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 15:04, 3 March 2011 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Replacing source text with original research continues: more recent WP:OR← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:13, 12 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,031 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}}
{{not a forum}} {{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.
|-

|}
{| 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 44: 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 ].
|}
{{archive box |search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month |
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 13 |counter = 16
|minthreadsleft = 6
|algo = old(30d)
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
__TOC__
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}}

== Article is an arbitration case waiting to happen ==

But that is the whole point of this article. First, there have been endless discussions attempting to reach a lasting consensus. For instance, and . I have attempted to explain the case for the point of view of some of the commonly named pseudosciences, not to explain their value, but to show that the article is simply calling out any subject that is not mainstream. I told you that all of the science methodologies are properly dealt with in parapsychology and all you can see is your incredulity about ghosts. I told you that we examine all possible answers and you assume we have made a conclusion in behalf of what you obviously think must only be supernatural. Most noteworthy are the two logical errors in your advice that we are somehow violating Occam and that, if the answer is not in the book, then we should keep reading until the answer is in the book. Is there not something about the definition of insanity here?

So here is the bottom line. The article is written too inclusively when there is no need. Yes, obviously there is pseudoscience out there. Unlike some, I am not offended by the concept of this article. What I am offended by is that it is written in a way that gives closed minded people a name to dismiss what they don't understand. ] (]) 01:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

:Tom, allow me to be completely open. The problem you are talking about has deep historical roots on project. there was a period some years ago, before my time, when editors went to bat against a whole slew of fairly extreme fringe science advocacy. It was good that that happens - we don't really want wikipedia proclaiming UFOlogy and cryptozoology as important mainstream sciences, for instance - but it left in its wake an unfortunate hard-core anti-fringe advocacy cohort, and a sometimes pugnaciously hard-nosed pro-science attitude across the project. Myself, I've been slowly working to moderate that attitude over time, but it's the kind of thing where headway is measured in months, not edits. Aggressive challenges of the kind you're making just trigger an automatic defensive reaction. while there are times when it's useful to trigger such a reaction, for the most part it's better to try to ease your way into it and make incremental changes. --] 03:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

::I understand the recalcitrance of mainstream editors. I also know that whatever progress made here to make this article more balanced would be reversed the day Schroeder is let out of jail. Reading the article at one time, one finds the same things said over and over--psycho babble, assumptions of delusion or fraud. I cannot see that you have made any forward progress, nor will you by being the only agreeable "balancing editor".

::I see that the page gets around 1500 hits a day. Considering my website only sees 1000, that is a pretty big deal. We do not have an article on pseudoscience, but a search on the Internet gets this Misplaced Pages article first, and then and endless array of skeptical websites harping about pseudoscience. The common denominator is that they vilify free thought rather than discussing specifics. Perhaps my time would be better spent placing an article high on that search.

::Meanwhile, it is NewsJournal season and I have to get back to work. ] (]) 23:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

== Damned liar! ==

{{Quote|''"There's lies, there's damn lies... and there's Statistics"'' - Mark Twain}}
{{Quote|''"I am a Statistician"'' - PPdd}}
Pseudoscience commonly uses methods to lie with statistics. An example is methods derided in '']'', which uses "]" and "]" as synonyms to describe abuse of statistics in social sciences. (The book is pretty ideologically right wing, Bork liked it, so "hoodoo science" is common in right wing intellectual attacks on contrary ideological arguments abusing statistics in social sciences and now other sciences.) I propose a new section in this article about "]". There is much RS on this. ] (]) 05:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

== ]'s subsumption of pseudoscience and junk science under pathological science ==

]'s definitions here seems to subsume pseudoscience and junk science under pathological science. I think the three are essentially synonyms in general academic use, and the articles should be merged. ] (]) 06:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

== Merge from hoodoo science ==

] is currently about two sentences with two sources, one of which is apparently a bare mention. I suggest merging it into this page, perhaps in one of the "identifying pseuodoscience" subsections. Unless there are considerably more sources forthcoming on this neologism, it's better (and safer) here where it is one part of a larger topic and thus unlikely to be deleted. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 17:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:I created it. Merge it to be a section of this page, with a redirect to here. ] (]) 18:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Also merge ], ], and ] to sections here, and add sections on ] ] here but possibly keep their own article, which may have extra technical or political stuff.
:Some think ] and ] are subsets of ],, some others think the other way around, and some think the three are synonyms. No need for four articles on what are not uncommonly used as synonyms ] (]) 18:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
::I think the merges to here make sense. Pathological science may in some sense be the umbrella, but in overwhelming common usage pseudoscience is the general category. Anyway, pathological almost always seems to connote bad faith, so I think pseudoscience is a much better core term. Pseudo is neutral enough that it doesn't take a stance on the intent of the practitioner, though it can accommodate simple incompetence, ignorance, or malice. So I think we should keep it at the center. ] (]) 19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Merge all to here. ] (]) 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

'''Agree''' I support the merger proposal. Put all of the crap in one pile, I always say. ] (]) 01:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
:Having looked briefly at all pages, Hoodoo science is the only one that I really, strongly feel needs merging here. The rest could probably remain as standalones (based on current content). Voodoo science should be ''Voodoo Science'' in my opinion though - focusing on the book but incorporating the few mentions of the phrase into the page. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 02:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
::Let's add a mention of "voodoo science" as a historical term and synonym here, and convert that page to the book article; it's 90% about Park (author) anyway. ] (]) 11:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

== Absence from citation databases ==

In '''Absence from citation databases''', the entry mistakes acceptance by the mainstream as the definition of pseudoscience. If there are no references for this, it should go. Lack of citation only indicate ignorance of the subject or ignoring the subject but does not say anything definitive about the kind of science. ] (]) 02:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

== Unnecessary examples ==

{{resolved}}
New editors have added ] to the list of examples in ]. I understood we were keeping the number of examples to a minimum, partly for clarity and partly to keep this article from becoming a list of alleged pseudosciences. Each of my attempts to adhere to what I understood as our consensus was reverted and I have used up my three reverts. I do not believe that adding Dianetics or any additional alleged pseudoscience examples will improve this article. I hope we can discuss this issue here rather than edit warring. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 07:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

: I'm not sure what you mean by "new editors". Lots of us watch and edit these pages. To many of us you are the new editor. It's rather interesting that you only reacted to the addition of Dianetics, and used a false edit summary, which was answered quite well by Moriori. Each time you always chose to remove only that one. The Dianetics article makes it plain that it's considered pseudoscientific. Now if there is a consensus to not add more (and I'm not the one who added it, or restored it, whatever the case may be), then point me to it. -- ] (]) 07:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::I apologize for not recognizing your past contributions here and lumping you with others who seem to be participating here mainly to promote the inclusion of this link to Dianetics. The other examples in the See also section are listed because they are the examples chosen for illustration purposes in the article. As my edit comment said, Dianetics is not referenced in the article and I do not see how adding any more examples to the See also section benefits this article. In addition, as my edit comments said, this article is not the place for a list of pseudosciences. There is another article for that and there are good reasons for why we have made that separation. I may be completely off base, but it appears to me that some editors may have more interest in associating Dianetics with pseudoscience than in improving this article. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Brangifer, I once used the Scientology ''Celebrity Center'' in Hollywood to put on a fashion show, and (of course) got a sales pitch based on a bunch of pseudoscience gobbledy-gook, which was the most clear cut case of actual pseudoscience I have ever personally encountered in real life (and I knew Linus Pauling and owned the building across the street from his "Vitamin C Studies Institute" - my own name for it, so that is saying something). But the Dianetics article in no way makes it clear, implicitly by describing Dianetics, or explicitly, that Dianetics is a pseudoscience, so the link as it stands in the pseudoscience article has no value at all for a reader, and I tempororily deleted it. When I have time to read up a little on what I actually saw being argued as practiced, I will add to that article, and put the example back in this one. Or if you can add a brief RS description of the pseudoscience methods into the Dianetics article, then put it back in the list in the pseudoscience article, this will actually help users understand what a pseudoscience is. ] (]) 15:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::: Then you haven't looked carefully at the article. The word appears three times in different places, it is in the Category:Pseudoscience, and it has the pseudoscience template at the bottom, and it's properly sourced. This was mentioned in the edit summaries more than once. Otherwise I have no problem with the cleanup of the See also section. -- ] (]) 01:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The "See also" section is supposed to provide leads to further reading that might help expand the reader's understanding of the topic and direct them to related topics, and one of the things a reader might be thinking is "''I wonder what topics are generally considered as pseudoscience?''". To satisfy that, we have a link in the "See also" section to ], which I think is quite sufficient - I see no additional benefit in picking out a small handful of examples to include separately. I also don't think we need "See also" entries for topics highlighted elsewhere in the article, as they should be wikilinked where they're mentioned, and so they don't need additional "See also" links - see ], where it says "''Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section''". So I say leave out Dianetics and also remove the few existing links to specific "pseudosciences", as they are already linked in the article or are included in the list. -- ] (]) 15:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:That's fine with me. I think the main article ] is pretty thorough. Does the benefit from selecting a few from that list outweigh the drama caused in the selection? It seems like it will continue to make for these kinds of debates, as there is no particular logic to ''why 3'' or ''why 5'' or ''why these 3'' or ''why these 5''... ] (]) 15:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::I removed the specific examples as redundant since already in the list, and arbitraily chosen (and to avoid "you're arbitratily picking on me" talk and edits). ] (]) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I am one of the "new editors" mentioned by User:Jojalozzo, having first contributed to Wiki nine and a bit years ago (as IP). I noted that he had removed Dianetics from the article and User:BullRangifer then restored it. Jojalozo reverted a little later with the edit summary ''"not ref'd in article, does not belong"''. This raised my antennae so I checked out the Dianetics article and saw it is considered to be pseudoscience. Deciding his edit reeked of censorship I restored Dianetics with the edit summary ''"Dianetics is definitely ref'd as pseudoscience in its article. See last sentence in 'Scientific evaluation and criticisms' "''. Jojolozzo reverted, but found an entirely new reason, instead saying ''"we have enough examples here, please use List of topics characterized as pseudoscience"''. So once again I restored Dianetics to this article, leaving the edit summary ''"Restore valid entry. It features in "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and has a Pseudoscience Category on its own article. It is vandalism to remove valid information."''. That was my last edit for yesterday (afternoon my time) and I see this morning Dianetics (and others) have been deleted. I'm not too fussed by that, but I just needed to explain why I edited as I did. I saw it as censorship, and acted accordingly for the good of Misplaced Pages. I I wasn't a newbie making rash edits. ] (]) 21:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't think anyone took the new-editors piece too seriously. Any deletions of a known pseudoscience are cause for suspicion, but when it's one from a Scientology related enterprise there's an even extra level of hmm... Not to accuse anyone of anything, just to explain the level of attention these things get. I think the current state, with just the List and no examples works best, but not for the reasons suggested initially by those wanting to remove it. ] (]) 21:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::'''Comment''' - Does anyone care enough one way or another to even bother to comment? ] (]) 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Don't we already have a ]? Since there are so many on that list, we can hardly mention most or all of them here, so I think listing one or two specific pseudosciences in "see also" will have more disadvantages than advantages - any choice would be arbitrary and it's a catalyst for miniature edit wars when we could all be doing something else more useful. {{=)}} ] (]) 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe we should vote on it, and tell our best personal adventures with pseudosciences as justifications for our vote... but on the list talk page, not here. ] (]) 23:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: I see Moriori and Ocaasi have explained exactly the reasons why I saw red flags and edited as I did. We see this type of situation often and it often doesn't bode well, but this ended fine. It looks like we can mark this resolved. -- ] (]) 01:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: I too am glad this has been resolved amicably. My POV radar lit up for the opposite reason. I guess that's what the ] is for, eh? <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 02:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

== Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by pseudoscience journals ==

Alt Med journals revisited: Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by pseudoscience journals is being discussed here. ] (]) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

== Suitable to include in the main text ==

According to this the text is not suitable for the lead. So, I with . ] (]) 22:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Did replace sourced text with ]? Does the source say "may in some cases". Did the fail ]? I do, however, I agree with the . ] (]) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

:Sorry, but I've removed this text, as it is an obvious misrepresentation of the source. Looking at the abstract in the link, three things are eminently clear:
:# This is a brand new article that has in no way stood the test of time
:# That the author is not discussing the dangers of pseudoscience, but is using that phrase as a casual introduction to his real topic, the psychological factors that lead people to accept pseudoscience
:# That ''at best'' this line would point to medical pseudoscience (it's published in PubMed), and at worst it would apply to a restricted subset of medical pseudoscience which the author describes in detail in the first sections of the article.
:since I don't have access to PubMed at the moment I can't read the article to be sure what he's talking about, but I can say that as a research psychologist the author may not be qualified to render an opinion on the ''medical'' dangers of pseudoscience to the public, and if he is offering a new theorty on the ''psychological'' dangers to the public it's most likely not significant enough to use here.

:In short, the statement may not satisfy ] and the source may not be reliable for the use it's being put to here. can someone post the entire article for me to read? thanks. --] 06:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

:: Here's the :

::* ''Pseudoscience, superstitions and quackery threaten public health.<nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>''

:: Here's the abstract, where we are obviously drawing from the lead sentence:

::* ''Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality of so many people that needs to be understood. The proposal we put forward is that these illusions arise from the normal functioning of the cognitive system when trying to associate causes and effects. Thus, we propose to apply basic research and theories on causal learning to reduce the impact of pseudoscience. We review the literature on the illusion of control and the causal learning traditions, and then present an experiment as an illustration of how this approach can provide fruitful ideas to reduce pseudoscientific thinking. The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better. Two different predictions arising from the integration of the causal learning and illusion of control domains are then proven effective in reducing this illusion. One is showing the testimony of people who feel better without having followed the treatment. The other is asking participants to think in causal terms rather than in terms of effectiveness.''

:: Ludwigs2, how do you interpret this? You're welcome to improve on our use of the source. -- ] (]) 07:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:::One of the above criticisms is that regarding the key sentence, "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved," it is not indicated by the abstract alone whether it is a passing observation or a key result of the study. If we're using this source for that claim, the relevant piece would come from the conclusion and not the background section. It's hard to tell how it the study approaches that statement without access to the full study, though... ] (]) 07:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:::: What is significant about this study is the casual learning approach to get patients active in identifying causes, over just describing the modality effectiveness. The intro is sensationalism, for demonstrating relevance and getting attention. The study does not appear to be designed to validate the "serious problem". To say it does and include in this article is a pseudoscience illusion. ] (]) 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

:::Again, brangifer, if you could post a public link to something more than the abstract? I recognize the style of abstract here; I've done it myself. when you compress a 12-15 page article down to 250 words you have to toss out a recognizable context quickly and briefly and then get to your main result, and this often means that you do not do justice to the context. as I (and others) have said, that first line is over-brief framing, not study conclusions, which leads me to worry that (a) we are taking the phrase out of the author's context and misusing it, and (b) that the author might not be qualified to make the claim that we are asserting s/he made. an examination fo the full article would clarify that. --] 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
::::Users could download the original article , assuming they had access rights. (Easy to find, given the title of the journal.)
::::I have placed a copy on my wikipedia website <nowiki>http://mathsci.free.fr/ludwigs2.pdf</nowiki>. ] (]) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::I have now removed the copy. {{user|Ocaasi}} disclosed on my talk page that he had downloaded his copy from my website. Please ask Ocaasi if you need to view the whole article and do not have access rights yourself. Thanks. ] (]) 05:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::I actually just copied the text and pasted it from the first 4 paragraphs. I don't have my own copy. ] (]) 05:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Relevant excerpt ===
http://bpsoc.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/pre-prints/bjp898
{| class="wikitable collapsible"
|-
| <small>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.

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. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality and effectiveness of so many people that needs to be understood. One obvious route for research that many have already explored consists on investigating the psychological differences between believers and non-believers in pseudoscience and the paranormal, under the assumption that some type of flawed intelligence or other, related problems, are responsible for these beliefs. This approach, however, has not yielded consistent results (see Wiseman & Watt, 2006, for a review).

We suggest a different route. The proposal we put forward is that systematic cognitive illusions that occur in most people when exposed to certain situations are at the basis of pseudoscience beliefs. Systematic errors, illusions, and biases can be generated (and thus reduced as well) in the psychological laboratory and are the result of the normal functioning of our cognitive system as it relates with the world and extracts information from it (see Lo´pez, Cobos, Can˜o, & Shanks, 1998, for an excellent review of biases in the causal learning domain). The main benefit from encompassing this approach is that much of what is already known from rigorous laboratory studies on causal and contingency judgments can be fruitfully incorporated into programmes designed to reduce the impact of pseudoscience in society.

To this aim, we will first review laboratory studies both on the illusions of control and on the more general topic of causal learning in normal individuals, in order to show that these research lines provide convergent evidence and interesting suggestions that can help understand the illusions responsible for pseudoscientific thinking. A very simple experiment will then be reported as an example of how predictions arising from those laboratory traditions can be used to reduce the illusions and to design effective programmes to combat pseudoscience.</small>
|}
:The extract of the Psychology paper that MathSci has been kind enough to put up here suggests that the paper is polemic in tone. In addition to its recent publication not giving it enough time to be peer assessed, this suggests that the paper may not yet have achieved the status of a source reliable enough for this article. I don't think that the article will be diminished by its omission. I have much sympathy with people like Quack-Guru who conceive it to be their mission to save the world from the ravages of quackery, but I feel that this would be done best by keeping this article as neutral as possible. ] (]) 04:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC).
::Sorry, it seems it was Ocaasi who posted the extract. It helps to sign posts at bottom. ] (]) 05:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC).
:::I pasted text copied from MathSci's link, and didn't want to implicate anyone in a possibly excessive instance of fair use reproduction. The only purpose of posting was so we could all read it, and discuss the source. Towards that end, MathSci's version was very useful. ] (]) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks to you both. ] (]) 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC).
::: Another reference for ] ... about time to start this article. The pseudoscience label doesn't seem to help address the causation issues. Seems like it's mainly a stone to cast in a warrior's battlefield. ] (]) 05:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

=== 'Cause and effect' subthread ===
:::: This article neglects the ] attribution issues when distinguishing between pseudoscience and science claims. ] (]) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::Your addition, which has the article state: "The basic notion is that all experimental results on ] should be ]...", does not make sense. Please clarify. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::Hi, I appreciate your concern about cause and effect making sense; however, where are you mixed up? How would you suggest to improve? I was trying to keep it simple under the principle that empirical science aims to identify cause and effect relationships. ] (]) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::::The problem is that the sentence appears not to make ] sense. Probably the key problem is at "experimental results on ]". Oh, and discussion of the atrticle belongs on article talk, not user talk. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: Thanks, what syntax rule is being violated? Can you suggest an improvement? ] (]) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::(i) Not being a grammaticist, I have no idea -- all I know is that it does not parse into anything meaningful. (ii) As I've no idea what it is ''supposed'' to mean, no. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: Having no idea, I guess we will all remain baffled by the tag's meaning too. ] (]) 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Perhaps then you should attempt to explain here what you were ''trying'' to say in the sentence in question. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

: Sure, based upon the premise that science is the process to determine or describe causes and effect relationships with empirical observation. ] is at the origin of scientific thought. However, the Pseudoscience issues tends to place science at the boundary between Aristotle's four causes. The simple addition was an attempt to bring causality references into the article, from the existing sources, as prompted by the studies which applied "causal learning" Thanks for rearranging this talk. I suspect creating a "causal learning" article and then appropriately cross referencing between this article, without a POV fork, would help expand Misplaced Pages's goals and give adequate weight to causality as related to pseudoscience. ] (]) 14:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

::I think what you were attempting to say was that "The basic notion is that the ] of all experimental results should be ]..." -- however, the "cause and effect" part of that would appear to be redundant -- as "The basic notion is that all experimental results should be ]..." is no less true, and would be the more general case -- as some scientific experiments don't seek to demonstrate causality, but merely correlation. <font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 15:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

::: Yes, that's it. Except when scientists can't keep up with tracking or measuring changes in causes to an effect, then there is a reproducibility issue. Some events have such an unusual confluence of causes, which experiments may find irrelevant or trivial; however, may unexpectedly, in unique conditions, affect the outcome. ] (]) 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

::::ok, there are two separate issues here, which ought to be ''kept'' separate unless you're trying to develop a mental hernia. '''Replicability''' (the ability to reproduce a particular effect) is always pragmatic and evidentiary - we ''see'' (measure) an effect being reproduced, regularly and consistently. '''Causality''' is always theoretical - it's an assertion about the underlying unseen causation of that observable regularity. That's why the theory of gravity is just (and always will be just) a theory: despite the fact that the effects are massively reproducible (pun intended), we cannot ''see'' the causation; all we can do is create theories which describe what we observe as best as possible. What I think you're trying to get at is that there is a difference between a theory which describes observations poorly (which is science, if weak science) and a theory which tries to prescribe observations that do not exist (which is pseudoscience). or am I missing your point? --] 15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

::::: Good point, thanks ... I guess that is why causality can be theoretical expanded to absurdity, where as Replicability would assume a measurement standard. Can't wait to transform this discussion into content ] (]) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

=== Reliable peer reviewed journal ===

The British Journal of Psychology is reliable and the text is relevant to this topic. ] (]) 08:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

:QG - reliability is not a magic wand. Sure, BJoP is an well-established and credible journal, and I see no reason to challenge the credentials of the author. However, neither of those points matter because - as the entire discussion above shows - you are quoting the source out of context. Trying to use a quote to make a claim that the source itself is not actually making is a ], and you don't make things better by saying ''"...but the source I'm misquoting is a '''good''' source."'' Do I really need to explain this to you? --] 10:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
::I edited the addition, since some of it was redundant, and the 'serious threat' claim is not well supported by the source. I think it reads reasonably well, but check it out. ] (]) 10:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
:::Well, I wouldn't really care, except that entire paragraph is just plain wrong, in multiple ways. Don't get suckered by QG's one-man pogrom against AltMed into making compromises with silliness. rewriting it now. --] 11:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
::::Much better, and clearly where the bigger picture is. Writing with a focus on 'the source in your hand' is great for ], but not for ]. One quibble, can we edit out 'ontological claim', as I think the average encyclopedia reader won't know what to make of it? ] (]) 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::Done - I just removed the polysyllab. I was tempted to rewrite it "... ontic/deontic validity assertions..." just to mess with your head, but I refrained (in deed, if not in thought...). {{=)|angel}} --] 12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

::::::Can you show how the source was taken out of context. ] (]) 05:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Ocaasi, can you show how the text was . Do you think the journal is a reliable source when you stated a source may not have to be MEDRS. So far no good reason has been given to delete the reliable source. ] (]) 20:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::"Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."
::::::The 'serious threat' claim is well supported by the source. The correct term is 'public health' because it is supported by the source. The text passed verification. ] (]) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::In fact, no. first, "Public Health" is almost invariably used to apply to things like sanitation problems, toxic spills, or epidemics, which affect large numbers of people indirectly and without their knowledge or volition. Pseudoscience would not be considered a public health issue in that sense since it can only affect individuals who seek it out. second, only a small subset of ''medical'' pseudoscience constitutes any threat to the health of individuals, so therefore the phrase does not fit when we are discussing pseudoscience more generally.

:::::::Finally (and for the last time), verifiability is an ''exclusion'' principle, not an ''inclusion'' principle. we can remove statements that cannot be verified, but the fact that a statement can be verifiable does not guarantee its inclusion. statements which are taken out of context, that are off-topic, or that are otherwise being used in a way inconsistent with the author's intent or the article topic should never be included. --] 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::::The term public health is sourced per V. Your own orginal research review of the source is not verifiable. Diluting the text is taking the source out of context. ] (]) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::The source is being used out of context to begin with, so that hardly matters. --] 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Can you show how the source is being used out of context rather than asserting it when the text is supported by the peer reviewed reference. ] (]) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have already shown that, repeatedly. As I've said, the article in question is specific to medical issues, and the claim you are using is not the focus of the article but merely a framing point in the abstract. Those two things mean that the claim cannot be used in an article about general pseudoscience, both because pseudoscience is a much broader topic than medical issues and because there's no reason to believe the author would make that claim even about all ''medical'' pseudoscience.

:::::::::::This is the last time I'm making this point. if you ignore it (again) and make the same comment (again), I'm gathering up diffs of the six or seven times I've said it to you and opening an RfC/U. either address the point or give it up; the discussion moves on productively or it ends. understood? --] 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:{{outdent|:::::::::}} Your personal disagreement with the peer reviewed source is not a reason to delete the source from the article. The source is specific to the topic of pseudoscience. ] (]) 18:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::It's not a 'personal disagreement' with the source, QG, it's an assessment of the weight the source should be given on this article - which in my view is close to zero. this is not a ] issue, it's ]. --] 18:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:::When your claims 'public health' is the wrong term and the text you deleted is supported by the reference this suggests you do have a personal disagreement with the relevant source. ] (]) 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::::I don't care what you think is 'suggested' by my edit summary; Please comment on the edit, not the editor. The NPOV issue I raised is a valid concern. Either discuss it, or drop the matter. --] 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::The edit summary did not match your edit. You claimed the text is not supported by the reference but the source does support the claim. The NPOV issue you raised is because you think the source is bias becuase you think the term 'public health' is wrong when it is supported by the journal. ] (]) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::No, the NPOV issue is that the source (1) is ''not'' talking about pseudoscience in general, but only about medical pseudoscience, and (2) the source is not ''arguing'' that pseudoscience is a danger to the public, but merely ''asserting'' that in the abstract to frame the issue (making it a point-of-view opinion rather than an analytic conclusion). Thus we have a primary source making a POV-assertion about a small subset of cases of the topic at hand - that carries no scholarly weight at all. --] 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::The text that was added to the article from a journal was sourced. The source does discuss pseudoscience. If you think the source did not discuss pseudoscience then I suggest you read the source again. The source is not arguing that pseudoscience is a danger to the public. The source is stating it is a serious threat to public health. I previously explained the term 'public heatlh' is sourced. You are engaging in OR analysis of the source which is not appropriate. ] (]) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::::You just basically sidestepped what I said, and you are straying further and further from reason and common sense. If you keep pushing this point, I'm going to give up trying to talk to you and simply ] your misuse of policy here as an inane detriment to the encyclopedia. If you like, let's get a ] and lay out our arguments for a stranger to read - I can't imagine anyone who would find your logic convincing. --] 23:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I have to agree that this discussion is veering into the area of silliness. It would be best to put an end to it before accusations of trollery start flying. ] (]) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
::::::::::Ludwigs2, your arguments are not based on V. You seem to want to justify your inclusion oif unsourced text despite you claiming the text is sourced. It does not matter you think the source is asserting the statement. What matters is that the statement is sourced in accordance with V.
::::::::::Xxanthippe, it would be best if you explain why sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal was deleted in favor of text that seems to be unsourced. The NSF website is not peer reiviewed and did not verify the text after I tried to verify the text. I am still waiting for verification and no reasonable explanation was given to delete sourced text. Xxanthippe, you seem to support Ludwigs 2 continuing to ignore V. ] (]) 00:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent|:::::::::}} QG:
# did you seriously just say that a primary source article is more reliable than an NSF-derived secondary publications?
# did you seriously just imply that ] trumps ]?
If I didn't think you were serious I'd be laughing my ass off. well, I'm am laughing my ass off anyway, but it's tinged with a certain sympathetic sadness.

I'm done talking to you, because it's not going anywhere. if you want to do the ] I suggested above, I'm game; if you don't, you're SOL, sorry. Your argument just doesn't have a leg to stand on, and you're the only person here who doesn't see it. --] 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:Your comments are not based on Misplaced Pages policy. Your edits are also based on Misplaced Pages. This content dispute shows you are not able to provide verification for your edit and refuse to comply with both V and NPOV. You have repeatedly that you . You seem to think you can delete sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal and replace it with with whatever unsourced text you want. Please restore the sourced text and try to summarise the journal. ] (]) 03:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

::On the contrary: I am making a perfectly valid argument per ] - you simply refuse to acknowledge it. I've heard your argument, and I've responded to that as well - you simply refuse to acknowledge my response. so be it. We aren't discussing this anymore, QG. You can either choose to accept my offer of ] (or some other ] process, if you prefer), or you can choose to go away. Or I suppose you can choose to keep blathering on here, but I'll simply dismiss any future posts you make (I'll simply respond with a 'piffle'), unless it looks like you're really giving proper consideration to my NPOV issues.

::choose. --] 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Here is the reality of the debate. Please try to choose to respect Misplaced Pages policies. You seem to be ignoring the real NPOV issues. Your edit summary claimed You claim the source does not support the claim. The text is supported by the reliable peer reviewed journal. For example, You claim 'public health' is the wrong term when the source does specifically use the term 'public health'. Your personal disagreement with the source is not a good reason to delete the source. Do you agree in the future you will not replace sourced text with unsourced text. You claimed the NSF website verified the text you added to the article. When I looked closer at it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and it seems you replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed and I could not verify the text with any of the articles from the NSF website. Is there some reason you are not going to try to verify the text or delete the unsourced text you added to the article after the text was challenged. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. Do you agree is was a mistake you deleted sourced relevant text from a reliable journal. I don't think you have provided any good reason a peer reviewed journal should be deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS. When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources there would be no reason in the future to add attribution in the text because you claim the source is asserting the claim. A personal disagreement is not a serious dispute among reliable sources. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you agree to follow V and NPOV policies better in the future. Do you think the text you added is inaccurate and unsourced. Do you think unsourced claims it is appropriate to replace sourced information with unsourced text when there is already an reliable journal available. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is taking the source out of context. It looks like you diluted the meaning of the text because you disagree with the claims the source makes. Do you agree with ] that it says do not remove sourced information because you think it seems ]. See ]: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." See ]: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." See ]: "Many Misplaced Pages articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." See ]: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems ]." You seem to not understand that the reference is from a reliable peer reviewed journal that similar to other references found in the article. ] (]) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
::::piffle. --] 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::You have ignored my request that you provide verifiaction for the unsourced claims not found on the NSF website. Do you agree the text you added should be deleted or replaced with sourced text such as from a reliable peer reviewed source. Do you agree with ] when it says "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Do you agree with ] when it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems ]." ] (]) 06:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Again, I've come to the conclusion that discussing the matter with you is a waste of time - you seem immune to discussion, and there is no hope of resolving the issue through normal methods. Do you agree to use ] such as ] for this issue, or do you refuse? If you refuse DR, then kindly stop filling the talk page with the Same-Old-Crud-You've-Already-Written-A-Double-Dozen-Times. thanks. --] 15:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Uninvited third opinion: I think we all agree that pseudoscience can be harmful but we need a reliable source to make the claim. The brief mention of public health in the journal article is unsupported and not intended to be authoritative. If that is the only available source for the claim, then we should not make the claim. Rather than argue this, everyone's time would be better spent seeking an authoritative and notable source. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 06:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:The is by the NSF website. It is obvious to me the journal does use the term 'public health'. Jojalozzo, does the source say "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten '''public health''' and in which many variables are involved." A peer reviewed journal is reliable according to WP:V. Jojalozzo, do you really support the unsourced text added by Ludwigs2 rather than sourced information from the journal. ] (]) 06:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

::Okay, my 2 cents here: both versions are wrong. The journal was not an adequate source for that text, but Ludwigs2 compounded the situation by making an unsourced edit made from his memory. He claims that it is the NSF position, but he to source the text himself. Also, what Jojalozzo says.

::Proposed drama-less solution: someone reads and rewrites the text according to the actual source. --] (]) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I'll do that myself if no one else gets around to it first - I've just been a bit busy lately. maybe over the weekend? I'm not certain that will resolve the problem, however. --] 18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

::::You claimed the text you added was sourced but what you added was original research. Is there a reason why we should not include the peer reviewed journal. If there is no real reason why the journal was deleted then it should be restored. Ludwigs2, do you agree that the text that failed verfication can be deleted from the article now. ] (]) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::As I've said repeatedly, and as Jojalozzo suggested above, the journal article you want to use is not all that reliable for this topic. It really can't be used in a general discussion of pseudoscience. As fr the other... you can wait a couple of days for me to provide proper referencing. If I haven't done so by monday we can reopen the discussion. --] 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::As ] explains "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." You have not given a good reason why the original research you added to the article can continue to stay in the article. You previously claimed the text you added to the article is sourced but now you think it should be rewritten. I previously told you that the text failed verification but you . You wrote "If I haven't done so by monday we can reopen the discussion." No, there is no reason why editors should wait for you to remove the OR you added to the article. ] (]) 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::QC: Please locate a proper source and add it to the article. Spending time arguing here instead of adding a proper citation is unconstructive. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 22:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::{{cite journal |journal=Br J Psychol |year=2010 |volume= |issue= |pages= |title= Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience |author= Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA |doi=10.1348/000712610X532210 |pmid=21092400 |url=http://bpsoc.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/pre-prints/bjp898 }}
:::::::I did locate a propoer source that is peer reviewed. Would you like me to add it to the article. I have a copy of the PDF file. ] (]) 23:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

'''DNFT''' <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 02:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:DNFT is not an appropriate response to the proposal to using a peer-reviewed source. The original research was replaced with relevant sourced text. ] (]) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

=== Sourced text was replaced with unsourced text ===

Ludwigs2 thinks his opinion is more reliable than the journal according to this against WP:V and WP:OR. We should write with a focus on the source at hand per ]. Relevant text from the source was also deleted in a . ] (]) 05:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 now says he will have to . So, indeed the text is unsourced. We had sourced text from a reliable journal in accordance with V. There is still no good reason to delete reliable sourced text from a journal. ] (]) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

;Failed verification?

Pseudoscience generally requires some unjustified and unsupportable claim to scientific standing or experimental rigor. Superstitions, traditional beliefs, religious ideology or similar claims are not generally considered to be pseudoscience, even where they involve magical thinking or questionable cause-and-effect relationships, unless they actively claim to be scientific or supersede science. Medical pseudoscience (sometimes called quackery) can in some cases pose a threat to health. Many different scientists and scientific organizations, including the National Science Foundation, have called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud.

I tried to verify the text with articles from the NSF website. I was unable to verify the text. If we look closer at this it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed. To be fair, another editor previously diluted the from the journal. ] (]) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:Sources are great QG, but just because you find one doesn't mean we should take any sentence from it and represent it as the whole truth of the entire subject. With Ernst as well it results in articles that can seem pointy and unbalanced. I think it helps to look for all relevant sources which describe an issue rather than just the ones that support one perspective. Not all unquoted writing is OR, some is just summary, and it's a part of the encyclopedic process. So, you might be overly focused on Verification, to the exclusion of NPOV. If the NSF website is not the only relevant source for the recent changes, but there's general agreement that the recent text is a better reflection of the majority of sources out there (which many of us have encountered but may not have on hand to cite), then it's worth tracking down those sources rather than clinging to a verifiable but biased version. ] (]) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

::You think the previous version was verifiable but biased. According to V, editors are simply to present what the reliable sources say. I see you were not able to provide verification for the text. You think requesting V or pointing out that the text failed V might be overly focused on Verification. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. ] (]) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See ]: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say."

See ]: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

See ]: "Many Misplaced Pages articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

I don't think there is any good reason a peer reviewed journal was deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS.

{{cite journal |journal=Br J Psychol |year=2010 |volume= |issue= |pages= |title= Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience |author= Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA |doi=10.1348/000712610X532210 |pmid=21092400 |url=http://bpsoc.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/pre-prints/bjp898 }} ] (]) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:You misinterpreted my analysis. I wasn't commenting on the source's bias, I was commenting on the bias in the resulting Misplaced Pages text from only relying on one source to make a broad claim about the subject. When we use sources which have bias, we attribute the views so that readers know where the bias is coming from. That's NPOV. So, if you'd like to use attribution, that's one way to incorporate the view proportionately. I think you are misreading V: it does not tell us what to do with sources we find, it only tells us that material must be verifiable. I think Ludwigs' exclusion/inclusion framework is accurate and useful. ''NPOV'' tells us what to do with the sources we find, assuming they are RS, and we are supposed to present their views with attribution if they have a bias and in the context of all significant views. Academic sources are usually reliable, but thus is not a gold standard academic source by any means, and editors must useddiscretion to evaluate where sources fit on the spectrum of reliability. That's at the heart of MEDRS and RS. As for V, context matters. You try to string V and RS/MEDRS and Weight together so that we are "forced" to include the sources you present. But that won't result in an encyclopedia which reflects all reliable sources in proportion to their relevance, reliability, and significance. There's a difference and it involves trying to craft a balanced article rather than just making a legal case for inclusion. ] (]) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

::When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources you do not add attribution in the text. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you think Ludwigs' inaccurate WP:OR and unsourced claims is approporaite and useful. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is not adding context. The text was diluting becuase you disagree with the claims the source makes. It is not right for an editor to delete the text or source because you don't like it. ] (]) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::: Seriously, this is looking like crap, can't we just have QG blocked for ]? --] (]) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Do you think deleting sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal and soapboxing. Ludwigs2 claimed the text is sourced but never was able to provide verification. ] (]) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::Editors were given enough time to provide verification for the unsourced text. Since no verification was provided for the original research and there is a peer-reviewed source that meets V I replaced the unsourced text with sourced text in accordance with V. ] (]) 18:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a PDF copy of the source if anyone wants to read it. Please e-mail me for a copy. ] (]) 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:Isn't there a better source that gives a definition of pseudoscience? Some Elsevier dictionary of science, or stuff like that? --] (]) 13:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

::I'm glad you asked since there has been confusion what type of sources are reliable in accordance with ]. We are currently using a peer-reviewed source that gives an overview of pseudoscience. "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." See ]. ] (]) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

:::A dictionary by Elsevier would be an academic publication..... --] (]) 06:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

'''Please DNFT...''' <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

:A dictionary would give a definition but not an overview of the topic. This . A lot of sourced text was deleted without explanation. ] (]) 22:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

:"Pseudoscience, ]s, and medical quackery are serious threats to ]." This recently added text seems to fail ].
:{{cite journal | first=Irving | last=Ladimer | title=The Health Advertising Program of the National Better Business Bureau | journal=Am J Public Health | year=1965 | volume=55 | pages=1217 - 1227 | url=http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/55/8/1217?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=pseudoscience&andorexactfulltext=or&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT | accessdate=February 25, 2011}} page 1219.
:I was unable to verify this claim using this reference. ] (]) 22:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:The letters is not an explanation to deleting relevant sourced text and replacing it with a . ] (]) 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

::(bashes head on keyboard) ornirtdfrtifgtthuirti9thju9rbtj9prbgt9p8 Damm it all, there is ''not a single source apart from this one that can qualify to source that statement''?????? Agggggh, I'll try to check if I can find something in some book. --] (]) 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Enric, I recently edited that section and provided a couple of good references but they were removed. Please feel free to put them back. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 22:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

::::You mean {{cite journal | first=Irving | last=Ladimer | title=The Health Advertising Program of the National Better Business Bureau | journal=Am J Public Health | year=1965 | volume=55 | pages=1217 - 1227 | url=http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/55/8/1217?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=pseudoscience&andorexactfulltext=or&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT | accessdate=February 25, 2011}} page 1219. It was restored when Ludwigs reverted back to his version --] (]) 15:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::I and verifiable content was deleted without explanation. ] (]) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Replacing source text with original research continues ===

* Ludwigs2 replaced peer-reviewed sourced text with against WP:V and WP:OR.

* The "Pseudoscience, ]s, and medical quackery are serious threats to ]."

* The "Pseudoscience, ]s, and medical quackery are serious threats to ]."

* The source did not verify the claim .

* "Pseudoscience, ]s, and medical quackery can be a serious threat to ]." The part "" failed verification.

* The IP 68.122.154.94 deleted sourced text and replaced it with .

Editors continues to ignore V and OR policies. ] (]) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I added another recent OR diff. ] (]) 15:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

==== Possible sources ====
OK, so, how about:
* {{citation |title= Why evolution works (and creationism fails) |chapter= Chapter 5. How pseudoscience works |author= Matt Young, Paul K. Strode |edition= illustrated|publisher= Rutgers University Press |year= 2009 |isbn= 0813545501, 9780813545509 |pages= 49-53 |url= http://books.google.es/books?id=AsJDTq2wTQEC&dq }}

* {{citation |title= Rational changes in science: essays on scientific reasoning |series= Volume 98 de Boston studies in the philosophy of science, Volume 98 de Boston studies in the history of philosophy |author= Raimo Toumela |chapter= Science, Protoscience and Pseudoscience |editor= Joseph C. Pitt, Marcello Pera |edition= illustrated |publisher= Springer |year= 1987 |isbn= 9027724172, 9789027724175 |pages= 83-101 |url= http://books.google.es/books?id=9e_-_O1OgTYC }}

*{{citation |title= Concepts of science education: a philosophical analysis |author= Michael Martin |publisher= University Press of America |year= 1985 |isbn= 0819144797, 9780819144799 |pages= 40-43 |url= http://books.google.es/books?id=xQeLCgf5644C }}

All academic publishers, the last one gives a definition of "pseudoscience". Are these sources useful to solve this problem? --] (]) 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:You have not explained what is the problem with the current source giving an overview rather than just a definition like a dictionary. ] (]) 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Original Research ===
Reference 18, ''Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience'', looks like original research to me. The abstract is full of "We propose" references. ] (]) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:The text is sourced and in one of the above threads you can read a cut and paste of part of the reference. ] (]) 00:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:You can this part of the ref too. ] (]) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

::First, the talk page is on a scheduled archive and I want this subject to be as new as it is. So QuackGuru, please do not move my comments without asking.

::It seems that you are highjacking this article for your own campaign against Chiropractic.

::I do not care about the previous discussion. It appears to have been pretty much you outlasting those who did not agree with you. The fact is that reading the available parts of the article, it is clearly original research. If I see that, someone else is going to come along and start this again.

::The phrase, ''"We suggest a different route."'' is clearly an expression of opinion leading to a new point. If the article has good sources, then use those good sources for your reference. Otherwise it just looks like you are trying to preserve an article that has the maximum amount of hate to support your subject.

::How long should I wait before posting tags? ] (]) 01:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Please try to keep things ], Tom. We're all operating under ]. ] doesn't apply to sources, only Misplaced Pages editors. Are you suggesting the source is primary, and shouldn't be used on that basis? We do use primary sources for some things. Do you, perhaps, have better sourcing to replace it with? &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Yep, ] doesn't apply to sources - it only applies to Misplaced Pages editors doing their own original research (but we always welcome better sources if you have them). -- ] (]) 09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::OR may not apply to sources, but it does apply to the way that editors ''use'' sources, and if in fact this source is just speculative maunderings then it is probably disqualified under ] or ]. I'll have to take a closer look at it, however. --] 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::We ''expect'' many sources to do OR. This is an article about pseudoscience, right? Some of the best sources of all, on matters of science as on so many other subjects, are those which have done extensive research of their own and then analysed, summarised, and drawn conclusions or comparisons. ] applies to editors on wikipedia, not to the external sources that they use.
::::::Crick and Watson did OR, and they did a fine job. However, somebody writing a wikipedia article on DNA should not do OR. That's where the boundary lies. ] (]) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, three points:

1. It was not me who moved the post. Reference 18 has been cited 10 times and I will wage every citation was by Quack The reference was contested above at length and apparently only settled by other editors giving up. I had not read the above discussion and am not obligated to do so because the article must stand on its current merits. The first example Quack used was about quackery. He is famous for his single-minded and often overly aggressive campaigns against alternative medicine, especially chiropractic ]. I think my comments were in balance with the situation.

2. Is the contention here that OR applies to editors and not to content is symptomatic of the condition of this article? From ]:

'':This page in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought: all material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.''
I did not notice that this only applies to editors. Since you think it does, it would seem fair to request an audit of all of the references here. Obviously you all have been building this article on questionable references.

3. Quack defended the reference by arguing that the authors used (presumably good) sources. If that is true, and there is obvious grounds to discard the article as OR, and if Quack is editing in good faith, then he should move the support for his venom to those other sources ... that is if they actually stand up to review. Jess, it is not my obligation to do the research for him or to defend his words.

There are serious issues with how science is done and how people perceive science. If this article addressed specific kinds of problems--people thinking they are doing science and why they are not, people doing science but the results not being vetted--then you would serve your readers. But that is not done here. All I can see is a well developed article about branding people you do not agree with. Try a little self-editing. ] (]) 18:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:Tom, wikipedia is collaborative by nature. If you spent as much time and energy focusing on specific instances of misuse of sources, rather than characterizing the behavior of other editors, I assure you that more people would be willing to work with you, and more would be done to advance your position. As it is, there other other areas of the site which better compel me to devote my time than sorting through personal attacks here. Please try reading over ] again. If you can cite ''specifics'' in the sources which are inappropriate, as opposed to calling for a broad "audit of all sources", and can do that without calling into question the intentions of other editors, you might get more done. All the best, &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 19:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

::Now you are assuming bad faith on my part by accusing me of only being interested in "specific instances of misuse." I understand the collaborative concept. I also understand that collaboration is regulated by basic rules. It is individual editors who disregard or selectively interpret those rules. I would not be nearly as strident if the majority of editors here were not so happy with the edits I complain about. ] (]) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I didn't accuse you of any such thing. I said, pursuant to ]: Comment on content, not contributers. If you have issues with editor conduct, then take it to an appropriate noticeboard. Here, you should be discussing specific instances where the article could be improved. Requests such as "an audit of all references" are unhelpful, particularly combined with ]. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

=== Not a soapbox ===

In my view and, I believe, in that of many others, the paragraph in the ] on pseudoscience and public health is poorly written and poorly sourced. I thought I had improved that section with a rewrite and some good sources but my edits were reverted. I would not presume to suggest anyone replace what I had done without consensus among those who do not have ]. It seems we risk being worn down by persistent advocacy for wording and sources that are not Misplaced Pages quality. I propose that while we ignore the soapbox we do what we can to fix that paragraph. If the soapboxing gets too persistent perhaps administrative action is in order. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 22:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with this comment. I have given up attempts to edit this article because of the persistent and obsessive inclusion of the irrelevant material referred to above. ] (]) 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

::I agree with you both, and that the revised version is far superior. I think this qualifies as a budding consensus, so I will go ahead and revert now. --] 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

:::P.s. - the last paragraph of that section (beginning ''"Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health"''): I could have sworn we had consensus to delete that before. It's a complete misrepresentation - most pseudoscience and superstitions are of no threat to public health whatsoever (the belief in UFO or the abominable snowman pose no health threats, nor do superstitions about walking under ladders or avoiding black cats), and medical quackery is only a threat to public health where it explicitly tries to denigrate conventional medicine. Sourced or not, it's an embarrassingly ridiculous passage presented in this context in this particular way. does anyone object if I remove it? --] 23:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Agree. Go ahead and do that. ] (]) 23:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

I think the "danger to the public" concept is addressed pretty well in the section of Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. Specifically, ''"...The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks (NIST 2002). (See sidebar, "Sense About Science.")"'' The "Losh et al" can be read ] (]) 00:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:Source may be sound but is ] for this article. I suggest you turn your attentions to ]. ] (]) 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

:: It's hardly peripheral since medical quackery is often rooted in pseudoscience. There is definitely no consensus to remove that. Maybe tweak it, but not completely remove it. It used to be sourced properly, but because of all the tugging back and forth that's been going on the same words have ended up changing sources several times, often meaning that the remaining ref didn't justify the wording, when the original source did. You've all got to be more careful how you make large wholesale guttings of this article (especially considering the COI of one editor who would like to get rid of the word pseudoscience altogether). The problem could have been solved by minor tweaks of wording, keeping the sources, and thus everything would have been fine. -- ] (]) 01:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I see no portion of Tom's quoted text which indicates that the "danger" is only from Quackery. On the contrary, it appears to be explicitly referring to Pseudoscience. Furthermore, quakery is explicitly identified as containing pseudoscientific ideas within our lead. This section appears to be perfectly justified for inclusion in the article, and is properly sourced to address ] concerns. So I can get a better idea of how this section could be cleaned up to address any concerns -- What specific sections of the removed text are most contentious for editors here? &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

::::The main problem I had with that paragraph is that it was extremely over-stated. only a very small proportion of pseudoscience is a risk to public health, directly or indirectly; the rest has no relation to public health at all (unless you count driving skeptics crazy as a public health threat). therefore 'threat to public health' is not really one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience, and so doesn't belong in the overview. If you wanted to include a much more understated and constrained section dealing with the threat that certain forms of medical pseudoscience may pose that might be workable, but it's both hyperbolic and incorrect to stand up and claim that ''all'' pseudoscience constitutes a ''serious'' public health problem. it just aint true.

::::Jess, the quote is from a PubMed article, is which context it is fairly clear that the author is only talking about medical pseudoscience. besides, mere common sense will tell you that public health issues are medical issues by definition, and the claim could not refer to anything ''except'' quackery. --] 01:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

::I think it is important to discuss the costs and impacts of pseudoscience in this article. Since quackery often (not always) takes the form of pseudoscience, we should include the harms caused by this form of pseudoscience as well as its other forms. Perhaps it would be useful to create a new section on the topic of impacts to help us and readers focus on this aspect. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 03:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

::* What belongs (or not) in this article - Xxanthippie et al’s point about quackery and alt med not being appropriate in a pseudoscience article has some merit. But this is only insofar as public perception is shaped by veneration of the authority of the quack, or through veneration of the “time honored” practices of traditional alt meds. Insofar as the "public susceptability" is shaped by veneration of science, and pseudoscience is used to shape that "public susceptability", it ''does'' belong here, and as a health risk. (“Serious” health risk might be WP:peacock.)
::*Second kind of health cost of doing pseudoscience - Alt med ''research'' (not practice) is often pseudoscience, and has a high dollar cost. This is often ''doing'' pseudoscience, and is ''different'' from ''practicing'' alt med. It takes away from researching more promising treatments, only to try to shore up the ''feelings'' of alt med believers. This cost of doing pseudoscience is over and above the costs of "the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks". I read somewhere that US taxpayers alone have thrown away billions on such pseudoscientfic research. This cost to health is over and above the cost of alt med industry self funded pseudosceintific research like this, to try find something, anything, no matter how small the "significant" effect may be, only to justify its own continued existence as a practice with the veneer of scientific respectablity through the massive dollars spent on useless and often biased studies. ] (]) 05:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience occurs in or near many fields, and only one of them is medicine. On one hand it is perfectly proper to discuss medical pseudoscience as a notable example of pseudoscience. On the other hand it's totally inappropriate to hijack the present article and write it as if all pseudoscience were medical quackery. It's certainly not OK to abuse sources that are specifically about medical pseudoscience by taking them out of context and presenting them as if they were about pseudoscience in general, even when they indicate the restriction to pseudoscience only implicitly, e.g. in the context in which they appear. ] ] 07:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, to avoid "hijacking" better placement might be in its own section below, and ''not'' in the "overview" section. Pseudocience based alt med and quackery (as different from just tradition and authority based alt med and quackery) is more than just one example of pseudoscience, it is an entire category of examples, and a big category; i.e., a "pseudoscience in medicine" section. "Pseudoscidence in the courts" (Junk science) is a category of examples that should also have its own section. So should the category "lying with statistics", which is very much lacking in the article. Perhaps also "pseudoscience in social science" ("hoodoo science"), although this may require much more development than the first three suggested category sections. Similarly for any other very broad category of pseudoscience that has enough well developed material as to merit its own article, which could be considered a ] of the pseudosceince article.
:As to the stretching of the source, Hans is correct. But there should be plenty more sources to use for the given language, or better language that is more in line with the source. ] (]) 07:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:Following up on Hans here, let's not get hoodwinked by vague terrors. the ''only'' cases where pseudoscience becomes a public health risk are (1) when a form of quackery prescribes a 'treatment' which is directly harmful to the patient (e.g. should some quack prescribe taking oral mercury to cure the boubons), and (2) when a quack tries to convince patients to use an ineffective or unproven treatment ''in preference to'' a proven, standard medical treatment. And even the second one is not actually a public health hazard, but is actually closer to a criminal activity. These account for a very small portion of ''medical'' fringe science, and a vanishingly small portion of fringe science as a whole. Yes, people spend money on fringe treatments; yes, people are sometimes dumb when it comes to considering fringe treatments. But spending your money on stupid crap is not a health hazard, otherwise the surgeon general would have to ban video games and Adam Sandler movies.

:Writing a blog about space aliens does not create a health hazard. Trying to prove that Sasquatch exists does not create a health hazard. Even things like acupuncture, TCM, chiropractic, and (heaven forbid) homeopathy are not health hazards. They may not work, they may be a waste of money, but... they are licensed and regulated (in the US and Europe), people use them regularly without suffering any ill effects, and they do not normally detract from, supersede, or interfere with normal medical procedures. If none of these things that are frequently cited as examples of pseudoscience are public health hazards, how can we say that all pseudoscience is?

:Of course, the other argument you're making is that people are too stupid to make informed choices, so we need to force them to turn to western medicine by making unjustified and exaggerated claims about the badness of even innocuous forms of fringe science. I don't think people are that dumb, personally, but if you follow that line you'll be forced to leave encyclopedic writing behind and start writing authoritative scripture (Misplaced Pages as The Bible of Science, if you will). However, that is antithetical to the core principles of the project. And honestly, if people are really that stupid, I'd just as soon we let Darwin have his way; otherwise we really ''will'' evolve into ], and who wants that? --] 07:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

::I disagree that alt med does not increase health risk except in the instances Ludqigs2 cites.
::But it is not up to editors to determine if alt med is a health hazard or not. It is either in a reliable source, or it is not, and that is all we should be considering. However, talk pages ''can'' be useful for expressing these soapbox thoughts in that they may lead to paths for finding RS.
::Examples Ludwigs2 does not mention are a "succeptable public" member considering dollar cost, which might induce health risks, such as seeing an acupuncturist for extreme pain when one cannot afford an MRI, or seeing a much less expensive TCM related doctor to have one's tongue examined for almost ''anything'' TCM related alt meds like acpuncture claim, or taking a toxic TCM based "TCM powder pill" that is some "scientifically" altered mix of ore of mercury, ore of asbestos, pinch of cyanide, and strychnine tree nut exctract, all really being done. Also wasting billions of health research dollars on studies like electrically stimulating astrologically derived acupuncture points and waving a magnetic wand over them, then diluting mugwort 10 to 1 and shaking 60 times then burning it on the skin or an acupuncture needle, etc., all real stuf being done with scarce health research funds. Alt med research is a ''category'' of pseudoscience, not just an example. ] (]) 07:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:::that's a naive assessment of sourcing policy, that neglects UNDUE and FRINGE. If you will not use common sense on this issue, then I'll make a very proper argument that your source's viewpoint is either (a) unrepresentative of standard scientific opinion, or (b) being taken drastically out of context to to support a claim that the author never intended to make. I would hope that you would be more reasonable in the face of such an extreme distortion of obvious facts, but I can duke it out on a point-by-point refutation of your position if you make me. are you going to make me?

:::to your other points:
:::* someone who cannot afford an MRI, cannot afford an MRI: their choice is between seeking treatment they ''can'' afford, or not seeking treatment at all. that has nothing to do with altmed
:::* In the US and Europe, a patient who went to an acupuncturist for extreme pain would suffer no harm from the acupuncture and would be directed to a medical doctor after a couple of treatments if the treatments were unsuccessful. any other behavior would cost the acupuncturist his license
:::* TCM herbalists never to my knowledge use raw minerals in preparations or medicinals.
:::As I have noted elsewhere, your understanding of TCM is very distorted, along the lines of someone trying to evaluate western medicine by analyzing spam emails and late-night infomercials. I cannot ''make'' you assume good faith with respect to it, but I will not ''allow'' you to cynically reduce the entire centuries-old practice to tiger-penis viagra and silly eternal life elixirs. If you cannot take a more balanced view than that, you should not be editing these articles at all. --] 08:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Yes, undue and FRINGE should be addressed in considering RS on this if applicable. You should try your argument out on the critically endangered siberian tigers themselves, and try out what you call a "fringe" and "undue" on ''National Geographic'' publishing on TCM, not me. ( If I might help you to help me better to understand the benifits of TCM medicines, point to the ''] spp.'' to aspirin history; never point at someone's penis, as you might find yourself in the maw of a tiger, or as Chef said in Apocalypse now, "F-ing tiger. Never get off of the f-ing boat, man". :) ) Also, you called it a "budding consensus" with only two comments within a single hour after starting this section; L2, your comments are ''typically'' much better reasoned than that (comments by some others have not been so well reasoned). ] (]) 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::Unfortunately, wikipedia is not the place to ], and attacking TCM would not be an effective means of doing that anyway, since most TCM practitioners are just as much against those kinds of bogus medicinals as you are (and the idiots who buy them would buy them even if you managed to stamp out ''mainstream'' TCM practices completely). and yes, three editors can represent a budding consensus, particularly where common sense and basic logic support their perspective. And none of that matters here anyway. please keep focused on the content discussion at hand. --] 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The thread is waffling. Ludwigs2, referring to the paragraph in the overview, you say above ''"but it's both hyperbolic and incorrect to stand up and claim that all pseudoscience constitutes a serious public health problem. it just aint true."'' That's a smokescreen if ever I saw one because the paragraph makes no such claim. It says ''"Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery '''can be''' a serious threat to public health......(and).....the book Trick or Treatment records '''several occasions''' where patient's faith in medical pseudoscience has led to complications, further injury and death."'' That doesn't say anything near what you wrote, but what it does say is verifiable. ] (]) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

*Focussed summary so far -
:*1 Soapboxing is bad. Accuracy of citing and RS is needed for assertions about health risks.
:*2 Sources so far given are not accurately summed in the overview section.
:*3 Editors are tired of soapboxing here, and of constant tweaking which leads by ] to refs no longer applying to the line as ultimately worded, when they started off being applicable.
:*4 There is RS for, from "nsf.gov Belief in Pseudoscience" - "The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks", which from the context, appears to be only about medical pseudoscience to some editors.
:*5 Quackery and alt that relies on authority other than scientific appearing authority is less of a pseudoscience than that which does.
:*6 Quackery and alt med have a special status as pseudoscience. (See next section)
:*7 Quackery and alt med are entire categories of examples of pseudoscience, not just a single example.
:*8 All pseudoscience is not alt med or quackery, only a significant portion.
:*9 "'threat to public health' is not really one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience"it is an effect of a significan part of pseudoscience, so it "doesn't belong in the overview", and the best placement might be in an idependent section.
:*10 "''Serious'' health risk" may be WP:Peacock for "health risk".
:*11 There are multiple kinds of health risk, getting harmful treatment, not getting helpful treatment, using up pocketbooks on the useless, spending scarce research funds on pseudoscientific studies, etc.
:* 12 There are "costs and impacts of pseudoscience" in addition to those of alt med and quackery that should be stated in this article.
:* 13 RS is needed to make any of these points in the article, not just editors' opinions.
:* 14 One editor will not admit to secretly drinking tiger's penis tea like the rest of us do. ] (]) 22:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current status of the subject paragraph. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 23:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

: @Moriori: The 'can be' was added after I deleted the paragraph and it was reinserted. regardless, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how UFOlogy or cryptozoology "can be" considered health risk in any way, shape or form. If that cannot be done, then we cannot blandly assert that pseudoscience is inherently a health hazard.
:with respect to "Trick or Treatment": there are numerous cases in the literature where standard medical practices have produced ugly complications - in small percentages of cases, a simple prescription of aspirin has lead to death from liver failure. One can always find "Oh Shit!" examples from every kind of medical practice; such examples do not add up to a condemnation of the practice unless they are more like the rule than the exception. Literally hundreds of millions of people have received TCM care with some positive results and no adverse effects, so enough of that silliness.

: @PPdd: again, bolded, because you refused to acknowledge these points when I raised them above: '''extra cost is not a health risk; poor science education is not a health risk.''' These may be issues that can be addressed in the article, but we do '''not''' address them by claiming they are health risk when they clearly are not.
: and incidentally, quackery is pseudoscience by definition, but not all altmed is quackery and not all altmed is pseudoscience (some of it is non-scientific, some of it semi-scientific).

: @Joja: I am ''not'' satisfied with the current status of the paragraph. More to the point, the paragraph is a misrepresentation of the subject matter, and so it doesn't matter whether you or I are 'satisfied', does it?

: seriously people, this is not a vote - I've given you a very clear and reasonable explanation of why this paragraph has to go (recap: it misrepresents both the subject matter and the author of the source being cited - that violates sourcing policy and abuses the central purpose of the encyclopedia). unless one of you gives a ''better'' explanation of why the paragraph has to stay, I will remove it again. And yes, I will keep removing it until I get such an explanation, so... --] 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::Sorry, Ludwig, I don't always read as carefully as I should. Often I stop reading when the verbiage gets too thick or arguments too heated. I think you are making the point that superstition and quackery may be threats to public health but pseudoscience is not except when it supports quackery. If I have that right, I see your point. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 05:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The source stated . The sourced text decided quackey is a type of pseudoscience. So, it is indeed relevant to this topic. ] (]) 20:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


== Creationism vs Creation Science ==
:::@ jojo - yes, hat's precisely what I meant. though I'd qualify that not even all quackery is a threat to public health - no one is likely to suffer any effects (ill or good) from magnetic healing bracelets, for instance. Apoogies, I am sometimes both long-winded and hot-tempered. {{=)}}


I understand that the list for pseudoscience's is a quote,
:::@ QuackGuru - no one is objecting to that point. the problem is that those forms of quackery which constitute public health hazards make up only a tiny portion of pseudoscience as a whole, so we cannot call ''all'' of pseudoscience a public health hazard. That would be like saying all cars are bad because some people drive drunk. --] 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


"that ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] are pseudosciences."
::::You are objecting to that point when you continue to have a persoanl disagreement with the source because you claim "those forms of quackery which constitute public health hazards make up only a tiny portion of pseudoscience as a whole, so we cannot call ''all'' of pseudoscience a public health hazard". The article does not say a tiny portion of pseudoscience is quackery. What the article does say is sourced in accordance with ]. That would be like saying all cars are bad because some people drive drunk? No, drinking and driving is all bad. ] (]) 00:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


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)
=== No Warring ===
For <s>the</s> a third time <s>today</s> good faith attempts to improve the last paragraph in the Overview section have been overwritten with material that has been rejected by the consensus. I believe the concerns of the disruptive editor have been heard and addressed repeatedly and extensively. I <s>would</s> ask that the paragraph be returned to it's last good state and that we continue to improve it from there without further war or soapbox. Thanks, <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 02:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::There is so much toing and froing that I have lost track. Can you say which version you want restored? Who is the disruptive editor? ] (]) 04:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC).


:] has sections on different types. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] are all pseudoscience.
:I'm not sure what you are suggesting but we should not restore original research or text that failed verification. See ]. ] (]) 03:26, 3 March 2011 (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)
== Attention needed at ] ==
::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 ==
Attention is needed at the Osteopathy article per . ] (]) 05:33, 1 March 2011 (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)
== Special status of alt med in pseudoscience ==


== UFO ==
A person may follow authority in medicine. A person may follow authority in the courts. If the authority claims a scientific basis, and uses pseudoscientific methods to do it, then this is pseudoscience in both cases. But if the authority does ‘’not’’ claim a scientific basis, the former is ‘’still’’ pseudoscience, and the latter is ‘’not’’, because medicine is a branch of science, and law is not. Alt meds have a special place in pseudoscience because there need not be a claim of scientific methodology, yet it is still pseudoscience, since it is medicine. ] (]) 08:01, 1 March 2011 (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)
: Correct, and also because alt med makes falsifiable claims of efficacy which are not proven to be true. It is defined as unproven or disproven methods. -- ] (]) 21:27, 1 March 2011 (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.e., ] special, too. ] (]) 21:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


== Pseudoscience on the Pseudoscience Article ==
::: LOL! -- ] (]) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (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.
:I disagree. There is extensive philosophical literature on the nature and definition of pseudoscience, and while I can't claim to have read and understood all of it, it seems clear to me that your reasoning is at odds with the mainstream expert opinions and of a much lower intellectual quality. Defining pseudoscience is a tricky problem, and it's generally not helpful to promote ad hoc definitions on this talk page. If you are not familiar with the discussion, I suggest that you get an overview by reading ]'s article in the ].
:It appears to me that the definition of pseudoscience that you are using is even more general than what Hansson discusses under "3.4 A wider sense of pseudoscience".
:One key problem in your argument is that you are begging the question when you assume that the standard for comparing and classifying CAM is "medicine", i.e. scientific medicine. Modern scientific medicine has grown out of the ''art'' of treating patients so that they hopefully get, or at least feel, better. Large parts of CAM have grown out of the same art, but without becoming scientific, and sometimes even without trying to become scientific. It's unfair to hold the narrow definition of "medicine" as a scientific discipline against fields that are part of medicine only in the original, wider sense.
:Your argument would lead to absurd results. If we take it seriously, a number of practices of mainstream medicine would have to be classified as pseudoscientific merely because they have no scientific basis. Is charging money for treating a patient pseudoscientific? Maybe you can fix your definition to get rid of this particular artefact, but there are others that will make more work: How about palliative care for the terminally ill who cannot express their wishes? If we take your definition of pseudoscience seriously, that's a pseudoscientific practice, and the only rational way of dealing with them would be to dump them alive on some rubbish heap, or whatever is the cheapest way of disposing of them allowed by law. ] ] 09:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


I'd change the paragraph myself and remove any mention of Dual process theory as per the fringe theory policies outlined at ], but the page is protected, likely due to similar content continually being added to it. ] (]) 16:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::What "your definition" are you talking about? ] (]) 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


== Scientific Consensus ==
:::I now see that you used the words "pseudoscientific methods". For some reason I read this as "non-scientific methods". Sorry for the misunderstanding. I obviously need new glasses. <small>(Seriously. I lost my glasses the day before yesterday.)</small>
:::But I fail to understand what you mean by "special status of alt med". How is its status any different from pseudoscience in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, ...? ] ] 19:14, 2 March 2011 (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."
::::As to your glasses, looking for glasses without glasses borders on being a logical paradox. I recently had to fix the little screw in my reading glasses, which takes reading glasses to see.
::::How it differs is that (1) those particular pseudosciences make false claims to scientific methodology, whereas an alt med does not ''need to'' make such a claim, but since medicine is science, it ''implicitly'' makes the claim, which is a "special status" of alt med. (2) Brangifer points to a second way in which it is special, in that since medicine is about efficacy, and efficacy is established scientifically, alt meds by deifinition make unestablished claims, so are by definition pseudoscience. ] (]) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! ] (]) 19:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think he's using the standard skeptic-lite argument that medical science is somehow 'ontologically' true, and therefore anything which disagrees with medical science is explicitly false and consequently pseudoscientific. but frankly, I found this thread to be pointless and confused, and decided (as I think you're finding out now) that it would take too much effort to untangle the confusion (which would have to happen before we could even ''start'' having a meaningful discussion about the issues). but...
:::::<small>P.s.: skeptic-lite - that great skeptical taste without all that philosophical substance to weigh you down. Lifestyle choice of the modern skeptic-on-the-go. --] 22:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)</small>


: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)
:::::: LOL! I'm not quite ''that'' naive. {{;)}} Modern medicine isn't all EBM. It's a blending of art, experiment, old inherited practices, serendipity, and solid, research-backed, practice. Where it fundamentally differs from alt med is that it is constantly seeking to become more and more evidence-based, well-knowing that such will never be completely possible or practical. Some of the "art" will always be necessary, but it should at least not be contrary to EBM.
::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 ==
:::::: This is a relatively modern movement in medicine, in keeping with the developing and pervasive practice of using the scientific method as a winnowing tool to separate all the inherited practices within modern medicine. Some of them are very old and never been tested very well. Some of it is chaff and must be discarded (that never happens in alt med), while other is worth keeping and improving, and still other is promising and deserves more research. It's a never ending process. So yes, there are likely some pseudoscientific aspects to certain old medical practices that haven't been discarded yet, but we can't be sure of that before it has been reassessed to determine if that's the case. If so, then we need to get rid of it.


"Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects." This seems like an incomplete statement to make that leads the reader to believe that, conversely, Science does not have dangerous effects and is therefore superior. Countless products of the scientific process have caused dangerous effects on humans, animals, plants, and the environment (csuch as chemicals in our food, side effects of vaccinations, radiation, etc, all of which have evidence of harm to ). Pseudoscience is not necessarily more beneficial or harmful than science, but rather has different processes leading to it. ] (]) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: The application of all this to alt med occasionally results in preventing some alt med practices which clamor for acceptance from being included in mainstream practice, since so much of it is blatently or fundamentally based in pseudoscientific ideas. The complementary and integrative medicine movements seek to counteract this use of the scientific method to make and then keep modern medicine as free from pseudoscience and quackery as possible. They use muddled thinking and confuse the picture, often to the detriment and even unnecessary death of patients.


:The quoted statement is true. But unless you suggest a specific edit based upon ], your request has to be discarded.
:::::: Is that all clear as mud, or should I shake or stir it along with your favorite brand of skeptic-lite and drink it down? {{;)}} -- ] (]) 04:37, 3 March 2011 (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: