed popularity as fads or otherwise received attention but have become discredited. An indication of this can be that one or more expert scientists have challenged the legitimacy of these ideas and no other expert scientists have contradicted them.

I think it makes sense to put the wording here, because the topics it covers should indeed be on the list, but by definition there will be no scientific consensus for non-notable topics. (The exception would be for topics that are just obvious variations on a theme in the first section, e.g. various kind of "creation science" which we include without an academy-level statement for each one: pseudoscience is indeed a many-headed hydra.) Thoughts? -Jim Butler (t) 08:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree per arguments in RfC above. Verbal chat 08:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean the part where you explain "There are no NPOV, V, or RS problems with current placing or usage"? Gee, thanks for clarifying. --Jim Butler (t) 08:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Snark aside, it would be helpful if you could explain the reasoning behind your opinions. It's very hard to pursue compromise without knowing why other editors agree or disagree. regards, Jim Butler (t) 02:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Basically, this proposal has the opposite effect of the previous one, so it's unlikely to work as a compromise. The relaxed consensus definition (which I reject) might have allowed us to move some topics from "Idiosyncratic ideas" to "Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus"; this proposal has the effect that a topic that is not even discussed by a single expert must be dropped from "Idiosyncratic ideas". I think that would be a good thing, since not being discussed at all is a good indication for not being noteworthy in this article. But I don't really care. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hans - Regarding the "Idiosyncratic" section, I didn't mean to suggest that we start excluding stuff like "Time Cube" that no scientific RS has deigned to comment upon. I just meant we might add some more stuff to that section. But anyway, I like Enric's idea below to have these things in their own section. And I absolutely, 100% agree that we should not relax the definition for scientific consensus; if we do that, we might as well quit pretending WP is an encyclopedia at all. (Ironically, I bet a large plurality of scientists and academics, if not a majority, already don't take WP very seriously. Wonder why.) --Jim Butler (t) 09:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hum, I don't like the idea of mixing it with "idiosyncratic ideas", but only because it seems to be a different thing. Maybe, as a compromise, we can make a separate section for "topics called pseudoscience by individual scientists (and not covered by neither scientific bodies nor skeptic groups)" or something --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, as long as we stick to relatively "obvious pseudosciences" per WP:PSCI and don't start including "questionable sciences", as I mentioned above under the RfC. (That simply means we wouldn't use Popper for psychoanalysis, or Andrew Weil for chiropractic, etc.: we'll have alter the wording somehow to be explicit about WP:PSCI's distinction from the start, or else we may see "criterion drift" as some editors start adding anything that a single scientist has commented on, despite WP:PSCI.) Otherwise, sure: since my other concern is that we not put it under the "sci consenus" section (or any section implying consensus by a group), it would be fine to put it in its own section. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 08:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I need to go down the list and pick a few examples, so we can discuss them --Enric Naval (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember this? -- This is a Solomon's Sword solution to the above morass

Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive_9#Counter_proposal? I do. The consensus is that a two-tiered system demarcating difference between "skeptical" organizations and "scientific societies" is not supported by reliable sources and is essentially an original synthesis attempt to demarcate between things that Wikiepdia cannot demarcate. We therefore combine the two sections as per the consensus seen in that section. I'm surprised that this wasn't done earlier. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. I haven't got the time to look at your edits in detail or to follow the link, because my little daughter is bothering me. Will try to do all that later. But did you consider the fact that there is also an obvious demarcation problem between "sceptical" and "pseudosceptical" organizations? --Hans Adler (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source which reliably demarcates anything being "pseudoskeptical". ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source which reliably lumps together sceptical organisations and scientific societies. Aren't they typically run by scientific laypeople? Doesn't their membership consist mostly of people who are at most school teachers of scientific subjects? Do they all occasionally accept that they got something wrong, or do some of them suffer from the same subjective infallibility that pseudoscientists do? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to impeach any source in the article, you may do so by asking WP:RSN if it is a good source for the article. Otherwise, I think we're done playing games here. Specific issues with the article only, please. General critiques such as the one you are attempting do not help. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I had the time to at least look at the article, and I can certainly return the compliment about "playing games". Your version gives statements by " skeptical groups" the authority (by association) of statements by scientific societies. That's completely unacceptable, since they are not even playing in the same league. Scientific societies become notable by having a lot of members who are scientists. Sceptical organisations become notable by doing good media work, so their notability is only indirectly correlated with their reliability. As a result of your edits we had the following structure:

List of sciences and pseudoscientific concepts (article title)

Topics which notable scientific or skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific (section title)

Hypnosis is actually not pseudoscientific itself, but it's often used in pseudoscientific contexts.

To make this clear: If you don't want a separate section about pseudosciences by scientific consensus, that's fine with me. Just put everything into the section for topics criticised by sceptical organisations. (I would be very surprised if the first category wasn't a proper subset of the second.) What is completely acceptable is giving fake authority to the entire second category by merging parts of the description of the first category into it. If you don't understand what I am talking about, think about the following:

List of things that are flat

List of things that scientists or notable works of literature consider to be flat

Earth is where we all live. Nowadays there is almost universal agreement that it is not flat, but many literary works, including…

Last time there was no consensus for your proposal, and your representing it as a compromise doesn't make a consensus, either. For some reason I don't think you would see removing all the misleading references to scientific bodies or scientific consensus as a compromise, so I have simply reverted. If I was wrong, please say so. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus for the proposal, no one has put forth any suggestions for what distinguishes a "skeptical" organization from a "scientific" organization and Misplaced Pages cannot be in the business of demarcating between the two. If you have a source which offers a demarcation between the two, show it. Otherwise, please stop being obstructionist. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(comment made subsequent to discussion below, and indented accordingly) I'd have in mind a different Solomonic solution: split the article into one with the current list and only the "consensus" section, and another with a list title such as "List of topics called pseudoscientific by skeptical groups". As things stand, you have not met WP:BURDEN: Hans is correct that you need to show that CSICOP has equal footing scientifically with the American Academies of Science. In terms of WP:PSCI, which is established NPOV policy: apart from "obvious pseudoscience" like flat-earthism, you need to show that statements by "skeptical groups" suffice to show that topics are "general considered pseudoscience" by the sci community. The burden is on you to show that you are meeting NPOV, not on others to show that you are not. No reasonable Wikipedian would agree that you can put whatever you want in the article unless others can find a source saying, e.g., "statements by scientific academies, "skeptical groups", Lyndon LaRouche and Bozo the Clown are not all the same". The WP:BURDEN is on you, SA, not those who disagree with the fanciful assertions of equivalence you wish to incorporate.

Also, please do not misrepresent the obvious fact that there has never been consensus for your proposal:

(1) it was discussed (largely by yourself), but that discussion hardly generated consensus (something like 4 in favor, 2 opposed). A glance at the edit history shows that your proposed merge was either never done or didn't last long, and the article has retained its present structure for months.. until your rash change now: which 4 editors have reverted and only one besides you has supported. Hardly the "consensus" you claim, and as a longtime Wikipedian you must be aware that this is so. Your false assertion of editorial consensus represents very poor Wikiquette, whether due to carelessness or disingenuousness.

(2) It is obvious from the RfC above that as of this writing, editors are evenly split on the closely related issue of whether to effectively "dilute" the consensus section by including statements from individual scientists in it.

SA, since you have, in less than 24 hours, managed to violate several standards of WP:DR, I would urge you to change course, and would strongly support an RfC/U regarding your conduct if you choose to continue as you have. --Jim Butler (t) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I read through the proposal and saw no consensus for it. This is a major and controversial edit which you are suggesting. Please let's open it up for community discussion before reverting again. Thanks. -- Levine2112 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

ALREADY HAPPENED AND NO ONE DISAGREED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 November 2008

...and said comment by ScienceApologist happens to be false. Please do not make false assertions regarding consensus. --Jim Butler (t) 05:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, if we are to keep the "Skeptics" section (which I am against), I think it is important to demarcate what is generally considered "pseudoscience" by the scientific community and what is only labeled as such by a skeptical organization or person. -- Levine2112 23:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that distinguish between a "skeptical organization" and a "scientific organization".

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by ScienceApologist removed. -- Levine2112 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted because, as usua,.

There is clearly a difference between scientific organizations and skeptical organizations, and no one would confute the two. It is appropriate to distinguish between two very distinct types of entities. It is not appropriate to attack other editors, even (especially?) in edit summaries; ad hominem arguments (read, WP:Personal attacks) are unacceptable here. Let's look at the current version; where are the problems? The advantages? hgilbert (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: 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." We may contain information to that effect. QuackGuru 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

QG, you are not helping by introducing additional complexity. So far it was only an edit war about the structure of the list. Now you have introduced another dimension. In any case I have asked for page protection at WP:ANI#List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. It's a pity that SA's edit behaviour (edit-warring instead of discussion) will probably be rewarded by protection on essentially his version, so that he can safely continue to not engage in reasonable dialogue. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you want to say with your quotation. It clearly says that, e.g., in the article psychoanalysis we may mention that critics say it is a pseudoscience. (FWIW, I agree with them, more or less.) It says nothing about whether we are allowed to put psychoanalysis in a "list of pseudosciences", although it seems clear that we break the spirit of the ruling if we do it without some kind of qualification. These questions have nothing to do with the original dispute here. Did you get confused because ScienceApologist moved things around? --Hans Adler (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The section title is Topics which notable scientific or skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific. This is attributed per WP:PSCI. QuackGuru 00:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation makes no sense to me. My point is that it is improper to have a list of topics criticised by sceptical organisations and to give the impression that they are criticised by scientific organisations. ScienceApologist's point is apparently that he proposed his changes 3 months ago and the people who disagreed with him at the time didn't use bold face – and that whoever disagrees with him is a POV pusher. What's your point? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) QG and Hans, it's simple: WP:PSCI was about when to categorize, or otherwise characterize, topics as pseudoscientific. Categorizing or characterizing a topic as pseudoscience on WP includes (cf. WP:CLS, WP:NPOVT#Categorization and other guidelines):

• Including a topic in category:pseudoscience or any of its subcategories
• Including a topic on a list with an unambigious, unqualified title such as this one (as opposed to a qualified title mentioning attribution, cf. what the POV-isnly titled List of cults now redirects to)
• Putting a "pseudoscience" infobox (or similar template) on an article
• Stating in the topic's article, without attribution, that the topic is pseudoscientific.

I'm 95% sure that I am correctly interpreting ArbCom's intention in WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE; that ruling was made in response to questions like these that I and other editors asked. Anyway, we can ask ArbCom to clarify that ruling vis-a-vis this article, and that should finally resolve our problems. regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't need a reliable source to say that one source is a scientific group and another is not. It's fairly clear that some of these sources are scientists, and some are nonscientific skeptical groups. I don't see why the two groups should be conflated. It seems like an attempt to avoid NPOV and confuse readers to some degree. II | (t - c) 09:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• While there is clearly a difference based on the URLs used, don't give the false impression that scientific skeptical groups are "nonscientific". The members are often top scientists and/or very much supporters of use of the scientific method, in contrast to alternative medicine's typical reliance on anecdotes and fringe OR by individual mavericks. They are totally allied with mainstream science, IOW on the same side. If not, we wouldn't be having this discussion. -- Fyslee / talk 15:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• These groups may be allied but no way in heck does that mean they're as authoritative, or that they're V RS's for sci consensus. It may feel kinda like they're about as reliable, but they're just not operating at the same level at all in terms of group membership (self-selected based on enthusiasm rather than invited by peers based on accomplishment, decision-making, etc. I mean, as scientists, we do grok these distinctions... right? --Jim Butler (t) 10:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I understand what you are saying, but I wasn't referring to that in any manner. I was only trying to point out how misleading it was to use the word "nonscientific" to refer to people who are often scientists themselves, and who are at least allied with science, in contrast to those who often aren't. That's all I was trying to say. -- Fyslee / talk 07:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I see that you were just commenting on the "unscientific" thing and nothing more. It's heating up a little in here and I wasn't reading you clearly. regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Support one list per my cogent and persuasive (IMHO) comments the last few times this came up. Separating this list like this does a disservice to our readers (remember them?) by decreasing the article's accessibility, and de facto the distinction made speaks more to notability of the theory than probability that any of these theories will ever be part of scientific discourse. Attribution is good, but artificial distinctions serve no good purpose. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eldereft -- If one list, can't we change the title, based on my earlier comments? And while I agree artificial distinctions are bad, there is a real and important distinction consensus statements on climate change alongside grouchy CSICOP rants about laundry balls, isn't there?

I understand your arguments, but I see a WP:NOTTRUTH caveat (i.e., we want to know, and not to think, what scientific consensus is). There is also a reliability problem with skeptical groups, who are generally self-selected based on enthusiasm for the group's goals. Hence the undue weight and WP:PSCI problems I mentioned (see un-indent, upthread): the title is unqualified and (if WP:PSCI means anything) restricts the contents to "obvious" and "generally considered" pseudoscience. At the same time, the inclusion criteria drift ever looser. Thus, if we follow Enric's approach, we'll be including less-reliable sources (like some random dude writing for CSICOP, dissing Ayurveda) who push the label too hard and venture into "questionable sciences" a/o "alternative theoretical formulations". See also Abuses of Skepticism, itself from csicop.org.

If we're going to do populate the list liberally, surely we should fix the title to something like "List of topics regarded as pseudosciences by various commentators" or something like that? In which case, I'd still argue for sequestration based on source, if we're gonna use sources that range from Academies of Science to compilations of Michael Shermer articles, which AFAIK represent a "consensus" of the editorial board that Shermer himself appointed. As Fyslee says, sure these guys are allies of science, but they're self-selected and operate outside the normally-accepted means of peer review, and thus are not nearly as V RS as the sci academies whose statements populate Scientific opinion on climate change and the like. Note also the "tiering" of sources on that list: would you eliminate that, too, as you propose doing here? Don't you think it's a greater disservice to the public to mislead them about scientific consensus, as opposed to breaking out some extra sections? regards, --Jim Butler (t) 10:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I definitely continue to believe that the title needs changing. It is the main cause of all the disputes we've had since this list started its existence. Why? Because it violates NPOV!!! No matter what anyone believes about the content, editors must not write content or titles that violate NPOV. Only article content that is sourced should make POV comments, and of course that's what (controversial) articles are filled with, and so it should be. Let's change the title and get past this hindrance to progress. We could then deal with content in a totally different manner. -- Fyslee / talk 07:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that title is fine, but it may give in to some problems with WP:TITLE. Michael Shermer is an excellent source for this particular topic (he is an expert) as are the other sources we list. The fact that they're "self-selected" seems a bit ridiculous. Sure, they are "self-selected", but it doesn't take a ridiculous amount of incredulity in order to distinguish science from pseudoscience. The television show Mythbusters would also suffice. We are not making claims of "scientific opinion" nor one on "scientific consensus" here (though they are related ideas), we instead are simply documenting claims of demarcation. All we need are sources that are acknowledged to have been relatively well-regarded for this task. Randi, Shermer, etc. are all well-regarded for this task by virtue of both their self-appointed natures and the high-regard with which they are viewed by scientists and other reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure we're making claims of "scientific opinion" here on WP. As soon as we use "category:pseudoscience" or "List of pseudosciences..." or a pseudoscience infobox, or otherwise characterize a topic as pseudoscience, we've invoked WP:PSCI and have to abide by it. That's the deal, till NPOV changes. And you say selection bias doesn't matter? That's pretty amusing. As for TV shows, great idea! How about Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, which identifies pseudoscience all the time.... e.g., ironically, when it took a pseudoscientific stance on global warming. Your arguments here are, sadly, no credit to science. --Jim Butler (t) 02:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I believe that we have to try to "get it right" and not mislead the reader. One skeptic's opinion doesn't represent any scientific consensus and we should be sure not to represent it as such. There is a large distinction (in the reliability of the sources) between an Academy of Science declaring a topic to be a pseudoscience and a skeptic society making such a declaration. I am not saying that all skeptic societies are unreliable. I am not saying this in any way, shape or form. I am saying that AoS are lightyears more reliable in terms of WP:RS. As such, if we are to maintain a list of items which have only been deemed "pseudoscientific" by a skeptic or a skeptic society, then we damn well should keep it separate from the "scientific consensus" list (either by sub-section in the same article or by a separate article). I personally don't think the that a list of things which skeptics feel are pseudoscientific is really all that notable or enyclopedic. I mean, do we have an article such as List of immoral acts according to religious organizations? I doubt it. Why? Because it seems kind of lame and POV-fork-ish. -- Levine2112 02:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, your recent stunt is completely unacceptable. You are simply ignoring my concerns, based on your personal fringe ideology that a Mythbusters show carries the same weight as an official statement by the American Physical Society? And then, per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, you revert twice in a row against a clear consensus that your change must be discussed first, and in the face of no apparent chance of an actual consensus for them? I am sure there must be a saying about people getting increasingly similar to their enemies. Perhaps someone can remind me what it is. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim Butler has mentioned an WP:RFC/U, but perhaps this poor behavior should simply be presented as evidence at the ongoing ArbCom? -- Levine2112 02:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, if ArbCom is really looking into the conduct of all parties. In just a few visits to this page, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has provided more than enough evidence to give pause to anyone who cares about WP:TE and WP:DR, e.g.:

• Making and acting on false statements that consensus exists (see above, will get diffs later);
• Twice violating WP:NPA in edit summaries:23:25, 26 November 2008, to Levine2112; 21:47, 29 November 2008, to myself;
• Reverting with an ES falsely saying I didn't reply on talk page (02:00, 30 November 2008. In fact, between the two reverts above (the NPA-violating ones), I made 10 substantive posts to this talk page, each addressing SA's concerns or closely related ones. SA, by contrast, made one short post that glossed or ignored most of my and others' preceding comments, and then claimed I wasn't engaging. Per Hans, this is very much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and certainly disruptive.

These are all disruptive behaviors that are careless at best and disingenuous at worst, and imo (in light of his past behavior) deserve community review and sanction. --Jim Butler (t) 04:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters and the American Physical Society are similarly endowed to deal with the pseudoscientific topic because, by definition, pseudoscience is not subject to peer review (unlike real science). I stand by my position that Jim Butler's acupuncture profession gives him an extreme WP:COI on this page and an incentive to make sure that ancupuncture does not get listed on this article. Likewise, Levine2112 is known for his advocacy of anti-mainstream medicine and pro-alternative medicine that makes his actions here obviously problematic and his banning from chiropractic is perfect evidence for this. Hans Adler is a misguided mathematics post-doc, judging from his bizarre levels of insistence at homeopathy and elsewhere. It is not a coincidence that a group of alternative medicine promoters (or de facto promoters) is trying to comandeer this page. Such people have the most to lose by having Misplaced Pages simply state the facts that their particular ideologies have been labeled by respected independent experts to be pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of COI, provide the evidence. It's gotta be more than just my being an acupuncturist. Hint: tendentious editing is a telltale sign, and lo and behold, that would be you. You haven't responded to the substance of any of my arguments, just ad hominem. You really think a proper response to Hans Adler is to call him a "misguided mathematics post-doc"? You are also ignoring the fact that four editors have reverted you while only one supported you. Nope, bad edits against consensus won't stick, so get used to that. have a better one, Jim Butler (t) 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as your "arguments" are concerned, they are essentially claims of unreliability of sources. Essentially, you are impeaching the authority of the people who provide substantive critiques of the types of advocacy that appear on your website, despite the fact that they are considered to be very reliable sources by people who are independent of the alt med industry. You and the other four alternative medicine proponents are trying to say that the position statements of scientific societies which are essentially authored by a few respected experts are somehow "different" than the position statements of another group of respected experts simply because they're affiliated with a different group or are (*gasp*) independent. Not a single one of you has offered an explanation for how one might reliable distinguish between "skeptical" sources and "scientific" sources besides just offering your own opinion about which is which. Specious reasoning does not an argument make and just because the reasonable editors are tired of dealing with your civil POV-pushing does not mean that we have a "consensus" for the imposition of your promotionalism. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't say CSICOP, Skeptics Society et. al. are unreliable and shouldn't be in WP; we can still use them in the right places. It's just that they're not nearly as reliable as Sci Academies, and don't meet WP:PSCI's criteria. I and other editors have offered extremely clear distinctions between the two types of sources, e.g. self-selection and lack of peer-review. You've offer nothing by way of rebuttal except your opinion and more ad hominem, neither of which is tainted by any semblance of a reliable source stating, e.g., that "Peoria Health Club" are just as weight-y a source as the Institute of Medicine. The burden is on you to provide that evidence, not other editors to accept whatever you say until we can refute it.

Consider: which type of source -- a Sci Academy, or a group of scientists and laypeople united by enthusiasm for advocacy -- would you trust on climate change, pandemic flu or intelligent design? Not all groups set up like CSICOP share CSICOP's philosophy, and it won't do to "gut check" them and see if they pass our subjective smell tests. We should use objective standards. If WP wants to be a real encyclopedia, we need to avoid muddling source quality, which in this case violates NPOV as well (undue weight, failure to meet threshold for showing sci consensus). --Jim Butler (t) 20:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, the implication that there are vaunted scientific academies and there are skeptical societies is an invention of pseudoscientific POV-pushers on this page. The claim is that "they're not nearly as reliable as Sci Academies": a claim that is simply asserted (like the existence of qi) and not shown through any evaluation of actually how "statements" by both groups are made. The fact is that both groups use the same techniques to declare certain subjects pseudoscientific because that is the level of argumentation required for such determinations. The fact is, there is no reason to dismiss medical doctors working out of Peoria any more than there is a reason to dismiss MDs working out of the Institute of Medicine. The evidence is simply that the two groups evaluate the claims in exactly the same way: by considering the evidence and making a publication of their conclusions.

The claim is that a "Sci Academy" is somehow different than a group of scientists united by enthusiasm for advocacy. Having read the minutes of plenty of NAS meetings, I can tell you that they are precisely the same thing. You are living in a fantasy world out of the eighteenth century if you think that "Sci Academies" are somehow the "holy-of-holies" for organizations. They aren't. They are simply groups making determinations with the best available evidence. When it comes to demarcating pseudoscience, they are just as good as CSICOP, or any of the other groups you denigrate because they make acupuncturists cry. The objective standards are when expert scientists consider them to be reliable sources for demarcation. As it is, the sources we list are considered by objective scientists to be reliable sources for demarcation. This includes CSICOP, the National Academies, and Quackwatch. The "muddling of source quality" is a problem. It's one being perpetuated by known POV-pushers who I have consistently named on this page. It's a tiresome argument and one that simply doesn't fly.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

SA, this has to be the most mind-blowingly off-base statement I've read on a talk page all year: "Look, the implication that there are vaunted scientific academies and there are skeptical societies is an invention of pseudoscientific POV-pushers on this page." Let me ask you, then, where are CSICOP and Quackwatch amidst all the weighty sources at Scientific opinion on climate change? Or List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design? They're absent, that's where they are. They're out back playing with their Legos while the grownups inside transact serious science. Dude, the burden is not on me to find some history of science book stating that no, these groups are not quite the same thing. Since you want to include the sources, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find a source affirming "CSICOP, the National Academies, and Quackwatch" are "considered by objective scientists to be reliable sources for demarcation." Frankly, that idea is so far out that I wouldn't be surprised to hear it coming from an "Intelligent Design" advocate shilling for his fake societies and journals. Wow, just wow. Definitely time to appeal to a higher power. --Jim Butler (t) 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Total and complete red herring. It's neither QW's nor CSICOP's stated goal nor role to comment on climate change or intelligent design. However, that doesn't mean they aren't representative of scientific consensus. They are. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reminded the above editor on his talk page that we should be discussing topics, not editors, here. Let's focus on the issues. hgilbert (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the biggest issues here is the synergistic POV-pushing coming from disparate alternative medicine/pseudoscience believers. This needs to be stopped and the only way to do it is to bring in new eyes and faces. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR for ScienceApologist

I've posted to WP:AN3 and notified our friend on his talk page. --Jim Butler (t) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed request for clarification with ArbCom

Following up on comments I've made above (e.g.diff; subsection above): Here is the apparent venue for asking for ArbCom's clarification on how a prior ruling (in this case, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE) would affect present disputes regarding this list:

• WP:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests.

I will propose wording here and we can file it after others have had input. I ask that we all show good faith and a collaborative spirit and refrain from filing the request until we've all commented and there is agreement that we are framing the dispute(s) in a neutral manner. Thanks, Jim Butler (t) 05:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get a straight answer from ArbCom on this. It's a question about ranking sources, and Kirill recently declined (in the Cold Fusion case) to even make a general statement about ranking scientific sources: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Workshop#Reliability_of_scientific_sources. Pcap ping 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Sources are important, but secondary to WP:PSCI and highly circumscribed by same. Here is how I'd planned to frame the issue: in terms of WP:PSCI, asking that ArbCom clarify that it not just apply to category:pseudoscience, but to any unambiguous characterization of a topic as pseudoscience (e.g., this list as presently titled; use of a pseudoscience infobox etc.). (WP:PSCI does invoke sources when it mentions "Generally considered pseudoscience by the sci community", and ArbCom shouldn't need to expend too much brainpower in agreeing or disagreeing with the arguments editors have presented here, I think.) Que será... --Jim Butler (t) 21:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Offensive WP:POT nonsense included in your formulation, Jim. Arbcom does not rule on content and they will not rule on content in this case either. You can file a query at WP:AE to confirm this. The pseudoscience ruling applied solely to a general principle of categorization. That's it. Arbcom does not rule on content. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Categorization" and "characterization" apply to lists and series boxes, not just categories; and sourcing matters when we say anything is "generally considered pseudoscience". Call that content or whatever; it still was and is under ArbCom purview. --Jim Butler (t) 09:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I guarantee you that argument will not fly. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Mass removal of "Category:Alternative medicine" from most articles

I have started an RfC: RfC: Mass removal of "Category:Alternative medicine" from most articles. Please comment on this important subject. -- Fyslee / talk 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying with this to everywhere Fyslee has put this request, though you are of course welcome to comment on what he's created. I need to write where he has put this because the title of this thing, started without Fyslee bothering to talk to me about it at all on my talk page, is inaccurate because as I would have told him if he asked, all I'm doing is moving things into the subcategories, (where they should be) which are still in the category. The reason I'm doing this is because at the top of the page it says (the bolding is the page's, not mine, and it's also in a red box This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories. So I did what it said. Controversial and shocking "mass deletion" eh?:):):):):) Sticky Parkin 14:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

New list

Announcing a new list:

• List of alternative medicine subjects

-- Fyslee / talk 08:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good list and we would do well to implement something similar here. Many of the individual statements about pseudoscience can be included separately at pseudoscience in article rather than list form. I'm very amenable to this. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but the list is not for commentary. Its only inclusion/exclusion criteria is that the wikilinks must be to articles that are in the Category:Alternative medicine, which is a very objectively verifiable and non-POV criteria. In fact, if someone finds a wikilink they think shouldn't be in the category, the list is not the place to discuss it. That discussion should occur at the Category talk page. So far the only objections have been to a legitimate use of the See also section by a prominent pseudoskeptic, who immediately after his block has returned with a vengeance to his usual anti-skeptical activities. (Oddly enough, he claims to be a skeptic. Go figure.) -- Fyslee / talk 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tags

There doesn't exist an appropriate tag that says "This article has been commandeered by people who want to impose a novel hierarchy of sources as a basis for exclusion of reliable, well-vetted content". So I tagged it for COI and NOR concerns. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which does indeed bring up an interesting problem that has plagued (besides the non-POV title) this list since its creation. We have an odd situation that editors have created their own (thus violating OR, NPOV, V and RS) sourcing policy that they use to raise the bar for inclusion, which excludes the use of what Misplaced Pages considers V & RS. This is counter to Misplaced Pages's own inclusion criteria. Such a grave and deeply rooted violation of so many policies would normally warrant an AfD, but that might be exactly what is desired by editors who find their favorite methods being criticized, therefore an AfD must not happen. Such policy violations must not be allowed to be used to delete an article or list. You have already named some of the editors, and at least one of them is an expert at civil POV pushing and constant moving of goalposts. No matter what policy justifies inclusion, you will find this editor always appears with a new twist or reinterpretation that moves the goalposts, all designed to keep anything related to chiropractic out of the list. This applies even to fundamental aspects of the profession that are widely recognized by major chiropractic authors to be problematic and pseudoscientific. The history of this editor's actions here show a clear intent, which is nothing short of preventing that the word chiropractic never be mentioned on this list, nor any article that includes the word. It's pretty unwikipedian behavior. No, we need to stick to the obvious interpretation of V & RS policies, which are wide, and not narrowly defined so as to allow only sources approved by one POV. -- Fyslee / talk 17:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a higher bar of evidence for categorizing (or listing) a topic, and this justifiably; otherwise, evolution could be categorized as pseudoscience (I can provide sources). This would obviously be ridiculous. To categorize (or list in this article) chiropractic medicine as pseudoscience would be a tendentious and highly disputed categorization, and this is what the WP:Category standards urge us to avoid: "If the nature of something is in dispute (e.g., if an event is considered a war crime), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed." hgilbert (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I completely agree with you, but I happen to be referring to something quite different here. I'm talking about sourcing in its relation to the title of this article, which may not be clear, since my other recent comment is further up on this page. While I had that in mind, I didn't make it clear to you. Sorry about that. Here it is: "I definitely continue to believe that the title needs changing. It is the main cause of all the disputes we've had since this list started its existence. Why? Because it violates NPOV!!! No matter what anyone believes about the content, editors must not write content or titles that violate NPOV. Only article content that is sourced should make POV comments, and of course that's what (controversial) articles are filled with, and so it should be. Let's change the title and get past this hindrance to progress. We could then deal with content in a totally different manner."

If the title were written in an NPOV manner, then Misplaced Pages itself would not be "categorizing" the subjects as pseudoscience. But right now that's what is happening. It is not the sources that are saying it (there are plenty of them), it is Misplaced Pages itself that is doing it, and that's not proper. Misplaced Pages must only report what the sources say, and the sources are making the claims, and the title should reflect that fact. We need a title that says something like "List of concepts which are claimed to be pseudoscientific". Then the lead would state that and add that we are presenting the statements of authors who make such claims in V & RS. IOW, WE are just reporting them, WE are not stating as Misplaced Pages editors that the concepts actually ARE pseudoscientific (even though we might believe that to be the case). We are just following the sources, and doing what we always do in any article. WE are not taking sides. Misplaced Pages is not taking sides. NPOV policy is thus upheld, and we just follow the rules for sourcing any subject. We cover all POV in this world as reported in V & RS, and editors have no right to exclude those sourced statements by creating their own V & RS rules that are at variance with the official ones here. I hope that clarifies things a bit. -- Fyslee / talk 20:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How about List of concepts labeled as pseudoscientific? But what's the point of including the "labeled as"? By definition something is "pseudoscientific" when it is labeled by reliable people (that's the best we can do anyway). It's like saying List of claimed psychic abilities instead of list of psychic abilities. The arbcom has actually stated that we do not need to qualify "cultural artifacts" and pseudoscience itself is such a cultural artifact like "psychic" or "ghost". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at what List of cults redirects to. What do you think was the logic for that move? Please see subection above when I explain the problem here: the unambiguous title, along with the ever-relaxing inclusion criteria, violate WP:PSCI. Same problem as "Category:Pseudoscience", which was a major NPOV problem till ArbCom weighed in and said that "reliable people", like Popper on psychoanalysis or Andrew Weil on chiropractric, can be cited but but don't meet the stringent standards for categorizing or characterizing a topic as PS. --Jim Butler (t) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That title is reasonable. Just because something has been labeled pseudoscience doesn't mean that "it is pseudoscience". As Hgilbert said he could get reliable sources stating evolution is pseudoscience. Similarly, I could come up with reliable sources saying that economics is pseudoscience. Similarly, one of the examples on here, technical analysis, is disputed among economists, and the efficient markets hypothesis has come under substantial attack. For example, a review concludes that 56/95 of the studies found technical analysis increases returns. One of my favorite authors once said that "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function". Of course, there's not really two opposed ideas here -- there's simply the one idea that academic disagreement exists. You seem to regard that as a near impossibility. Scientific disagreement is certainly less common than agreement. Whether that's because scientists are completely objective, perfectly informed observers who change on a dime when the weight of evidence shifts, or because of some form of groupthink, is another big question. II | (t - c) 23:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I too think that List of concepts labeled as pseudoscientific is a reasonable title. It conforms to NPOV, it isn't too long or cumbersome, and it makes it clear that Misplaced Pages isn't taking a stance on the issue. It also solves our eternal conundrum of having well-sourced subjects that appear to be categorized by Misplaced Pages as pseudoscience, but which don't fit the PSCI ArbCom conditions for such categorizing. We shouldn't be doing that, but we should allow readers to read the POV of authors who do so in V & RS, and then to judge for themselves. That is our foremost job - providing sources that inform people, not force them.

BTW, Aristotle is credited with a similar quote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I find that the ability to understand opposing POV is most profitable and conducive to learning and discourse. -- Fyslee / talk 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This appears to offer a real solution to the perennial problems of this page. Cautiously: can we find agreement around a name change to the above, or something similar? Less cautiously: Great suggestion, Fyslee. hgilbert (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Wasn't it ScienceApologist's suggestion? II | (t - c) 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change it. We can open another RfC on this issue if we really need to, but the last one back in January petered out with no consensus. While I find the preceding arguments well-reasoned, I do not find them compelling. To add to the strawperson arguments running rampant on this page, as well have a List of alleged sportscars - people can argue the inclusion criteria, but the preponderance of the most reliable sources state the same thing.

As for the purported title of this section, WP:ADVOCACY might be of interest. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, I seriously don't understand your comment here. It contains several elements that are either sarcastic or something else, maybe something between the lines? Let's make sure we at least understand each other. I for one am not in doubt that most of the subjects we list here are in fact really and truly bona finde genuine pseudoscienctific subjects. I hope I make myself clear with a bit of hyperbole ;-) But what you, I, and other's believe is not what counts here. What counts is whether the same opinions by many authors of various types deserve to be kept out of or included here. Our V & RS policies say include them, but with the current title, NPOV and WP:PSCI dictate that we only include a small handfuld, and must not even mention anything else. That would be a shame, since in the real world many more subjects are considered pseudoscience by scientists of all stripes, including some pretty notable ones. By changing the title we will satisfy the V & RS requirements AND the demands of NPOV and PSCI, and we will be able to include short mention of far more subjects because we are not categorizing them as pseudoscience. No, it is the authors who are doing so, and we are providing the V & RS which say so. -- Fyslee / talk 06:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eldereft --

• (1) is a CSICOP article a reliable source to show that a topic is "generally considered pseudoscience" by the sci community?
• (2) Note the "tiering" of sources at Scientific opinion on climate change. Would you eliminate that, as you propose doing here? Why/why not?
• (3) WP:PSCI is about when to "categorize" and "characterize" topics as PS: that is, when to just say "X is pseudoscience" (by virtue of X being on an unambiguously-titled list or category or whatever). The present title violates NPOV, unless you're willing affirm #1 above and welcome these motley little skeptic groups into the ivory tower along with the big cats. Maybe we should just say that all that peer-review stuff doesn't matter, and some dude writing for CSICOP gets to form the basis of a wanna-be respectable encyclopedia. Not quite the approach I had in mind, but if you think that's scientifically rigorous, that's your right. --Jim Butler (t) 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

II: Yes, it was SA's sarcastic suggestion.

Eldereft: I really think we should have an RfC on the title matter, since it is the cause of most of the conflicts here. This battleground needs to get "demined". We have identified the biggest mine of all, and it would be quite negligent to not remove it.

Jim, please be careful with your wording. It borders on baiting. As to tiering of sources, I am not totally opposed to keeping it in some form, although it is a form of editorializing which I feel violates our policies. An alternative would be to clearly attribute all sources and let readers decide how much weight to give each source. That's not really our job. If we do it properly, we won't even be categorizing a single entry, and thus PSCI won't even come into play. We will just let the sources speak.

If we stick to a strict PSCI-supportable form of tiering, we will constantly have edit wars because someone will claim we are improperly categorizing some of the items as pseudoscientific. We can get away from that pitfall by just letting the authors speak. In fact, every author who will be quoted will be doing that for every item included. It really makes no difference who says it, whether a notable skeptic or a whole scientific body. That is the whole idea of following the sources. WE aren't categorizing anything. We are letting the sources do it.

OTOH, in some specific articles, the weight of sourced evidence will be so strong as to categorize the entire subject of the article as pseudoscientific, according to the rules laid down in PSCI. That would also be fine. You have always fought a noble fight for strictly following those guidelines, and I'm sure you will just as nobly allow such categorizing when it is proper to do so. Actually, we don't have to do that at all in this article, unless we choose to "bring back" (after first establishing it in an article) the sources and evidence to properly categorize a few items. That can only be done after it has been well-established and stabilized in the respective article. That would mean having a short section which documents the clearly pseudoscientific nature of certain subjects, and where we categorize them as such. Then the rest and much larger portion of the article would contain a list similar to what we have now, but with clear attribution so readers can make up their own minds as to how much weight to give the authors.-- Fyslee / talk 06:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, no intent to bait, unless you count some sarcasm above to Verbal that I then clarified. Since an RfC is likely to end up inconclusive again, I suggest taking this straight to ArbCom as mentioned above. If ArbCom blows us off, though, then RfC is the only thing to try. regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Re WP:PSCI guidelines, sure, those won't change. If we have a list with a suitably NPOV-ish title ("List of purported..." or whatever), I think it would be fine to include "questionable science" and even "alternative theoretical formulations" on such a list, as long as we had a good V RS making the case for pseudo. I'd still probably argue for tiering of sources, since putting Robert Todd Carroll alongside the Royal Society just really yanks my WP:UNDUE chain. At the very least, I'd be for clear annotation: who argues what and why, and a mention of any sig views opposing the label. regards, Jim Butler (t) 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Given the mixed opinions here, I also doubt a RfC will do that much good, but at least it will show the weight of the sides. Eldereft and SA should be willing to bow to a weighty consensus, in the unlikely chance that it appears. I was also surprised by Eldereft's comments, which I found uncharacteristically uncivil and lacking in good faith -- implying that we're all pseudoscience advocates and that he, of course, has no agenda. The truth is that anyone can point fingers and say someone is an "advocate". One might say that Eldereft and SA are trying to "right a wrong" by drumming into the whole encyclopedia the idea that pseudoscience is pseudoscience. The truth is that it's not Misplaced Pages's place to right that wrong and call people idiots for believing in pseudoscience, or to completely wipe the proponents' positions, or to exaggerate Skeptic magazine's reliability as a scientific source. Michael Shermer has a PhD in the history of science. He is not a scientist. Not that long ago he was a global warming skeptic. Incidentally, I would support one list if the article title was renamed and the section title was appropriate. So, the above article title, and a section title of "According to scientific or skeptical groups". II | (t - c) 10:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that the criteria for a list are not different than those for a category, according to WP:Categorization. So we should only be including in this article (as titled) subjects that could be categorized as pseudoscience, and this requires far more than being able to cite one source that supports this view. hgilbert (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ach, my apologies Fyslee - the only sarcasm intended in my preceding comment was in reference to how quickly this thread had veered off topic. The List of alleged sportscars was a strawperson argument (easily dismantled since the situations are not precisely comparable, though I had hoped that it might illustrate my point that qualifying the title with alleged is not needed), as are many of the points mooted to this talkpage. ImperfectlyInformed, I am unclear on the rest of your comment - would you please clarify if I have not addressed anything important?

As for the skeptical groups, I think that the key point is that they are commenting on pseudoscience ... and, well, we can keep going around with this, but I can live with the status quo until a nice solid consensus develops. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to blow everyone's mind and suggest that we just delete this article outright. What purpose does it serve really? In terms of labelling something as a pseudoscience, all of the items which are either obvious pseudosciences or generally considered pseudoscience are so categorized in their respective articles. Category:Pseudoscience therefore takes care the first and perhaps only encyclopedic portion of this article (Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus). As for the second portion (Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific), the opinions of these groups can be dealt with in their respective articles. In fact, if we read Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we can see that it does just that. And finally, the third, fourth and fifth parts of this article ("Parody pseudoscience", "Idiosyncratic ideas", and "Previously disputed unusual natural phenomena"), those too can be dealt with at the individual article level. Perhaps we can create a category for "Parody pseudoscience" which can include Intelligent falling, etc.

Again, what purpose does this list article serve which isn't (or can't be) satisfied at the category and topic article level? One less battleground article like this which really serves no good purpose may be the best thing for Misplaced Pages. That said, if there is a good purpose which this article serves, please spell it out for me. -- Levine2112 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always had certain reservations about the article, but WP:SNOWBALL as far as trying to AfD it goes.... and it's way too warm in here anyway.... regards, Jim Butler (t) 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, I'll admit I was wandering, but I suppose I can summarize my thoughts with an analogy: agnosticism vrs atheism. I've always called myself an agnostic, because I don't know that some sort of God doesn't exist. The vast majority of the articles in this article appear to be obvious pseudoscience. Yet others are actually disputed in academia, or at least phrased to include these things (I pointed out the technical analysis example). The lead of the article itself states that some of these are disputed. Even for some of the cranky ideas, none of us knows for certain. To call everything in this list flatly pseudoscience is less accurate than to say that these things have been classified as pseudoscience by reliable sources. Further, as Fyslee pointed out, it is not Misplaced Pages's job to classify things as pseudoscience as if that is the absolute truth. Also, why did you point to WP:ADVOCACY? Was that not intended to be veiled hint that you regard those who disagree with you as pseudoscience advocates?

If this article were to be retitled, it would become more broad. The article itself states that hypnosis is real, and I know personally that it is used by professional psychologists/psychiatrists. If it is real, then does it even belong in the article as it is titled? Not really. But it has been labeled as pseudoscientific, perhaps justly given its pop culture applications, and that's why it is in the article. II | (t - c) 06:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

dear wikipedia, a colleague told me about this article and asked for my input. i think this is better.

a colleague at columbia university told me about this page. i am a scientist who teaches hundreds of students each semester who use wikipedia. two of my lectures are devoted to pseudoscience and i tell them about the service that skeptics provide. skeptics perform service that the scientific community itself is unable to provide. they show what practices in the general population are pseudoscience that scientists may not yet have examined. the colleague explained that some members of the public editing here think that skeptics are not as reliable as scientific societies. as a professor of physics, i say this is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.168.240 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to WP, and thanks for your input. As you may have surmised, debate over this list is ongoing. Editors are split over whether sci academy and skeptics groups should be combined. Some of those who believe they should not be combined have graduate degrees in science a/o medicine, so it's not as if the unwashed hordes are grappling with the scientifically literate or something. ;-) At issue here is not just editorial opinion, but particular aspects of WP policy. Hopefully, this will all be cleared up soon. regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you are certainly right about the sceptics performing a service for the scientific community. Misplaced Pages does in fact have a problem with all kinds of pseudoscientists trying to push their opinions into articles. This conflicts with our neutral point of view policy, and for this important special case there is a fringe theories guideline.

On the other hand, Misplaced Pages also has a problem with a small number of scientists who are trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you look at pseudoscience related Encyclopedia Britannica articles, e.g. on homeopathy or perpetual motion, you will see that they have been written with the typical attitude of a scientist who, having been forced to look closer at crap, develops a certain degree of interest in, and sympathy with, his "field of research". Many Misplaced Pages articles on such subjects, on the other hand, have long passages in which at least every second sentence makes it absolutely clear what to think of the topic (i.e. nothing); sometimes such passages coexist with uncontradicted passages making pseudoscientific claims. In some cases such articles are rather long, but omit important concepts or distinctions within the subject, or oversimplify certain aspects inappropriately.

A well written encyclopedia article on such a topic makes it clear from the beginning, but without saying it explicitly (mainly for pedagogical reasons), that it deals with pseudoscience or fringe science. But overall, it must not read like a "debunking" article, because the primary purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give concise information about its subject, not to determine its value.

I believe the problem comes from scientists who are unable to make allowance for their own outgroup homogeneity bias. It may help you understand the conflict on this page if you ask yourself whether it was started by such an editor. If you read ScienceApologist's talk page contributions above critically, you will see that he proposed this change in August but gave up after a while. Now he suddenly came back here, claiming that there had been an earlier consensus for his changes. When other editors contradicted him and tried to engage him in discussion about the merits of his proposal, he avoided that; instead he attacked everybody who disagreed with him. He is currently blocked from editing for exactly the same pattern of disruptive behaviour on our fringe theories guideline.

Another important bit of information is that the (ideal) standards of Misplaced Pages are different from those in science; in some respects lower, and in some respects higher. There are sociological constraints that make this necessary. For instance, while it is perfectly reasonable and OK for Misplaced Pages editors to decide that there is a scientific consensus about Welteislehre, and to treat the topic accordingly (see the essay WP:Scientific consensus), Misplaced Pages has a much higher standard for saying explicitly in the article that there is such a consensus (see section Consensus in the reliable sources guideline). The distinction is one between editorial discretion and more or less explicit article content. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

Along with the OP, who is my advisor, I was asked to comment on this article. I am his teaching assisant.

I read that many commenting think that pseudosciences have not been dealt a fair hand. Unfortunately, pseudoscience has been documented to kill people every day. I concur with his judgement.

The Misplaced Pages Writers who are writing here are saying that the statements of groups such as the Skeptical Society, of which I am not a member, are different from Sigma Xi, of which I am a member. In fact, the two groups publish equally good evaluations of pseudoscience. The Skeptical Society is normally a better source because the writers are more familiar with pseudoscience than Sigma Xi.

When we learned that Misplaced Pages was being used to promote a difference between the two groups and we learned that the people who were saying this were acupuncurists and chiropractors we both agreed that this is a problem. I have some friends over in the medical school that I am going to ask to comment here too.

Sincerely,

Danielle Anderson, biophysics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.170.16 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 December 2008

To whom it may concern,

I am a graduate student in astronomy. I teach a lab class on pseudoscience. I support the idea of not splitting the list. ScienceApologist made a presentation on "Pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages" for us and mentioned that chiropractors and acupuncturists were saying that skeptics were not as reliable as scientists. I disagree. The Amazing Randi was used by Nature to show that homeopathy was pseudoscience. If skeptics are good enough for Nature, why are they considered not as good for Misplaced Pages?

He showed us the VCS for Misplaced Pages and showed us the accounts that were insisting on splitting and deleting skeptics as sources. If Misplaced Pages lets homeopath and acupuncture and chiropractor "doctors" write the article, I think you should get more scientists.

Sincerely,

Andrea Lawson (talk)

Hi Andrea and Danielle, welcome to WP. Randi was a co-author on a peer-reviewed paper in Nature, but that doesn't mean that everything else he writes should be assumed to be as reliable as his Nature paper. Please avoid ad hominem arguments: the fact that I'm an acupuncturist doesn't automatically mean I have a conflict of interest here, nor does it negate my scientific literacy (M.A., chemistry, Harvard '89) or my knowledge of WP policy. The latter is quite specific regarding matters discussed here, both in terms of demarcation and sourcing.... if you stick around you'll want to check those out, e.g. verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and particularly the policy on when to call things pseudoscience.

Also, be careful what you wish for... you might start reaping the bitter fruits of false equivalence. If we start saying that advocacy groups are on par with scientific academies, that could lead to some pretty un-scientific articles. At least two prominent self-styled "skeptics", who argue against creationism and quackery and all that, were also "global warming skeptics" for a long time after explicit sci consensus had emerged on the issue. Indeed, a hallmark of pseudoscientists is to create their own fake groups and publications. Just because the skeptics do the same, to a generally pro-science end, does not justify the means when we're trying to build a solid reference work.

I'm not saying that skeptical groups aren't useful or that they shouldn't be used on WP. Not at all. I'm just saying that we shouldn't overreach. Go ahead and cite them, I agree, but weight them properly. Let's not cite them as being on par as the most distinguished gatherings of scientists on the planet, and let's not state or imply (via the list's title or whatever) that their opinions are synonymous with sci consensus. regards, Jim Butler (t) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Page semi-protection

Because of the recent influx of anonymous editors who seem intent on joining into the edit war on this page, I have semi-protected it for 2 weeks. This means that any established editors (who have named accounts and a few edits in their history) are still able to edit the page, but anonymous editors are limited to the talkpage, where they are welcome (and encouraged) to participate in discussions. I also strongly encourage everyone to work through the steps of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, towards finding a compromise that keeps the list in adherence with Misplaced Pages policies, and is also agreeable to editors who are working on the page. Administrators are watching this page now, and will take a dim view of any other revert-warring.

Please keep in mind that since pseudoscience topics are some of the more controversial ones on Misplaced Pages, that the Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee has authorized administrators to place additional restrictions on articles in this topic area, as needed to protect the project. Additional information on this is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. Right now, aside from page protection, no additional restrictions are in place on this "List of pseudosciences" article, though if there is further disruption, additional restrictions are an option. So please, try to take things slowly, listen to what other editors are saying, and work hard to treat everyone with respect and good faith, and then we won't need any other administrative actions here. :) Good luck, --Elonka 23:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Melanin Theory

I came across this article today and found a strong reference for labelling it a "pseudoscientific theory" per WP:PSCI. The citation comes from the New York Academy of Science; as such, I added Melanin Theory to uppermost portion of our list article: Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus. Open to discussion if anyone disagrees with the addition. -- Levine2112 02:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Good find (though unfortunate this stuff even exists). This is the sort of thing I'd call a "poster child" for pseudoscience. regards, Jim Butler (t) 08:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. On a related note, what does this mean for the Scientific racism entry? It is currently under List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts/Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific/Health and Medicine. Most of the actual article treats the history of the topic as a superseded scientific theory, so I am actually not sure. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sub-topics of creationism

I have deleted historical errors (a scriptural authority is said to have presciently included later scientific discoveries), which are not in themselves pseudosciences. I have also fact-tagged a few sub-topics, but these may be included in the references for the general topic, in which case these fact tags should be deleted. Can someone check this out? hgilbert (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been addressed; thanks! hgilbert (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC on organization

Template:RFCsci

Outside editors who wish to render reasoned opinions but avoid slogging through the bickering from the usual suspects (my own calm and impeccable rhetoric notwithstanding), here is a shiny new section for the express purpose. Regular editors here (broadly construed), please minimize your comments to #Outside opinions.

I intend to revert to this version above the objections of editors associated with alternative medicine. I understand their desire to try to distinguish between "scientific societies" and "skpetical societies", but the fact is that there isn't a reliable source which does this. Until such a source is found, any attempt to categorize a particular group as one or the other is essentially original research and is not allowed.

I expect the following editors of this page to object to this declaration:

• User:Jim Butler
• User:Levine2112
• User:Hgilbert
• User:Hans Adler

Aside from having offered no response to the above argument, these users are all heavily involved in the promotion of particular varieties of pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages and therefore we must not take their agreement to be a form of "consensus blocking" that was issued on the talk page last month.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

Not only was there no consensus for that version in the first place, I remind you that the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide an RS showing that lay skeptical societies are as reliable indicators of sci consensus as sci academies. So, where's that source?

(crickets)

And by the way, please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with your false assertion I and others offering "no response" to your proposal; there is lots of discussion in the section above; see diff of my comments.

Additionally, your comment regarding users "heavily involved in the promotion" of pseudoscience above massively violates WP:NPA. Show me some edits where I "promote pseudoscience": I mean, if I really am doing so, then by definition I'm massively violating NPOV, and I should have all kinds of skeptical editors reprimanding me. I've collaborated with many besides yourself, and they've had every opportunity to tell me where I'm at. So, let's find some other editors (besides the ban-decorated Mccready) objecting to my pseudoscience POV-pushing, shall we? Go ahead, I'll wait.

(crickets)

Gee, SA, isn't that odd that you can't produce the above evidence? It just might be that your interpretation is less mainstream than you assume. Frankly, your novel formulation that CSICOP is in the same league with the National Academies of Science strikes me as downright fringe. And certainly, your approach on WP has been so far from the collegial norm that you desperately need some sort of course correction. --Jim Butler (t) 09:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Jim Butler about his conflict of interest and have started a discussion about whether he should be advocating as he is in this article here. Please comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Got you mad, didn't I? Sorry. Your bullshit COI accusation won't fly, though. --Jim Butler (t) 11:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There you have it. No merit in your accusation at all. Thanks for playing. Oh, and BTW, since your accusation is wrong, you're once again in violation of WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." --Jim Butler (t) 23:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer his repetitive arguments: there is no reliable source which says the "scientific societies" "speak" for "scientific consensus" any more than there is a reliable source which says that the "skeptical societies" do. The issue is with separating the two categories of sources. Jim thinks we should separate them but it (apparently) is his own judgment as to what a "scientific consensus determining" group is and what isn't. This is why the argument stands unanswered. This article is engaging in original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Crickets are still chirping, SA. You can't produce the source I asked for, so you vainly try to shift the WP:BURDEN. Additionally, WP:PSCI says we shouldn't "categorize" or "characterize" topics as pseudoscience unless there is general agreement from the sci community. Perhaps the thing to do is ask on RSN whether lay "skeptical" groups are RS's for sci consensus (the kind we use here and here, and Eldereft will note the segregation of sources by reliability there). But I still think my original idea (I've been busy) of just asking ArbCom is better. Also, you can't produce any evidence that I'm editing tendentiously, either, as I predicted. But why let lack of evidence stop you from making unfounded COI accusations? All this silliness doesn't make you look too good in light of the pending ArbCom case regarding your chronically poor conduct. --Jim Butler (t) 11:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that those represent more a segregation by prominence of the source to those specific topics: a reader interested in Scientific opinion on climate change will probably find the IPCC and APS more relevant than various surveys; likewise a reader interested in scientific societies rejecting intelligent design. These articles deal with topics that have attracted enough outside notice that our most reliable sources are numerous enough to "crowd out" anything else. As I say below, I am open to considering stating in the text that entries are placed according to various reliable sources, but the comparison of a list of topics to a list of sources is imperfect. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

But the listing of sources reflects their reliability. Where we differ is that I don't accept these skeptical societies as reliable sources for sci consensus at all. We're talking about the demarcation problem. If a topic is "obviously" pseudoscientific, we don't need a source at all; if it's not obvious, we need a source meeting WP:PSCI, and we can't assume that the commentary of a non-RS skeptic group is a reliable harbinger of what an RS sci academy will say. (I don't think that skeptic groups belong on this list, as titled, at all, and have only accepted them in their own section as a compromise.) Does that seem like a fair description of our disagreement? regards, Jim Butler (t) 00:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft has it. The issue is that there are absolutely no sources which say that "skeptical organizations" are different from "scientific organizations". Nevertheless, our article makes that distinction. The onus is on the person wanting to keep that distinction to provide a source that distinguishes between the two. So far, this request has gone unanswered. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're still shifting the burden of proof. What advocates of your position have consistently failed to provide is evidence, or compelling arguments, that skeptical advocacy groups are reliable sources for indicating the consensus of the scientific community. Good essay on that issue here by noted skeptic Stephen Novella, with little to support your position. Rigorousness is critical in evaluating such sources. --Jim Butler (t) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only do you not substantively deal with the issue, you are continuing to grasp at flimsier and flimsier straws. The issue has been and always has been what makes the National Academies description of a subject as pseudoscience "scientific consensus" while when CSICOP describes a subject as pseudoscience it suddenly isn't scientific consensus. The only people making the determination are editors here who have obvious agendas. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think that Jim Butler has the right of it in his summation of the dispute - I think that a self-selected group of logically-minded persons may, after due consideration, reliably assert that a topic is pseudoscience. Obviously there are significant caveats here, but there is no fundamental difference between qualified individuals banding together on their own initiative as opposed to forming a committee under the auspices of a professional body. If our only source is 'some jokers with a website say X is pseudoscience', then that would probably not meet the RS bar. If, on the other hand, we have a source of the nature 'individuals with such-and-such qualifications have investigated Y and present these reasons for their assessment' then I would feel a lot more comfortable including Y on this list. We also, of course, need to fairly represent the source-weighted aggregate view - if newer and higher quality sources disagree with older and lower quality sources, the latter should be qualified by the former if the topic is not excluded from this list entirely. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the idea. We can describe who the various people who make up the societies are at the pages devoted to them. We can say what the societies are. But saying that the Astronomical Society of the Pacific is somehow better able to measure scientific consensus than the CSICOP is bald original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support This reorganization is long overdue, as dividing the list in this way needlessly inconveniences our readers by enforcing an artificial distinction. Regardless of the stated intent, the effect is to separate the topics according to whether or not they are infamous enough for a science body to notice and comment on them, or whether only adherents and people interested in pseudoscience have bothered. We still have WP:PARITY and all the usual reliable sources requirements, leaving no particular need for this organizational scheme. If people want more prominent attribution than references (at least most of which have quotes), we can discuss that separately or on a case-by-case basis. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There were a couple of good edits this month, and I am presuming that they would be integrated after the proposed reversion. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe they already are (in particular, the addition of Melanin theory). ScienceApologist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right - I was looking at the wrong version when I wrote that. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reject The Misplaced Pages article on Scientific opinion on climate change, a similarly brisant topic, uses the clear formulation "scientific organizations of national or international standing" to refer exclusively to truly scientific groups; no advocacy groups on either side of the climate debate are included. Skeptical societies are clearly advocacy groups (single-issue, pre-determined point of view) rather than scientific organizations; their point is not open-mindedly to explore a topic (as a Metereological Society, e.g., would) but to advocate a fixed point of view. The distinction between scientific organizations and advocacy groups is not artificial; it is natural. hgilbert (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The article you cite doesn't indicate how to segregate sources on this page. There is no way to getermine which scientific organizations are "open minded" and which aren't except to listen to people who think this way on this page.ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry: an organization with a mission to promote a certain idea is not, by definition, an open-minded (perhaps not, by definition, a scientific) organization. Scientific organizations aim to investigate areas, not to promote (or demote) ideas. The worth of ideas becomes apparent through objective research, not through advocacy. hgilbert (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Cite? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

We have just been asked by an administrator to "try to take things slowly, listen to what other editors are saying, and work hard to treat everyone with respect and good faith". The above-suggested edit begins by suggesting we not listen to four editors (I am amongst these) and implying that they are not acting in good faith. This is not a good start. hgilbert (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you think that my pointing out your particular connections to anthroposophy may cloud your judgment here is "not a good start". But my prediction was accurate, wasn't it? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My interests no more need "cloud my judgment" than your interests (as an acknowledged skeptic) need cloud yours. The point is to deal civilly with those editors whose point of view differs from your own, accepting that someone representing a different point of view may nevertheless be representing a valid point of view. This is the proof that one's judgment remains unclouded. This is the opposite of saying: "look, this person is obviously misguided, as s/he represents the contrary view to my own." hgilbert (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom: Skeptical groups not same as mainstream science

Well, this is a little bit interesting. From WP:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal: Arbcom distinguishes between mainstream science and skeptical groups. They're not the same thing. Link:

"In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking." -- passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, it's apparent to Arbcom that the distinction is real. And that's in the context of paranormal phenomena, which are "generally considered pseudo". What of the demarcation problem? What of greyer areas, areas where the pseudoscience appellation is debatable: where Michael Shermer might bang out an article and later put a book of essays together, vetted by a board composed of a handful of friends? Can such sources be taken as indicating scientific consensus in the rigorous, methodical way that skeptic Stephen Novella lays it out? I would say: of course not! We can have the skeptic groups cited in WP, but not masquerading as scientific consensus. Gonna have to change the list title, it appears. Massive WEIGHT and RS problem otherwise. --Jim Butler (t) 13:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find anything in peer-reviewed science magazines supporting your claim, then it's pseudoscience for the simple reason no one in science needs to be convinced that the pseudoscience is pseudoscience. You don't find the "2008 Review of Polywater" in Journal of Applied Chemistry for a reason: no one reading JAC would needs to be convinced that Polywater is pseudoscience and they leave it to skeptics group to do the debunking as the various ridiculous claims come up. Devoting efforts to this in peer-reviewed magazine would be a waste of time because as soon as you debunk something, and the pseudoscience advocate will spin it in a different way and say "Haha debunk this now suckers". The same applies to Cold fusion, and similar topics. In a nut-shell, what science magazine are doing is applying WP:Deny recognition to crackpot theories. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, even if you can find support for an area in peer-reviewed science magazines, the topic may still end up listed in this article so long as any skeptic organization has made negative commentary about the topic. At the moment, any negative claim by any organization trumps any list of positive studies. Why? The sole criterion for this list is that somebody has made a negative claim. It thus violates WP:Undue weight in an extreme way. Relying on mainstream scientific organizations, which are by their nature unbiased, would solve this problem.

BTW, The inverse of the above statement - "If you can find something in peer-reviewed science magazines supporting your claim, then it's not pseudoscience"? - is clearly more plausible than the original. hgilbert (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "any" negative claim. It's claims made by groups that are reliable sources for making the claim. If Joe Shmo writes a blogpost describing celestial mechanics as pseudoscience, that does not make it on our list. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical organisations

I have been following this discussion for a while, and I am mighty puzzled by it. As a member of the Australian Skeptics and of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute I am clear that I have belonged to organisations of a very different character. We seem to be quite clear about this on wikipedia with the first being in Category:Skeptic organisations while the second is in Category:Chemistry societies which is a sub-category of Category:Scientific societies. Do we need a source to categorise organisations in this way? It seems to be quite clear to me. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether one source or another is better for describing the scientific consensus that a certain subject is pseudoscientific. If you can find a reliable source which explains why an organization in the skeptical organizations category is not able to describe scientific consensus while an organization that is in category Chemistry societies, then at least we can make an argument that the attempt to demarcate based on "scientific consensus" is legitimate. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could produce a source stating that skeptical-advocacy groups are just as reliable as scientific socities for our purposes. Why should the burden be on other editors to prove your preferred sources aren't good? Pretty clearly you have it backwards. --Jim Butler (t) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I might have missed some verbiage, but I believe that the only statements asserting equivalence between the two types of society are in the way of being negative arguments; viz. because one group exists to promote science and another to counter pseudoscience, the latter are not reliable in the sense of WP:Reliable sources. Genuine scientific disagreements do not belong on this list, as such belong solidly under the purview of RACI, not AS. Examination of claims for glaring disagreement with commonly accepted reality (how odd it seems that none of my condensed matter physics textbooks mention how phonons and plasmons can cure gout, depression, and chronic Lyme disease), on the other hand, requires much less in the way of specialized training. Scientific societies are generally regarded as reliable for pretty much whatever they say, whereas skeptical societies are somewhat more limited. The disagreement is over whether this is a meaningful distinction for the purposes of this list. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true, Eldereft; that's exactly the disagreement. My view is we don't want to think the skeptic groups are right; we want to know. Scientific academies are meritocracies that focus on research and occasionally advocacy; skeptical groups are open to anyone, self-selected, and are primarily about advocacy. The latter groups try to report and defend what the former are doing. It's like the difference between grad school college, or even high school. Advocacy groups can be used as sources, but they don't meet WP:RS#Consensus as sources for scientific consensus (see discussion at present "Fringe Science" RFAR). They probably do often get the demarcation right, which makes for a nice, complete list. But with grey areas ("questionable science" and so on) I don't see how they're qualified to speak for the scientific community at large. They're simply not equipped, by virtue of membership and mission, to do so. That's why I argue that it's not kosher for us to report what they say, hoping they got it right. Wishful, synful thinking, as Jim Morrison might have said.

Anyway... I will get off my ass and request ArbCom to clarify this. If they won't do it as an extension of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, they may do it as part of the current case. regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph looks to me like original research. I know plenty of skeptical societies (including some that are currently denigrated in this article) where the standards for making a public statement are higher than those of the National Academies. In fact, I would say that Jim's statement isn't really original "research" but more an original "hunch". It's fairly clear that Jim hasn't carefully researched what goes into the production of statements by the different organizations, their various levels of "qualification", their "equipment", their "membership", and their "missions" despite waxing eloquently about each in this paragraph. It is a shame when people don't carefully research the points upon which they opine, but until Misplaced Pages learns to manage the content-violators, we'll just have to put up with shoddy (or zero, in this case) research. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, a paragraph asserting that the Boy Scout Handbook is different than an IOM report would be original research. By your standards, an editor could demand that we cite the Boy Scout Handbook unless another editor found an RS stating that the Boy Scout Handbook is not as reliable as the IOM. Quite clearly your fallacy is shifting the burden of proof. --Jim Butler (t) 10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you wrote the statement "The Boy Scout Handbook is not as reliable as the IOM" somewhere in a Misplaced Pages article, then you absolutely must have a source for the statement. Them's the rules. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's obvious (and you'd need an even better source to assert that the two are equally reliable, per WP:REDFLAG). However, it doesn't refute the gist of my comments. We're debating reliable sources, and I'm showing via reductio ad absurdum why your logic is wrong. My preceding comments were pretty clear on that.

Explanation, if needed: I and others are arguing that X class of sources (skeptic advocacy groups) is not as reliable as Y class (sci academies). You're taking the position that I have the burden of showing, via an RS, that X is not as reliable as Y. I'm taking the position that the burden falls on you to show, via an RS or other convincing means, that X is as reliable as Y. In order to show where the burden really lies, I used an absurd example wherein I substituted the Boy Scout Handbook for X source. If we follow my logic, the burden is on you to show that the Boy Scout Handbook is an RS, and you won't be able to do so; the outcome is reasonable and the article remains sound. If we use your logic, we get an absurd outcome: we are allowed to cite the Boy Scout Handbook until someone can find a source specifically saying "The Boy Scout Handbook is not as reliable as the IOM in matters of scientific consensus."

This example shows where the burden lies in this matter, i.e., with those who assume that X and Y sources are functionally equivalent, and want to write the article accordingly. --Jim Butler (t) 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not clear what you call research. The Skeptical organisations I know and broadly support do not fit "where the standards for making a public statement are higher than those of the National Academies". I do not see evidence that you have researched this that well either. There is too much grandstanding on both sides her. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

When the Massachusetts Medical Society (which apparently qualifies as a "Skeptical society" on this page) makes a statement, they have a committee of literally nearly a dozen review the statement. When NAS makes a statement, they normally have two people review the statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The MMS would qualify as a first-tier, sci-consensus source last I checked. Could you please share sources for what you say regarding the review policies of these groups? --Jim Butler (t) 10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So why is it in the second tier? You just are making it up as you go along, it seems. If you read the NAS review on Parapsychology you can see exactly how they wrote the report. The MMS report on naturopathic medicine is linked in our article! ScienceApologist (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the MMS source, but I'm not the one who put it in the second tier, so don't ask me why it ended up there; I just work here and don't own the friggin' place. I don't remember mention in the MMS report of the number of reviewers, and can't find it in the PDF; nor can I find any NAS review in the archives, unless it's there under the name of a specific academy. (Or maybe you're thinking of the NSF review?) Indulge my momentary lapse into denseness, please, and post an excerpt from MMS and a link to NAS (and an excerpt containing the info on reviewers, if it's not readily apparent). Thanks. --Jim Butler (t) 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be my fault - I left Applied Kinesiology under the Health and medicine subsection when adding the MMS source. It seemed a natural place. I guess it can go in the other section, though if this RfC resolves the way I would prefer, the entry will already be in the correct place according to the remaining one organizational scheme. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this proves my point well. Trying to keep track of which organizations are which is essentially original research. Jim thinks that MMS is not a skeptical organization but rather a scientific organization. Okay, I guess he has a reliable source demarcating this? No? Okay. So let's get rid of the tiering: it's making tearing. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We're allowed to use common sense. I don't have a reliable source demarcating sci academies from football clubs either, but that doesn't mean that we, as editors, ought to be teh stupid and equate them. Echoing User:Bduke, it's not too difficult to tell which is which. The question isn't whether we can tell such groups apart (we can, when we're not gaming and pretending to be dense), it's whether they are equally reliable on demarcation sci from pseudo. --Jim Butler (t) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I have an idea that might work. We can try a compromise. We can merge the sections together and distinguish each source by using a number after each entry. Ref number one() could be for consensus among the scientific community. The number 2() could be for skeptic organizations, and number 3() could be for researchers.

Example: *Crop circles

This is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts regarded as pseudoscientific by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or researchers.

We can add citations to the first sentence of the article and describe each one in the reference and then add the citations to each entry and merge the sections together while each entry will still be distinguishable. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinions

Please note that I have not read any of the discussion above, nor am I interested in the issue. I simply saw this quote when reviewing a revert: Quote: ...to try to distinguish between "scientific societies" and "skpetical societies", but the fact is that there isn't a reliable source which does this". I don't know if this will help any, but I found the following news article that documents the existence of "Skeptical societies", described as "a quickly-growing group of people to investigate various claims and debate their merits." Ariel♥Gold 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine

Scienceapologist removed referenced material sourced in scientific publications without justification; I am replacing this. What possible justification can there be for eliminating well-referenced and appropriate text? The above discussion points out the danger of giving undue weight to skeptics over scientific publications. Scienceapologist now is attempting to eliminate the science from this article! hgilbert (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't sink to SA's level by protesting that small but real differences are "outrageous". The stuff you're putting in may be well-sourced, but it also is spun a little too favorably to the subject mattter, IMHO. I would suggest self-reverting and bringing the material here for a collective re-write. regards, Jim Butler (t) 18:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Small but real differences are fine. Reverting well-sourced material is not.

The wording I have added is as follows: "a larger review concludes that anthroposophic therapies are associated with long-term reduction of chronic disease symptoms and improvement of health-related quality of life. Anthroposophical treatment of cancer has been demonstrated to improve survival rates of cancer patients. Anthroposophical medicine has also been demonstrated to be effective in treating respiratory and ear infections as well as mental illnesses." How is this spun? This is what the sources say, in some cases word-for-word. What changes would you suggest to bring it into closer alignment with the sources? hgilbert (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is about the fact that anthroposophic medicine has pseudoscientific aspects. It's effectiveness is irrelevant here. Just because something has a source doesn't mean it's relevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This list isn't for long descriptions of the subjects. That should be done on the subject's own article. Here it is relevant to very briefly (1) give a description of what the subject is, and (2) why it is relevant to list it here at all. Nothing more and nothing less. Just describe its relation to the subject of pseudoscience (PS). THAT (PS) is the subject of this article. Just keep it short and to the point. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that something is not pseudoscience is as relevant as evidence that it is; otherwise the article violates WP:NPOV and is effectively a WP:POVFORK.

• "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article" hgilbert (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... so your claim is that this entire article is a POV-fork of anthroposophic medicine? I think that claim is dubious at best. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors have argued that only material that support any subject's classification as a pseudoscience, not material that disputes this classification, will be included here. This is a clear POV-fork. I do not know if anthroposophical medicine is the only topic for which relevant evidence is being excluded in this article; I only know that editors are clearly - by their own statements - excluding all but one POV for all subjects here. This is a POV-fork, plain and simple. hgilbert (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Except the citations you give do not dispute the classification of anthroposophic medicine as pseudoscience. They merely claim to provide "evidentiary" support for anthroposophic medicine, and, though we may argue about the shoddiness of said sources, our concern here is not whether you can dig around to synthesize an article that will pander to your cherished beliefs about anthroposophy. See WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have added sources to balance the statements that "the system is not based in science" and "no thorough scientific analysis of the efficacy of anthroposophical medicine as a system independent of its philosophical underpinnings has been undertaken; no evidence-based conclusion of the overall efficacy of the system can be made at this time". --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing

Pursuant to the above comment, I restored Eldereft's version of the discussion of anthroposophical medicine. We are here to write about its status as a pseudoscience, not to make apologies for it. .

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me (clearly). That entry was 287 words long - far more verbiage than is needed to say medical treatments inspired by Anthroposophy diverge from medicine in a couple of ways. Properly weighted depth of treatment is entirely appropriate at Anthroposophical medicine, but not here. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That there is a reasonable claim for a scientific basis for anthroposophic medicine (clearly shown by the numerous studies cited) is ignored in the current version. This gives a false impression through giving undue weight. A summary must be NPOV as well as a main article. hgilbert (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened the article; what needs to go is material about the approach not related to judgments about its scientific validity. Any material related to this is clearly relevant. This section is titled "POV-pushing"; I would call suppressing scientific evidence and including only one POV's viewpoint POV-pushing. I am in favor of both POVs being represented. This is called neutrality. hgilbert (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about the scientific basis for anthroposophic medicine (there is none, just like the rest of the attempts by anthroposophists to claim scientific support for their spirituality). This is an article solely about those subjects which have been described as being pseudoscientific. To put it another way, it is an article for explaining what aspects of certain ideas have been labeled as pseudoscientific. We aren't here to pander to the anthoposophic masses who yearn for scientific recognition of their amazing new ideas. This is naked POV-pushing at this point from an avowed anthroposophist. Are we ready to escalate this to pseudoscience law-enforcement officers? ScienceApologist (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just passing... It seems to me that the Hgilbert version is far too much of an advertisment for anthroposophic medicine, an attempt to persuade the reader that it is a valid system. It needs to be pruned back to something more like the ScienceApologist version, which is a much better and more balanced summary of the topic from the perspective of this article. This is not the right place for extended treatment of the topic, pulling in as much as possible to "prove" its value - if anywhere, that sort of stuff belongs at Anthroposophic medicine. Here we need just a brief review of how it is considered a pseudoscience. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the SA version is much more neutral. Verbal chat 15:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

hgilbert has not yet mentioned that he has complained about this at the NPOV noticeboard: dougweller (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adherents

Hgilbert, based on this edit, I surmise that you disagree with the use of the word adherents to describe people who use Anthroposophic medicine. Referring solely to health care providers in the context of that sentence seems unduly limiting, as it excludes everyone else who makes their health decisions in that context. By way of analogy, it would be absurd to state in Aspirin that it is only used when directed by a doctor. Is there some third wording that would be better? - Eldereft (cont.) 22:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "practice" implies (to me, at least) that the sentence refers to practitioners. The practitioners of anthroposophical medicine are doctors, with M.D. degrees or the equivalent. I have tried an alternate wording that avoids the issue; what do you think? hgilbert (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I think that that wording is perfectly acceptable, thank you.

2) What is wrong with Hanssonn?

3) Ernst is a systematic review, which should generally be considered reliable to make unqualified statements. Is the source being misused, or is it out of date? - Eldereft (cont.) 23:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since we know that there are at least 3 studies of the sort he claims there are none of (see the studies I cited in the last edits) with dates 2004, 2005, and 2007, we should either remove his claim as being out of date or at least qualify it heavily.

I would consider that Hansson does not critique anthroposophic medicine explicitly enough for a citation here, but I will not stand in the way of it being put back in if others disagree. hgilbert (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I added the Hansson citation some while ago, so waiting for additional editors to weigh in seems sensible.

Hamre et al. (2004)(PDF) is not randomized.

Grossarth-Maticek and Ziegler (2006)(PDF) is a bit of a CV-padder in a pretty new journal, but we should not expect the creme of the scientific crop here. One arm was randomized, but the paper discusses only iscador; this is not the definitive paper for that treatment. However, a sentence on mistletoe might not bloat the entry unduly, as it is by far the most widely utilized Anthroposophic medicine.

Hamre et al. (2005) is non-randomized, among other issues of study design.

EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing addresses the scientific principles behind, and applications of, evidence-based healing practices from a wide variety of sources, including conventional, alternative, and cross-cultural medicine. It is an interdisciplinary journal that explores the healing arts, consciousness, spirituality, eco-environmental issues, and basic science as all these fields relate to health.

And now there is new text for me to check since last night when I tracked down these papers which completely miss the issue. Please be more careful. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kienle and Kiene (2007) is at least a systematic review, so we are starting to get somewhere; some of the trials included were randomized, even. I will note, however, that as of later that year, the American Cancer Society said of the evidence base for mistletoe (though all types were included, not just Iscador): Available evidence from well-designed clinical trials that have studied mistletoe did not support claims that mistletoe could improve length or quality of life. Can we start a new subsection below to discuss Iscador?

I would also like to make sure that we keep separate the issues of theoretical justification and evidence-based efficacy - Intelligent falling makes far more accurate predictions than any medical system could ever hope to, but it is still (parody) pseudoscience. Both issues do have some place in this entry, but they should not be conflated.

I would also like to quote here the sentence being cited to Ernst to emphasize how the thusfar proposed modifications are not supported by the above sources: Available evidence from well-designed clinical trials that have studied mistletoe did not support claims that mistletoe could improve length or quality of life. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out above that at least three of the sources presented here post-date Ernst's article; his comment thus cannot be assumed to apply to them. hgilbert (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have gotten mixed up with my copy/paste. The actual sentence cited to the Ernst systematic review is: No thorough scientific analysis of the efficacy of anthroposophical medicine as a system independent of its philosophical underpinnings has been undertaken; no evidence-based conclusion of the overall efficacy of the system can be made at this time. This does not apply to those studies for more reason than anachronicity. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Iscador

This appears to be currently the best source for the use of mistletoe in cancer therapy: Ernst E, Schmidt K, Steuer-Vogt MK (2003). "Mistletoe for cancer? A systematic review of randomised clinical trials". Int. J. Cancer. 107 (2): 262–7. doi:10.1002/ijc.11386. PMID 12949804. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). If we want to treat the evidence base for the most prominent Anthroposophical medicine, this would seem the way to go. A brief sentence explaining why Steiner decided that mistletoe would cure cancer would also be in order. As I mentioned earlier, it is my opinion that the Anthroposophic medicine entry is already about as long as any individual entry should reach. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It would not be fair to represent this without also mentioning that it is generally accepted that "mistletoe extracts can inhibit metastasis, reduce size, and cause necrosis of induced tumours" (British Canadian survey of mistletoe research) in animals and have antitumoral effects in vitro. hgilbert (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The National Cancer Institute offers the most thorough and up-to-date review of the treatment of cancer with mistletoe extracts.hgilbert (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That source you cite severely criticizes the studies. I think it criticizes them enough to warrant no inclusion of studies here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

use of term/prefix 'pseudo'

A use of the term/prefix 'pseudo' to mean "false" appears to be routinely applied within this article and others, e.g. 'pseudopodia' as a characteristic of amoebas. As applied with such words as 'forgery', pseudoscience may actually refer to propaganda as well as to examples of occult pooling of memory-images -- including mental groupings of memory-images that do not really occur in nature (known as 'hallucinations' when non-voluntary). beadtot66.217.68.88 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

First, QuackQuru, you and most other editors are well aware that chiropractic is a controversial inclusion, because editors have differed on which category of WP:PSCI it falls in according to RS's. (Not "obvious" PS. Verifiably "generally considered" per an RS? To be determined. "Questionable science?" Yes, it fits that; some critics, but not necessarily a sci-consensus source.) So, if you're going to have one more go at putting it in, you might (a) let editors know on this page, (b) use a descriptive edit summary per WP:ES instead of the remarkably uninformative "meets inclusion crieteria". Thanks, QG.

That said, I'm reverting SA's revert of TheDoctorIsIn, because I'm virtually certain that we've never reached consensus as to whether articles published in Skeptical Inquirer represent official endorsement of CSICOP. (An analogous question would be whether everything published in NEJM carries the considered endorsement of the Massachusetts Medical Society. I believe the generally-accepted answer to that question is "of course not".)

Finally, ScienceApologist, your edit summary in rv-ing TheDoctorIsIn violates WP:NPA, did not advance the debate, and was inappropriate: "Obvious agenda". The demarcation of certain topics, like chiropractic, is non-trivial. You don't own the objective high ground in this case at all. You've got an opinion that you are free to argue here. Do so according to the same rules we all are expected to follow, and we'll be able to have a straightforward exchange of views. To the extent you lapse into uncivil POV pushing, misrepresentation of consensus, WP:IDHT, personal attacks, or other issues already amply cataloged at ArbCom, you will merely be adding to the stack of evidence on the "unfavorable" side. --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The references are reliable and are currently in the main chiropractic article. The references easily meet the inclusion criteria for this article. If you think the references are not reliable please remember there is consensus for similar text and the same references for inclusion at chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As an IP pointed out, the inclusion criteria are different here because this is a "List of Pseudosciences". Inclusion means that WP is affirmatively saying a topic is pseudoscience, just as the earth is round (oblate spheroid). Which means we have to meet WP:PSCI, the criteria for which are, as you know, easily visible at the top of the page. Sticking the material in at chiropractic is simply citing an RS in an "according to..." manner, consistent with WP:PSCI's "questionable science".

For all editors seeking to include the material:

• Please remember that WP:BURDEN places the burden on you to include material. Saying it's "sourced" is insufficient, since the issue is whether the sources meets WP:PSCI. Since the inclusion criteria are disputed, the proper thing to do would be to exclude it until and if consensus settles on inclusion.
• ScienceApologist, please don't misrepresent consensus; this is at least the second time you've done so on this page.
• Verbal, I see that you reverted "per WP:BRD" and then failed to discuss at all. What's up with that?

thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 08:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The source or sources explain the pseudoscience of chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Every editor on this page knows exactly what I'm referring to above re sources needing to meet WP:PSCI. --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem the reliable reference. The source meets WP:PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't! --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to all articles on Misplaced Pages. WP:PSCI also applies to all articles on Misplaced Pages when we use the label pseudoscience. At the chiropractic article, we label chiropractic pseudoscience and it meets the inclusion criteria of WP:PSCI. If labeling chiropractic pseudoscience at chiropractic has no objections then there should be no objections here. QuackGuru (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, BLP applies to all articles on WP, although articles come under its purview only to the degree that BLP material is discussed in them. Same deal with WP:PSCI: its "razor" only kicks in when we are concerned with "categorizing" or "characterizing" topics as pseudoscientific. If we're just mentioning the views of some critics, that's fine as long as we have an RS; that's what WP:PSCI means by "questionable science".

However, if we're having WP affirmitively state that a topic is PS, e.g. by putting it in category:pseudoscience or here in "List of Pseudo...", then we've got to meet a higher threshold in terms of source: topics "which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

The sources in the passage you'd like to add are both apparently OK on WP, though at the low end of reliability; neither appears to be from a scientific peer-reviewed publication. There is certainly no reason to belief that they are RS's for what the sci community "generally considers" to be the case. (Interestingly, I feel quite sure that sources of such marginal quality, if cited for a contention like "chiropractic is not at all pseudoscientific", would be eviscerated by some of the strongly "skeptic"-leaning editors.)

That about sums it up. --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Backin72 is essentially supporting his comments with originally researched innuendo. QW has sources. Therefore, QW is the one in the right. Let Backin72 find sourced evidence to back up his synthesis, but until then we should not be using it as justification for any edits. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Explain where the synthesis is, please. All I did was cite (and repeat, in my own words) WP:PSCI, which draws distinctions between "questionable science" and "generally considered pseudoscience", and states the type of source required. You do remember the debate over categorization at the RFAR on pseudoscience, in which both you and I commented, so I'm sure this is familiar territory for you. So, where's the synthesis? Questioning whether Keating speaks for the sci community, or what?

Also, your reversion once again misrepresented the existence of consensus. All we have here on the talk page are QG and I discussing, with you just now weighing in. We also have a few editors not discussing but giving ES's of varying degrees of coherence. Whatever that is, consensus it ain't. It is, however, a good example of your "damn the torpedos" approach, which unfortunately won't work very well in a situation where you're not self-evidently right. I's one thing ton debate creationism or perpetual motion, and quite another to debate whether we have adequate sources for demarcation of well-known topics that aren't trivial judgement calls. It is that behavior that is corrosive to building an encyclopedia. --Backin72 (n.b.) 20:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:PSCI: 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." We are not generally characterized it as pseudoscience. We are attributing it to when it was mainly pseudoscience for the chiropractic entry and attributing it to the skeptic groups for the Traditional Chinese Medicine entry. According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. If you think we are asserting it too strong as pseudoscience then you are free propose or modify the wording to improve the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, chiro is "questionable science". According to WP:PSCI, "questionable science" shouldn't go in a category or list that definitively says it's pseudoscience. Certainly, the article on chiro, or a list of alleged pseudosciences or something similarly qualified, can contain such criticism. However, we cannout put chiropractic into category:pseudoscience. Nor can we put it on a "List of pseudosciences...", which is similarly definitive. Numerous other editors have acknowledged this point in the past; it's just a straight reading of WP:PSCI. I see you guys are tag-teaming on edit warring and while not addressing the argument very substantively, so for now I won't pursue the matter further here; you're asserting a local consensus which (a) doesn't exist and (b) is contrary to global consensus on NPOV. --Backin72 (n.b.) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. Where does it say in WP:PSCI it cannot go on a list? QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the list is. We don't put Menachem Begin in "List of State Terrorists" because there isn't broad enough agreement among RS's to do so. Similarly, we don't put "questionable sciences" on a "List of Pseudosciences...". No matter how much explaining may be done under the entry, it's already been affirmatively categorized as pseudoscience. That is not OK under NPOV.

"Questionable sciences" are defined as "theories that have a substantial following... but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience", and may contain information to that effect: that is, we cite and attribute the criticisms (cf. my edit to chiroractic, which added the necessary attribution to Keating. What we cannot do with "questionable sciences" is characterize them as pseudoscience:

• we can't put them in category:pseudoscience (but we might put them in category:disputed science);
• we can't say that "X topic is pseudoscience" (but we can say "according to so-and-so, X topic is pseudoscience); and
• we can't put them on a "List of pseudosciences..." (but we could put them on a "List of alleged pseudosciences").

That's it in a nutshell. We report facts about opinions unless we have a source reliable enough to report information as facts per se (e.g., the HIV virus causes AIDS). --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about which list chiropractic belongs to, but I do have an objection to that edit of Chiropractic. The text in question did not claim that chiropractic is a pseudoscience, and what it did claim is supported by several reliable sources (including chiropractic ones) and is not disputed by any reliable source. For more about that particular edit, please follow up in Talk:Chiropractic #"by Joseph C. Keating, Jr.", a thread I just created. Eubulides (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not just Keating. When it is not just Keating attribution seems unnecessary. See WP:ASF. According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. To that effect, it can be on this list as long as it is written in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading it, the Keating source is not calling chiropractic a pseudoscience; nor does the text at Chiropractic make such a claim. Eubulides seems to agree with this above when he/she states: The text in question did not claim that chiropractic is a pseudoscience.... Further, the Keating source is speaking from a historical perspective (up until the 1970s) and does not necessarily reflect current opinion. That said, if there was a list of items historically characterized as a pseudoscienc (in the past), then this sources may serve well. But as it stands, this source does not meet the inclusion criteria set forth by this list article specifically. (Nor does it qualify to meet the requirements of WP:PSCI.) -- Levine2112 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I previously explained how the source meets the inclusion criteria. It does quality under WP:PSCI. There is more than one source and there are more sources at the main chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources which you have presented characterize chiropractic as a pseudoscience; nor does the current Chiropractic article characterize it as such. If you believe differently, please present us the text from the particular source which characterizes the subject as a pseudoscience. Honestly, that would be the best way to move forward from here per WP:BRD. -- Levine2112 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with QW's addition. It is well-sourced and explains the situation plainly despite Chiropractic true-believers' objections. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't characterize me as a "true believer" per WP:NPA. We don't need personal attacks here. What we need here is a recent and reliable source which represents the views of some notable skeptical society and characterizes the subject as pseudoscience. Thus far, none has been presented. If you have one, please provide the source here along with quotes from the source which espouse such a characterization. Until then, please refrain from re-inserting the text into this list. Thank you. -- Levine2112 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The same text and references is in the main chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As Eubulides and myself have explained above to you, the Chiropractic article does not characterize chiropractic as a pseudoscience anywhere. If you are refering to the Keating sources, then please provide the quotes from these sources which characterizes chiropractic as a pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time for QuackGuru to finally stop this campaign of inserting chiropractic into this article. I count at least 25 times in the past two years where he/she has attempted to insert chiropractic into this article in some form or another with similar or weaker sources - all of which have been rejected in past discussions such as there:

1. Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive_9#Chiropractic_and_New_England_Skeptical_Society
2. Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive3#Chiropractic_.3D_Pseudoscience
3. Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive7#Chiropractic

Despite these discussions - all of which ultimately rejected QuackGuru's reasoning for inclusion, he/she continues the campaign to include this material via edit warring. Here are at least 25 instances of QuackGuru attempting to insert chiropractic into this article for the past two years:

These edits had been reverted by many different editors. Several discussions have taken place on this talk page, each coming to a consensus that no source has been presented which merits the inclusion of chiropractic. Despite this long history, QuackGuru returns every so often and attempts to edit war this material back into this article. I truly feel that QuackGuru's campaign has worn down our patience here at this article and suggest to him/her that it is time to move on. -- Levine2112 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the source: A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That source has been rejected in the past discussions I list above because it is nearly 12 years old and even still doesn't characterize chiropractic as pseudoscientific. The source talks about pseudosceintific ideas within the profession, but it doesn't label the entire professional as such. These days, those "ideas" are only perpetuated by some minority - albeit perhaps a significant minority - of chiropractic doctors. -- Levine2112 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The source has not been rejected at chiropractic. According to the source the pseudo-scientific ideas are a continuing barrier. This meets the inclusion criteria for this article and the chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The source has been rejected at this article. Yes, it is accepted at Chiropractic, but it is not being used to characterize chiropractic a pseudoscience. This has been told to you over and over and over again. Please cease with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments. You are wasting our time and trying all of our patience. For two years you have been edit warring, trying to include this material - and for two years your insertions and arguments have been rejected by the community at large. It's time to move on. -- Levine2112 06:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. To that effect, it can be on this list as long as it is written in accordance with NPOV.

According to source A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine.

When the source states it has continued "pseudo-scientific ideas" it is characterizing chiropractic as pseudoscience anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am done until you move on from these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments. -- Levine2112 06:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No specific or valid objection has been made to my previous comment. The text is well sourced and in accordance with WP:PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with QG. There seems to be a bit of WP:POT to boot. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Verified according to source as requested

Levine2112 asked for verification on the talk page and in his edit summary: Reverted to revision 262039080 by Levine2112; the sources given say nothing of the such. please provide exact quotes on talk page as requested.. using TW.

According to the source: A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine.

The text has been verified as requested by Levine2112. According to the source the pseudo-scientific ideas are a continuing barrier. Per the source, we need to get the present tense corrected. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying it meets WP:PSCI certainly doesn't make it so; there is no reason to believe that chiro falls into "generally considered pseudo", and "questionable sciences" shouldn't be on a "List of Pseudosciences" any more than they should be in "category:pseudoscience". QG, I think the list Levine compiled above is prima facie evidence of WP:TE on your part. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. We can include information to that effect according to PSCI. Levine2112's objection was sourcing. I provided verification as requested by Levine2112. Chiropractic is clearly associated with pseudoscience according to the sources presented. Where in policy does it specifically say we can't include it on a list. QuackGuru (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ scientific community
2. ^ skeptic organizations
3. ^ reserchers

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• List-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• List-Class physics articles of High-importance
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles