Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:40, 20 July 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pseudoscience article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pseudoscience. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pseudoscience at the Reference desk.

This 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. Skepticism Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Top This article has been rated as Top-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. Philosophy: Logic / Science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Philosophy of science Science This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Antiquity – Jan 2003 Jan 2003 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – Apr 2006 Apr 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – Sept. 2006 Sept. 2006 – Oct. 2006 October 2006 November 2006 November 2006 — Dec 2007 March 2008 – April 2010 March 2010 – December 2010 December 2010 – April 2011 April 2011 – June 2011 May 2011 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Trick or Treatment

I removed the text that is not about pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Matute

The Matute text and reference seems to have been inserted against consensus again. DigitalC (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with consensus here and on the Fringe theories noticeboard, I reverted the instances where Matute et al. was used as a source for public health risks of pseudoscience. Even where the paper is offered as an appropriate source it seems to be tenditiously over-referenced. Jojalozzo 03:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is verification on your talk page. I also explained this to Tom. QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have asked you here and on my talk page several times to keep this discussion on the article talk page. This is not a personal dispute between you and me. It should be conducted here in full view of the editing community on this page. Your not-hearing behavior is getting tiresome regarding both the Matute et al. paper and your repetitive, redundant and tenditious posts on my talk page. I have asked for help with the later and we may soon be seeking remedies to your disrespect for consensus in this article. Jojalozzo 04:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

How does "Our research proves that developing evidence-based educational programmes should be effective in helping people detect and reduce their own illusions." support "...are a critical matter that involves public health" et al. And yes I did read it and I did read the talk page archives. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand the text is sourced then I suggest you read WP:V policy. The abstract provides a summary and the full text explains the matter in more detail. Do you agree the full text says "These are a serious matter of public health...."? QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The serious matters that are a threat to public health are:

"The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."

The threat to public health is a statement made as a conclusion rather than an assumption. This is indeed about the topic pseudoscience according to the source. For example, "This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."

One of the main pseudoscience points from full text is: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."

The authors summarised the public health issue in the abstract. According to the source pseudoscience is a serious matter that threatens public health. It is WP:OR if we don't summarise the main pseudoscience points because it would be taking the source out of context.

From abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

As a point of fact, there are hundreds of WP:V-compliant sources on the subject. However, the Matute source is peer-reviewed and should be given WP:WEIGHT. The text and source meets WP:SOURCES. It would be a violation of NPOV to imply a serious dispute where there is none. The text does not need to be attributed becuase editors disgree with researchers. I think that a summary of Matutue et al. does contribute a lot to Pseudoscience#Demographics, Pseudoscience#Psychological explanations and Pseudoscience#Health and education implications. The text passes V. Please don't delete sourced text again. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand there is one sentence in the full text that says: "These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." Do you agree that the cite at the end of that paragraph is not "WHO Report on Pseudoscience: A critical matter of Public Health" but is in fact "Wiseman, R., & Watt, C. (2006). Belief in psychic ability and the misattribution hypothesis: A qualitative review."? If the cite was something along the lines of the former then we'd be cooking with gas, unfortunately it is not. The paper provides no research findings or citations on pseudoscience and matters health. Those claims require data if they are to be entered here. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge the text is sourced per V when you know the abstract and full text discuss the "serious matter of public health". Do understand "These are a serious matter of public health...." refers to the previous text in the full text. Your missing the point. The source provides examples of pseudoscience on the serious matters of public health.

"Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience." Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

"Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15)." There are examples of the public health matters. I previously explained this but you did not understand my argument. There are more examples of these matters that are summarised in the article. See Pseudoscience#Demographics for a summary. QuackGuru (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Really I do, look at my user page and being from Texas my hatred of pseudoscience knows few bounds. Please. Read my reply again. Slowly. It is not a matter of WP:V or WP:RS those are not in question. It is a problem of weight. We cannot go from the current "practical implications" to "critical matter" based on the Matute source. I wish we could. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You agree the text is sourced. You have not made an argument what is the WEIGHT problem when we are using a mainstream peer-reviewed source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently QuackGuru has a POV and is adding it back persistently (and copy-pasting text to flood this talk page does not contribute to this discussion). Is there a reason to keep this "discussion" alive? A simple block seem to be sufficient. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not made an argument why the text can't be in the article. I edited in accordance with WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a little break from editing and read over all this again. Several times. Slowly. Please? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"A simple block seem to be sufficient." Only if we block both sides, as the people doing blind reverts of all content added by the editor in question are just as bad as people adding the information. Worse, probably. Or maybe we should not block anyone and actually try to solve the problem here by making a good faith effort to address the very real problem with the article QuackGuru is trying (albeit a little clumsily) to fix. DreamGuy (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not perpetuate the common mistake of using "pseudoscience" to mean just quackery

It is clear to me that Matute et al. do not mean to include all of pseudoscience in their claims for health risks. Clearly they (and many others) use the term loosely to refer only to one particular form of pseudoscience, e.g. medical pseudoscience or quackery. Since their paper is about the psychology of pseudoscience and they understandably want to promote the importance of their research, they have painted the wider category with the brush of quackery. It is absurd to interpret their words otherwise and it would be a mistake for Misplaced Pages to perpetuate their inaccuracy.

This is not a problem just with this one paper. We need be careful in all cases that the term is being used in the sense that we intend for this article. It might help avoid future disputes if we formalized this in some way. Jojalozzo 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the term is being used as a brand to represent every subject not endorsed by mainstream science. If there is any value in the term, this serve no one. I deal with people doing good science-based research on frontier subjects, and at the same time, people who approach the same subject from a popular wisdom or faith-based viewpoint. As pseudoscience is defined in the purest sense, the work of the first group does not qualify as pseudoscience while it clearly applies to the second group ... except they usually do not claim doing science. (The "yeah but" to this is that both are involved with a subject that is considered impossible by mainstream and is therefore, impossible; ergo, it is all pseudoscience.)

To keep it from being Scientism, the application of the term should be tightened up to apply to subjects that are not supported by science as a methodology and not as an ideal. I agree with the concept, but I fear it has turned into the stuff witch hunts and book burnings are made of.

An example of this is how the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine defines subtle energy involved in energy modalities of healing. See Energy medicine:

putative, therapies predicated on theorized forms of "energy" (that is, forms of energy of which scientific investigation has not confirmed the existence)

veritable, therapies which rely on known forms of energy (that is, forms of energy such as electromagnetism)

With that in the lead, all of the modalities discussed in the article are clearly branded by innuendo as false. It is the "that is, forms of energy of which scientific investigation has not confirmed the existence" that makes the article biased ... and I suppose the NCCAM. A solution is to distinguish the proper noun: Mainstream Science and the noun: science.

Kind of on the same subject, have we lost the actual words in the Chines and Sagan references here? Tom Butler (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The health concerns in Matute are only stated in the introductory prose, not cited, not discussed and really not worth much of anything on the topic.IMHO

I fear illusions of causality are at the heart of the confusion for some researchers on the topic (and maybe one editor). That was fun. Hi guys. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience defined

Pseudoscience may be defined as whatever a consensus of opinion does not understand and therefore wishes to condemn. Use of the term, "pseudoscience" is therefore a mark of ignorance tinged with intolerance. It is by definition an unscientific term, and highly disrespectful of other cultures. Use of the term is therefore discouraged.

Unless you can think of something better, the above should constitute the whole of Wiki's entry on Pseudoscience. When "pseudoscience" appears on other Wiki pages, it should be deleted or strictly qualified as the opinion of the author. Dave of Maryland (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for your comments. You'll find that on Misplaced Pages we don't take a stance on the propriety of topics; instead, we reflect the world as reliable sources--rather than individual editors--approach it. Many credible sources refer to pseudoscience as a meaningful and identifiable concept. It's not a bulletproof definition, but it has some concrete examples, and the article goes into depth about what criteria are used to delineate it. We also talk about the 'demarcation problem'--the gray area where pseudoscience is unclear, and we should address the view of some reliable sources (but not editors) that pseudoscience is used to shut out unpopular views. That's just one view among many, though, and it's not the view expressed by mainstream and most academic sources. Since those are the sources we reflect primarily, your suggestion can't work. You can read about our policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR. You'll find the community has thought about these issues extensively, and though we welcome new perspectives, we require those perspectives grapple with the world through the eyes of reliable sources. Cheers, Ocaasi 23:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave. While you are entitled to your own personal opinion, the topic of whether other articles can reference the fact that they have been called pseudoscientitific has already been thoroughly discussed and decided on Misplaced Pages. An ArbCom ruling states not only that they can be mentioned but indeed that they must. Removing that information would be trying to hide valid and important information that our readers need to know to make decisions. If you try to edit in support of your personal opinion on the matter the edits in question will have to be removed as in conflict of well established principles here, and if you continue edits beyond that you undoubtedly will be blocked from editing. Just fair warning. DreamGuy (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Public health issue

I find it remarkable that editors keep removing from this article the fact that pseudoscience is considered a public health issue. Any changes adding this information seem to be blindly reverted as a whole without any attempt to improve them to fix the problems ostensibly being offered as rationale for their removal. It is completely uncontroversial that pseudoscience can and does adversely affect health. If you do not like the particular source (and I do not fully understand those arguments) or the wording then take the time to find a source yourself and fix the wording. Removing it entirely seems instead to be an attempt to hide important information from the article to have the end result of pushing a POV. The fact that multiple editors seem to be removing this seems less like informed, good faith consensus building and more like civil POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is not necessarily a public health issue. Astrology is pseudoscience. It is not a public health issue. IMHO, this isn't a POV issue, it is a sourcing issue and a weight issue. If we can find a reliable source that gives adequate weight to the public health aspects of pseudoscience, lets use it! DigitalC (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

More accurately, there are "disciplines" which are pseudoscientific that could give rise to public health issues. Therefore, address those disciplines and the public health aspect will be covered. •Jim62sch• 16:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusing the specific with the general is a common category error. It might be considered uncontroversial to say that bacteria cause disease but actually very few bacteria cause disease. Care is taken in the Bacteria article to make this point in the introduction, providing a frame for subsequent discussion on bacteria and disease. Only a few forms of pseudoscience (mostly quackery) pose a risk to public health. We should avoid perpetuating common errors in thinking and expression. Jojalozzo 21:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit my revert of a few weeks ago, while not done blindly, does look like a bit of a drive-by and for giving that appearance I apologize. I completely agree that "disciplines" of pseudoscience can and do adversely affect health and that the issue should most definitely be covered (in depth) in this article. I will start looking for sources. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose we use the current reliable source until better sourcing is found. You will start looking for sources? That is not a reason to delete the relevant text specifically about pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That source isn't good enough for what you want to use it for. There is consensus not to use that source in such a manner. DigitalC (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You claim the source is not good enough? QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, where's the consensus? I don't see it. •Jim62sch• 22:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Where's your argument based on Misplaced Pages's core policies? QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic sentence in lead: "Eclipse any scientific issues"

The third paragraph of the lead reads:

Pseudoscientific tendencies has political implications that eclipse any scientific issues.

One, has->have. But more importantly, do we really mean political implications rather than 'real-world' implications? And do we really mean "eclipse" as in completely override, and block out. I think we mean: "Pseudoscience has real-world implications." Period. Any reason we don't ditch the extra verbiage and go with that? Ocaasi 10:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Source says "And this is why the problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience is not a pseudo-problem of armchair philosophers: it has grave ethical and political implications". So political is correct, although I'm not sure I would say it currently passes WP:V. The source is saying that the demarcation of science vs. pseudoscience has ethical and political implications, the article says that pseudoscientific tendencies have political implications. Not quite the same thing. DigitalC (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps: "How we distinguish science and pseudoscience is an importantpolitical question as well as a philosphical and scientific one." Jojalozzo 20:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, I'd prefer something like "How we distinguish science and pseudoscience brings up debate in the realms of sciece, philosophy and politics". Or some such drivel. Noting the political issue as the primary and the others ad adjuncts seems odd to me. •Jim62sch• 21:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Imre-Lakatos was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Top-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Top-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• B-Class philosophy of science articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
• Philosophy of science task force articles
• Unassessed science articles
• Unknown-importance science articles