Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pseudoscience: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:51, 16 March 2010 editLudwigs2 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,240 edits →NSF 2006: r to kenosis← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:13, 12 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 16) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talk header}} {{Talk header |search=yes}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{notforum}} {{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Rational Skepticism|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}} {{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Top}}
{{philosophy|importance=mid|class=B|auto=yes|logic=yes|science=yes}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|logic=yes|science=yes}}
{{WikiProject Science|importance=Top}}
}} }}
{{tmbox|image=none|text={{anchor|Please read before starting}}'''Please read before starting'''
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|{{anchor|Notice}}'''Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of ]'''


In December of 2006 the ] created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in ].
* ''']:''' ], a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to ].
* ''']:''' Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
|-

| '''The four groupings found at ]'''
* ''']:''' Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as ], may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
* ''']:''' Theories which have a following, such as ], but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
* ''']:''' Theories which have a substantial following, such as ], but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
* ''']''': Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
|-

| '''Of relevance to "]"'''
* The ], as expressed by the ], has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: ] (ESP), that ], ]s, ], ], ], that people can ], ]es, ], and ]. <small>()</small>
|}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|{{anchor|Please read before starting}}'''Please read before starting'''
First of all, welcome to Misplaced Pages's Pseudoscience article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. First of all, welcome to Misplaced Pages's Pseudoscience article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.


Line 46: Line 29:


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

|-
|'''Notes to editors:''' '''Notes to editors:'''
#This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see ]. #This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see ].
#Please use ]. #Please use ].
|}

{{archivebox|
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}} }}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 11 |counter = 16
|minthreadsleft = 6
|algo = old(70d)
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
__TOC__


== Creationism vs Creation Science ==
== Radiation hormesis? Ball lightning? ==

"There are well-known cases of currently accepted scientific theories or fields that were originally considered pseudoscientific, for example, continental drift, cosmology, ball lightning, and radiation hormesis".

What is radiation hormesis doing in this list?! It is not a currently accepted scientific theory. Quite the contrary. Historically, beneficial effect of low doses of radioactivity has been a "accepted" theory for several decades since discovery of radioactivity (see radiation quack medicines, tanks for adding minuscule amounts of radon into drinking water, radium toothpaste, and such); it has been ruled out by improved understanding of the biochemical effects of radiation, as well as by empirical studies and indirectly by improved understanding of evolution - now it is understood that a wholly beneficial response mechanism, such as the one suggested by 'hormesis' proponents, would not switch off in absence of higher-than-background doses of radiation. Hormesis is no less at odds with our understanding of evolution than Intelligent Design.

I think radiation hormesis should be removed from this list of "accepted" theories. Surely, it is not "accepted" theory in same way as continental drift or cosmology are. Ball lighting also should be removed because "ball lighting" is not a theory; the idea that ball lighting is a (for example) form of electric discharge, would be a theory, as would be theory that ball lighting is a hallucinatory effect caused by combination of electromagnetic pulse, bright flash, loud sound, etc. Actually i'm going to go ahead and remove both ball lightning and hormesis on the list, ball lightning on the grounds that it is not a theory, and hormesis on the ground that saying that hormesis is as accepted as continental drift is a very non-neutral point of view. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:29, September 19, 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:These statements are sourced. Unless the source is unreliable (per ]), inaccurately cited, outdated or misrepresented, the information should remain. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 02:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A statement that 'hormesis' is accepted as scientific theory now any more than it was in the past, is not sourced; it is an inappropriate representation at best. "Ball lightning" itself is not a 'scientific theory' at all; explanation of ball lightning may be. This whole list simply invites cranks to put their favorite theories in as non-pseudoscience.
:You mean except for the four references that follow -esis? ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 11:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

:: I added that as an example of a practice that was once labelled pseudoscience but is now considered a valid ''hypothesis''. To accomodate this, I added the phrase "accepted scientific theories or hypotheses" in the section. Unfortunately, the language has changed since.

:: Hormesis is ''not'' an accepted effect, but it is a valid accepted hypothesis which is supported by some, but not all, of the data. This is what is supported by the sources.] (]) 01:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::: see "Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation". Pretty much every single example of pseudoscience is 'supported by some, but not all, of the data'. Lyseknovism, Lamarkism, n-rays, etc. The whole point of science is that it takes only one single well verified contradicting data point to disprove a hypothesis or theory. There been enough for hormesis; even the very data used by proponents, when controlled for age and smoking, does in fact refute hormesis hypothesis - and unless they can make sound rebuttal, the case's closed as far as science is concerned. ] (]) 09:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

:::: Lysenkoism (in the sense of anti-mendelianism) was not supported by data, it was supported by Marxist dialectic. Neither were N-rays supported by reproducible data, the careful experiments all found no N-rays. On the other hand, radiation hormesis has been demonstrated in reliable animal studies, and has the support of French nuclear bodies. It might not be right, but the case is open. If you believe that the debate is closed, you have information that many leading nuclear bodies don't have, because they are funding experiments on artificially low radiation which will close the question once and for all. Please read the article on ] for the details of the debate.

:::: Although that's the current state of ignorance as far as very low doses of radiation is concerned, many scientists used to make unwarranted extrapolations from high-dose data to conclude that hormesis is pseudoscience. That type of baloney is harder today, because you get called on it. In particular: you are wrong about the smoking controls, this subject was debated ad nauseum on the radiation hormesis page.] (]) 05:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::::: See hormesis page. Taiwan study had older controls, for example; a lot of studies have been discredited. Furthermore, if we were to talk of unwarranted extrapolation, the very concept of dose in sievert relies on assumption that effects are linear. Nonlinear response to dose in sieverts is a total nonsense, an oxymoron; if the effects are not linear there is no reason whatsoever for whole body dose of gamma rays to be equivalent to localized lung dose of alpha particles, times standard scaling factor. Especially considering that on cellular level there is no such thing as low dose of alpha radiation (1 alpha track through cell nucleus is no small dose) but there is such thing as moderately low dose of gamma radiation (1 Compton Scattering electron through nucleus). Nevermind hormesis though. Answer, HOW is "ball lighting" a scientific hypothesis?! A particular explanation of ball lightning may be a hypothesis but 'ball ligtning' is a phenomena! Explanation that it is physical, objective phenomena, or explanation that it is a neurological phenomena caused by effect of electromagnetic pulse on brain, or that it is psychological (people lying), that's hypothesis, but 'alleged phenomena' itself is not a hypothesis. This is merely a list for fringe pseudoscientists to put their beliefs on. Scientists so pseudo that they don't even have a clue what 'hypothesis' means and think that 'ball lightning' is a hypothesis. I think it's best to leave both hormesis and ball lightning here then, so that ball lightning sufficiently discredits this whole list and hormesis along with it <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::: Taiwan study is total bunk--- it's no evidence for or against hormesis because its data was garbage. But there are other studies which are careful which support a small hormesis effect. All that I am saying is that the issue is wide open.

:::::: As far as "dose in Seiverts is linear by definition", nobody is disputing that radiation effects like molecular cleaving or DNA damage is linear. What people are disputing is that this translates to cancer in a linear fasion. There is no reason to believe this a-priori, since cancer is now known to be a complicated process governed by apoptosis checkpoints and self-correction.] (]) 14:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

::: There was a debate earlier about several subjects which I still think make better examples:
:::# ] was rejected, after consensus was that modern hypnosis is too different from its pseudoscience ancestor, mesmerism.
:::# ] as an analgesic, which is discussed fairly now under the broader label of traditional chinese medicine, so no complaints.
:::# ] which were pseudoscience until about 1800.
:::# ] or non-mendelian inheritance, which was rejected as pseudoscience until about a decade ago.] (]) 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::: Also, I don't think cosmology is a good example at all, even though Hawking said so. It's just a bit of hyperbole on his part.] (]) 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

== List of pseudo-sciences ==

The article doesn't has a list of pseudo-sciences.] (]) 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
: I think that's because for any pseudoscience there are pseudoscientists whom move it from list of pseudosciences to list of things that were formerly considered pseudosciences but are now taken as valid scientific hypothesis. Furthermore, most of pseudosciences are profitable. Only something really unpopular AND unprofitable ends up on list of pseudosciences. ] (]) 01:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

== Interesting discussion developing ==

This may require comments from interested parties:

* ]

] (]) 19:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

== Potential addition ==

I wanted to include some info from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#UniDiv: "almost complete disagreement on the general criteria judgments should be based upon."

I wanted at first to include that source in the following paragraph: There is disagreement among philosophers of science and among commentators in the scientific community about whether there is a reliable objective way to distinguish "pseudoscience" from non-mainstream "science" -- but, as the Stanford source seem not to discuss the "lack of unanimity about the existence of ways of distinguishment" per se, it cannot be used to source the current sentence.

However, I wanted to know if you people felt some need to introduce the idea of that perceived lack of unanimity between philosophers of science on the ways to distinguish science from pseudoscience in the introduction rather than in the "Boundaries between science and pseudoscience" section only. Else, the RS could still be used, for instance, to source the first sentence of the latter section.

Hoping this might well be of any use. ] (]) 23:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

== Denialism ==

Links and text about the ] article have been added and deleted. That controversy is more about professional ethics vs. smear campaigns than about science vs. pseudoscience. However, as a current notable and controversial subject, the scandal and climate change in general deserves a mention for clarification in the context of science vs. pseudoscience, with, of course, a neutral point of view. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:No, as it isn't pseudoscience and isn't known as such. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 22:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:I don't think that the ] merits any attention on this widely-scoped article. However, there is no direct discussion of the relationship between pseudoscience and the broad topic of ] (in which some would include the subject of ]). There's a from which to draw... &mdash; ]'']'' 23:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

::Using two articles from the Google scholar link given above, I came up with a proposed statement connecting ] and ]. I am not sure where the statement should be placed.<blockquote>"] of issues often uses ] to back up their claims. For media editors, reporting both the scientific side and the denier's side in an attempt to give balanced coverage takes the risk of publishing psuedoscientific nonsense. For medical issues, this could influence people in a way that risks their health. For climate change, the effects are less personal and more long-term, but the effects also put individuals and communities at risk. For politicians with an agenda of denial, use of psuedoscience can be used to justify government policies that have a detrimental effect."</blockquote>] (]) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I think this is a good start...I'll mull over the wording some and see if I can suggest some concrete changes. I think a level two header between the "Identifying pseudoscience" and "Demographics" headers could be created on "The usage of pseudoscience" (or something of that vein) Under such a header one could expand broadly upon who stands to gain and lose from pseudoscientific (or ]) claims; the denialism-related content would fit well there. Thoughts? &mdash; ]'']'' 18:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Two additional possible locations for the connection between pseudoscience and denialism: (1) In the section "Identifying pseudoscience". Promoting things (for fame or money) and denialism (often the other side of the coin when promoting something else) is not universally associated with pseudoscience, but neither are some of the other characteristics in the section "Identifying pseudoscience". (2) The ] article, since pseudoscience is an important tool in the toolbox of denialism. BTW, the denialism article needs more work than the pseudoscience article - the lead needs to be boiled down to a short paragraph, and the rest of the lead made into sections.
::::Pseudoscience, like legitimate science, can be used as a tool in the toolbox of methods used to promote and/or discredit anything. The process works like this: If legitimate science leads unambiguously or incontrovertibly to a single policy or position, and an individual or group has the goal of being against that policy or position, then denialism of that policy or position would require pseudoscience to "scientifically" justify or validate that policy or position. If legitimate science does not lead unambiguously to a single policy or position, then this is probably an ordinary controversy, and not denialism. The use of psuedoscience would not be required to justify or validate, but it might be used anyway. ] (]) 16:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


I understand that the list for pseudoscience's is a quote,
==Videos and Misplaced Pages?==
Hi all. Here is a video on pseudoscience that some here might find useful somewhere, if not Misplaced Pages


"that ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] are pseudosciences."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHkjVySxagI


but should the link for creationism be changed to ] rather than ], seeing that that page is dedicated to the specific pseudoscientific claims instead of ], which is more philosophical. ] (]) 05:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
However, when is it ok to post videos within any article in Misplaced Pages?
Cheers ] (]) 01:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


:] has sections on different types. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] are all pseudoscience.
==AfD:Reverse scientific method==
Please, go make your voice heard in the discussion ]! ] dixit. (]!) 13:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


:changing the link seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. and if creation science is what we use for that subject on wikipedia, i think it makes sense for the text to also be changed to Creation Science. ] (]) 04:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
== NSF 2006 ==
::We use the term "creation science" for creation science and "creationism" for creationism. Both are pseudoscience (see my contribution above; I moved yours down because it is newer, see ]), so there is no good reason to replace it. --] (]) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
:::According to ] guideline, it is better to use a more accurate language rather than pseudoscientific one. So, ] and ] is better to classified as ] rather than pseudoscience. ] and ] is better to classified as scientific speculative rather than pseudoscience. ] is better classified as traditional ] or ] rather than pseudoscience. ] is better classified as ] rather than pseudoscience. The term "Pseudoscience" is better reserve for only those theory that really look like science but actually are not science or rejected by science, say ], or ] ] (]) 07:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Furthermore, there are critical difference between real pseudoscience vs religious concept like creationism, or traditional superstitions concept like astrology. A Real pseudoscience is difficult to differentiate from real science, say most people who believe ] think they are real science and widely accepted by mainstream scientist. However, most creationism believer and advocator are well-informed and they understand creationism are religious concept not current science concept, but they believe bible is more reliable than science when we study the origin of species. Astrology believer are also well-informed that it is being criticized as superstitions. Better language can highlight which one is the real pseudoscience. ] (]) 08:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::::The gist is that we (meaning Wikipedians) aren't the ] who establish demarcation. ] (]) 18:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)


== Race ==
The NSF 2006 report supports the . ] (]) 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


About recent edit. The removal based on the edit summary appears incorrect, if ] is merely a ] then then logic goes that it is not scientifically valid. ] (]) 14:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:The NSF 2008, 2009 and 2010 do ''not'' support the text. what's your point? --] 20:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


== UFO ==
::The point is that you did not deny the NSF 2006 report supports the text. ] (]) 20:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello, there's a topic on this subject already, but I still wonder, why are you people claiming UFO are pseudoscience? Clearly, life doesn't exist only on this planet, and the UFO sightinghs are real... so it may not be a science, but it's not false either. ] (]) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::I didn't provide this material, but merely integrated it into the lead in a more compact way. While I'm not sure the statement is needed in the lead, I did check the source to make sure the statement is supported. of the NSF source gives ten items in their survey of 2001 and 2006 which they explicitly refer to as "pseudoscientific beliefs". ... ] (]) 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


:Strictly speaking, the claim that there are flying objects which have been not identified is not pseudoscience. Claiming that aliens visit the Earth ''without very good evidence'' is pseudoscience. ] (]) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I simply cannot believe that we have to discuss this nonsense at ''yet'' another place. To how many articles and other pages has BullRangifer spread his misquotation?
:::The list is taken ''seriously'' out of context:
:::* The list was apparently made up by someone for a Gallup poll. It does not originate from the NSF.
:::* The NSF quoted the list in order to explain what exactly the Gallup poll had measured as a proxy for belief in ''paranormal''. (''Not'' pseudoscience.)
:::* The NSF document refers casually and carelessly to the 10 "paranormal" proxies in this way: "Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items".
:::Under these circumstances it is a bit of a stretch to claim that the NSF "gives ten examples of beliefs they consider pseudoscientific". What they really do is say that instead of measuring belief in pseudoscience they took someone else's poll that measured belief in paranormal. Since that is a bit dubious, they were also open about what exactly that poll measured – and lo and behold! it measures some things that are somewhat appropriate for paranormal but much less so for pseudoscience. ] ] 21:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


== Pseudoscience on the Pseudoscience Article ==
::::If you think the text is a then what do you think is the correct quotation that could be included in this article or do you think the source is unreliable. ] (]) 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


The section ] heavily relies on ], presenting it as if the popular science book ] and its proposed terminology and concepts were widely accepted as fact. Special attention should be paid to ] and ]. At the very least, the paragraph should be changed to contextualize the statement as being made in the view of dual process theory, and not simply throw out "System 1, our default operating system which requires little to no effort" as a phrase with no wiki links as if it was an obvious well-established concept.
:::::(e/c) Kenosis - no one is question whether the phrase appears. that's just a red herring. The issue here is that you have a document (Science and Technology Indicators) revised by the NSF on a yearly basis. the document is not primarily about pseudoscience - in fact, the term pseudoscience in each year only appears in one section of one chapter dedicated to 'Public Attitudes' about science. Out of the last ten years of revisions, only two or three revisions seem to have anything like this terminology, and the most recent of those is four years old (four revisions ago). If the proponents of this silly piece of misrepresentation want to insist that the passage be used, then they are damned well obligated to attribute it correctly (as a minor point, occasionally made) and not misattribute it as though it were the whole and primary purpose for which the NSF writes and revises this document. do you have an objection to that?


I'd change the paragraph myself and remove any mention of Dual process theory as per the fringe theory policies outlined at ], but the page is protected, likely due to similar content continually being added to it. ] (]) 16:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't mind at all having people push for the scientific perspective: that's a good thing. that attitude doesn't extend to people who make arguments that the mentally retarded would have no trouble seeing through. please don't be complicit in their stupidity. --] 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


== Scientific Consensus ==
:::Much of "paranormal" (didn't know this is a noun) falls under pseudoscience, but not all. As Misplaced Pages says: '''Pseudoscience is a that is ''claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific,'' but '''. There are things that fall under paranormal and don't satisfy even this most basic condition. Therefore they are not pseudoscience.
:::It's not as if the NSF didn't agree that the definition of pseudoscience necessarily includes that something pretends to be scientific. Here is the full paragraph that immediately precedes the paragraph of the NSF paper from which the misquotation comes:
::::''Pseudoscience has been defined as 'claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility' (Shermer 1997, p. 33). In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation" (Shermer 1997, p. 17).''
:::There are several red flags here that tell us this part of the paper has been assembled carelessly: The equation paranormal = pseudoscience that isn't even discussed anywhere, the claim that ghosts and reincarnation fall under pseudoscience (they mostly don't of course, they mostly fall under traditional beliefs or religion). And the fact that all of this wasn't present in the previous version and never appeared again, either.
:::As if that wasn't enough, it's not just quoted in a way that gives it more weight than it deserves, it's also assembled from something in the main text plus something in a footnote, in order to arrive at the surprising claim that ghosts and reincarnation are pseudoscience in contradiction to the previous paragraph. ] ] 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in ] that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority."
:::::Seems to me that when the NSF states ''"Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items"'', then provides the list in the footnote, that's about as explicit as it gets. Plainly the sentence in the NSF document refers to the ten items as "pseudoscientific beliefs". And, it's not a "proxy", as Hans Adler says, for anything-- the title of the relevant section in the NSF document is: "Belief in Pseudoscience". And, I recommend to read the sentence in the article again-- it's not the same sentence that was discussed in the "Is the NSF a reliable source" RfC at ], nor the same sentence that was discussed at ]. The NSF doesn't explicitly assert that it represents the "scientific consensus"; it merely makes explicit by its usage of the words "pseudoscience" and "belief" that in their judgment the list consists of 10 "pseudoscientific belief" ... ] (]) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! ] (]) 19:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::If that's your definition of ], then how do you define ]?
::::::It's painfully obvious that some poor guy (or gal) at the NSF, perhaps even a secretary, got the job to write something about belief in pseudoscience, didn't find anything but found a poll about belief in paranormal instead, and then just used that, hoping that nobody would notice. Well, someone ''did'' notice. A pseudo-pro-science POV pusher on a quote-mining spree found the passage and used it. That's not sound citation practice at all. I am glad we don't have to deal with Brangifer's "scientific consensus" nonsense that he had pulled out of thin air, but we must also fix the other problems. ] ] 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


:Thanks for your question. And welcome to Misplaced Pages. You've also asked this question at ] and it is receiving response there. Please don't ask the same question in two different locations. ] (]) 08:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Now seriously, this is a travesty. We can't have the lead claim (correctly) that pseudoscience is something that poses incorrectly as science, and then say ghosts and reincarnation are examples of that. Not spiritism, "ghost hunting" or "reincarnation research", but ghosts and reincarnation, no less. It's a joke. ] ] 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
::Sorry, I am new to this. Should I delete the question, if it is possible? ] (]) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's fine. Personally, I would just leave this conversation here. It shows that the issue is noted and resolved. ] (]) 18:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


== Danger of Pseudoscience ==
::Well, the NSF isn't required to prove anything to merit a statement about stuff they refer to as pseudoscientific beliefs. Anyway, given that I've become involved in trying to work the material into the article (not that I'm stuck on the idea), I took a cue from Hans Adler and modified the sentence to the following form: ''"The National Science Foundation, in reporting on "Belief in Pseudoscience" reports ten examples of paranormal beliefs they consider pseudoscientific:"'' . Possibly this helps towards resolving our little dilemma about whether to include this material and whether it's both compact and accurate. Again, in the end, I'm not stuck on keeping it in, but plainly some editors want it in there, and it'd be nice to find a workable solution if possible. ... ] (]) 21:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
::Another quick note: If it's to stay in there, maybe it needs to be made a bit less presumptively US-centric by including a reference to "the U.S. National Science Foundation"? I'm out of here for now-- everybody, good luck working it through. ... ] (]) 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


"Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects." This seems like an incomplete statement to make that leads the reader to believe that, conversely, Science does not have dangerous effects and is therefore superior. Countless products of the scientific process have caused dangerous effects on humans, animals, plants, and the environment (csuch as chemicals in our food, side effects of vaccinations, radiation, etc, all of which have evidence of harm to ). Pseudoscience is not necessarily more beneficial or harmful than science, but rather has different processes leading to it. ] (]) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::(e/c) well, I don't mind the source, but I do mind it being taken out of context. this chapter isn't even about pseudoscience - it's about poor critical thinking skills and science education, and pseudoscience enters in to it primarily as ''examples''. the purpose of this quote was decidedly not to claim that there were 'pseudoscientific beliefs' but to point out that people believe things that have no scientific standing. let me look at the context here and see if I can create a better phrase than that, because that's still pretty hefty misrepresentation.


:The quoted statement is true. But unless you suggest a specific edit based upon ], your request has to be discarded.
:::beyond that, I've made a decision. I know a few people in the NSF, and I have connections with a few largish scientific organizations. I think I'm going to poke around, find out who edits that section of the S&TI, send them links to these discussions, and encourage them to (a) clarify their stance on pseudoscience to prevent this kind of abuse, and (b) include these wiki-skeptic arguments as examples of the poverty of critical thinking skills in the American public. There's a ''gold mine'' here for a dedicated researcher; I'm even tempted to write up an article for publication on it myself. Might not work out, but if I'm lucky I'll get an ''en clair'' statement in the next S&TI; if I'm ''very'' lucky, I'll get the NSF to send a letter to the foundation asking them to cease and desist such misrepresentations. Might as well try to fix this problem at the source. --] 21:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
:Namely, the evil consequences (real or purported) of science amount to ]. ] (]) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:13, 12 December 2024

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

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

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes to editors:

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

Creationism vs Creation Science

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

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

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

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

Race

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

UFO

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

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

Pseudoscience on the Pseudoscience Article

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

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

Scientific Consensus

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

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

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

Danger of Pseudoscience

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

The quoted statement is true. But unless you suggest a specific edit based upon WP:RS, your request has to be discarded.
Namely, the evil consequences (real or purported) of science amount to WP:COATRACK. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: