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 08:16, 29 November 2006 editKrishnaVindaloo (talk | contribs)1,286 edits →Norcross← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:52, 10 January 2025 edit undoPhotos of Japan (talk | contribs)415 edits →Danger of Pseudoscience 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheaderlong}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header |search=yes}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Top}}
{{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'''


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.
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | ]<br />]
----
|-
|
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


] to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a '']''. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid ].
#
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


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 (]). The sections of the ] that apply directly to this article are:
==Archiving==
*''']'''
*''']'''
*''']'''
*'''].'''
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 ] 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 (]) and Cite Your Sources (]).
This talkpage has gotten out-of-control. The discussions contained here have drifted so far away from the purpose of talkpages as to be really not worth keeping live. Therefore, I have archived the previous discussion. The issues are still active, but in the spirit of turning over a new leaf, let's begin discussing how to make the article better. To wit, let's have all contributions here be of the sort: "Let's include this in the article" or "Let's remove this from the article". No more arguments about people's behavior, no more discussions about what is and isn't a pseudoscience (except in regards to what to include or remove from the article), and generally no more tangential discussions. If you want to pursue any of these, there are other venues in which to do it. Now let's get back to editting. --] 17:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


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 (]).
== Am I making sense? ==


'''Notes to editors:'''
Am I making sense when I say, Pseudosciences make scientific claims but do not follow the scientific method, therefore they behave in certain ways that we list (i.e. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, etc.) In other words, if A then B. But when we try to say a particular field's theory is untestable -> therefore it is a pseudoscience, that would be saying; since B then A, which is not logical. So if we are going to use anything as an example of pseudoscience, we first have to prove they are A, otherwise there are a lot of things that behave like B but aren't A, such as surgery that can't use double blind tests, etc. Agree/Disagree? --] 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
#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 ].
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 16
|minthreadsleft = 6
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive %(counter)d
}}
__TOC__


== Creationism vs Creation Science ==
:I disagree. The way pseudoscience is usually determined is through examining ''all'' the available evidence, not just pointing to single features. No one would ever claim that something was pseudoscience just because it couldn't be subject to double-blind tests. Subjects are pseudoscience because they make claims that either have been falsified or lack testability. --] 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


I understand that the list for pseudoscience's is a quote,
I don't think SA really addresses the point you make Dematt and his last claim is clearly worng (what science hasn't made any claims that have been falsified). In any event, the reasoning in your (Dematt's) claim has gone a bit awry. It is not that fields are psuedoscience '''therefore''' they do X. Rather, they do X (and Y and Z, or enough of them) therefore they are psuedoscience. In your example, then, the first A and B are the wrong way round and it should really read "do not follow the scientific method '''because''' they behave in certain ways.] 19:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


"that ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] are pseudosciences."
:My last point is not wrong. After falsification of an idea has occurred, pseudoscience supporters ''continue'' to advocate the idea in spite of its falsification. --] 19:10, 2 November 2006 (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)
That's a substantially different point. ] 19:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


:] has sections on different types. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] are all pseudoscience.
:Not it isn't. I stated quite clearly that pseudoscience "makes claims that... have been falsified" as in "already" falsified. --] 19:20, 2 November 2006 (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)
Ok, my apologies, the wording was slightly ambiguous but all has been clarified now. ] 19:28, 2 November 2006 (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 ]), 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 ==
::: I think you need to look at Popper and Kuhn; both stress that theories are retained in normal science long after they have been extensively falsified, they are only replaced when a better theory emerges,.... and then the process is complex. Kuhn's account of science is a competitive one - differenct co-existing schools developing competing theories that are mutually inconsistent, neither of which are wholly true, and often "incommensurate".....] 09:56, 3 November 2006 (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)
::::I'm not talking about Kuhn's paradigm shifts here, I'm talking about people who advocate, for example, ] even after it's shown that in order for the atmosphere to contain that amount of water vapor, no life could have been supported on the Earth. --] 12:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


== UFO ==
:Okay, then that list becomes pretty important. That is where we need to concentrate on verifiable and reliable sourcing. But of course we run into the same problem; if we're going to use examples for each, anything from any field could theoretically go in as an example, i.e. surgery for untestable, etc. right, unless we decide on some kind of line of demarcation? So, either we (1)decide on the line of demarcation, (2)don't use examples, (3)keep doing what we're doing - but keep running into the infighting. Is that a reasonable assessment? --] 20:04, 2 November 2006 (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)


: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)
It's an almost perfect assesment, since what is missing from the article is a genuine acknowledgement of the way the term "pseudoscience" is actually applied. That is, it is primarily used as a term of abuse bandied about without much restraint and used against certain fields, indivduals, ideas that some consider (for a variety of reasons) to be beyond the pale. It is as if someone calls someone else an idiot (because they don't like them for all sorts of reasons) and we then try to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for the appropriate application of the term "idiot". Anything we say can clearly be shown to be a trait of many people we don't want to call idiots but we want to use the word
nonetheless and don't want to admit that it's really just a term of abuse. ] 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


== Pseudoscience on the Pseudoscience Article ==
:No, no, no. This analysis is almost completely ]. Pseudoscience is evaluated in introductory science courses as a matter of curriculum! It's not merely a pejorative, it's an actual issue in science education. I'm sorry that the pseudoscientists get offended when evidence is shown that blows their ideas out of the water or their methodology is pointed out to be flawed, but Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a love-in or a place where criticism is mitigated. We report what is actually done, and in introductory science classes, what is done is, frankly, demarcation -- despite the fact that this task gets muddied amongst various philosophers of science. --] 20:26, 2 November 2006 (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.
Yes, yes, yes (or whatever). God forbid that philosphers of science should be taken seriously on a philosophy of science issue. Far better to leave it to the "introduction to science" teachers. And you shouldn't really confuse original research with things you're merely unfamiliar with (a short explanation of almost exactly my point appears currently in the intro but little is made of it later on).] 20:33, 2 November 2006 (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)
:This is NOT just a "philosophy of science issue". It is also an issue of scientific literacy and as such is relevant to the people actually doing science. You are claiming, falsely, that pseudoscience is used almost exclusively as a put-down. I'm pointing out that while people take offense to the pseudoscience label, there are plenty of examples where pseudoscience is used in other contexts. Your attempt to construct a hierarchy of norms between intro science teachers and philosophers of science is silly. We can report both in this article and they will complement each other well. The article can delve both into philosophical issues while explaining what scientists have said about pseudoscience, and it can do both without claiming an objective value-judgement on the term. --] 20:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


== Scientific Consensus ==
I think what we may wish to do is look for which subjects are the easiest to demarcate as pseudoscience and begin by discussing those in the article. The list of pseudosciences is a good place to start. Subjects that find themselves closer to that demarcation line we can evaluate on a case-by-case basis with appropriate, cited discussion and criticism. Using the standard skeptical societies as a guideline is a good start since they have a good claim to "word ownership". What is clear to me, however, is that we need to make sure the mainstream evaluations of pseudoscience and declarations to that effect remain. We should not be held hostage by the post-modernist philosophers who throw the baby out with the bathwater with the cry "Demarcation problem! Demarcation problem!" while being supported by psedoscientific rabble-rousers who are offended that anyone could consider their pet idea to be "pseudoscience". --] 20:22, 2 November 2006 (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."
IMO, pseudoscience is a POV term (not "bad", but simply in the sense of ]) and should be treated as such, i.e., in the same way WP treats ]. Many scientists don't even use the term, preferring to comment on evidence, or lack thereof, cf. McNally, and Gleng's comment . best, ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! ] (]) 19:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea how science is taught in American Universities. Over here the principles of scientific method are taught, and in Philosophy courses Popper and Kuhn's ideas are very extensively discussed, and logic is taught. We teach students to evaluate good and bad scientific method, sound and weak reasoning etc. and stress the importance of operational definitions, and here is the problem. Unless the demarcation problem is resolved then there is no agreed operational definition for science, so there can be no objective definition of PS either, hence its use has no "scientific" content. We teach students of science to use strictly definable terms where possible, avoiding potentially vague or ambigious terms with mere emotive content. ] 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


:Thanks for your question. And welcome to Misplaced Pages. You've also asked this question at ] and it is receiving response there. Please don't ask the same question in two different locations. ] (]) 08:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Well, we have verifiable citations to works which criticize pseudoscience in a wide range of introductory textbooks. I'll remind everyone here that while pseudoscience may be a POV, Misplaced Pages reports notable POVs that are found in the outside world. The job of Misplaced Pages is not to right perceived wrongs of society. In Europe, the scientific community is somewhat more accomodating to fringe and pseudoscience than we are in the United States. This is probably due to the fact that in Europe the anti-science perspective is looked at as backwards while there is a significant group of people in the US who actively promote "science bashing" and criticize science itself. Different strokes for different folks, of course. We can report this in the article if someone can dig up some sociology of science citations to this effect. --] 12:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry, I am new to this. Should I delete the question, if it is possible? ] (]) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's fine. Personally, I would just leave this conversation here. It shows that the issue is noted and resolved. ] (]) 18:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


== Danger of Pseudoscience ==


"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)
::But here, I think, matters come to a head. Because what can now be seen is that the term "pseudoscience" finds its place in a political, rather than a scientific, arena. That is, the science bashers bash science and the defenders of science respond with sound-bite distinctions that are politically useful but have little actual scientific merit - convenient brushes to tar opponents with but unsustainable from a neutral perspective. When that point is combined with SA's point above that "the standard skeptical societies have a good claim to "word ownership"", and we look at the ideological foundations of those skeptical societies (here, e.g.,), the point becomes clearer still. That certain educators have become part of this political battle should not be taken as evidence for anything other than they have become involved.] 13:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


:The quoted statement is true. But unless you suggest a specific edit based upon ], your request has to be discarded.
:::I agree that you all have deliniated POVs that surface on this page. I think a good up-to-the-minute, progressive, online encyclopedia should spend its valuable time presenting this debate rather than making lists from <s>either<s>any POV. Am I wrong? --] 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:Namely, the evil consequences (real or purported) of science amount to ]. ] (]) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:I totally agree. That part of the article is totally biased and pointless, and if not modified, it should simply be removed.
:There is always a danger in believing something is absolute, wether scientifically backed or not. ] (]) 08:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


::To cut a long story short, we edit according to the ]. Your request does not comply with our rules.
::::Nope, I think you're right on. cheers, ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::Our article does not violate anyone's right to believe as they please. It simply renders what is pseudoscience according to mainstream ].
::And it does not even claim that your God does not exist. ] (]) 13:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


::This article is about pseudoscience, it is not about science. If you are looking for a place to write about the harms of science, then that would be the science article. Also, it is ] to state that "Pseudoscience is not necessarily more beneficial or harmful than science". ] (]) 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
==Let's parse this==
Can we please parse the sentence below (in bold, presented in the second paragraph of the article) so it accurately reflects any relevant point intended to be made? I think the original intent (from around the time of Jon Awbrey's participation) was to state the obvious for the reader, which was, essentially, that someone calling someone else "a liar or a fool" usually results in a rejection of the label by the person being so called. ... ] 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*The term ''pseudoscience'' appears to have been first used in 1843 <ref>Magendie, F (1843) ''An Elementary Treatise on Human Physiology.'' 5th Ed. Tr. John Revere. New York: Harper, p 150. Magendie refers to phrenology as "''a pseudo-science of the present day''" (note the hyphen).</ref> as a combination of the ] root ''pseudo'', meaning false, and the ] ''scientia'', meaning knowledge or a field of knowledge. '''The term has ], because subjects so labeled are repudiated by skeptics and scientists as being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science when in fact the subjects are not. <ref>However, from the "them vs. us" polarization that its usage engenders, the term may also have a positive function because "'' derogatory labeling of others often includes an unstated self-definition'' "(p.266); and, from this, the application of the term also implies "''a unity of science, a privileged tree of knowledge or space from which the pseudoscience is excluded, and the user's right to belong is asserted'' " (p.286) -- Still A & Dryden W (2004) "The Social Psychology of "Pseudoscience": A Brief History", ''J Theory Social Behav'' 34:265-290</ref>''' Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification. ... 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

<p>-

:I don't see what was wrong with the way it was written before. That is

::"The term has negative connotations, because it indicates that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification."

:This seems like a perfectly straightforward and important point made perfectly straightforwardly.] 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::It also avoids the words "skeptics and scientists" which are weaseling in the sense that they are used here. Taking them out would certainly uncomplicate the issue of which skeptics and how many scientists. --] 19:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is "repudiated" the best word here?
''The term has negative connotations, because subjects so labeled are '''repudiated''' by skeptics and scientists as being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science when in fact the subjects are not.''
I'm not sure that I like "skeptics and scientists" here either. Something rubs me wrong here grammatically and I can't quite put my finger on it. Anyone else? ] 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::OK, I'll be blunt: the sentence is shit. Hence I'm reverting it. It is grammatically wrong on several levels, and to ambiguous with the "skeptics and scientists" bit. ] 22:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::You gone done and writed it good. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Here's roughly how this developed. About 2000 edits ago, the article looked like . Then in March of this year, about 1800 edits ago, traffic picked up and a significant change was made . Successive edits of importance to this part of the article's lead occurred , , , and . I made an adjustment , which brought the relevant sentence to where it pretty much remained since. Several combinations of the clause that adherents "normally reject this classification" were tried along the way, such as "commonly dispute the claim", "almost always dispute the claim", "typically dispute this classification", "ordinarily reject the classification", etc., and it ended up being stable for about six months with the language quoted by Davkal above. ... ] 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

== Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world: Paul DeHart Hurd ==
Hurd's article is available on-line.
I think the relevant quote from it is
"A scientifically literate person is one who.....Distinguishes science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult and superstition."
This is an indication of a rather liberal use of the term pseudoscience to include anything the writer thinks is stupid. Was it meant to include, as superstition, Christianity and other beliefs in the soul?] 17:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:Any other source for that article? I am unable to get access with the link provided. Sounds like an interesting point. --] 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm afraid someone will need to give up their username and password to access that citation (assuming it's not in violation of their user agreement with the website). Alternately, another method of access to this source will be needed. ... ] 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Speaking as an IT Manager: '''''Never, ever, give up your password (or uid if it is not your nick). Never. Not ever.''''' ] 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sounds like good advice; my apology. (I've obviously gotten too spoiled with options such as http://www.bugmenot.com . I also see that as a paid subscription, this would be a stretch of fair-use anyway.) Why not just quote the relevant passages or sections then? ... ] 04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
If someone wants to read a copy of the article, shoot me an e-mail and I'll send it to you. --] 17:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:I have no problem in ] with your interpretation. What does he seem to say? --] 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Got a copy! IMO, the article makes an argument for the integration of a "lived science into our school curriculums"(meaning things that students view as useful in their everyday lives - rather than just thereoms and useless facts). He makes the point that science has already changed to be useful by industry, etc., but schools have not kept up. He was assweting the position that schools should adapt there methods to create better scientific literacy. The section that SA and Gleng have referenced is:

"Behaviors associated with the production and utilization of science knowledge in human affairs represent the civic basis of scientific literacy. This perception is a blend of the revolutionary changes
in the sciences with dimensions of our democracy, social progress, and the adaptive needs of human beings. The elements of a civic concept of scientific literacy represent a consciousness of behaviors that serve as guidelines for interpreting the functions of science/technology in human affairs and the management of one’s life. These behaviors also serve as guidelines for reinventing science curricula in grades K–12, which has been called for in the education reform movement. The following attributes are among others that enable students to adapt to the changing world of science and
technology and its impact on personal, social, and economic affairs. Thus, a scientifically literate person is one who:
* Distinguishes experts from the uninformed.
* Distinguishes theory from dogma, and data from myth and folklore. *Recognizes that almost every fact of one’s life has been influenced in one way or another by science/technology.
* Knows that science in social contexts often has dimensions in political, judicial, ethical, and sometimes moral interpretations.
* Senses the ways in which scientific research is done and how the findings are validated.
* Uses science knowledge where appropriate in making life and social decisions, forming judgments, resolving problems, and taking action.
* Distinguishes science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition.
* Recognizes the cumulative nature of science as an “endless frontier.”
* Recognizes scientific researchers as producers of knowledge and citizens as users of science knowledge.
* Recognizes gaps, risks, limits, and probabilities in making decisions involving a knowledge
of science or technology.
* Knows how to analyze and process information to generate knowledge that extends beyond
facts.
* Recognizes that science concepts, laws, and theories are not rigid but essentially have an
organic quality; they grow and develop; what is taught today may not have the same meaning
tomorrow.
* Knows that science problems in personal and social contexts may have more than one “right”
answer, especially problems that involve ethical, judicial, and political actions.
* Recognizes when a cause and effect relationship cannot be drawn. Understands the importance
of research for its own sake as a product of a scientist’s curiosity.
* Recognizes that our global economy is largely influenced by advancements in science and technology.
* Recognizes when cultural, ethical, and moral issues are involved in resolving science–social problems.
* Recognizes when one does not have enough data to make a rational decision or form a reliable
judgment.
* Distinguishes evidence from propaganda, fact from fiction, sense from nonsense, and knowledge from opinion.
* Views science–social and personal–civic problems as requiring a synthesis of knowledge from different fields including natural and social sciences.
* Recognizes there is much not known in a science field and that the most significant discovery may be announced tomorrow.
* Recognizes that scientific literacy is a process of acquiring, analyzing, synthesizing, coding, evaluating, and utilizing achievements in science and technology in human and social contexts.
* Recognizes the symbiotic relationships between science and technology and between science, technology, and human affairs.
* Recognizes the everyday reality of ways in which science and technology serve human adaptive capacities, and enriches one’s capital.
* Recognizes that science–social problems are generally resolved by collaborative rather than individual action.
* Recognizes that the immediate solution of a science–social problem may create a related problem later.
* Recognizes that short- and long-term solutions to a problem may not have the same answer.

These science literacy characteristics are not taught directly but are embedded in a lived curriculum where students are engaged in resolving problems, making investigations, or developing projects. Supporting laboratory and field experiences are viewed as exercises in citizenship. As teachers we need to recognize constantly that public understanding of science is conceptually different from the traditional forms embedded in the structure of science disciplines."
--] 18:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:That's fine and good, but the edit you put in seriously disrupted the explanation of the context which is why the source is offered. It is clear that Hurd is advocating for scientific literacy in part as a repudiation of pseudoscience. Trying to say what Hurd's main purpose of the paper is incidental to this point. --] 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::I'm not sure I see where I muddied the water? I agree that Hurd was advocating scientific literacy as a repudiation of pseudoscience. All I did was clarify that it was not a research paper and added the occult. The entire paragraph concerned science education, Hurd fit right in. What was the muddy part? --] 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:::It was a summary of ideas based on research, the paper itself was a review. Adding the occult is unnecessary as it is covered by superstition. Your edit just made the sentence nearly impossible to understand within the context of the introduction and the paragraph. --] 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Still, "According to science education research" is overreaching. It makes it sound like there is consensus among scientists and science educators about the meaning of the term "pseudoscience". Perhaps is an improvement. (I have a graduate degree in chemistry and don't recall ever hearing the term used by my teachers. We talked about stuff like evidence and reasoning instead.) thx, ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think you're on the right track. --] 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Thanks and a clarification: I don't mean to give aid and comfort to those whom I think really are attempting to subvert science and reason a la ]. (That would be sort of analogous to tolerance taken too far, i.e. tolerating intolerance itself.) In general, my primary quibble with SA's otherwise perfectly fine line of thinking is that pedagogically, it appears easier to find consensus on what science is than what pseudoscience is.
::::::Also, as I've argued before, labelling topics in psychology and medicine as pseudoscience is hazardous territory given the complexity of the variables one must measure. Too often the "conclusions" section of a paper overreaches the "evidence" section, as when failure to replicate a phenomenon is taken to "disprove" that phenomenon (e.g., ], where the majority/doubting view has used the dreaded PS-term mostly as an epithet). Excellent article relating to these issues from Harvard Prof. Martha Herbert . Parsing such nuances requires unrelenting intellectual honesty and rigor. (/soapbox) cheers, ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

==Citing accurately==
Because the word PS can be used either indiscriminately (as a pejorative) or with attempted precision (as Popper attempted), and in mutually inconsistent ways, it seems important to be precise in citation. Hurd uses the word PS to embrace, specifically, the occult, superstition and quackery, and not to make that clear would be to miscite him, particularly because elsewhere in the present article it is clear that a precise use of the term pseudoscience would exclude all of these -and to include the Occult as pseudoscience would probably entail including all religion. The Occult is a necessary inclusion in any cite, as this makes clear that Hurd is embracing religious beliefs as pseudoscience.
This is Hurd's only use of the word, to stretch his meaning beyond what he said would be a speculative inference.

In psychology, as in all fields of science, the word pseudoscientific is part of the armamentorium of internal criticism (though seldom in the peer reviewed scientific literature, which generally prefers terms with operational definitions); the holder of one position may say that an alternative is pseudoscientific, meaning variously that the terms are ill defined, or the position is logically unsound, or that the argument is irremedially obscure. Sometimes this is a "straw man" position to delineate the conflicts, sometimes a serious criticism - but just as Medawar declared with rigor and vigor that every scientific paper is a fraud, there is little sense in treating arguments within a field as though they were somehow criticisms of the field, for intelligible external consumption. However, psychology is relevant for one good reason - it was chosen as one of the three canonical examples of unfalsifiable theories by Popper, who was the first to attempt a rigorous use of PS.
The University of Maryland curriculum by the way uses PS in the title but the description makes no further use of it.

How any of these arguments can give comfort to those who choose to believe nonsense is beyond me. If nonsense cannot be countered by cool rigor, careful analysis, and clear thinking, but needs to be branded by emotive labels with no intellectual content, then maybe it's not nonsense after all.] 10:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:Gleng, the problem with your edit is that in attempting to mitigate the use of the term "pseudoscience", you introduced a slant that claims that pseudoscience is poorly considered. While you submit that there is no definition of pseudoscience that is adequate, this quibble has no bearing on the sentences you editted. There is plenty of text elsewhere in the article which deals with this, but you failed to take the cites at their word which is that they are discussing the perils of pseudoscience. Trying to argue against these cites in the fashion you did by saying that they are somehow not giving good enough definitions for what they are fighting against is injecting original research. --] 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::? How can using the author's own words instead ogf yours be injecting my POV exactly? This is the only use of the term in the article, and at least we should respect the possibility that the author meant exactly what he said. I think it is OR to go beyond that and infer that the author actually meant more than he said. ] 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::: I hate to butt in here where I haven't been following the current history of the debate, but using precise quotes is often the best way to avoid accusations of OR and POV editing. When properly sourced, the case stands stronger. FWIW. -- ] 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Glad to see I wasn't the only one confused by that. --] 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Precise quotes are not a good idea for lead. And the selection of precise quotes detracted from the main point of the sentence (which is to say that pseudoscience is to be eschewed in order to gain scientific literacy). Insisting on including the quote because it illustrates the author's definition of pseudoscience is beyond the scope of the article and the reason the quote was included in the first place. Such an analysis would be better placed in an article about the person himself. --] 18:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:It may well be that trying to cover science education is a bit too much for the lead. ... ] 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Precise quotes are better than misquotes; it's only a few words, but their importance seems as clear to SA as to me. I agree with Kenosis; in the UK, science education here focuses on distinguishing good science from bad science, - the reasons not the labels, but I accept it may be different elsewhere. Hurd's inclusion of the occult is telling; where a word can be used to mean different things it seems important to be clear about how it is being used in any report of its use. In particular, it's important to distinguish between the scientific/philosophical issues and populist usage. It may well be appropriate to adopt a populist (pejorative) usage in an introductory science class; but unless the usage is distinguished the serious issues will get muddled. A "scientific" rather than a "pseudoscientific" use of the term requires an operational definition, or it becomes a mere label of distaste. I have a distaste for pseudoscientific arguments of all kinds, as I imagine everyone on this page does, but labels don't do the work of reason for us.] 19:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::I agree re the quotes, but I also agree with Kenosis. When I go to a restaurant I want a drink first, not a roast suckling pig slapped on the table. ] 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Hmm, drink... pig.... definitely drink. I say drink. --] 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Pig... drink.... perhaps a ] is possible? Seriously, yeah, agree w/ paring the lead a bit and covering more below. -]<sup>(])</sup> 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
::::P.S. - meant to add, agree w/ Gleng above re operational definitions. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::So, per the ] method, 1) put pig in a big blender, 2) empty contents into large vessel, 3) put into centrifuge to sort out bones, intestines, etc., 4) boil contents so no one gets sick, 5) add seasoning so no one throws up from the taste, 6) carbonate; makes 100 eight-ounce servings ... maybe this analogy has reached its practical limit of utility? Actually, in my comment above, I was mainly just wondering whether recent discussion of "pseudoscience" in science education might deserve a separate section in the article rather than attempting to deal with controversial pedagogy in the introduction. In the last half of the 20th Century, in general, scientific method is taught in keeping with whatever the discipline is, while pseudoscience is merely acknowledged as one form of the category of non-science without further qualification in the texts. In general, it hasn't been the educator's job to teach students what pseudoscience is, but rather to stick to teaching students appropriate method in their particular discipline--chemists learn one set of methods, biologists another, phsyicists another, experimental psychologists yet another, each of which is currently accepted in their own area of inquiry based on past successes. And it's left to "philosophers of science" to integrate it all, if they think they can. And as we already know, philosophers of science have been unsuccessful in attempts to arrive at a clear solution to the ]; though the AAAS has made nice progress in developing guidelines in recent years. So to whatever extent the term "pseudoscience" may be used in any of the recent texts on method, it is relatively very new. Maybe a brief section in the article on recent trends in science education involving the use of the word "pseudoscience" might be appropriate? ... ] 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Now we're getting to the marrow of the matter (porcine metaphor exhausted?). Yes, Kenosis, agree with your ideas; ] has some good approaches on presenting POV's. best regards, ]<sup>(])</sup> 17:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::That would certainly make sense and set the stage for the rational debate of the issues. --] 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

==Norcross==
Let's discuss this before adding it. This is what I found... no clear mention of Pseudoscience.

<blockquote>A new study surveyed psychologists and other mental health professionals about their knowledge and views on whether certain treatments have been discredited, and the results are provocative. The subjects rated 59 treatments and 30 assessment techniques on a continuum from "not at all discredited" to "certainly discredited."<br /><br />

The upper tier of discredited treatments included Angel, Orgone, Rebirthing, and Primal Scream therapies. Some techniques that fell into the mid-range included Freudian dream interpretation, catharsis for anger disorders, Scared Straight programs for criminal offenders, and DARE programs for substance-abuse prevention. The bottom tier, which represents more credible treatments included EMDR, behavioral therapy for sex offenders, and psychosocial treatment of ADHD. The most discredited assessments included Graphology, the Szondi test, and the Luscher Color Test for personality.<br /><br />

The authors made sure to note that all of this should interpreted with caution since it is simply an exploratory analysis and that many subjects were not familiar with details of each treatment. However, this does provide fasinating documentation about the status of varoius therapies and treatment approaches in the field, and ideally consumers can gain access to this sort of information to guide therapeutic decision making.</blockquote>

<span style="font-size:10px">Norcross, Koocher, & Garofalo (2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(5), 515-522.</span>

I just don't think qualifies a s agood source of what is a pseudoscience, especially with the author warning to be cautious when interpreting this study. Any other toughts here? ] 06:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:Levine2112. The whole article is about pseudoscience. They listed 59 or so theories that have been identified by other peer reviewed sources as pseudoscientific, and then they determined using a rigorous empirically sound poll which ones were definitely discredited. Similar to other peer reviewed literature on similar subjects, they use the terms quackery, and pseudoscience. So Gleng, yourself, or anyone else who keeps badgering for a dismissal of those terms or articles has just bit the dust on that argument yet again. Levine2112, contrary to your statements, you have clearly not read the article. You have also not clearly read NPOV policy. Look under the heading - a simple formulation. This article is a survey - published in a peer reviewed journal, published by eminent profs. It will inevitably be included in this article. ] 06:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::Whoa. Take it easy. This isn't a personal attack, so don't turn it on me like that. This is the kind of thing that got you in trouble last time. I am questioning the edit and not the editor, so please don't make this personal.
::Now then... no, I haven't read the article. Nor did I claim to. I did find a summary which doesn't mention Pseudoscience. It also mentions a tier system which I think is important.
::Can you provide us a link to the article? This way I and others can read it. And/or can you provide us with a direct quote from this source which uses the term pseudoscience so we can see how it is being used... since that is most operative to this article.
::And if we decide to reintroduce this, can you please try to be consistent and match the ref footnote method that everyone else has employed here? Thanks again and please don't take this personally. Stay calm and let's discuss this rationally and cooperatively. ] 07:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I found an abstract for this: Note that this study is not about labeling things as pseudoscientific but rather to discredit/credit the value of certain therapies in terms of mental health. I really think it is a stretch to include this here. However, please feel free to defend it being here in an article that is about Pseudoscience. ] 07:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Norcross on page 515 says that several authors have attempted to identify pseudoscientific psychotherapies. They site Lilienfeld, Carroll, Sala, Eisner, and Singer. Norcross then says that this present study is an addition to that effort. Of course pseudoscientific and discredited are the same in Norcross et al's judgment in this respect. In the conclusion of the study - page 522, Norcross et al state that We have made progress in diferrentiating science from pseudoscience". They also say they have made a cogent step in identifying the quack factor of modern mental health practice. Its crystal clear that the article concludes that those 14 listed are very very pseudoscientific. This PS article could do with some information on the issue of the relationship between what is considered pseudoscientific (has PS aspects), and what is considered most definitely discredited. The Norcross article is perfect for this PS article. ] 08:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:52, 10 January 2025

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)
I totally agree. That part of the article is totally biased and pointless, and if not modified, it should simply be removed.
There is always a danger in believing something is absolute, wether scientifically backed or not. 109.142.174.140 (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
To cut a long story short, we edit according to the WP:RULES. Your request does not comply with our rules.
Our article does not violate anyone's right to believe as they please. It simply renders what is pseudoscience according to mainstream epistemology.
And it does not even claim that your God does not exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This article is about pseudoscience, it is not about science. If you are looking for a place to write about the harms of science, then that would be the science article. Also, it is original research to state that "Pseudoscience is not necessarily more beneficial or harmful than science". Photos of Japan (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: