Misplaced Pages

Category 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 04:48, 23 June 2006 editKrishnaVindaloo (talk | contribs)1,286 edits →[] requires higher standards for categorization← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:35, 26 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,739,048 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(524 intermediate revisions by 80 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
===Discussion===
{{WikiProject Skepticism}}
{{WikiProject Science}}
{{WikiProject Sociology}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative views}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|logic=yes|science=yes}}
}}
{{Old AfD multi
| date = April 24 2007
| result = '''Keep'''
| link = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_24#Category:Pseudoscience
| date2 = January 27 2008
| result2 = '''Keep/nom withdrawn'''
| link2 = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_27#Category:Pseudoscience
| date3 = March 24 2014
| result3 = '''Keep'''
| link3 = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_24#Category:Pseudoscience
| type = category
}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{Archive box|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}


==Parapsychology==
==Category Existence==
Many of the inclusions are subjective. Is it right to describe all parapsychology as pseudoscience? There are pseudoscientists working in the field (and indeed physics, chemistry etc - witness the cold fusion debacle), but there are also certain people who attempt to employ scientific method. --] (]) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Look, I admit that a lot of this stuff is way out there, but the very existence of this category is perilously close to skeptic POV; I have softened the description line, hoping that helps a bit. --] 04:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


::Those people do not self describe as parapsychologists; they look for a scientific explanation. For example, Chris French looking at it from a psychology perspective. Considering that science operates under Methodological naturalism and appeals to the supernatural are essentially a form of special pleading which make a stab at wearing the guise of science while they do it. ] (]) 14:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:I agree. It's not the place of Misplaced Pages to claim that, for example, ] violates the scientific method. I might personally (indeed, I do) think that it's a load of absolute bunkum - but the absolute ''most'' that Misplaced Pages should say is that some named person has claimed that homeopathy is bunkum. I'm going to soften the description even more. --] ] | ] 14:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


== What a mess! ==
:: Checking the history I see that ] had softened it and someone had then hardened it again. There is a difference between the article intro and the category. The article intro effectively says "this is what we believe ] means". The category effectively says "we believe these articles to be examples of pseudoscience", and ''must'' therefore, at the very least, contain the word "alleged" or something similar. --] ] | ] 14:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


A few notes:
:::Obviously, as the guy who softened it the first time, I support ] position. --] 18:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
*I have cleaned up the category page:
**removed links to project namespace
**removed redundant bare url (ext link to dictionary.com - hey we got our own!)
**removed redundant wikilinks
**tweaked layout
*I am now trying to clean out the contents. It was a mish-mash of over 250 articles that readers would struggle to wade through.
**Created ]
**Removed companies, products, unrelated lists, and minor topics that had little to do with the subject.
My attempt to clean it all up is being hampered by editors who do not understand the category guidelines (or convention - they vary!), do not understand the hierarchical nature of topics, and attempt to link everything to everything else. -- ] (] - ]) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:Please focus on the content and policy/guideline issues rather than the editors involved.
:There seems to be a great deal of disagreement on whether or not some of the articles are relevant to the subject. Discuss rather than edit-war please if you want to change consensus. --] (]) 20:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


:(edit conflict)
::::In keeping with ] why not change the description to indicating that this category is for fields ''currently'' regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream science ? Then it will not contain both creationism and evolution just because supporters can be found on both sides. Having said that, I feel the category may be too broad. Do we add in everything in the "Alternative Medicine" project? ] 03:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:You know, I don't really overly care about this category, or even this topic (and not even certain how I saw/got to this page).
:But you would be hard pressed to claim that I do not understand the category guidelines and policies : )
:Anyway, in reading the arbcomm case, and associated pages, it seems clear that this is a drama-laden topic, and by extension the pages thereof.
:So I would think that it would be a good idea to at least provide the opportunity for "enthusiastic editors" to check out certain project pages. Links are cheap. And having links to project pages on a category page (as opposed to categorised IN the category) is very much not uncommon.
:Our goal should be to reduce disruption, and if a couple links may help to prevent future disruption, then that's a no brainer, I would think. - <b>]</b> 20:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::"Our goal should be to reduce disruption" Having some familiarity with some of the drama around this topic, let's be clear: our goal first is to improve this encyclopedia. --] (]) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Lol, yes, and one way we do that is by reducing disruption.
:::I'm not sure what your concerns are, or even what edits your concerned with.
:::For me it's that the links to the Project pages which cover this topic broadly (] for example) should be linked in the category page intro. In looking over other situations in categories, it would seem a hatnote would be the best way to go with it.
:::If you're interested in arguing what should be a member of this category, sorry, I'm not who you're looking for. - <b>]</b> 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Since the links are already here at the top of the talk page, I just added a hatnote to see the talk page. I still think that a link to a related project page should be at the top, but for now, this should suffice. - <b>]</b> 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:One of the problems that's come up is that some articles about practioners/vendors/applications of PS are often placed in the category, such as ], ], ], ]. If these don't belong in PS, then where? Perhaps subcats for "Pseudoscience products", "Pseudoscience advocates", "Pseudoscience companies"? ] <small>]</small> 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


::As I have already said at the head of this thread they don't need a category relating to pseudoscience since it a non-existent or tenuous relationship. -- ] (] - ]) 07:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::I think your concern about category breadth may touch on why I don't like this category. Unlike the ''article'' ], where claims and counterclaims can be attributed and discussed, with a category of Pseudoscience it's as though WP comes down and puts its imprimatur on all these articles to say, "WP agrees that everything here fails to comport with the scientific method and is pseudoscience." That's why I liked the waffle language about "alleged to be"; that way the category was only setting up the possibility of contested claims, WP wasn't vouching for any of them, and the reader could go to the individual articles to see who was claiming something was pseudoscience. (I actually considered proposing changing the category title to "Alleged pseudoscience," but that seemed a bit much.) If we go to the "currently mainstream science" language in the description, we are inserting a broad, definite attribution across the board, to many places where it may not be justified. For instance, this category currently contains the broad article ]. I don't think we want to be in the position of certifying that all of mainstream science thinks everything connected with the supernatural is pseudoscience. Hence, I would propose leaving the admittedly wafflish "alleged to be" language in the description. (What I'd really like to do is dump the category.) --] 20:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


== So it remains a mess... ==
::::I too would completely do away with this category completely. Redirecting the category to "Alleged pseudoscience" would remain a poor second choice. The term "pseudoscience" tends to be used pejoratively about a study or practice, in the same way that the word "dictator" is used to describe certain national leaders. When you call a subject "pseudoscience" you are making a positive claim about that subject. You are proposing a theory about the subject, and unless you are providing falsifiable evidence about your proposal, you are yourself (within our definition of the term) acting pseudoscientifically. For the subject to be pseudoscience there must at least be a semblance or pretense of being scientific, and to the extent that the subject has individual adherents who sincerely attempt to apply (perhaps in futility) scientific methods those individuals do not deserve to be contemptuously called pseudoscientists. The behaviour of the so-called scientists in this matter is reprehensible; as I read many of the related articles I often find them trying to disprove and spotlight claims that the proponents never made. The cited section on the NPOV page is not much better than biased POV sophistry, beginning with the presumption that what "scientists" consider to be pseudoscientific is repugnant. In a later section the author goes so far as to associate the holders of minority beliefs with flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. I don't know if I have the stomach to go there to change that to a truly NPOV presentation. ] 12:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


...because nothing gets done. -- ] (] - ]) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
== Why hasn't this been deleted yet? ==


== Vani Hari ==
It looks like we have a consensus here. Why hasn't any action been taken? The article is OK, but the Category is POV, not to mention insulting. Why haven't any Wikipedians who support the existence of this category posted their opinion?


] : pseudoscience?
Specific proposal: rename the category to something like <nowiki>]</nowiki>. --] 16:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


First of all, she's a person and the article is a BLP, not an article about a theory. I scan for other ''person's'' in the list and i find ], a creationist. I find ], a Holocaust denier. These are the people she's being lumped in with for calling out certain chemicals in foods that have some scientific support for being harmful, and for opposing wholesale antiobiotic use in raising animals, and for promoting diets with less sugar and more whole foods? Perhaps it's her support for the concept of ] and ] that has people classifying her as pseudoscience? But these are in fact real concepts within science. Maybe it's based on some long-deleted tweet of hers about vaccination or the air in an airplane being pumped with nitrogen? Those would be considered embarrassing early mistakes, but not a systematic pushing of some kind of pseudoscience.
: Agreed. I just dicovered -- to my astonishment -- the existence of this category. Shall we make it Afd? ] 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


The guidelines for deciding whether something is pseudoscience states:
== Quackery? ==


{{quotation|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.}}
Now what about the Quackery category? Does that fit in here at all? Does it have any proponents (i.e. people who say "I'm a quack, and proud of it")? Or is it just an insult? --] 16:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


It seems to me that the bulk of her work is actually fairly in line with generally accepted science, and that she has a few vociferous critics who call her work "pseudoscience" but as stated in the above guideline, this does not qualify her for this category. Note that middle of the road scientists such as ], who is in a fairly good position to judge, do not call her work pseudoscience, and merely nudge her to include more nuance in her explanations of science as well as to prioritize her focus to be more effective. That's not pseudoscience. So, i propose removing her from this category, unless a very strong and clear case can be made in accordance with the guidelines. Note that "pseudoscience" is generally seen as pejorative, so special care should be taken when applying this term to a ]. ] (]) 11:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
== Keep this category ==


:Hari certainly does not belong in this category. I had never heard of her work before, but it is clear that she is merely a food activist with a strong agenda. One need not agree with all of her concerns but they are founded on selective use and interpretation of existing scientific research, not upon in themselves false principles which she claims are scientific. ] (]) 11:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Smithfarm: please stop removing this categorization like you did for ]. There is clearly the need to mark non-scientific topics as non-scientific (or non-mainstream or whatever). Removing this category would be blatant POV. I also don't like the the name "Alternative scientific paradigms". Why not stick to "pseudoscience", a term that is widely in use and where we have an article for. ] 22:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: Do you at least agree that putting a derogatory label on something is POV? (Same as taking the derogatory label off is, as you state) Can you suggest a non-derogatory label? --] 06:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*How about "Widely challenged theories"?&mdash;] ] 30 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)


==subjective==
== Alternative approachs ==
*I don't support deleting this category or giving it too silly a name ("Alternative paradigms" or whatever). The way I see it, you can look at the term "pseudoscience" as having one of two meanings: 1. An essentialist meaning: things are pseudoscience because they do not adhere to the scientific method. 2. A pragmatic meaning: Things are pseudoscience which the mainstream scientific community labels as pseudoscience.
*Clearly the people who use the term to designate certain things as "pseudoscience" or not are implying an essentialist meaning -- that "pseudoscience" is a real category. The problem with this is that there is considerable debate by philosophers, historians, and even scientists at times about whether or not there is any clear demarcation criteria that seperates science from non-science. People throw "falsifiability" around as if it was an easy and straightforward term -- any small amount of prodding will show that it is a bit more complicated than that, though.
*The second approach is one which doesn't assume to understand or validate the accusation of "pseudoscience", but rather is more of a sociological approach to the question. I think it works better for a source like Misplaced Pages. It tells people who generally tend to trust the "mainstream scientific community" that these things are considered problematic. It allows the people who support these practices to say, "well, the mainstream scientific community might be wrong." It clearly points to the power structure imbedded in this form of labeling (labels to not just magically appear out of nothing apply themselves, they are always applied by someone) which I think is important for a NPOV approach (avoiding the assumption of any one group's essentialist criterion).
*How this can apply in practice here is difficult, though. "Considered psuedoscience" might be a bit more NPOV as a title, but the odds of it actually being used are low. The category page itself would of course indicate ''by whom'' it was considered. I think words like "allegedly" or "putatively" don't really get at the sociological approach that I think is necessary for NPOV. Perhaps if we just changed the category description to reflect that the label was being actively applied (and not just existing outside of time and space)? I don't know for sure. I'm very wary about deleting the category, though -- I think there should be a category for things which are purpored to be scientific practices but are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. I think that's a useful thing to think about and a useful categorization scheme. But I'm not sure what the best concise category name is for that. Thoughts on this? --] 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


inclusion of topics here is very subjective - couldn't we include ]?] (]) 21:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I think we should see a category not as a label to discredit an opinion but way more pragmatically as a way to find articles by descending into the categorization tree. There are many people interesting in this topic and they will look for this specific category name. Therefore I would keep the current category name. We may extend the category text, but because we already have a detailed article on the topic I would then link to it for further details. ] 20:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: Inclusion is based on ]. Additionally, for something to be ] it is typically considered that it be presented by proponents as if it were scientific, or supported by science, when it is not. Tasseography, a divination practice, does not meet that description. But more importantly, "pseudoscience" is not supported by the sources. &#32;&#8239;<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px 2em #eea">]</span></sup>]] 16:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


==Cleanup==
:: Whether or not the people applying the label consider it pejorative, the people on the receiving end definitely do. We don't use racial epithets to refer to other people when we're in public places, even if we don't consider the epithets pejorative and use them on a daily basis in the privacy of our homes. Misplaced Pages, too, is a public place, and if a term is known to have pejorative connotations, I don't think it should be used as a category. I'm not the only one who thinks this -- see the the July 2004 debate above.
This category is literally overflowing with articles, and has been for several years. Most could be dropped down into new or existing subcategories (or already have been). Obviously, the main article and the main list should stay here, though. ] (]) 03:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


==Creation, ICR, Chiropractic...really?==
:: I'm willing to agree to any non-pejorative category label. This will preserve the "utility value" of this category. For example: "Non-mainstream scientific theories".


Aside from the insane amount of non-applicable categories here (Nazi science, chiropractic, Natural News, etc), I don't believe that interpretation of outcomes by scientific outcomes can really be in this category. I.E. Institute for Creation Research, Flood Theory, etc. Just because the majority disagree with the interpretation, does not therefore mean it is immediate quackery. I could not find any substantiated evidence that the PhD's at the ICR were using fake or wrong methods. And as a PhD student at CU Colorado having had a lecture (that I disagreed with) from an ICR PhD, I can attest to this. Nothing in the methods are fake, wrong, or incorrect...just their interpretation. But that is all opinion, and shouldn't fall in this category. Otherwise, we need to put Pluto in here since many scientists still agree that it is a planet. Frankly this "topic" is an excuse for pseudo-intellectuals to place their hated articles in.<br>
:: But, echoing several contributions in the July 2004 debate above, what I really think is that this category should be done away with completely as an inherently POV, "in-your-face" label. It's like having a category "Nonsense".
<br>
] (]) 02:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
:The Pluto-planet thing is about the definition of the word "planet", and therefore by definition an arbitrary decision and not a scientific question. The fact that you think this could even qualify as a pseudoscience shows that you don't have the first idea what science and pseudoscience is. (Your remarks on other examples confirm this.) The articles, on the other hand, contain reliable sources calling those things pseudoscience. '''Those sources are more important than the opinion of some random guy on the internet.'''
:But the category is too big, and maybe there should be more subcategories like ], ] and so on. ] and ] already exist, and some articles should go there. --] (]) 08:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
::] is a redirect to ]... --] (]) 08:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


== Trace Amounts film ==
:: Now some have objected that the term "pseudoscience" has a clear definition. Evidently they haven't read ]. But even if we say, for the purposes of argument, that pseudoscience is any branch of science that doesn't rigorously apply the scientific method, is that definition clear to all? To me and, I daresay, alot of other people, many of whom may be casual readers of the pages "branded" with this category (people who are interested in the topics in question), it will simply appear that Misplaced Pages ''itself'' is against anything that dares to question the dominant paradigm. Why else would it need to label something with a derogatory word? This appearance (referred to in the discussion above as Misplaced Pages giving an ''imprimatur'') belies the fact that the category represents only a certain fraction of Wikipedians who are pushing their own, anti-New-Age agenda.


This is an anti-vaccine film about vaccines causing autism. It is a completely unbalanced review. ] (]) 18:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
:: The term ''science'' itself can't be defined as something that rigorously applies the scientific method. Such a definition would relegate a significant portion of mainstream scientific work or research to being "non-scientific" or "pseudoscientific". I quote from ]: ''After more than a century of active dialogue, the question of what marks the boundary of science remains fundamentally unsettled.'' It follows that it is a matter of opinion whether or not a given theory is ''pseudoscience''. Opinions are fine. But they have no business "masquerading" as Misplaced Pages categories, which are supposed to be straightforward and uncontroversial.

:: (( Aside: I just noticed that ] has not been placed in this category. Why not? Are any of you willing to go there and put the pseudoscience label on it? Why isn't there a "Non-science" category? ))

:: So, to sum up, let's ask ourselves why a label is necessary at all. The only reason I can think of is that mainstream science feels threatened by something. And so it has instituted a system akin to kosher in foods. Something is kosher because the religious authorities say it is. That's the only criterion. Something is scientific because mainstream science says it is. "String theory is OK, but homeopathy -- over my dead body!" --] 21:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::: Keep the article. We have greater POV problems than this one, go and crusade against those. ] has certain virtues, and can be incorporated within NPOV. Deleting or renaming the category shuld be done thru ]. ]|] 22:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Again, I vote "keep," but still hold open the question of renaming. It is not too different from having a category like "racists" or "bigots." It is a not a self-assigned label and represents a purposefully derogative assignment of status. Put another way, it is a less extreme version than having a category like "race traitor" that Neo-Nazis would apply to whites in the Civil Rights Movement. Again, I'm not sure of the best way to deal with this aspect of things -- either we take a line which is completely within the POV of the mainstream scientific community (certainly not a standard we do on other articles, and certainly not NPOV), or we end up with something ridiculous (none of the alternatives proposed work for me). Or, perhaps, we just heavily edit the category description to emphasize that we are only using it because it is such a well known term for this. Hmm. I don't know for sure, I'll think about it a bit, though. (I don't think the label of pseudoscience is just a "matter of opinion", though -- I think it is a little more complex than that, and has to do with professionalization of disciplines and the internal content of the science itself, even though I think it is a sociological rather than a philosophical phenomena -- but that's not really the point, here). --] 00:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::I want to point out that I don't think the term pseudoscience is necessarily always offensive to proponents of a subject labelled as such: the term does have a specific meaning and a specific relationship with the terms ] and ]. Still though, in response to the POV complexities and the above-mentioned problem of the Misplaced Pages "imprimatur," perhaps we could put an asterix in the title? I think " Pseudoscience* " as the category title at the bottom of pages, with explanation on the category page would mitigate these problems. (looks like this wouldn't be prevented by ])--] ] 04:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::::What Nectarflowed said, seems to makes sense at first, adding something like an asterisk to the title, let's say "considered Pseudoscience". But then, I foud the category doesn't make sense, I mean see the ]. We don't have ] here, and to put it in one pot for good science and another for bad science, is not really the idea of an open, ] dictionary. We have the articles that should come to the point and say, "most people believe..." or something, see ]. I agree that some people might not find it offensive to let their field be called pseudoscience, but then its meaning is <nowiki> "something like science " </nowiki> Let's just put them all in the science bag, after all most people who did "pseudosience" did some kind of research, etc. It's largely political considerations that some fields are called "pseudo-". Of course something like ] was not "real" it didn't show anything, but it was a (kind-of) scientific approach. So, let's forget about the category. ] ] ] 12:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

==Balance==
I'm going to add category:Belief to this category, since I think that some of the articles / subcategories fall into both partial science and belief realms. Hopefully, this will provide a balanced categorisation. ] 20:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
:I think that's a wise idea. -] 21:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

==comments==

Request made to move category to Category:Science of Questionable Validity at
]
==Requested Move==
Category is misleading and has fueled a revert war on ] — ] 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
===Voting===
:''Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''

Having presented the request, I vote 'For' ] 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Support or oppose '''what'''? What exactly is the proposal we are asked to vote on?
Also, this "discussion" seems to have been going on for a year and a half now, and nothing seems to be have been done as a result. I see some people have quite cogently argued on this page that the category Pseudoscience is POV, that it is insulting, that its uses cannot be adequately justified since the Misplaced Pages editors do not have enough resources and knowledge to judge the scientific merits of non-mainstream scientific claims, etc. And what? Does this discussion have any procedural significance, or is it just meant as a venue for marginals to blow off steam and think they are accomplishing something? ] 05:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

:], voting for deleting or renaming this category take place at ]. We have a procedure. Thanks, -] 07:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

::Sorry, I had originally submitted this to Requests for move. The procedure there is to vote in the Talk page. ] 17:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

===Outcome===
"The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)"

discussion archived at ]

==Creationism==
The creationism category includes articles which are pseudoscience such as ], and many other articles which aren't such as ]. I strongly suggest that crationism should no longer be a sub-category of pseudoscience. ...] 19:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
:Items don't need fall 100% within a category to be categorized there. The point of categories is not to define articles (or subcategories) but to provide readers with a navigational tool to related topics. -] 19:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

::As the discussion above shows, this is a contentious label and should not be applied lightly where it can't be justified. Oddly enough, parent categories tend to be less of a fuss as they don't appear at the foot of the page, but at the moment the categorising seems to be leading to arguments and confusion, hence my agreement with Fastfission's 13 June 2005 suggestion on the cat:creationism talk page. ....] 23:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Though you've cross-posted this I suggest we only discuss it one place, ]. -] 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

== A deductive justification for this category's existance ==

Without first ever reading this talk page(oops), I have posted a justification for this and similarly POVed categories at ]. Assuming that one agrees that we should categorize things as science and that there exists at least one uncontroversial(and therefore minimally exclusive) criteria met by science, I've shown there why there is necessarily reason for a 'similar-to-but-not-science' category to exist. It is impossible to NPOVly couch a POVed categorization, whether it be favorable or unfavorable. However, this doesn't imply that such categories are unuseful nor even controversial in their contents. Even with POV categories, it is still possible to maximize compromise and minimize edit wars with a reasoned category scheme. Anyways, I guess I'll read this talk page now. =P

--] 06:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please post any comments to ] instead of here. --]

==Category Scheme Proposal==

As an off-the-cuff proposal, I think that a good scheme would be

*Natural Ontologies->Science+Pseudoscience+(Other reality-oriented beliefs)

Or better yet,

*Natural Ontologies->Science+(Controversial Ontologies->Pseudoscience+fringe science+more)

] might be a big word, but at least it means the right thing(unlike belief) and is quite value neutral(unlike a parent category which implied science or validity). The second suggestion allows for overly controversial categorizations to be compromised and marked merely as Controversial Ontologies.
--] 07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

== History of category at ] ==

This category has been nominated for deletion or renaming several times. This section is a summary of that activity.

* nominated for deletion at end of May 2005 ~
** decision to keep at start of June 2005 ~
** ''I've not found the archived discussion for this, otherwise I would have added that link instead of these'' User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 19:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

* nominated for renaming in early December 2005 ~ decision was to not rename ~ ]

* nominated for deletion in late December 2005 ~ discussion not to delete ~ ]

== Defn ==

The defn of pseudoscience used in this cat includes ''and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method.'' Of itself, this is wrong: there are quite a lot of PS theories (] being one obvious example) that are so wacky that they are totally ignored by the scientific community, and thus come in for no significant criticism from scientists. It seems to me that ] does a better job of defining PS. ] 19:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

:Hi, Dr. Connolley, this is Janusz. I dont see how definition in article Pseudoscience makes difference. There it writes:

::Classifying pseudoscience

::Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:
::by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
::by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
::by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
::by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
::by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
::by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
::by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
::by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible; ::or
::by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.

:You cannot yourself make such determination when claims are very complex and is not obvious that they contradict empirical results. Just because is obvious they contradict some existing accepted theory and many people think this is wacko is not enough for jumping to saying they contradict experiment or are not reproducible or lie about prediction or violate Occam's principle or are not progressing toward evidence. You as scientist must know this. To make such classification in encyclopedia, you still have to support it with quotes from reputable existing sources. Otherwise it is not place of encyclopedia to concern with it. Somebody said Misplaced Pages is not soapbox, and this, in my view, should also hold for administrators. To classify something in encyclopedia as science or as pseudoscience only because of strong opinion is soapbox, is not real scientific viewpoint. Especially administrators who are scientists should give with behaviour model of difference between real science and soapbox. Sincerely, Janusz. ] 15:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


:Caroll's definition in his Skeptics' Dictionary is good and concise: "A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific." Obviously, there are going to be things at the fringes due to demarcation issues and the degree of misrepresentation. When something is at the fringes, Misplaced Pages quidelines say to omit it (just saw that -- gonna have to dig it up.) -] 08:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::OK, found this under ]; more below. ]<sup>(])</sup> 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

==New tag: ]==

Given that this category remains contentious and there's no good rule of thumb for when to use it in disputed cases, I decided to be bold and create this tag (following ]) and add it. I'll probably add ] later for particular issues (such as lingering confusion about the definition of pseudoscience). Thoughts? thx, ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

:Nothing wrong with adding the tag, but surely the only time the category won't be disputed is when the "science" has no remaining adherents online. As a definition, the opening paragraph of ] looks good. For a rule of thumb, the subject should have claims to be science and be described as not being science by ] as required by ]. As ] requires, this should be in the article. It should be noted that ] can be held to require a source attributing pseudoscience to that person, even though they're a proponent of a subject which itself is credibly described as pseudoscience..], ] 11:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
::This category is not only contentious with respect to deciding what belongs here, its name is inherently biased. Namely, it reflects scientific POV: it's the scientist's label for disciplines outside of mainstream science. I don't think anybody presumably practicing 'pseudoscience' would be happy with that term, and this will eventually have to change, much like 'nigger' changed to 'black', etc. ] 11:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:::If those declining to abide by the ] don't like it, they don't have to call their ideas "science". ..], ] 14:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Dave, good points above. Additional considerations:

:*'''Dispute over evidence.''' Some topics are more disputed than others among legitimate scientists. ] has more legitimate claim to dispute than ].

:*'''Dispute over representation.'''
::*''Among practitioners:'' Not all proponents of an alleged pseudoscience may agree on whether they want to call it scientific. Some proponents of ] say their system is scientific, but others explicitly disavow science and say Reiki is spiritual healing. In that case, the pseudoscience tag applies, but only to the degree that congruence with science is claimed.
::*''Between critics and proponents:'' I think that grey areas frequently have more to do with what is being claimed and less to do with the ] of science's boundaries. Again, with acupuncture, of course TCM's yin-yang theory isn't scientific. But its originators didn't conceive of it as such, and many modern acupuncturists appreciate the clinically useful information that they believe people from another age and culture "encoded" in it. Whether the meridians have objective existence isn't the issue; whether points on them work as predicted is. Nonetheless, Carroll calls TCM a pseudoscience because it "confuse(s) metaphysical claims with empirical claims". That isn't quite the same thing as his concise definition of pseudoscience a "set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific."

:*'''Dispute over breadth of definition'''. Agree that the WP definition in the first paragraph of ] is good, but not all popular usage (including among self-identified skeptics) is in accordance with it. Sometimes the term seems to be used to indicate any field that makes objective claims which haven't been verified. The underlying presumption here is apparently that any claim to achieving an objective result is implicitly scientific, whether or not the proponents of the system explicitly claim they're doing science. Thus, has been debate over whether or not religion is pseudoscientific. Some people are using the term "pseudoscientific" as nearly synonymous with "nonscientific".

I didn't mean to do a bunch of original research venting above, but rather to highlight why OTHER reliable sources may legitimately disagree over use of the label. In that case, if we're going to use the WP category, it certainly should be flagged somehow. Also see below; under ]'s criteria there are obviously going to be some grey areas. thx, ]<sup>(])</sup> 22:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


If ]'s inclusion is disputed, it should be discussed at ]. Looking through the list, I can't see anything that doesn't warrant inclusion here. As it is, these tactics from certain individuals to pretend one's favourite pseudoscience isn't pseudoscience are are rather tiresome.&mdash; ]|] 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Dunc. As I said before elsewhere, if you dispute the inclusion of a topic in this cat, the correct place to raise the issue is at the article, not in the category. The people most interested in the inclusion of a given topic are editing that topic - they probably don't have this page on their watchlist. In addition, inclusion of the tag on this page is not useful to users - there's no indication of ''which'' articles are in dispute (and there's no way of indicating disputed inclusions in a category). So this is a very bad idea, since it doesn't help editors and it doesn't help readers. ] 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

:On review, agree with Dunc and Guettarda: the categorisation is at an article level, and it's there that any dispute must be resolved. Categories are about helping people to find articles, and should not be taken as a judgement on a dispute. ..], ] 00:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::Dunc, spare me the ad hominem, don't be dense about grey area existing here (see the ] discussion on ]), and don't be a dick and remove the tag without a little discussion. Some of these issues are long-standing and non-trivial. Guettarda, I agree that it would be good if there were a way to flag which categories were disputed, and have that show up both on the article and the category page. Maybe there is, or we can create one. Any idea what is meant when ] says: "you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed"?

::I'm fine with the idea that the proposed template may not be the best way to address problems with this category, but it still does need attention. I created the template along the lines of ], which presumably was meant to help readers be aware of disputes. I'm pretty sure that there are more than a couple fuzzy and contentious categories on WP. I think this is still a useful and interesting category, and for the record am no apologist for creationism or many alt-med things.

::Dunc et. al., I don't agree that debate over inclusion of ] in fuzzy categories depends only on ]; obviously it depends on the boundaries of the category as well. In practice, topics get put in the category because a reliable source has applied the label, irrespective of whether the reliable source is using the definition on the page, and irrespective of whether other reliable sources disagree. Also see the "dispute" list I posted above to Dave. I hope some editors perceive a little substance here and don't line up along hardcore ] lines.

::I made this edit as a start: ''This ] comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both '''allegedly''' claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the ], and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. '' Am also adding ] until we reach consensus on clearer criteria for inclusion, and say explicitly what they are. If consensus is that these concerns are insubstantial, fine, but let's extend the mutual courtesy of saying why. thx, ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry I'm late... anyway the word alledgedly is one of those ] which we are instructed not to use. It will need to be reworded -- ''unsigned message from ], 11:45, 21 June 2006''
::::Thanks for stopping by, and I find that after having slept on it I agree. It's too broad. At tyhe time I added it, I felt that the cat was being used more broadly than its definition warranted. But I agree a better solution is to keep the category precise and use it with due attention to ]. Removing; thx. Note that there remains another "alleged" that was there before I edited it. - thx, ]<sup>(])</sup> 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

== Criteria from ] ==

Here are some criteria on whether to include something in a category:

:''Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:''
:* ''If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?''
:* ''If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?''
:''If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the category is probably inappropriate.'' ....

:''Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.'' ....

:''Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the ]. If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed.''

thx -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

==Science is important (so is pseudoscience)==
Pseudoscience helps explain science. This is extremely important. Just because something is categorized as pseudoscience, that doesn't mean it is altogether a pseudoscience. It can mean that it has pseudoscientific elements. This is basically what the pseudoscience article says, and it is what the cat is used for. Its an important issue. If there is an issue in a subject that says it or part of is is pseudoscience, then it should be mentioned and categorized as being part of that issue. Firstly, this is correct in encyclopedic terms. Secondly, it is correct in educational terms (for helping the understanding of related subjects such as science). Thirdly, it really is something that a reader will want to know straight away about a subject. If an article is written well, then it is simply a matter of the reader making up their own mind. There is also an issue (not sure if it is so important here) that the public in general are not good at recognizing pseudoscience when they see it (take a look at the pop psych section in bookshops). Misplaced Pages will allow them to see that it is at least an issue within certain subjects. Whether this last point is an issue for Misplaced Pages or not, the use of a pseudoscience cat will be both useful and clarifying. The only people benefiting from abolition of the cat are those promotors or advocates of the subject (those wishing to present a strongly biased or narrow view). The cat will still allow balance and a better inclusion of the science view. It is up to the rest of the editors to use the cat properly. ] 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


:Thanks KV. I agree with a great deal of what you say. I certainly don't want to abolish the cat, or dilute it into irrelevancy, or lend aid and comfort to those who deceptively claim to be scientific. I do want to make sure that we're clear on the criteria for putting things in the category.

:When you say, "If there is an issue in a subject that says it or part of is is pseudoscience, then it should be mentioned and categorized as being part of that issue", this is the heart of the matter. Of course we can mention PS in the article with NPOV wording and sourcing, but we have to be clear about the criteria for the category per ]. Some things are more self-evident and untroversial than others. As I said above, in practice, topics get put in the PS category simply because a reliable source has applied the label, irrespective of whether the reliable source is using the definition on the cat page, and irrespective of whether other reliable sources disagree. If we address this issue by (a) agreeing on criteria for inclusion, (b) clearly explaining those criteria with appropriate wording on the cat page and (c) follow ] in categorizing indiviual articles, then I think the validity of the category will improve. That's kinda my bottom line concern and I apologize in advance to other editors if I've gone on too much about it. Thanks again, ]<sup>(])</sup> 07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest point of this issue is found in Misplaced Pages policy . Specifically, guideline #8 which states:

''Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.''

Too often when adding subjects to Pseudoscience, we have seen lots of contraversy. Many times, one person's view of "self-evident" is based purely on POV. The determiniation of whether something is pseudoscience can be highly subjective. Science is not always a black-or-white stage, where labelling is easy. This is because of one of the most objective facts: We do not know everything. Most of the world of science is neither black or white but rather some shade of gray. There are so few laws and so many theories. And just because something is accepted by science today, certainly does not stop it from being heralded as pseudoscience tomorrow.

In general, I think we have to show great care when placing a discipline in the pseudoscience category. The term has become a pejorative label ussed to attack beliefs that are completely divergent from another set of beliefs. But if they are both beliefs and neither are scientific laws, then which side gets to determine categorization? ] 22:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for commenting, Levine2112, and this raises an interesting issue: we can say in articles that "Jones says ] is pseudoscientific" if Jones is a reliable source and not a tiny minority viewpoint. However, if an editor wants to place ] in ], guideline 8 above from ] suggests a higher threshold: the editor would have to show something like scientific consensus that the topic is pseudoscientific. That's not a hard standard to meet for egregious things like ]. It may be tougher for, say, ], but we can still use NPOV wording if someone reliable says Reiki is pseudoscientific, and we could still place it in a "healthcare modalities of unproven or disputed efficacy" category or something like that. (Reiki, btw, just an example I got drawn into editing recently; I'm not a Reiki advocate and my view is that it's gotta rise or fall based on efficacy just like the rest of 'em).

:Bottom line: if (e.g.) Robert Todd Carroll calls ] pseudoscientific, that alone isn't enough under WP standards to put ] in ]. We should be able to show something along the lines of scientific consensus to that effect. Thoughts? ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::P.S. KrishnaVindaloo, on your concerns about pedagogical completeness: it just occurred to me that a reader can still use , in the toolbox bar just under the "search" box, in order to see articles in which ] is wikilinked but which aren't placed in ]. I'm still getting familiar with all the tools around here; this is probably a "duh" point for experienced folks. -]<sup>(])</sup> 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, I don't think scientific consensus is needed. What is important though is that if a subject is considerd PS then it should be mentioned if the subject is considered unfalsifiable, or falsified and still promoted, or full of obscurantisms, or anti-scienific. Basically wherever science or a reliable scientific source clarifies a pseudoscientific subject or takes issue with a subject that they consider pseudoscientific, then it should be categorized as such. Perhaps in this way, the notes of the category should say that there are issues of pseudoscience in the subject. ] 09:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Hi KV -- It sounds like you're arguing that "if a reliable a source says ] is pseudoscientific, then ] should be placed in the category". Please read ], excerpts of which I posted ], e.g. ''Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.'' I think that contradicts your "reliable source" criterion for categorizing. While a reliable source is fine for mentioning pseudoscience in an article, ] requires a significantly higher standard for categorization. Do you disagree? Thanks, ]<sup>(])</sup> 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: This is blatant ]. You are not making a specific point, just plucking pieces of policy out of the air that you think supports your "position" (whatever that is). If you have a problem with anything categorised here, say, and we'll discuss it on its talk page. &mdash; ]|] 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: I'm saying that the criteria for populating this category need clarification. What's so hard to understand about that, and why shouldn't it be discussed on the cat talk page? If you think the criteria are clear, then say what they are. Say whether or not you agree with KrishnaVindaloo's "reliable source" criterion.

:::::: Example - why was the entire ] put in ]? I just removed it, and it's fine to discuss that on ], but I still think we should firm up the criteria for this cat. Why recapitulate a debate on every ] page that can be at least partially addressed here? ]<sup>(])</sup> 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::I must agree with Jim Butler here. There is always so much quibbling over individual disciplines being placed in the Pseudoscience category. Wouldn't it be much eachier to more rigorously define what is Pseudoscience... then we can see what is '''a''' pseudoscience. I will reiterate that which Jim Butler has stated: We must clarify the criteria for populating this category. The Alternative Medicine debacle is a perfect example of mainstream medicine POV gone awry. Just because something is an alternative medicine does not make it pseudoscience. Much of what is called "alternative medicine" is actually extremely scientifically based. ] 02:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::Well it is even easier that that. Take a look at a good book on pseudoscience (eg Science and Psudoscience in clinical psychology) or The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. The subjects are examined for pseudoscientific elements (eg alternative medicine). There is nothing perjorative about it and it all adds knowledge. Misplaced Pages takes science seriously as it is knowledge oriented. If a notable or reliable source brings up the subject of pseudoscience then it should be added to that category. There may be some subjects that are not completely suitable (eg quantum physics). But then again, pseudoscience is an issue, so why not add the cat? I'm sure there is no way we can set comprehensive criteria or rules about this category. As usual it is a matter of getting reasonable editors together to be as neutral as possible about it. So finding criteria as guidelines is great and clarifying the pseudoscience art is important, but it is also a case by case issue. There will indeed be quibbling over which discrete subjects will go into the cat. But you can guarantee it will be mostly from those with vested or promotional interests in those subjects. Those editors with a more neutral inclination will be able to recognize any significant view of pseudoscience and recognize its significance for that category. ] 07:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] requires higher standards for categorization ==

Hi KV; this is in response to your post just above on 07:27, 21 June 2006. Again, please read ], excerpts of which I posted ], e.g. ''Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.'' A reliable source is fine for citing pseudoscience in an article, but WP's guidelines for using the category are stricter. This makes sense. By analogy, a notable scholar may say that the US government has elements of ], but we still wouldn't put it under ]. Note that the reader can still use (under the "search" box at the left) to find out more about pseudoscience even when the cat isn't used.

The wording on the cat page is actually pretty good if we apply ]: ''This ] comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the ], and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method.'' The phrase "scientific community" suggests consensus, or at least a solid majority view. (There also has to be reliable evidence that a field's proponents say their field is scientific.) That's what needs to be sourced in order to use the cat, not just one source saying "X is a pseudoscience". It's a higher standard than you suggest, but it's compatible with the cat page wording and with WP ]. thx, ]<sup>(])</sup> 14:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)



:OK, well the line is certainly inaccurate and misleading. Plenty of pseudoscientific subjects are full of proponents who swear blind that their mojometers or whatever are not science. But they use scientific and pseudoscientific terms all over their promotional booklets, they put the word "neuro" in every sentence, they call themselves Dr. and they claim to do stuff that legitimate medical practitioners would be struck off for saying.

:So it should read: pertaining to subjects that are made to seem scientific or scientifically supported but do not adhere to the scientific method, and are considered pseudoscientific by experts.

:The fact remains, we can list the characteristics of pseudoscience and that will be useful for deciding inclusion. But it really is a matter of sensible application, rather than hard and fast rules. Pseudoscience is becoming more prevalent in undergrad science courses as a way to understand science, especially as there are new pseudos popping up all the time in science and fringe psychotherapy. As a category it is an increasingly important issue. I would treat the pseudoscience cat as a kind of book in itself. A book on pseudoscience will give a good number of pseudosciences proper mention. So really, just take a look at some good books on pseudoscience, and understand the subject to a good degree before trying to apply the cat. From what I have seen of the application of the cat by editors here, it has been pretty well applied already. ] 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


::Hi KV. I do agree with your point that something can be pseudoscientific as long as its proponents portray it as scientific even if they try to avoid explicitly saying "this is science". I think the definition allows for inclusion of such things by its use of the phrase ''"claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the ]."''

::You propose: ''"So it should read: pertaining to subjects that are made to seem scientific or scientifically supported but do not adhere to the scientific method, and are considered pseudoscientific by experts."'' Ummm... I don't think that a good encyclopedic definition would include a criterion to the effect that "experts know it when they see it". That's just circular reasoning and argument by authority, isn't it? And by definition not very scientific. One of the primary criteria for the scientific method is ]. If pseudoscience is a valid category, its definition ought to be stated plainly. I understand that the term pseudoscience, like "cult" etc., is popularly used in different ways. That fact only underscores the need for NPOV language and reliable sourcing, and even more stringent use of the cat.

::I think there is value in your idea of listing everything that has been said to have elements of pseudoscience. However, doing so with the WP cat is plainly not consistent what ] says about NPOV. You haven't been able to refute that point; you've only restated your opinion that it should be otherwise. I do think your proposal can and should be pursued someplace on the internet, and as I said above it still can be achieved to some extent on WP by using "what links here". But not with overbroad use of the cat.

::In practical terms, I think that ], which I recently removed, certainly didn't belong here. ] and ] have been proposed and deleted in the past, and I agree with that. Both arguably have elements of pseudoscience, but also legitimate elements of science. Even Jarvis, writing for the very-likely-biased ], acknowledges that such a mix exists for chiropractic. Similar points are made in the entry for ]. That means both topics fail ]'s "self-evident and uncontroversial" test. thx, ]<sup>(])</sup> 20:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Sure, my "definition" certainly needs tweaking heavilly:) But the main reason for categories is to help the reader browse similar articles. Someone reading a pseudoscientific subject (eg, QiGong (a kind of shamanism)) will want to know what is meant by pseudoscientific, and to compare and contrast various pseudoscientific subjects. There is variety there. I would also want to know what parts of acupuncture are pseudoscientific, and the same with chiropractic. This is all the more important as pseudoscience helps to clarify the scientifically supported aspects of a subject if they exist. There are definitely subjects that have been labeled as a pseudoscience by collections of scientists. But there will always be resistence against calling something pseudoscience per se. More commonly, subjects are called pseudoscientific, or containing pseudoscientific elements. The latter is by far the more NPOV and useful for the reader (though will also encounter resistance). Really its just a matter of finding subjects that have reliable views saying it is pseudoscientific in whatever way, and adding it to the cat so that readers can compare and understand pseudoscientific subjects better. If I see quantum physics in the cat, for example, I do a doubletake and have a look at the article, and low and behold, someone views a part of quantum physics as pseudoscientific, then I have learned something. ] 04:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:35, 26 November 2024

This category does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSkepticism
WikiProject iconThis category 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
WikiProject iconScience
WikiProject iconThis category 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
WikiProject iconSociology
WikiProject iconThis category 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
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis category 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
WikiProject iconThis category 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
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Logic / Science
WikiProject iconThis category 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
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Logic
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of science
Articles for deletionThis category was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
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.
Archiving icon
Archives

Parapsychology

Many of the inclusions are subjective. Is it right to describe all parapsychology as pseudoscience? There are pseudoscientists working in the field (and indeed physics, chemistry etc - witness the cold fusion debacle), but there are also certain people who attempt to employ scientific method. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Those people do not self describe as parapsychologists; they look for a scientific explanation. For example, Chris French looking at it from a psychology perspective. Considering that science operates under Methodological naturalism and appeals to the supernatural are essentially a form of special pleading which make a stab at wearing the guise of science while they do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What a mess!

A few notes:

  • I have cleaned up the category page:
    • removed links to project namespace
    • removed redundant bare url (ext link to dictionary.com - hey we got our own!)
    • removed redundant wikilinks
    • tweaked layout
  • I am now trying to clean out the contents. It was a mish-mash of over 250 articles that readers would struggle to wade through.

My attempt to clean it all up is being hampered by editors who do not understand the category guidelines (or convention - they vary!), do not understand the hierarchical nature of topics, and attempt to link everything to everything else. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please focus on the content and policy/guideline issues rather than the editors involved.
There seems to be a great deal of disagreement on whether or not some of the articles are relevant to the subject. Discuss rather than edit-war please if you want to change consensus. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
You know, I don't really overly care about this category, or even this topic (and not even certain how I saw/got to this page).
But you would be hard pressed to claim that I do not understand the category guidelines and policies : )
Anyway, in reading the arbcomm case, and associated pages, it seems clear that this is a drama-laden topic, and by extension the pages thereof.
So I would think that it would be a good idea to at least provide the opportunity for "enthusiastic editors" to check out certain project pages. Links are cheap. And having links to project pages on a category page (as opposed to categorised IN the category) is very much not uncommon.
Our goal should be to reduce disruption, and if a couple links may help to prevent future disruption, then that's a no brainer, I would think. - jc37 20:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
"Our goal should be to reduce disruption" Having some familiarity with some of the drama around this topic, let's be clear: our goal first is to improve this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Lol, yes, and one way we do that is by reducing disruption.
I'm not sure what your concerns are, or even what edits your concerned with.
For me it's that the links to the Project pages which cover this topic broadly (WP:FRINGE#PS for example) should be linked in the category page intro. In looking over other situations in categories, it would seem a hatnote would be the best way to go with it.
If you're interested in arguing what should be a member of this category, sorry, I'm not who you're looking for. - jc37 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the links are already here at the top of the talk page, I just added a hatnote to see the talk page. I still think that a link to a related project page should be at the top, but for now, this should suffice. - jc37 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems that's come up is that some articles about practioners/vendors/applications of PS are often placed in the category, such as Samuel Hahnemann, Bach Flower Remedies, Blacklight Power, Ionized bracelet. If these don't belong in PS, then where? Perhaps subcats for "Pseudoscience products", "Pseudoscience advocates", "Pseudoscience companies"? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
As I have already said at the head of this thread they don't need a category relating to pseudoscience since it a non-existent or tenuous relationship. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So it remains a mess...

...because nothing gets done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Vani Hari

Vani Hari : pseudoscience?

First of all, she's a person and the article is a BLP, not an article about a theory. I scan for other person's in the list and i find Carl Baugh, a creationist. I find Fred A. Leuchter, a Holocaust denier. These are the people she's being lumped in with for calling out certain chemicals in foods that have some scientific support for being harmful, and for opposing wholesale antiobiotic use in raising animals, and for promoting diets with less sugar and more whole foods? Perhaps it's her support for the concept of toxins and detoxification that has people classifying her as pseudoscience? But these are in fact real concepts within science. Maybe it's based on some long-deleted tweet of hers about vaccination or the air in an airplane being pumped with nitrogen? Those would be considered embarrassing early mistakes, but not a systematic pushing of some kind of pseudoscience.

The guidelines for deciding whether something is pseudoscience states:

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.

It seems to me that the bulk of her work is actually fairly in line with generally accepted science, and that she has a few vociferous critics who call her work "pseudoscience" but as stated in the above guideline, this does not qualify her for this category. Note that middle of the road scientists such as Dr Marion Nestle, who is in a fairly good position to judge, do not call her work pseudoscience, and merely nudge her to include more nuance in her explanations of science as well as to prioritize her focus to be more effective. That's not pseudoscience. So, i propose removing her from this category, unless a very strong and clear case can be made in accordance with the guidelines. Note that "pseudoscience" is generally seen as pejorative, so special care should be taken when applying this term to a WP:BLP. SageRad (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hari certainly does not belong in this category. I had never heard of her work before, but it is clear that she is merely a food activist with a strong agenda. One need not agree with all of her concerns but they are founded on selective use and interpretation of existing scientific research, not upon in themselves false principles which she claims are scientific. HGilbert (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

subjective

inclusion of topics here is very subjective - couldn't we include tasseography?Vorbee (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion is based on reliable sources. Additionally, for something to be pseudoscience it is typically considered that it be presented by proponents as if it were scientific, or supported by science, when it is not. Tasseography, a divination practice, does not meet that description. But more importantly, "pseudoscience" is not supported by the sources.  Adrian 16:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup

This category is literally overflowing with articles, and has been for several years. Most could be dropped down into new or existing subcategories (or already have been). Obviously, the main article and the main list should stay here, though. 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Creation, ICR, Chiropractic...really?

Aside from the insane amount of non-applicable categories here (Nazi science, chiropractic, Natural News, etc), I don't believe that interpretation of outcomes by scientific outcomes can really be in this category. I.E. Institute for Creation Research, Flood Theory, etc. Just because the majority disagree with the interpretation, does not therefore mean it is immediate quackery. I could not find any substantiated evidence that the PhD's at the ICR were using fake or wrong methods. And as a PhD student at CU Colorado having had a lecture (that I disagreed with) from an ICR PhD, I can attest to this. Nothing in the methods are fake, wrong, or incorrect...just their interpretation. But that is all opinion, and shouldn't fall in this category. Otherwise, we need to put Pluto in here since many scientists still agree that it is a planet. Frankly this "topic" is an excuse for pseudo-intellectuals to place their hated articles in.

73.217.43.51 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The Pluto-planet thing is about the definition of the word "planet", and therefore by definition an arbitrary decision and not a scientific question. The fact that you think this could even qualify as a pseudoscience shows that you don't have the first idea what science and pseudoscience is. (Your remarks on other examples confirm this.) The articles, on the other hand, contain reliable sources calling those things pseudoscience. Those sources are more important than the opinion of some random guy on the internet.
But the category is too big, and maybe there should be more subcategories like Category:Pseudopsychology, Category:Pseudobiology and so on. Category:Pseudophysics and Category:Pseudomedicine already exist, and some articles should go there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Pseudomedicine is a redirect to Category:Alternative medicine... --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Trace Amounts film

This is an anti-vaccine film about vaccines causing autism. It is a completely unbalanced review. Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories: