Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:23, 1 November 2006

Template:Talkheaderlong

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.

Archives
Antiquity – Jan 2003 Jan 2003 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – Apr 2006 Apr 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – Sept. 2006 Sept. 2006 – Oct. 2006 Oct. 2006 – Oct. 19, 2006

Woeful references

This article is desperately lacking in some semblance of order in the references section. There are Notes, References, and Literature. How about combining them under References (with code) and dropping the others? Then make sure all links in the text are formatted properly, and the references are described and linked to on-line sources as much as possible. While "verifiability" means one thing to editors here, it means something else to readers, who should be able to click a link and look at the source for themselves. -- Fyslee 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there should be one format for reference, preferably footnotes. KrishnaVindaloo, and perhaps one or more other editors, have been adding some material with "Harvard-style" citations. For now, we'd best keep the references section until this gets sorted out. ... Kenosis 23:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of ways here to do citations. I prefer the "footnotes" method. Like this:

According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big.<ref name="miller">E. Miller, The Sun, (New York: Academic Press, 2005), 23-5.</ref>

The Moon, however, is not so big.<ref name="smith">R. Smith, "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 46 (April 1978): 44-6. </ref>

This will put a footnote in the references section at the bottom of the page. It is truly the most informative method and the easiest for the reader to check references. Levine2112 02:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Although it's not a hard-and-fast rule, footnotes are the convention. Doesn't clog up the article with inline text, or require the reader to scroll to the references to find what's being referenced. ... Kenosis 02:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure footnotes could be put to better use. As to the above, I was never much of a coder, so Harvard cites will have to do for now. I wouldn't want to make Misplaced Pages too elitist. If it was an absolute requirement to make clickable cites, it could dissuade good editors from editing. And of course those wishing to censor would be given another bloody excuse to remove solid research. KrishnaVindaloo 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's actually very easy to do, and requires hardly any more effort than Harvard notations. You can do it the long way (giving the reference a name), or the short way, by simply putting < ref > TEXT </ ref > (without the spaces) around the words, even if they don't contain a link. Others can then complete the process. Just look at how others do it. -- Fyslee 11:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also say, that the is the least awful solution. It dows clog up the article source, sure. I'd suggest to make use of the name attribute even for sources cited only once, so that mouse-overing the link display some useful, like here: .

Restriction of views

Hello, Gleng especially. Sorry, but this whole pressure to restrict views is completely unacceptable. As is the pressure to promote so called "expert" editor's edits over others. I repeat: This is Misplaced Pages where anyone can edit, and all relevant views are to be shown. If a view is relevant and reliable, then it can be shown in proportion to majority or minority. Using words such as "allegedly" is completely unaceptable also. They either said pseudoscience or they didn't. Pseudoscience is mainly about theories. Not fields. Theories come from fields, but we are mainly here to talk about the theories of those fields. Got it? KrishnaVindaloo 15:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

They alleged that something is PS, or expressed an opinion that it was. Opinion not fact. So long as it is clear that these are opinions we're talking about and whose opinions they are then we're part there, the next part is notability... The opinions that shouldn't be in the article are e.g. yours and mine - opinions of notable others we cite, naming them, but report them as opinions. Stripped clearly religious elements out of list (e.g. spiritualism) surely we don't want to get into "PS" aspects of religions. Gleng 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with both Gleng and Jim Butler. While I see the points you are trying to make, KV, I think you have been mislead by those "urging you on" when you chose chiropractic as proof of your suggestions as you note above. In fact it is a poor example of pseudoscience especially when compared to those already listed in the article. You stated, “The cult thing shows up really well also.” I see no verification of this and there really can’t be since it is more of an opinion on your part.

It has been demonstrated by Levine and many editors here numerous times, with dozens and dozens of links to dozens and dozens of studies, that chiropractic has large amounts of research behind it. See the Talk pages on Chiropractic as well as here.

Chiropractic is licensed and has the recognition of all US states, many foreign countries, insurance companies, Medicare, car accident/work injury insurances. There are hospitals with Chiropractic Departments, joint medical/chiropractic practices all over the US and it is being used on many military bases around the US. Professional and amateur athletic teams utilize chiropractic doctors, as do Olympic teams and countries.(the US for one e example.) There are chiropractic colleges, many journals and collaborations with various other professions and institutions.

So, perhaps in 1895 it can be argured that there has been some “quasi-spiritual vitalism aspects, and shows very well the superstitious nature of its founders and original users” as you claim above, today chiropractic is what many call ‘mainstream’.

Readers not familiar with chiropractic can easily look it up on WP. So unless you are wedded to showcasing chiropractic, wouldn’t it make more sense to showcase better, stronger examples in order to give them a good idea about what PS really is and is not? We can easily pick from the list in the article for strong cases.

Maybe other editors can come up with stronger examples. Thanks Steth 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Theories once criticized as pseudoscience

Could someone explain the purpose of this section, as ScienceApologist alone keeps removing these examples for reasons I obviously don't understand.

I've provide verifiable reliables sources, all of which are very clear, in that a reputable individual, identifies a theory that was either once criticized as pseudoscience, or they considered as pseudoscience. No-one is saying that they are pseudoscience.

• Cosmology. *Stephen Hawkings wrote:

• "Cosmology used to be considered a pseudoscience .."
• "Cosmology was thought of as a pseudoscience where wild speculation was unconstrained by any possible observations."
• "Cosmology used to be regarded as a pseudo science.."
• In other words, cosmology was considered a pseudoscience, and Hawking confirms that view.

• Magnetic reconnection. Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén described a phenomenon that occurs in plasmas, "Magnetic merging -- A Pseudoscience", he wrote: "I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and a "fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen-in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group."(ref: Alfven, Hannes, "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics", NASA, Double Layers in Astrophysics Workshop, Huntsville, AL, Mar. 16-18, 1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793.)

--Iantresman 19:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for removing Hawking's quote were discussed above. The reason for not including Alfvén's quote is that it is woefully out-of-date and doesn't show a contemporary comparison. --ScienceApologist 22:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hawking's comment was not off-the-cuff, by definition. It was published in three different books as his considered opinion.

Alfvén's paper is supposed to be out-of-date, it's about theories that were once considered pseudoscience. --Iantresman 22:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hawking's comment is problematic because it is used as evidence regarding pseudoscience when he was not describing pseudoscience -- rather he was describing criticism of cosmology. The rhetoric of mainstream disputes in the process of arriving at scientific consensus does not belong in this article. Likewise, Alfvén's comments should be included only if they can be properly contextualized. This article is not the place to do it. --ScienceApologist 22:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the relevant section in the WP article is about fields that were previously regarded as pseudoscience, rather than about fields that are currently called pseudoscience by notable and reliable sources. Though the magnetic reconnection cite appears quite minor, I would think the Big Bang, and perhaps even cosmology generally, are useful examples of things formerly considered pseudoscience that have since gained wide credibility because of advances in instrumentation and other factors that have allowed them to be better verified than they were at the time they were called pseudoscientific. Don't have the cites for you, but typing in "Big bang" and "pseudoscience" gets a bunch of hits and brief references that appear consistent with the assertion that the "Big bang" had indeed been called psuedoscience by a good number of scientists in the years when cosmology was very much an emerging science. ... Kenosis 00:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on Big Bang and Cosmology Kenosis. I did remove them but I'm not wed to the idea of them being absent. I certainly see value in stating something that has wide acceptance nowadays, and showing the rather silly prior assumptions of the past (fixed universe, nailed together by God perhaps!). KrishnaVindaloo 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC) I didn't have time to find other sources, but as you said, it is corroborated on the web already. KrishnaVindaloo 03:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the "verified by the web" point at all. When I type in "Big bang" and "pseudoscience" I get a bunch of hits refuting the Big Bang being called pseudoscience by unqualified professionals and a number of hits that are unrelated to the history of astronomy. As I'm fairly certain that the term "pseudoscience" was not bandied about in regards to the emergance of cosmology, I'm again going to remove the point. Please do not put it back in until you have verified the reference. --ScienceApologist 08:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thus far the only cite I have seen verifying the assertion that cosmology, and by extension the Big bang, was regarded as pseudoscience is the Hawking reference given by Iantresman (). Hawking notes that cosmology was regarded as pseudoscientific when he was at Cambridge back in 1962, and that general relativity was seen as a beautiful theory that had practically no contact with the real world. The quote is: "Cosmology was thought of as pseudoscience where wild speculation was unconstrained by any possible observation. That their standing today is very different is partly due to the great expansion in the range of observations made possible by modern technology." ... Kenosis 09:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is argued above that "Hawking's comment is problematic because it is used as evidence regarding pseudoscience when he was not describing pseudoscience -- rather he was describing criticism of cosmology." Yes, he was describing one particular criticism of cosmology: that is, that it was pseudoscience. Therefore Hawking is saying that cosmology was considered pseudoscience, and this is all that is really needed for cosmology to be included in the list of fields that were once considered pseudoscience. Please also note that this was not merely rhetoric used in part of some debate, but rather it is a straightforward point about the nature of cosmology at some time in its recent history. As Hawking puts it, cosmology was "an area where wild speculation was unconstrained by any reliable observations".Davkal 10:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it really does clarify some of the points made above about identifying PS. Its helpful and clarifying. As a cosmologist, I certainly wouldn't be insecure about the point. Hawking doesn't seem worried at all about it. KrishnaVindaloo 11:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology was considered pseudoscience

In addition to Hawking's three verifiable citations noting that "Cosmology used to be considered a pseudoscience ", and that "Cosmology is still not a proper science", here is yet another citation from Science Historian Professor Helge Kragh, who wrote:

"Dingle disliked cosmological principles of any kind and saw in them the main cause of why cosmology had degraded into a state of pseudoscience" (Ref: Helge Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe, (1996) p.226, Publ. Princeton University Press,)

Professor of Astronomy, Joseph Silk, wrote on Cosmology that

"To many scientists, this seemed, at best, pseudo-science", {Ref: Joseph Silk, Cosmic Enigmas (1994) "Preface" ISBN: 1563960613)

So we have perhaps the most famous name in cosmology, Stephen Hawking, and two professors (including a science historian), all saying that Cosmology was once considered pseudoscience, all verifiable and from reliable sources. --Iantresman 11:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, like I said, its nothing to be insecure about. KrishnaVindaloo 11:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what ScienceApologist is concerned about is the extent to which cosmology is still called pseudoscience by some. There are still a few in a vocal minority who assert that because such things as the "big bang" are not replicable they're pseudoscientific. To make matters more confusing, some of those who call cosmology pseudoscience appear to be driven by motives in defense of traditional religious cosmological models and dates of creation and the like. Yet others may associate cosmology with those religious models such that they harbor a distrust of any cosmology, although I can't prove that with any citations at the moment. So WP:NPOV#Undue_weight will need to be heeded closely with respect to cosmology.

The key here, which was reviewed on this talk page not long ago, is that much of cosmology is a historical inquiry and thus cannot be replicated in general, just as many aspects of evolution cannot be replicated (at least not to date). These theories depend on coherence of factors that are independently verifiable even if not replicable in an experiment. The big bang and evolution are properly regarded as scientific because the pieces of the overall puzzle fit together sufficiently well when all the verifiable research is reviewed as a whole, such that no other theory makes sense to the relevant scientific community. Giving proper weight to the sources used for the WP article, in keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, should allow the WP editors here to effectively manage this situation, I would think. Therefore, I personally have no objection to the inclusion of Cosmology and/or the Big bang in the section on fields and theories formerly considered pseudoscience. ... Kenosis 14:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so if we are going to describe the history of cosmology, we're going to have to do it right. In particular, right now we are in (or have just gone through) the "Golden Age of Cosmology". It's important that we describe to the reader precisely that cosmology is no longer a pseudoscience and the criticisms that were leveled against it in the past are now not being leveled against it. Otherwise readers get the impression that there is something unique about cosmology. Notice that the discussion of continental drift includes discussion of the fact that it is now no longer considered psuedoscience. We need to do likewise if we are going to discuss cosmology in such a way.

And furthermore, the quote about the "Big Bang" being pseudoscience isn't relevant to this historical exposition.

--ScienceApologist 14:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SA in that if the "big bang" is to be mentioned it should have a separate verification from the Hawking cite offered with respect to cosmology. Better to leave it out unless there's a very clear citation for it. ... Kenosis 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure someone will come up with a corroborating ref sometime later on Big Bang. Its a good example of something finding good support more recently. All with clear descriptions of its general acceptance. KrishnaVindaloo 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course Cosmology, and the other subjects mentioned, are not now considered pseudoscience. There is no implication that they might be considered pseudoscience by some people, and I have no citations to support this. This section is about subject that were once' considered pseudoscience by some people, but no longer. --Iantresman 17:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I trust that ScienceApologist's primary concern has been made clear and that it is safe to proceed ;-) with more accurate citations this time around. I like the idea of making clear in the article not only that cosmology is no longer validly termed a pseudoscience, but also how it was that cosmology overcame the pseudoscience label, especially from the 1970s forward, which was in large part by continual improvements in technology that in turn allowed major improvements in the quantity and quality of the relevant empirical observations. ... Kenosis 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in this regard, we could briefly mention how active and extensive the research field currently is, and mention the implications of research etc. KrishnaVindaloo 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Or you could get a history of cosmology source and actually do some good research into the history of the field rather than collecting quotes ripped out-of-context. --ScienceApologist 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, SA. It is obvious that some editors are being too dismissive here. I am in the process of looking up the very sources you suggest, and will in no uncertain terms show that cosmology is no longer considered PS wherever those sources state so. KrishnaVindaloo 13:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We should perhaps also note that some commentators today regard aspects of cosmology as pseudoscientific, albeit for substantially diffrent reasons, e.g, Mary Midgley in Evolution as Religion and at greater length in Science as salvation.Davkal 13:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes this could be valid, but we also need to determine the minority-majority proportion. KrishnaVindaloo 14:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps we should be as critical of those other subjects labelled as pseudoscience, for which there is also no context and no explanation. --Iantresman 15:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, IanTresman. I also believe a lot more could be said about them. KrishnaVindaloo 15:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I again removed the prose regarding the Big Bang and cosmology as the text was either factually incorrect (as in the case of the Williams quote) or the quote was ripped out of context without any explanation (as in the case of the Hawking quote). If you want to go in depth explaining the context of these points to explain to the reader how they were evaluated as such, that's fine. But simply putting in throwaway quotes out-of-context or (worse) written with factual inaccuracy is not good practice. --ScienceApologist 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RevertRemoval

I hate reverting(just me, I don't mind so much when others do it) edits that I consider POV, as that's usually not the past way to deal with that issue, however in this case(the removal of contents) it was hard to come up with an appropriate change. I know your argument is "who's to say?" however that argument can be used on anything and has no bearing on the appropriateness of the article. If you're going to argue "who's to say?" you'd better remove every last thing from that list. Moreover, being considered pseudoscience doesn't make something pseudoscience, please stp taking offence at well documented sources. I still recomend that this section be changed to something that discusses why things have been considered pseudoscience, as that's more helpful to the reader's understanding. Nonetheless, that's not the current format, and you'd do well to stop cherry-picking your battles. i kan reed 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"why things have been considered pseudoscience...", absolutely more useful --Iantresman 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

demarcation

Has anyone else noticed that there are two sections on the demarcation problem? I recommend changing the name of the section Introduction"" to ""Demarcation"" and merging the small amount of content in Demarcation problem and criticisms of the concept of pseudoscience that is referenced. Banno 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, a reference section on a talk page is a clumsy idea. Banno

Williams reference

KV, I noticed you changed the original reference that you have repeatedly insisted on inserting. Why was that? Does it have to do with Dematt asking you exactly what Williams did say? Did Williams specifically mention qi, prana or innate? Does Kaptchuk and Eisenberg specifically mention qi, prana or innate? Thank you for clearing this up. Steth 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki article on the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience describes its criteria for inclusion, but tends not to give details of the specific criteria considered for each of the 2000 entries. --Iantresman 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that you can treat people's diseases using theories based on the notion that functions of a living organism are due something distinct from physicochemical forces? And are you saying that vitalism is measurable? Do you think as encyclopedia writers we should totally dismiss the fact that vitalism is considered pseudoscientific or that there is no view at all in science that vitalism is used by pseudoscientific subjects or within pseudoscientific concepts? Are you saying that qi or prana or innate is not considered by any significant party to be vitalistic? My questions can go further. What kind of encyclopedist would want to dismiss the view that qi or prana or innate are vitalistic? And what kind of encyclopedist would want to dismiss the view that vitalism is pseudoscientific? Is it the majority view or the fringe who consider vitalism to be measurable and scientifically supported? Or should we push the alternative medicine view? Does modern medicine operate through doctors' mojo? KrishnaVindaloo 14:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So what do K and E say about "pseudoscience"? They use the term "pseudoscience only once, in the following: "Alternative medicine includes chiropractic science , homeopathic science , psychic science , and even occult science . Academic science would undoubtedly call these approaches "scientism" and discuss the boundaries between science and pseudoscience . However, for practitioners and their patients, these sciences are absolutely credible. Indeed, many of these disciplines have a long intellectual tradition and sophisticated philosophy , as does the broad notion of nature's healing power and vitalism ."

And what else do K and E say about vitalism?

Physicians often rely on the power of nature (for example, in wound healing and recovery from the common cold). Vitalist forces also inhabit the biomedical world in the form of the placebo effect and the patient–physician relationship.

I have no idea how this source can be taken to support the claim made for it. What should encyclopedists do? Find the strongest sources, read them, and report them accurately. That’s all.

Gleng 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

K and E provide examples of vitalistic notions. The inclusion is useful for the reader. We are writing for the reader, right? KrishnaVindaloo 15:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Oh, also further to your suggestion to finding the strongest source to support the view that vitalism is considered PS, and that innate is considered PS, and that innate is condidered vitalistic. Why don't you try? And while you are at it, please provide a list of all the pseudoscientific applications of chiropractic. Apparently chiropractors commonly claim that chiropractic can heal the whole person and all their ills. Just give me a list of all the ills outside of the weakly supported backpain condition treatment. KrishnaVindaloo 15:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To cite these sources with the sentence in question is OR. You cannot defend your POV edit with reliable and verifiable sources. You exagerate circumstances (1000's signing papers in schools all across US) to push your POV. I'll remove the sentence in question. --Dematt 15:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is my main issue with this attempt at POV pushing. Aside from providing poorly referenced data, KV is drawing his own conclusions from two separate citations (and a third non-existent citation). This constitutes a violation of WP:OR and I deleted the reference on those very grounds. Specifically, on this section of the policy. I encourage KrishnaVindaloo to read (or re-read) this section. Levine2112 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To correct an apparent misconception. A good encyclopedist does not make a list of his prejudices and then dredge up whatever support he can find for them. He (or she) abandons his prejudices, finds what the very best authorities writing in the very best journals say about the subject, and simply reports that. That's all, no more, no less. If a pet prejudice is not discussed with care and authority, well too bad; is it noteworthy? I think Dematt is clearly right here. The issue is simple, the sentence misrepresents the cited authors. Gleng 15:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No KV, all I am asking is if Williams and K and E use the terms qi, prana and innate as you have stated in the article. That's all. Apparently they don't. Gleng makes some very strong and clear points on this issue. The question then becomes, why would you make it look like they do? Thanks Steth 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So tell me Steth. What does it look like it says to you? Please be specific. Tell me exactly what the reader is going to envisage when they read those lines. KrishnaVindaloo 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't tell you what the reader will envision, but to me your edits in the Pseudoscience article infers that Williams and K&E specifically use the terms and discuss qi, prana, innate and chiropractic. So how did I do? So they specifically use these terms? Steth 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes K and E do. "This vital energy takes myriad forms: homeopathy speaks of a "spiritual vital essence" , chiropractic refers to the "innate" , and acupuncture is said to involve the flow of "qi" . Ayurvedic medicine is based on the power called "prana" ,". They state it pretty clearly. KrishnaVindaloo 02:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am leary about believing you, given your documented history and all, but this opens up the question(s) as to why you misrepresented these sources to reflect your hate-centric bias against chiropractic? And what about Williams? Did you misrepresent him too? I am sure others have questions they would like answered Steth 02:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading the entire article, MDs K and E did not call any of these things PS, and as Gleng noted, when ;

• "Academic science would undoubtedly call these approaches "scientism" and discuss the boundaries between science and pseudoscience ."

IOW, they left it to acedemic scientists to discuss, probably because they recognize the same demarcation problems we have come up against.

Also note that K and E say in their conclusion;

• "Vitalist forces also inhabit the biomedical world in the form of the placebo effect and the patient–physician relationship. Biomedicine can even wave a "scientism" banner when it flaunts the authority of science if evidence is scarce or nonexistent ."

We have all noted this same thing. IOW, if you call AltMed PS because of vitalistic concepts, then you have to acknowledge biomedicine as PS characteristics as well. I personally do not see biomedicine as PS, but where are we going to draw the line of demarcation? Is it up to us. I don't think so. We must choose our sources carefully for verifiablity and reliability and consider the motives of those who might be using the term PS. NOR.

--Dematt 03:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Steth and Dematt. Is it my argument or thesis that vitalism is pseudoscientific? No! Is it my argument or thesis that innate or prana is vitalistic? No! There is no original research within these lines at all. They are highly reliable and the show exactly what the majority really is. If you don't like it, then you can either stop reading Misplaced Pages, or you can stop stifling negative views of chiropractic in favour of editing with all relevant views and clarity in mind. You both have abusively accused me of dishonesty and it seems that abuse will continue as long as I present relevant views. I will be sure to show a very honest view of your biases. KrishnaVindaloo 04:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And the evidence keeps accumulating. (A hint, by way of abductive reasoning: the evidence is not so much in in the world of published electonic resources and library resources, as it is in the verifiable selective presentation of putative evidence by KrishnaVindaloo, and in the statistical analysis thereof). ... Kenosis 04:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kenosis. If you would like to back up your claims, please provide a clear explanation of your accusation. If there is any selective editing in those lines, please be explicit so a solution can be found if necessary. If you find it hard to do so on your own, perhaps you could get some other editors to gang up and help you out. KrishnaVindaloo 05:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis has not noted anything (in essence) that others have not already noted, the only difference is that he put it in delightfully apropos Menckenian prose. You, KrishnaVindaloo, have attempted for too long to high-jack this page with bogus citations, quote-mining, original research and your own visceral prejudices; but no more. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion and NPOV over deletionism

Please discuss your reversions. I realise it is hard work, but discussion is the solution. Deleting clarifying information from the article is completely unconstructive. There are clearly editors here who are trying to reduce clarity because that clarity involves negative views on their favourite hobbies. The solution involves solving those problems. KrishnaVindaloo 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

KV, please see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability:

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcut ]

How clear can we make it? You repeatedly complaining of "censorship" and "editors trying to reduce clarity" is nonsense. "Williams (2000)" is NOT a cite. It is NOT a "reliable source." Give us a full reference, like this: Otherwise we WILL remove your poorly sourced and non-sourced crap from the article. Puppy has spoken; puppy is DONE. KillerChihuahua 12:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry KC, you certainly need to be a lot clearer. The link you gave directed me to connects to nothing but nonsense and pornography. If you are not interested in solutions, please don't waste my time with bullshit. Thank you. If you do have some useful information that involves clarifying pseudoscience for the reader using citations (I'll give you a reminder, about half the fucking references and literature were supplied due to work conducted by me alone) then go ahead and break a sweat. KrishnaVindaloo 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? That was an EXAMPLE, the link, as well as the article referenced, are PRETEND. You and I didn't collaborate on an article in Time magazine about "The world according to Kv" and the link is to a list of 404 (file not found) message pages. The point is that if you do NOT provide verifiable cites in a detailed format, instead of "Williams (2000)" which conveys NOTHING, then the crap will be deleted. KillerChihuahua 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Obtuse? Sorry KC, but you get reported along with Kenosis who, like you spends half your rv edits writing disparaging remarks in edit summaries without even attempting discussion. The so called crap you refer to is majority view. If you wish me to provide additional information, then ask. Because deleting without seeking solutions to the problem that gets your goat, will just put you in the same pit as the quasi-religious nutters who have bought into a pseudoscience, who are dissonant as a result, and are bent on turning Misplaced Pages into a whitewashed soapbox for the realistically challenged. KrishnaVindaloo 12:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Flagging KillerChihuahua's abusive edit (personal attack) KrishnaVindaloo 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We have ALL been asking for better cites for MONTHS, and you have failed to provide them. Read item 3 in the message box from WP:V above: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. You want this stuff in, you have to provide a reliable source. What are you going to report me for, insisting you abide by WP:V and WP:NOR, two of the three pillars, completely and utterly non-negotiable? I'm guessing a barnstar would be appropriate. KillerChihuahua 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No KC. We are not told how we should edit in this respect. We can provide insufficient material if we so wish. How much more information do I need to add to the citations that I have already presented in order to make my contributions permanent? Its not very much is it? I'm pretty darned close. Some proponents here are just shitting themselves thinking about it. The gas they feel evolving in their bowels will give rise to many desperate acts of abuse and deletism. No doubt I will be called a pathalogical liar, or some such abusive term at a later date. Most of the edits that I have presented have been accepted. Because they comply with NPOV policy. Some of them have not been accepted even though they comply perfectly. But at least I know who is desperate to remove valid edits. I am looking forward to presenting the facts you demand, on top of the valid facts that have been refused due to the long term censorship problem that afflicts this collection of encyclopedia editors. KrishnaVindaloo 13:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Obtuse and pathalogical liar. KrishnaVindaloo 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Did that post make sense? Was it supposed to? Rephrase, please. It reads like a weird rant. KillerChihuahua 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

KrishnaVindaloo's use of words "...valid facts that have been refused due to the long term consorship problem that afflicts this collection of encyclopedia editors" is an interesting approach to complaining about the consensus of how to reasonably apply the principles of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:Reliable_sources and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. ... Kenosis 13:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not suprised at all that you didn't get it, KC and Kenosis. And of course you put consensus before NPOV policies. Does that feel safer for you? The criteria for inclusion (censorship) that some editors here are using are not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and they are certainly not geared towards clarification of articles. Quite the opposite. I am happy to discuss here. But there are editors who either decide to put the boot in when they feel it suits their own purposes, or they bias themselves over NPOV that it makes their own efforts to discuss quite painful to them. They keep losing the discussion. They are not realistic or logical. Their demands go way beyond the normal requirements for NPOV. People talk of raising the standards, they are actually just raising restrictiveness. The only reason for that is to remove clarity. This article is for all relevant views. Relevant views are not what some groups of editors want here. They want their own view. I am stuck between editors who want to push PS on theor own favorite nasty, and who want to remove PS on some PS treatments they have sustained in some desperate hour. I have been providing evidence from sources, and others have been deleting them without any kind of constructive thinking. Not only that, but I have suffered personal abuse by them. What respect or protection to I get from the likes of you? None. If you are not interested in collaboration with those who are willing to compromise, then join the whackos properly and get on with doing what whackos do. KrishnaVindaloo 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, there is only one person here who doesn't "get it", as KrishnaVindaloo says, and that is KrishnaVindaloo. Although consensus can never decide not to follow NPOV, the manner of implementation of NPOV is decided by consensus, not unilaterally by KrishnaVindaloo. ... Kenosis 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) My entire focus has been on sourcing, not npov. Your trolling about "abuse" and "censorship", and bizarre statements like "The gas they feel evolving in their bowels will give rise to many desperate acts of abuse and deletism.", has no bearing on whether you've provided cites. Your attempt at misdirection and your persecution complex ("No doubt I will be called a pathalogical liar, or some such abusive term at a later date.") are irrelevant. Show a cite, discuss on talk, or your additions will be deleted. KillerChihuahua 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A similar point applies here, I think. What KrishnaVindaloo appears to refuse to acknowledge is that WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight inevitably must be decided by consensus, not by KrishnaVindaloo. That the consensus differs from KrishnaVindaloo's opinions does not make it a conspiracy. ... Kenosis 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeh Kenosis, we get all your consensus based arguments. Unfortunately for you, most of us are individuals. KrishnaVindaloo 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling now is it KC? Obtuse, now trolling! Do you know how bad that looks for you? Not ony are you aiding and abetting known fringe pushers, but you are being abusive. I have long since accepted the fact that Misplaced Pages is an Anglo U.S. thing, and I'm going to be the cotton picking paki to whip. But would you please have some sensitivity and think about how others see you? Its looking pretty bad from on high (the average reader). KrishnaVindaloo 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No one cares if you're from Pakistan or anywhere else. That is completely irrelevant. We do care if you troll or fail to provide reliable sources. KillerChihuahua 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Its looking pretty bad from on high...(followed by an odd justification to cover your gassy bowels)"? Taking our pickled godhood a little too seriously, aren't we. You seem more to me like an Arjuna who headed off into battle having misunderstood Krishna. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Article revision and NPOV

Is there anything that hasn't been called PS by somebody at some time? I thought of what most unlikely association would test this, say toothpaste+pseudoscience .

Maybe dentistry should be added after all. Or not. This article should represent all significant views about pseudoscience. This is not the same as saying that it should attempt to list every example of the use of the word pseudoscience. There are different views of the concept, between Popper, Feyeraband Bunge etc. and these should all be represented – these arguments expose the difficulties of calling anything “pseudoscience” if the term is implied to have any content rather than being merely derogatory. For the article to list examples of whatever anyone has called pseudoscientific is as daft as the idea that Stupidity should have a list of examples of everything that’s ever been called stupid. So why not just ditch that whole section ("notable commentators"!!!!! according to who exactly?); this would get rid of most of the weak sources. The philosophical views deserve more space and respect, and with more space, there will be fewer of the distortions that inevitably come with paraphrasing. This article should, IMO, not be an excuse for cheap and empty jibes at things we don't like, but a thoughtful account of the concept of pseudoscience itself, and it is clear that we are especially indebted to Kenosis for his considerable efforts to achieve just that.

If anybody wants to discuss views on toothpaste advertising as pseudoscience, please take them to toothpaste.Gleng 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No Gleng, if its PS, then it can be mentioned here, if it is verifiable, and if it helps the reader understand. KrishnaVindaloo 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, toothpaste can be mentioned here, if editors agree; it's an editorial judgement call, not a POV issue. Believing that choices are guided by POV not judgement is a personal attack on the motives of editors. KV's latest insert is poorly founded. The reference (not peer reviewed) is not even about subluxation. The author actually uses examples from his own field (physics) and merely mentions other examples that he believes (without expansion) have similar faults in an aside. I think the section and table should go, as a judgement call. There is an article on the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and this can be added as a "See also" if editors agree with KV that the content is notable.Gleng 14:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, if it complies with NPOV policy any sized army of pseudoscientists can go and screw themselves. Its as simple as that. KrishnaVindaloo 14:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

KV, aren't you supposed to be assuming good faith from other WP editors even though your documented history precludes us from having to assume good faith from you?

Considering your fabricated edits that we have uncovered and spend weeks reverting and cleaning up, you just might want to be a little more gracious in your comments. Just a suggestion. Steth 15:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still looking for the army of pseudoscientists...canon to the left of them, canon to the right of them, on rode the army of pseudoscientists... ROFL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

EOP 2000:70-71

Who added this reference, can anyone identify what is supposed to be the source here? thanks - KillerChihuahua 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding: the question applies for all the EOP references. KillerChihuahua 14:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Williams, Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, to me. --Pjacobi 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ah, thanks much. That's considered a faulty reference SFAIKT - it has been described as full of errors. Suggest we remove all instances of using this as a ref. KillerChihuahua 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy? Is it still in print? --Dematt 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It uses the X-Files as a reference, and does not use or mention CSICOP. Did you want to look something up in it? KillerChihuahua 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding: If you do, Amazon sells it new for $82.50 but you can get a used copy as of this posting for $2.00. KillerChihuahua 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to trust you and Kenosis as long as I know you have the book. But, since so many of our problem areas seem to surround this book, I think I need to get a copy. I'm going after the $2 version! Is that on amazon as well? --Dematt 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, its used. I'd like to state for the record that I do not currently have a copy of this book, so it is a very good idea for one of us to get the used copy or check in a library. KillerChihuahua 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I got the used one, the shipping was more than the book! Looks like iantresman has us covered though. --Dematt 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Second hand books: www.addall.com/used/ --Iantresman 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. p.70-71 refers to the entry on Cryptozoology. The "problem" with the book, is why we select a handful of subjects from the 2000 listed. If we include, for example, Cryptozoology, we shouldn't we also include other entries such as Antimatter, Big Bang, Black Hole, Carl Sagan and Chastity belts. --Iantresman 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The "problem" is the question of whether it is any good as a source at all. I have removed all of the entries in the list which use the EoP as a source. I would support Gleng's suggestion that we remove the entire list. KillerChihuahua 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh hey, just saw you wrote the article on the EoP - good job!! KillerChihuahua 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As with other, more respactable, encyclopedias we can use the EOP to get an overview but for sourcing a Misplaced Pages article we are required to go to sources given by the other encyclopedia. They give sources in the EOP, do they? --Pjacobi 15:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that they do; and that the sources are often questionable. KillerChihuahua 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience occasionally gives "Further reading" suggestions, but in general, entries (a) do not explain why a subject has been chosen as pseudoscience (b) Does not give references. Consequently it is not clear if an entry is included because it is merely associated with pseudoscience, is considered pseudoscience, or belongs in one of Williams' other criteria for entry (See the Wiki entry for list). The book includes entries for Celery and Chastity belts, Arthur C. Clarke and Dolphins --Iantresman 15:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? How can an encyclopedia not be referenced? Are you saying that they used the "encyclopedia" term in a "pseudoscientific" manner in an effort to sell a book as something that it is not? --Dematt 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's also a selected bibliography at the back of the book, and it's quite possible that if I read all the books, they might mention all the material that is included. But there are no references in the entries, and most entries do not include a recommended reading list, and nor do they indicate which of the contributing editors was responsible for the entry. I also know no other source which lumps pseudoscience with superstition or hoaxes. --Iantresman 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Celery is so pseudoscience. I had some this morning and then realized it was beef jerky! I rushed to brush my teeth, but then my pseudoscientific toothpaste ceased to exist! Levine2112 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Now Levine, you know that was just ridiculous. What you needed was an adjustment so you could see that was not celery, then you would never have to use toothpaste again! --Dematt 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO at Levine's entry... thanks, I needed a good laugh. KillerChihuahua 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why is there an article on EOP in WP. Iantresman, do you think it is notable enough? --Dematt 17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It was notable enough to become a book, an often-used source in this article, and the subject of some reviews. There are many other books listed on Misplaced Pages, some of which I would not personally give the time of day. Personally, I don't think the book is that good, but that doesn't necessarily make it non-notable. --Iantresman 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood, let's keep watching it. Thanks for your help! --Dematt 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Its notability may consist in its failure to be what it claims. A case of false advertising, just like Kevin Trudeau's book. One would expect a book with that title to actually make some conclusions, be a presentation of the viewpoint of skeptics and not a platform for apologists, etc.. Too bad, because such a work could have value. There is no point in claiming to have a viewpoint, and then being ambiguous. -- Fyslee 18:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What is this daft discussion about? Trying to change NPOV policy again? We have already established that the book is written by notable and reliable people. Your problem solving skills seem to involve a broom and a carpet. Its really a very dumb way of doing things. The book is full of explicit statements that such and such is pseudoscientific. And it agrees with a lot of what is written in the hatebox already. So what are you all trying to do about making the article at least halfway accessible to the reader? No matter what you do with that stupid laundry list, you still seem to end up with a load of accusations. You removed all the conceptual grouping that was being set up, and now its back to an alphabetical list. How to organize pseudosciences from a-z. Utterly stupid! No value at all for any reader. KrishnaVindaloo 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK, assuming you are referring to the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, can you find me a couple "of explicit statements that such and such is pseudoscientific" in any of the entries beginning with the letter "K"? Any entries? --Iantresman 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience an alphabetical list of pseudosciences? Levine2112 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The "hatebox"???? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Chiro ref

The reference given, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pseudoscience&diff=83419614&oldid=83411556, did not even mention Chiropractic or subluxation. I have removed the ref and the entry it supposedly supported. KillerChihuahua 14:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW: Would you consider http://www.ncahf.net/index.html to be valid source? --Pjacobi 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They're not very large, lost their Calif. legal status, and are MIA in Mass. at current time. It seems to me that we could find something more reputable to verify information. KillerChihuahua 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think NCAHF or Quackwatch make very good references. The arguments made there are wholly opinions, rarely based on all the evidence out there, and have been shown to be most innaccurate and biased at times. In general, avoid these sites for reliable sources of what is and what isn't considered to be a pseudoscience. Levine2112 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles are nearly always referenced and can provide good sources that can be used. As sources of opinion -- and Misplaced Pages is about presenting existing opinions -- the articles themselves can often be used. It depends on the situation. -- Fyslee 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Next try: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208927 --Pjacobi 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

PubMed is outstanding. Always acceptable as a source in my estimation. KillerChihuahua 14:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A word of clarification: I didn't object to quackwatch being used as a source; the problem was that KV used it to supposedly source Subluxation in chiropractic, and the article he linked did not even mention either. Its not that it was a bad source; it is that it was not a source for that at all. KillerChihuahua 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It did mention it, but Coaker was acknowledging that he was a Phd in physics and was suggesting healthcare as having similar problems. He doesn't cite references for his list of noted subjects, though obviously that was not the emphasis of this paper. --Dematt 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

PubMed is a resource, not a source. It gives access to MEDLINE publications, many of which are written by MD's. Its publications can be excellent references on medical topics, but not necessarily on pseudoscience when it comes to business competitors in the medical industry. The American Medical Association has very substantial financial interests at stake, as do MD's as a group, in reducing or eliminating chiropractic's positioning in the health care marketplace. ... Kenosis 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Competitors or not, since Misplaced Pages is about presenting POV, and labeling it as such (and by whom), then such references can be perfectly acceptable if properly labeled. Misplaced Pages is about presenting all sides of a subject, with nothing being swept under the carpet. This is no place for political correctness. -- Fyslee 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Fyslee. This ain't about political correctess by any stretch. It's about how to present both sides rather than just throwing chiropractic in willy-nilly without a consensused, balanced, verified, properly sourced explanation of what the issues are. Published material by a business competitor with a major financial stake and a history of trying to destroy chiropractic (as documented and ruled by the federal court in the US) affects our determinations of what constitutes a reliable source when we find instances of MDs calling chiropractic pseudoscientific. ... Kenosis 18:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you look into this paper? It is open content. For a non-Northamerican outsiders like me it looks like a battel between chiropractors. And of course, we can state possible conflict of interest. But paranoia over conflict of interest doesn't serve an encyclopedia. After all, isn't it only a conflict of iinterest that make neutrino physicists deny Autodynamics its recognition? Etc, etc. You can construct conflict of interest everywhere. --Pjacobi 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just state who is saying it. It's their opinion, and if properly sourced it's okay. -- Fyslee 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There is an internal battle among chiropractors, even as the empirical research progresses. And, there's a competitive battle waged by the AMA, which is under federal court settlement agreement not to attempt to destroy chiropractic any more. Still, we find the occasional mention of chiro in a derogatory way in literature by MD's, and also by others. Yet, the fact that chiropractic has progessed in doing empirical research and in its theory development causes it to not clearly meet Thagard's threshold test for pseudoscience, which is lack of progress on its theories. Additionally, the largest, or one of the largest, studies of chiropractic, the "Workman's Compensation Board" study entered into evidence at the anti-trust trial against the AMA, showed major benefits in return-to-work rate for those treated by chiropractors-- twice as effective as MD's for comparable injuries at every level of injury severity. As I advocated in earlier discussion, a brief discussion of chiropractic, if it's to be included, should include all the relevant views, synopsized in a balanced fashion per WP:NPOV. This would be a far more sensible approach than throwing in chiropractic as a poster child for pseudoscience, because plainly it's not a clear-cut case as some have argued. ... Kenosis 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of the Wilk v. American Medical Association case isn't quite true. The boycott was illegal, and organized boycotts aren't allowed. Otherwise doctors and other healthcare professionals still have a professional and moral obligation to attempt to educate and protect their patients from dangerous, deceptive, and false ideas. The AMA simply had not exhausted those options, which is what the judge said. Those options are still available and being used quite legally, and rightly so. Scams, deceptions, false advertising, weird and unscientific ideas, etc. are all fair game, no matter the individual or profession that is involved in them. Chiropractic is far from the only target. -- Fyslee 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before on this talk page, physicians have a right to make assertions in writing as to efficacy. Problem is the evidence of chiropractic's effectiveness presented at the Wilk trial showing return-to-work statistics that were vastly superior to that of injured workers treated by MDs at every level of injury severity (can't cite you the classes of injuries at the moment). But, of course MDs retain the right under the First Amendment to comment in keeping with the Supreme Court's time, place and manner criteria for free speech. What the judge was saying is that the AMA must argue the issues on the merits. Calling chiropractic pseudoscientific hardly settles the question for us as to WP. Taking the sources we've reviewed as a whole, the issue appears quite debatable and chiropractic appears to be a mixture of older concepts without adequately specific operational definitions, and therapies that are increasingly well studied and shown to have benefit for the clients. Thus, both sides of this "coin" must be presented if chiropractic is to be discussed in this article on WP. ... Kenosis 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The AMA had engaged in covering up research that showed the benefits of chiropractic. While there was concern for patients, the judge felt that the motivation behind the AMA's illegal conspiracy was also driven by fear of competition and financial concerns. Need there be more said? That the AMA is not allowed to do this as an organization anymore is a nice win for chiropractic. Individually, we see medical doctors working along side chiropractors more and more. Medical doctors and chiropractic doctors both have an ethical responsibility to recommend what is best for the patient. I've seen massive amounts of referrals going both ways. Bottomline, chiropractic is as poor as an example of what constitutes a pseudoscience as say immunology; both have large amounts of advocates and critics engaged in professional competition all pointing their fingers at the other. Let's stick to the obvious, hardly contentious ones here folks. Levine2112 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I will spell it out more clearly. He's a prof, and he states extremely clearly that "similar beliefs and behavior are associated with iridology, medical astrology, meridian therapy, reflexology, subluxation-based chiropractic, therapeutic touch, and other health-related pseudosciences." He is calling subluxation based chiropractic a pseudoscience. A view exists that chiropractic is PS when used in this way. Its very clear. It doesn't matter if some moneygrabbing US court says there is a battle, chiro is illegal in some other countries, and it is based on voodoo. It is a perfect example of a pseudoscientific subject, and useful nuance lies therein. KrishnaVindaloo 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that same Keating article is used in the vertebral subluxation article and presented in a NPOV manner the way it should be. It was dealt with on a chiropractic article with cooperation and civility because it was the proper place and time to present it. This Pseudoscience article is not about chiropractic, it is about pseudoscience. If chiropractors debate the PS factors of subluxation, that is good - it leads to growth; but it does not mean that the field is pseudoscience and belongs as an example of pseudoscience when biomedicine sources are just as problematic. None of us would be having this discussion if it weren't a matter of POV pushing. --Dematt 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Whole-heartedly. Levine2112 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Along those same lines, if psychologists decide to have a dialoque about pseudoscientific characteristics of their profession, that does not mean that they are pseudoscientists either. It just means that they may be barking up the wrong tree and need to make some adjustments with their collective thinking. If MDs decide that maybe it is time to stop advocating antibiotics for childhood ear infections, that does not mean that we need to be discussing that as pseudoscientific behavior. Let them live and work within their respective fields toward developing their science they way their science points them. If Physicists disagree with each other about quantum theories, bless them, keep up the skepticism. We don't need to be calling them pseudoscientists here on WP. That would only make us pseudoscientists or pseudoskeptics as well. Let them hash it out on their article pages. --Dematt 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, he's a reliable source and he says subluxation based chiro is PS. Why does he say this? Well, its pretty common for people to come to that conclusion after the vitalistic theory, the unsupported nature of the theory, and its application to everything from beating the slot machines to curing homosexuality. I will add more info to it in good time. KrishnaVindaloo 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is the "he" you are referring to here, KV? Levine2112 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance and sources

It seems to me that there are two approaches possible 1) eliminate the list and take the view that this article is reporting the arguments about whether it is a) possible and b) useful to "define" science in any rigorous or consistent way.

2) also report the fact that even if "pseudoscience" is an empty rhetorical term, it is still used occasionally in the scientific literature, and report that systematically. On PubMed, "pseudoscience" as a keyword calls up just 10 review articles in English; their titles are:

• Twin studies in psychiatry and psychology: science or pseudoscience
• Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: implications for clinical psychology.
• Motivation, cognition and pseudoscience
• Subsidising Australian pseudoscience: is iridology complementary medicine or witch doctoring?
• Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics.
• Pathophysiology and treatment of intervertebral disk disease
• Frontal lobology--psychiatry's new pseudoscience.
• Animals in the research laboratory: science or pseudoscience?
• Misuses of biology in the context of the paranormal.

the tenth is on advertising of creams and supplements.

OK, these are the "best" sources, objectively found - if there's a list these have to be in it surely... I really don't see the worth of such a list, but if you want to compile one, just do it objectively, that's all. My vote is ditch it, there's already a "List" article, just refer to that.Gleng 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

TBH, I never liked that list. But after having grown to unweildy proportions earlier this year, it's been reasonably brief in recent months and has gotten better sourced. At a minimum, I think we should continue to keep it relatively brief for the present, using only clear-cut examples of pseudoscience with best-possible sourcing.

Where legitimate controversy plainly exists such that there is no consensus among the reliable sources, I would support consideration of a section wherein some of the most notable controversies can be briefly presented. Chiropractic, which has proven controversial on this talk page, might be a good start, as it's a good opportunity to present both sides of a debatable case. I'd be willing to try an experiment such as that, if, and only if, there were adequate support for it among the editors. Of course if such an experiment fails badly or gets to be too much to maintain, it can readily be removed, split off as a topic fork, or whatever the editors collectively deem to be appropriate. Offhand, I have no idea what to call such a section. ... Kenosis 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd move to delete the section outright as proposed or to keep paired down the best, most obvious, hardly controversial, rarely contested fields. Levine2112 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing you can do Levine2112. If there is a reliable source stating that your hobby is PS, then it can be posted onto the article. There is nothing you can do about it. KrishnaVindaloo 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure this is something I can do about it. That's what this discussion page is all about. So far, however, you have yet to give us a reliable source; nor have you demonstrated that you grasp the ability to cite a source properly. Levine2112 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112, I'm sorry if what I said makes you feel insecure. The ref and lit sections of the article are chockablock with stuff that I added when I came here a few months back. Of course I'll not get any recognition for that from you as long as I present facts that you want to stifle. Judging by the majority of information that I have added, you probably have every reason to feel insecure after all. KrishnaVindaloo 20:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

KrishnaVindaloo, it seems that you are hell-bent on antagonizing me. I don't know why. If I have done something that personally offends you, I do apologize. I am truly sorry that you don't feel adequately recognized for your contributions to this article thus far. That can sometimes go with the territory of collaborative work. Don't feel unappreciated and don't feel insecure. From my own personal experience, I can relate that my work hasn't been entirely thankless; sometimes just the opposite. And working well with others is sometimes all the thanks I need. Keep at it. Keep improving and becoming a better editor. And hopefully someday you'll feel at least the same level of security I do working here. Levine2112 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, supply us with that list of pseudoscientific chiro treatments then. So far the only one I have reliable refs for is the chiro homosexuality cure. KrishnaVindaloo 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what list you are talking about here. If it helps you may want to look over these sources which cite hundreds of pieces of scientific research supporting chiropractic efficacy for a variety of conditions. I don't see anything in there about "curing" homosexuality. (You may want to note that philosophically, chiropractic reserves the word "cure" in relation to the body's healing processes. To my understanding, a chiropractor in general would not say that a drug cured someone or that an adjustment cured someone or that a certain diet cured someone. Only the body cures. And a well-functioning body cures itself better than a poorly functioning one. And on a personal note, I don't believe that homosexuality is something that can or ought to be "cured".) Levine2112 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(ri) Ditto. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology

ScienceApologist, I don't think that your description matches the quotes:

• To call "pseudoscience" a carefully chosen "descriptor" I think is over-egging the pudding.
• I don't think Hawkings or Dingle were describing varying degrees of rigor, and does not describe "wild speculation"
• To suggest that cosmology was "criticized for having pseudoscientific aspects" does not match Dingle's "disliked cosmological principles of any kind"

I would think that quoting one of the most well-known cosmologist's (Stephen Hawking), and the fairly well-known Herbert Dingle, together with links to full quotes, sums up the issue well. --Iantresman 18:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What I most dislike about this entry, is the attempt to pull in more weight by calling Hawking as witness. A single scientist, not even a very brilliant one, has a decisive power. But as I've said somewhere before, Cosmolofy was once considered not be a proper science, but belonging to the sphere of philosophy and theology by a large proportion of scientists. This state has changed long ago. So the most needed improvement of the sentence above would be, why and when. But see below. --Pjacobi 20:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We can use Popper and Khun and reliable sources, but Hawking contravenes that well-known Wiki policy of "Much too reliable a source" --Iantresman 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian is in some dire need of education. Stephen Hawking (no "s") definitely was describing varying degrees of rigor when using the descriptor "pseudoscience". If Ian bothered to read the book, he may have noted this. More than that, Hawking really isn't a "cosmologist" per se, he is more of a general relativistic theorist. He's certainly qualified to discuss cosmology, but calling him a cosmologist does disservice to his broader inquiries. Dingle definitely disliked cosmological principles, but equivocating these with cosmology itself is poor form even for Ian. I removed third-party reference to him because he is something of a fringe character anyway and it was a quote that was of dubious relevance due to Ian's misunderstanding of what cosmological principles mean. Leaving in bald quotes in this section is particularly bald form as the quotes were ripped out-of-context for very particular reasons and didn't explain cosmology's current status. The current incarnation of the article is much better. --ScienceApologist 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

More condescending replies, and more knocking of a scientist as "fringe". My understanding of cosmological principles has nothing to do with Dingle's description of them as "the main cause of why cosmology had degraded into a state of pseudoscience" --Iantresman 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of dead Mr. Dingle doesn't belong in this article because it cannot adequately be contextualized in the historical development of cosmology -- minor and inconsequential arguments by increasingly fringe scientists do not belong in describing the development of a scientific consensus topic such as cosmology. --ScienceApologist 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about "the development of a scientific consensus", it's a section about subjects once considered pseudoscience, and considered worthy by science historian, and contextualised in full by the citation. --Iantresman 23:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Any example you choose needs context. The science historian was not writing an article about "subjects once considered psuedoscience", so using the science historian's research requires putting it in its proper context. Which is, of course, a historical biography of Dingle. By failing to acknowledge this, you are not providing adequate context. A single quote doesn't cut it. It's called quote mining and it's very poor form. --ScienceApologist 23:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I'm not sure I follow the reasons why the cites regarding cosmology are not relevant. Cosmology was considered a pseudoscience as were a number of other aspects of physics and astrophysics. Is there a reason to deny that cosmology and the big bang were once considered pseudoscience? Hell, Einstein treated quantum mechanics as if it were pseudoscience. Is there a fear that using the examples of cosmology and the big bang might indicte that there is a chance, however slim, that some of the items listed in the article might be "redeemed", as it were? Skepticism is very a healthy discipline overlooked by the masses, but in excess it can be as poisonous as ingesting a single representative of the species Amanita phalloides.

(PS, I've read SA's reply, and I fail to see how that is relevant to the quote from Hawking) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The cites are relevant but need context. If you read the current prose regarding cosmology you'll see it roughly follows your understanding of the subject. In the past, the article was editted to suggest either by omission or directly that there were those notable visionaries who considered cosmology to still be a pseudoscience. This is a hidden agenda of one author in particular (Ian Tresman) who replaces careful research of history with quote mining and abstract searches in order to attempt to marginalize the mainstream. There is an Arbitration of this behavior even as we speak. What we currently do in the article is point out that scientists do use "pseudoscience" as a rather cavalier criticism of each other's mainstream ideas. This was certainly done in the case of cosmology and is still done today in the case of string theory. However, this use of "pseudoscience" is different from the criticisms leveled against astrology, creationism, phrenology, magnetic therapy, or Immanuel Velikovsky. Those subjects are pseudoscientific in a consensus way that represents a very different sort of critique than the one leveled against the mainstream inquiries discussed. --ScienceApologist 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Context is fine, in fact beneficial. If you know what the context should be you can always add it. Yes, yes, Ian as the person making the assertion should provide the context, but one of us can do so just as easily. The point is to create a valid article (no matter how difficult that has become), not to engage in pissing matches over items we know are fundamentally correct but misrepresented. What needs to be done to make the fact that cosmology was (and by a few, well, "misguided folk", still is) considered pseudoscience an NPOV entry? Or, would it be best to follow the Puppy's advice and ditch the section altogether? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, for completism, nothing can beat List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'd agree with KC on ditching the article's list of stuff currently regarded as PS and just linking to the aforesaid list. For stuff that was regarded as PS, SciApol makes a good point regarding parallelism, and perhaps it would be best to ditch that list and replace it with a few para's offering context and V RS's. cheers, Jim Butler 06:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't often disagree with ScienceApologist. Here, however, it seems to me that cosmology is a classic example of a field formerly regarded as psuedoscience where, as Hawking put it, "wild speculation was unconstrained by any possible observations". Since the 1960s cosmology has matured and indeed been widely, and I think properly, characterized as having entered a "golden age". Observations are now possible, to the degree that even the big bang gets increasingly narrowed down to an increasingly specific time frame (currently 12-15 billion years, or even much more specific if one goes by the Penrose/Hawking/MAPI calculations, 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years), and increasingly developed measurements will continue to become possible in order to further test these calculations. Like biological evolution, much of cosmology depends on coherence of calculations based upon observations that are independently verifiable and quite testable. It's become a science in its own right and is widely agreed by scientists to be a bona fide science, indeed to the envy of many scientists in other fields. I don't see a problem with its inclusion in the section on fields that previously were regarded as pseudoscience, even with the sources already offered.

Consistently with Jim Butler's preference expressed just above, the section on fields previously regarded as pseudoscience already exists as a section offering context and V RS's. Having noted this, maybe it's time to begin a similar section on fields currently regarded as pseudoscience using a similar approach of explaining rather than just presenting a list? It'd be an interesting experiment, and if it turns out to be at all successful, such a section could end up being more valuable than that list has been. I suppose time and effort will disclose the answer to this possibility in due course. ... Kenosis 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Its all pretty much contingent on the behaviour of the group of proponent editors who seem to have interpreted NPOV to suite their own personal agendas. The only trouble with the proposed section is that it will be too helpful to the reader, too clear, and thus, too painful for proponents to face. The solution is to present the information, hope it doesn't get reverted too much, hope the proponents don't tantrum too destructively, and restore the painfully realistic facts when the proponents have been locked up. KrishnaVindaloo 05:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The one thing I can't figure, is that there are at least three editors here who are inherently (yet heathfully) skeptical, and they don't see any real POV pushing except on the part of one KrishnaVindaloo. Y'know, KV, skepticism is a valuable tool when used properly, in an "I question, I research, I learn" model; but harmful when it becomes, "I deny, it's hogwash (or, you're an idiot), I know everything". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fields and concepts currently regarded as pseudoscience by notable commentators

NB, this information is pretty well supported. It just needs to be placed in a format that helps the reader understand this overly abstract article. Feel free to comment and suggest. KrishnaVindaloo 06:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The following are some of the many fields and theories that are (or were) presented as scientific, but which have been accused of being "pseudoscientific" in whole or in part. See the individual articles and references for more information.

The Source of All Evil

Is the section "Fields and concepts currently regarded as pseudoscience by notable commentators" itself. I'd strongly recommended dropping the project to put an exhaustive list in this article. The pseudoscience-ness of topics can be discussed and presented in greater detail in their own articles.

Some important examples should stay here.

Pjacobi 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there is an opposite and alternative way of doing things. There was a long list of PS subjects a while back, but it was paired down a lot and some said it was unmanagable and some complained it was nonsense because it has cosmology etc in there. Of course there was nothing unmanagable about it at all. It just didn't suit some proponents, and it took the thunder out of some folk's accusation at intelligent design etc being PS. The bottom line is, there is nothing you can do about NPOV policy. Its all useful stuff. It just depends on how you organize it, and how you deal with idiots who buy into pseudoscience and can't countenance negative facts. KrishnaVindaloo 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pjacobi. Otherwise we should drop the list entirely. The debate over this list has carried on for at least a year now and I fear it shall never end if we stay on this track. Levine2112 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, cut away, it doesn't make any difference, you can't stop people writing NPOVly about specific pseudoscientific subjects in other parts of the article. KrishnaVindaloo 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pjacobe and Levine2112 above. Use the "keep it simple" technique. --Dematt 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is twofold (1) the inconsistent application of references to subjects once considered pseudoscience, and those subject considered to be still pseudoscience (2) Lack of context and explanation.
• Some editors are happy to add subjects based on weak sources (eg. EOP), and not happy to include others subjects based on very reliable sources (eg. Hawking).
• We say next to nothing on why these subjects were included. This is easy to understand where EOP is the source (he doesn't say so!), and for example, both references to Morphic Resonance doesn't say either! --Iantresman 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly support ditching the list. If a brief list of examples were to be kept, then perhaps one example from each of three fields, strongly supported here on the talk page, and well referenced. No ambiguous or disputed examples, as they only muddy the water, not provide clarity. KillerChihuahua 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, the few examples we present in the article should be most illustrative and diverse. It doesn't matter much, whether there exists consensus over their status as pseudoscience as long as attribute the POVs. For the same reasons, I'd prefer the present the examples under one heading (not splitting off once considered as, because there may exist no consensus about that point). Just my brainstorming list:

• Psychoanalysis, due to Popper himself presenting it initially as prototype of pseudoscience, and due to its struggle to gain acceptance as sciend
• Homoeopathy, as an "established" field of alternative medicine (many competitors there)
• Dianetics, for the "cult"-related incarnations
• Plate tectonics for the now-mainstream fields (yeah, yeah, there is some interest to use cosmology as example, but that case is much more difficult and diverse and would IMHO go over the limits of a concise presentation here)
• String theory, as an example for contempary accusations of pseudoscience-ness against (near) consensus of the scientific community.

Pjacobi 09:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I could certainly agree to that. As for cosmology v plate-techtonics, I assume your reticence to include somologycosmology is because it is much broader in scope, taking in a number of theories? If so, I can certainly understand that as well. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Include is the operative word here. The way to include is to consider NPOV policy first. So basically anything that helps explain and make concrete the abstract ideas in the article will be fine. We can brainstorm our own lists all day, and of course some will be restrictive, so I say keep it open. KrishnaVindaloo 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed re NPOV...you should read the policy sometime though. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How the PS term is applied

Hi all, I added this line to the opening in order to show some nuance from the theory section

"The term, pseudoscience, is applied to whole fields, to concepts within those fields, and to concepts and activities within generally accepted fields."

I am encouraging discussion on this here, and am open to suggestion. Deleting the whole fucking line without discussion or suggestions will be seen as unconstructive. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 06:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC) (ps, I'm referring to Kenosis' and KillerChihuahua's bad habits mostly)

First, the punctuation in the sentence is incorrect. Second, that definition is too broad. Third, "the whole fucking line" was deleted as not being suitable (and those evildoers Kenosis and KillerChihuahua had naught to do with it). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, pretty predictable stuff! KrishnaVindaloo 13:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, aside from the fact that your prognostication named the wrong "antagonists", or, as I like to think of them, protagonists... Your edit was shit. It got flushed. Deal with it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet more predictably banality from someone who doesn't like me editing here for their own personal reasons. KrishnaVindaloo 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack from KV.Gleng 09:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And yet, in so attacking, KV misses a key point -- I don't care if he edits here, so long as he edits in a non-disruptive manner, provides proper sources, lives by WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, and gives up on his conspiracy/persecution bit. Alas, that is too difficult it seems, and that is rather a shame. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So what's this Jim62sch? . Its me presenting something with substance. I adjusted Gleng's POV pushing rant in order to make the opening more solid and representative of the article, and Jim Butler, another one of your mates, deleted it in favour of Gleng's rant. Your "consensus with minority pushers approach" does not trump NPOV policy. KrishnaVindaloo 10:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jim Butler and I had lunch today, a nice spicy lamb vindaloo (they had no krishna).

Back to reality: your citation might be alright, if it actually addressed what you used it for. Essentially, you engaged in OR and synthesized information (or misinformation). Also, assuming you're refering to Brainscams, an article that is linked in the literature section, this citation is wrong: Beyerstein (1991:30). It was written in 1990 (and, as I said above, page 30 hasn't shit to do with what you asserted it did). You must think that no one but the Great Krishna is capable of reading. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The hazards of working from memory! What was your point about eating vindaloo? If there is something wrong with an edit, the sensible action is to do something about it. It seems the usual groupthink response here is to find a minor niggle and revert all of any edit. And it doesn't only happen to my edits. I will add this to the report. KrishnaVindaloo 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Report away (although the way you misuse cites, I've no doubt that your report will be as representative of reality as your average reality show).

You see groupthink, I see paranoia and a persecution complex. It's all relative I suppose. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to doublecheck that with Bishonen again Jim62sch? KrishnaVindaloo 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

She too is entitled to an opinion, no matter how cursory a look she gave to the whole issue, although referencing her opinion in this case is irrelevant to the topic at hand. As for your second ref, I note that you were rather selective re explaining the reasoning and the rest of the story, again, hardly related to the topic at hand. Seems this is pretty much in keeping with your history of providing highly questionable citations and your predilection for quote mining. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring offensive rubbish

There seems to me a wide if not universal agreement that the list is not a good idea, but many still think that some examples might be interesting/helpful/ I've revised the lead to include the following "The term pseudoscience or pseudoscientific is sometimes applied by disputants working in the same field to disparage a competing theory or the form of argument used by a rival, sometimes by commentators from outside a field to disparage a whole field, sometimes merely to characterise the fact that a theory publishe in a popular book has no academic credibility whatsoever, and sometimes in reference to a theory now discarded." I suggest that this lead provides a possible context for selected examples at the end of the article, and would suggest choosing one clear and uncontentious example of each, writing in a way that discusses what is meant by PS in each case and the difficulties of attaching a coherent meaning to it. e,g, - disputes within a field - I think the most notable example with very extensive V RS support is the dispute within psychology relating to Freud's theories - this was one of Popper's examples. Essentially this is an argument within a field about the appropriate "level" of explanation. Actually I think this will be very hard to write about in a balanced way but it could be mentioned as having been Popper's example and then just refer the reader to the articles
- disparage a competing theory - ID vs Darwinism? the accusation flies in both directions - again can mention and refer to the article
- to disparage a whole field - astrology was Popper's paradigm example and subsequent commentators (Bunge etc) have analysed his case in detail. We don't have to disparage astrology, simply analyse the criteria used
- popular book - non Daniken
- discarded- phrenology (discuss issue of ahistorical fallacy?)

??? Comments?Gleng 08:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

PJacobi had some good thoughts on this in the source of all evil section. (BTW -- I added breaks to your post above to clear up the formatting, hope you don't mind). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a related comment towards the end of the "cosmology" section above, to the effect that I'm not opposed to trying such a section on an experimental basis. ... Kenosis 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gleng the whole line you wrote is pretty predictable according to your particular POV. Stating the manner in which it is used (both descriptively and disparagingly) is fine, though your lines look like a rant. The elements we need to take into account are, whether PS is applied to fields, concepts and concepts within fields. I believe there are more definitions that focus on concepts and theories rather than fields. After all, physics is a field, and it is only really some concepts that are or were considered PS. So mention disparaging use, but also the main work of the article is about theories and concepts or misconceptions. I will leave it up to others to balance the section. KrishnaVindaloo 13:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminder, attributing edits to the POV of the editor is a personal attack.Gleng 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminder to Gleng. I was referring to your edit. I understand personal attack very well as I have been the recipient due to my staunch insistence on NPOV policy. Thats the straight truth. Or do you wish to call me dishonest again? And would you like to have all your chiro friends stand up and chuck stones at me while you do it? KrishnaVindaloo 17:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated earlier in Latin: get off the cross, we need the wood. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Theories and concepts and activities within fields

OK, I know I've said it before, but it is something that people have been skirting around for months without even attempting discussion. Theorists call subjects PS, and they explain why they are PS. They generally say, for example, astrology is pseudoscientific because its - theory - is untestable. Or chiropractic is pseudoscientific because its proponents adhere to its vitalistic theories despite the fact it has failed in empirical testing. So to include a field, it is probably a good idea to add the explanation for why it is considered PS by referring to its theories or the activities of proponents. It would be a good idea to be organized about this, and possibly to use sections. We can have sections on pseudoscientific notions, such as a section on intelligent design or teleological pseudoscience which has implications to certain fields. We can add a section on vitalism which is used pseudoscientifically in a great number of alternative medicine activities. And so on. It is the concepts that organize the fields, not the other way around. Top-down approach will lead to a more concise, organized, and intelligent article. KrishnaVindaloo 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For your own knowledge, here are portals to literally hundreds of pieces of empirical scientific research in which chiropractic has not failed. Levine2112 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OR is unacceptable, Levine2112. We can only go by the view of reviewers. Sorry, but a lot of them say that chiropractic is fairly pathetic, and a bit of a warm up and stretch will do a better job, for free! KrishnaVindaloo 17:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What OR? I am not putting this in the article. This is here for your knowledge (and anyone else who is interested). I figured that you would be interested in seeing literally hundreds of pieces of research, all of which provide empirical evidence which supports the efficacy of chiropractic for a variety of conditions. Certainly I know there are "reviewers" out there who deny or write-off this research. I just want to make sure that you are aware of it. Levine2112 17:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of expert opinion, Levine2112. And I know how it fits into the majority view. KrishnaVindaloo 18:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. It's good to know that you are aware of all this research and all of the empirical evidence supporting chiropractic. A lot of dissenters seem to turn a blind eye to this (as did the AMA before the Wilk case) and say such fallacies as chiropractic fails empirical testing or there is no scientific evidence supporting many of chiropractic claims. Clearly, you and I both know that the oppositie is true. There is plenty of scientific research and empirical testing which in fact supports chiropractic. Federal funding for chiropractic research in the United States is a very recent thing and it is amazing to see how much evidence even the smallest amount of funding has brought forth in support chiropractic. Levine2112 19:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so how to you reconcile the fact that the whole theory of chiro is pseudoscience? Pseudoscience is about theory more than anything else. So what do you say about that? The minor supporting evidence is completely outweighed by the fact that chiropractors spend their time learning about qi flows, and vitamine fads, and reiki, and shamanistic touch, and divert their efforts away from critical thought whenever things get to realistic for them. So yes, lets look closely at the amazing anecdotes of believers. How about taking a browse of chiropractic websites for a start! Look at the kind of PS they are peddling. Do you have an answer to that? KrishnaVindaloo 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My answer is that I have never heard of qi flows, vitamine fads, reiki nor shamanistic touch mentioned in any chiropractic office or classroom which I have ever been in. Chiropractors follow a standard routine to secure the information they need for diagnosis and treatment. They take the patient’s medical history; conduct physical, neurological, and orthopedic examinations; and may order laboratory tests. X rays and other diagnostic images are important tools because of the chiropractor’s emphasis on the spine and its proper function. Chiropractors also employ a postural and spinal analysis common to chiropractic diagnosis. The chiropractic approach to health care is holistic, stressing the patient’s overall health and wellness. It recognizes that many factors affect health, including exercise, diet, rest, environment, and heredity. Chiropractors provide natural, drugless, nonsurgical health treatments and rely on the body’s inherent recuperative abilities. They also recommend changes in lifestyle—in eating, exercise, and sleeping habits, for example—to their patients. When appropriate, chiropractors consult with and refer patients to other health practitioners. I really don't know of any other health profession which applies more critical thinking. As for peddling PS or BS or whatever we may want to call it, I'm sure there are some chiropractors who are guilty of this, just as there are some MDs, DOs, etc., who are also guilty of this. You can't hold an entire profession accountable for the acts of so few. Levine2112 16:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you also hear that chiropractors expose their victims to far more xrays than normal radiologists will allow? Comments? KrishnaVindaloo 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So I don't understand... You think chiropractic is a pseudoscience because you feel they take too many x-rays? They are too diagnostic? You do realize that chiropractic pioneered the use of x-rays for diagnostic-based healthcare. In other words, they were the first healthcare profession to embrace the use of x-rays and are responsible for developing many of the diagnostic techniques radiologists use today. Regardless, what basis does this conversation have here? Levine2112 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(ri) "Did you also hear ..."???? What the fuck? Has this page become a gossip column or the Krishnal Enquirer? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Er... profanity aside, KV's point seems unfounded. A single CAT scan, for instance, will expose a person to the equivalent of many dozens or hundreds of plain X-rays... so by that rationale, MD's radiate their pts a lot more than chiros (assuming chiros aren't using CT's these days? Anyone?) From my perspective as an allopathic MD, chiropractic is established as a reasonable, empirically validated treatment for certain conditions (eg as effective as allopathic care for lower back pain). I've referred pts to chiros on occasion, if they're interested and there's data to back it up. There is a crazy fringe (anti-vaccine, believe chiro can cure the flu or HIV, etc), but as a field it seems a little inappropriate to label modern chiro a pseudoscience. Just my 2 cents. MastCell 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

MastCell, you'd need to understand the dynamic of the page to understand the "profanity". To quote from a movie favourite, "I don't swear for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. We've got to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words anybody understands." Anyway, your point re CT scans is excellent. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello MastCell. The point that you are all missing here is that it is a view of a reputable source (a professor with expertise in the area of nerves). And of course there are other sources that state the view. Its not my view at all. I know hardly anything about Xrays. I don't need to know a thing about them, except that chiropractors often use too many, and don't use certified xray professonals. According to the literature, they also often request their patients to repeat visit, thereby earning extra bucks. Not my research! Other views. Other relevant views. Editors should not be dismissive of relevant views. This is all important information in the study of pseudoscience, because it is exactly how pseudoscientists behave (ie, the cult of chiropractic with all its pseudoscientific theory and behaviour). It illustrates the behaviour of pseudoscientists very clearly, and the reader benefits. KrishnaVindaloo 14:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So chiros advocate back-alley X-rays? Besides, a professor with expertise in neurology is hardly a radiological expert is he? What are the other sources -- a race car driver, a chef and a proctologist? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch, your dismissive tone has been noted. KrishnaVindaloo 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I feel quite honoured to be notable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

First part of "Identifying pseudoscience" section

This most recent version of the following sentence requires some discussion, in my opinion:

• "A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably called pseudoscience or pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.   "

I'm wondering if the field needs to be presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research to be reasonably called pseudoscientific. Some advocates of clear cases of pseudoscience such as intelligent design, seek instead to call it science or scientific, while advocating instead that the definition of science should be expanded or changed to include their methods (or lack thereof). Alternately, such advocates of a particular theory of field may merely refer to it as "science" or "scientific" without any real thought or knowledge of scientific method, or without an adequate understanding of how scientific method might reasonably be conducted. ... Kenosis 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in reviewing the most reliable and verifiable source possible on this question before I would be comfortable adding my opinion. What do the philosophers of science use as criteria. Our references that are verifiable are the skeptic dictionary and Williams. No offense to either of these works, but if we're going to get this right, we should be using the very best. Is there any other source we can all agree on? --Dematt 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider Williams a reliable source. KillerChihuahua 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP? Scientific American? Astronomical Society of the Pacific has some stuff on Astronomy related ps , The Archaeological Institute of America has Seductions of Pseudoarchaeology: Pseudoscience in Cyberspace... Both have some commentary on the nature of pseudoscience in general. KillerChihuahua 00:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And to address Kenosis' original question, yes we should use accepted norms of scientific research. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that good points have been raised on this page. Killer's suggestion points to a well sourced example of how the norms within an area can be used to distinguish good science from bad, and deserves inclusion. I think Kenosis' point is right too, that philosophers have exposed the difficulties of trying to use a single set of criteria to judge diverse areas of science, but that does not mean that within a field, practioners don't feel that they can tell the difference between good science and bad; clearly they do feel they can, even if many don't use the term PS to characterise those differences. I also think that SA's account reflecting on the sometimes historically transient denigration of a new idea is a goood example of something extensively described by Kuhn. The reference that I added (McNally)is one that KV has earlier described as excellent. I had thought it was redundant, as the point seemed uncontroversial, but if it is disputed seriously, then the reference is appropriate. I can't see anything else in that section that is tagged as being disputed that could be disputed credibly- the points reiterate points referenced elsewhere in the article, but Popper, Kuhn and Feyeraband are the natural sources. Gleng 11:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Mcnally is welcome by all means, weighting considered. Now, using chiropractic as an example, lets focus on the good science from the bad science within that field. Applying chiropractic to schizophrenia, for example. Lets hear what you have to say about schizophrenia sufferers, and what chiropractics can do for their condition. Firstly, we can consider the theological applications of chiropractic in this context. You first. KrishnaVindaloo 12:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. If you want to add content, I suggest you start by looking for a very strong source that discusses it carefully, read it and report what they say. As Steth has said previously, Nightmares do not make good sources.Gleng 13:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the core chiropractic textbook? KrishnaVindaloo 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

From which you would synthesize info, thus violating WP:NOR? No thanks. BTW, I've never been to a chiropractor, and doubt that I'll ever go to one (although you never know), thus I am not by any means a supporter of chiropractic, in fact I'm rather ambivalent about it. Thus: ENOUGH OF YOUR FUCKING INSANE OBSESSION WITH CHIROPRACTIC. Do you understand? It's really quite simple: your constant natterings on about the "evils" of chiropractic are like the ravings of a pickled lunatic. As far as I can see the only reason you came to this page was to bash chiro. At this point, you have as much credibility as a scientologist. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Proponents keep denying things, and the evidence is to the contrary. . KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pickled lunatic? I love it! I wish I'd said that!! Jim, you are using words eerily similar to ones I previously used after exposing Vindaloo as a liar and for violiating WP policy for attempting to feed us his made up opinions as facts. See Krishna Vindaloo has a BIG problem So I understand your frustration. The question is, given his documented history of disruptive behaviour, how long must we put up with it? Steth 03:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how long we'll need to put up with this, Steth; until KV is banned I suppose. Or we could all go out and bark at the moon tonight -- maybe then we'd see KV's wisdom. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up the tail

Shouldn't the "Notes"-section be renamed "References", the "References"-section renamed "Further reading" and the "See also"-section be dumped into a black hole?

And when removing the link the Keith Parsons on-line essay (why?), shouldn't it be replaced with an entry about his book? Which one? Has anyboday read them?

Pjacobi 15:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the link to the Parsons essay because it came up headed a "paid advertisement" and wasn't cited; no objections to restoring it I was just having a go at trying to clean up the mess.

I've removed some of the Gauch op cit cites, for 2 reasons, a) don't think there's any dispute at all about the statements in the text but b) Gauch doesn't propose these as distinguishing factors for PS but as characteristics of the scientific method. Gauch remains as a source about the scientific method. By all means rename reshuffle - I think its a bit of a random mix of the good, the indifferent and the whocantell. Absolutely no feelings about the whole "extra refs etc section except that less and good would be much better. Gleng 15:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right about Gauch, he's a source about the scientific method, and not pseudoscience. --Iantresman 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What's cited is in the ill-named "Notes"-section. The equally ill-named "References"-section should provide the reader with a selection of further reading. --Pjacobi 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear what to call the "Footnotes" section, but "Notes" seems common. See WP:Footnotes --Iantresman 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Notes probably is the most common. However, if the items in references are properly done in the <ref> name </ref> style, we could call the section Notes and References as in the Intelligent design aricle. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that Intelligent design would work relatively well here, considering there is really no perfect answer. --Dematt 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Identifying pseudoscience" citations

• As I've mentioned before , I believe that most of the citations in this section do not support the identifications described.
• Most seem to support the identification with the scientific method, but that is not the same as implying that it means it also identifies pseudoscience. (A cat can be identified by fur, a tail and miaows; just because an animal does not miaows, does not necessarily mean it's a pig, or even mean we consider it might be a pig).
• I recommend that we move all citations, add new ones that include direct quotes showing the association with pseudoscience, and then remove all entries that can not be verified. --Iantresman 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Move? Move where? Move why? We can check the cites without moving them anywhere, am I missing something? I concur it would be well for us to check each and every cite, but surely we can do that here on talk, and only remove those which are inappropriate (not a good source, does not support statement, etc) rather than move them all then put back the ones we find suitable. KillerChihuahua 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm suggesting that if we don't find citations for some of them, we remove them --Iantresman 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Go carefully. I think Bunge and Thagard are the two who attempted to give multiple critera, so check against them.Gleng 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Recently removed references

I notice that five of the citations to Hugh Gauch's Scientific Method in Practice (2003) were removed here. Just to clarify the original situation in which these citations were placed, all of those references had a direct relevance to the particular "characteristic(s)" involved, and each of them cites the relevant pages or section(s) of that book. I do understand that some of the text may have been changed and that some WP users occasionally change things with little-or-no regard for the context they're dealing with, sometimes leading to a distortion of the original context. But as far as I was able to tell, at the point at which they were removed, those Gauch cites still retained the basic relevance they originally had when I provided the citations. My offhand sense of the most effective way to proceed in this particular case is to allow the citations to stand for the present, and improve on them, rather than eliminate them and leave those points in the article without any visible verification whatsoever. After all, the editors have chosen to define pseudoscience as involving a substantial deviation from accepted scientific method. Thus a presentation of relevant aspects of method is quite relevant to each of the points involving citations to Gauch (not that he's the only one we could cite to). I would much prefer to keep those citations rather than eliminate them completely, and thereby allow the possiblity for better citations to be added in the future to the extent that they may be available. ... Kenosis 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Gleng talked about those refs here. --Dematt 04:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that in the section above. But that section was not limited to this issue. Please, of course, feel free to reproduce relevant info from that section in this section to the degree judged appropriate by anyone choosing to comment on this issue. ... Kenosis 05:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it has become all too common for certain editors to remove useful literature or information. Whatever reason they are doing it for, it is unconstructive. KrishnaVindaloo 03:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I said my piece for the present. Admittedly it usually takes more keystrokes to add material than to remove it. ... Kenosis 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There were some problems I felt: the multiple references to Gauch were introduced below the header "The following have been proposed to be characteristics of "pseudoscientific" arguments." which was not the context in which Gauch writes. I accept that it may be an excellent analysis of the scientific method, and to describe the scientific method carefully is clearly appropriate. However, the description of the method given was not controversial - the only controversial thing is how well these things distinguish science from non science. So I tried to retain Gauch as the generic reference for scientific nethod, clearing the way for specific references to be added to illustrate the application of these criteria.Gleng 08:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Gauch's references were all relevant in the context of the scientific method. But to suggest that these characteristics are relevant to pseudoscience, is not necessarily a logical step, and not supported by the citations. For example, a cat can be identified by fur, a tail and miaows; but just because an animal does not miaows, does not necessarily mean it's a pig, or even mean we consider it might be a pig. --Iantresman 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. One way a controversial article, or any article, gets AFU, is by changing the context in which material is placed. Originally the "characteristics" were introduced by various editors, and pseudoscience was said to have two elements, (1) holding an idea or field out as science or scientific, and (2) failing to follow scientific method. This originally was presented without any citation other than the references already provided in the lead of the article to definitions such as Carroll's skepdic.com and the OED. Since failure to follow scientific method was one of the two elements used in the section on "Identifying pseudoscience", it would appear sensible to cite to a reliable source that these characteristics were in fact characteristic of scientific method. Enter, the Gauch citations. Now, if the new consensus is that the article should only include material that can be cited to a source that specifically identifies a deviation from a particular characteristic of scientific method, for each and every characteristic, then ditch the ones that don't have such a citation. I don't think the editors need go that route. ... Kenosis 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than kick them, it would be more sensible to keep the valuable information, and simply reframe it to suit the info about science. When there is an improvement effort going on, at least keep the references. Such deletion really does smack of sweeping stuff under the carpet. There is far too much of that going on right now. There is nothing wrong with keeping all suggested references for now, then having a proper investigation. When no corroboration turns up after a while, then you can consider deletion. Either way, sensible discussion is necessary. I do believe for that to work, this article is in desperate need of reliable mediators though. KrishnaVindaloo 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Such information is not valuable if it's not accurate and verifiable. My feeling is that some of the characteristics are cited by others in identifying pseudoscience, but others are not cited because they are not actually used by anyone, except by people who mistakenly believe that not following the scientific method 100% is pseudoscience. Since the scientific method varies from subject to subject, I think this is unlikely. Either way, verifiability of characteristics and pseudoscience (not scientific method) is a requirement. --Iantresman 09:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly complaining about your editing. Here is a notable example though (not yours) that removes cites, removes information that is pretty much in proportion to the article, and in proportion to maj and min (using cites). There is a snarky edit summary that makes no attempt to improve, only to delete in favour of Gleng's awful, argumentative, and boosterist editing (eg considerable disagreement etc) and focuses on arguments between disputants, rather than the majority of those who identify pseudoscience using quite neutral explanatory terms. Corroboration is also an important point here, you may want to remove info that you don't think is reliable, but corroborating information can make all the difference. Basically, its a bad idea to join in with unconstructive deletion activities, when there are perfectly easy alternative solutions. KrishnaVindaloo 10:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm giving good reasons why I think certain statements should be removed, and giving people every opportunity to provide citations first. And hopefully others will back-up their editing with similar good reason too. --Iantresman 11:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure Ian. You might have noticed now that Gleng and Steth have added refs it shows pretty well how biased the commentary is. The comments are hardly representative of the refs, and its pretty much an argument that doesn't even represent the article - It just shows an argument. And are the refs themselves representative? I really do think this article needs a mediator or two. At the very least to teach some people how to write an article. KrishnaVindaloo 12:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you might teach us...Ommmmm &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Operational definitions

• I've found one reference and quote that refer to "operational definitions" and pseudoscience. Perhaps someone would like to assess it for suitability.

• I've also attempted to add a clarification explaining the term "operational definitions" which I think is scientific mumbo-jumbo to the average person. --Iantresman 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

KV?

"At what time exactly, Gleng?" Exactly what did you mean by this oddly inappropriate but apparently offensive edit summary? I take it you objected to SA's phrasing; if so take it up with him.Gleng 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Its unnecessary commentary. Its the sort of thing that your editing is full of. I just removed a lot of such commentary from you from the opening. I had to do the same thing on the vitalism article. Please stop doing it. Authors make particular statements, and we can summarize or paraphrase the statements to make them more concise, or just paste them in with quotes. But please stop adding your own commentary and OR. KrishnaVindaloo 03:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the wording you objected to was Science Apologist's. Take it up with him.Gleng 11:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No Gleng. You edited the section and left it looking like your editing. I am pointing out how to correct that kind of thing. KrishnaVindaloo 11:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

to SA,Killer, ian etc on refs in lead

Is the reference I inserted via the lead to cosmology etc sound and appropriate to that context - not my area, just extracted from Talk Gleng 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think everything else in the lead merely relates to what is expanded on in the article (and maybe I've added more refs than necessary as Feyeraband is duplicated). Have I missed something? What is left not that is not referenced there or later and is disputed?Gleng 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• It looks generally OK to me. I think the introductory paragraph could be tidied. It seems to list three definitions:

1. "belief, or practice that claims to be scientific" (bit isn't)
2. ... does not follow the scientific method.
3. ..set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific

I'm wondering whether there is some overlap in some of these definitions. I think they all boil down to one definition:

• "... a subject which is falsely portrayed or appears to be scientific, but isn't".

The rest is detail, ie. that "scientific" generally implies following the scientific method, etc. --Iantresman 13:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead was preposterous and didn't explain how pseudoscience is actually discussed in academia (mostly in introductory science courses). As such, I have removed the sidebar commentary about when scientists may bandy the term about (not relevant to the definition of the term) and included a paragraph about how and when the term is most often used. The cosmology stuff DOES NOT belong in the lead. It is secondary in nature to what pseudoscience actually is (which is such subjects as astrology, medical quackery, etc.) --ScienceApologist 14:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, SA. I believe yours is a great improvement, and an improvement upon my version in some respects. Your version sticks far more strongly to the recommendations on how to write an opening. One way to make it even more appropriate is to include more of the structure of the article itself. I believe your framing around intro sci classes is a very good start, and more can be added. There are now introductory classes with pseudoscience as a main theme. Lilienfeld, Carroll and others actually write material for this purpose, and as it is taught at that level, the majority science view can easily be seen and framed properly to the reader. The superstition addition is actually incredibly important as it is the basis for many pseudoscientific subjects and explains why pseudoscience is so sticky psychologically. Beyerstein, Shermer and others have written more explicitly in this area. It relates closely to new age ideas, which again, could have more mention in the article, especially in relation to alternative medicines. Anyway, things are improving. KrishnaVindaloo 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lilienfeld

I've just been looking up Lilienfeld's publications and reading a few. He's a clinical psychologist, and he extensively discusses misuses, abuses and unscientific practices in his field. It's good and interesting stuff, and relevant. But where does the alt med bit from? I don't think that any of the things he writes on at least in the peer reviewed literature fall into this category. So I removed an unverified and apparently unlikely reference.Gleng 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Gleng, this is typical of your sort of unconstructive editing. Alternative medicine is full of pseudoscience and it is going to be as easy as a walk in the park finding refs to back up Lilienfeld's view. Of course your sort of editing generally discourages that kind of constructive information search. KrishnaVindaloo 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear - in his writings, Lilienfeld is highly critical of a range of therapies used in the broad field of clinical psychology, some of which are fringe, some old established - but these aren't what is conventionally known as "alternative medicine"? So the label is misleading. I have incidentally added a reference to Lilienfeld's papers, it's on PubMed so can be checked. Gleng 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Like many authors, Lilienfeld also writes books. KrishnaVindaloo 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in psychology

This section Pseudoscience in psychology is sorely lacking in references and considering all the refences that we have read have come from clinical psychologists, we shoud be able to put something together. That first reference is very weak to the point of inappropriate. I'll give some time to come up with the references then I will try to put something together for this section in an attempt to get it right. Look forward to any help anyone is willing to put in. --Dematt 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I have some information on the chiro schizophrenia treatments. KrishnaVindaloo 03:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK sure, but we will, of course, first have to see your information and then decide if it is trustworthy, given your history of fabrication and your obsession with radical anti-chiropractic hate-centric fundamentalist extremist, POV ramming-down our throats, article hijacking, time-wasting edits. I am sure you understand, Murray. OK? Steth 04:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Steth, if you have a personal issue with me as an editor, please contact me on my talkpage. You called me Murray. Would you care to elaborate or explain yourself? KrishnaVindaloo 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing personal, of course. Just the same issues that have been here for some time. Similiar views have been expressed by others, like reliability, time consumption and no forward progress. And of course, there is the issue of Ford and Williams, having never said what you said they said. So I am sure you understand my hesitation. If roles were reversed and someone else did these things, wouldn't you also be cautious?

I don't know what I was thinking when I called you Murray. I must have been thinking of something or someone else. Sorry. Steth 11:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Steth, you have called me dishonest many times already. Murray is a new one. I don't believe it is much of an improvement though - you are just as wrong as before. KrishnaVindaloo 14:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientism

Hello all. Scientism is relevant to pseudoscience. This sentence is about the clearest and most representative:

The concept of scientism is also relevant to science and pseudoscience. Kaptchuk and Eisenberg (1998) state that "alternative medicine includes chiropractic science, homeopathic science, psychic science, and even occult science. Academic science would undoubtedly call these approaches "scientism" and discuss the boundaries between science and pseudoscience".

Feel free to discuss. KrishnaVindaloo 03:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding a link above to the article. All who are interested, please peruse this piece and see the entire quote above in context. Of the following definitions of Scientism, which one do you feel the authors are referring to...

1) The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.

2) Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.

3) An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.

Levine2112 04:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point Levine. KV also might want to refresh your memory and save us all some time. --Dematt 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it then, that there is nothing wrong with the line. NPOV compliant etc. KrishnaVindaloo 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read what Dematt is pointing to, you will see that there is no agreement here. In fact, no other editor found this insertion acceptable. Please read/reread the discussion which Dematt is referring to above. Also, please choose which definition (1, 2, 3 or something different) you believe scientism is referred to as in this report. This will help us understand why you feel "scientism" as a topic needs to be discussed in the Pseudoscience article. Thank you. Levine2112 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if no other editor who joined in the discussion felt it is acceptable. Webster's dictionary defines scientism as the use of PS language. It is already clear from the article presented that scientism is relevant to pseudoscience. It is a peer reviewed article. NPOV trumps any amount of so called consensus you wish to mention. KrishnaVindaloo 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Which edition of Webster's are you using? The online version has these definitions (no mention of pseudoscience):

1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist

2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

Please tells us the definition in the edition you have.

Levine2112 06:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112. The definition of scientism that I am using, is exactly the same as the one that K and E are using. The article is to delineate between orthodox and unorthodox medicine. It is very obvious that K and E are referring to the majority scientific view that chiropractic, naturopathy, vedic, etc science, are infact scientisms, just like the science you see on washing powder adverts or pseudoscientific cartoons of toothpaste machinegunning gum bacteria. It is scientism in relation to pseudocience. Just as it states in the line. It is an explicit reference to pseudoscience. The journal - Annals of Internal Medicine, is a good source, and it shows exactly what scientism means in terms of chiropractic science, homeopathic science, psychic science, and occult science. Do you get the article now? It is making a clear grouping between various vitalistic and pseudoscientific theories such as occult science, and chiropractic. Here is where that connection can be made with regards to homosexuality cures. Its pretty much the same as "out demons out", and relates strongly to the superstitious nature of most pseudosciences. So for example, the majority of chiropractors adhere to vitalistic and pseudoscientific theories, and so will be quite comfortable with ideas of exorcism. To exorcise the homosexuality from "homosexuality sufferers", so that they can become straight. Would you like some further clarity in this line? KrishnaVindaloo 12:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, KV, I would like some more "clarity". For example, you state that the majority of chiropractors would be quite comfortable with exorcism. Could you please cite the source to back that up? Or was that a conclusion on your part? Additionally, I couldn't find pseudoscience and scientism mentioned together in the dictionary either. Which edition are you looking in? Perhaps you could paste the exact wording here. Thanks Steth 12:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I too would like more clarity. KV, you seem to be making a lot of logical (amd illogical) leaps here. You are taking dots and trying to connect them to say something original and unsourced. And the "dots" you have are pretty weak ones and some of them just seem to be made up. So let's start from the beginning. You state above that the Webster's dictionary definition of scientism is the use of pseudoscientific language. Is that the exact wording you have from your dictionary? If not, could you please provide it? And please provide the year and edition you are using. I truly believe that this will be the first step in furthering clarity here. Thank you. Levine2112 17:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The "definitions" of scientism given above by Levine2112 are correct, insofar as "scientism" can be defined. Unfortunately Kaptchuk and Eisenberg appear to have made incorrect use of the word, especially insofar as they seem to have been assuming what "academic science" would call the approaches to which they referred in their article -- sorry to disillusion anyone. ... Kenosis 18:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we are then arriving at the same conclusion we reached in our last discussion of this Kaptchuk and Eisenberg article... it is unreliable and a weak source for describing the nature of Pseudoscience and should not be included or referenced in this article. That being said, I still would like to see KrishnaVindaloo's defintion of scientism as stated in the Webster's dictionary he described above. It would be fascinating to know if there are other definitions of the word floating around. Perhaps, this is the same definition Kaptchuk and Eisenberg were using. KV? Can you please write out the definition you read in your Webster's here and let us know the edition and/or year the edition was published? I really would appreciate it. Levine2112 19:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

According to your above opinions, K and E are unreliable and wrong. Well you havn't offered anything beyond your opinions. Sorry, but the line stays. KrishnaVindaloo 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it just went. Your arrogance has been duly noted. Do you too now feel the psychological rush of being notable? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The line is extremely clear, and requires absolutely no corroboration. It is from reliable sources. Anybody using scientific skepticism on looking at vedic science, chiropractic science, occult science, etc will see pseudoscientific notions of vitalism and superstition written all over them, will notice the behaviour of so called blah blah scientists (eg stifling of negative views, stifling of criticism, groupthink), and and will call it scientism. I don't even need to explain this, though I just did. NPOV trumps all of your opinions. Sorry! KrishnaVindaloo 01:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

KV if you could just provide me with the exact wording of your edition of Webster's definition of the word "scientism", I think it will clear up this issue. You said that Webster's defines "scientism" as the use of PS language. Please write out this definition you have and which edition of Webster's you are looking at. Thank you. Levine2112 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

McNally

I removed McNally as he is irellevant to the protoscience section. I did have the source placed in the psych section as it is more appropriate there. It has been reverted nevertheless. Also its been selectively placed in. He also mentions "Of course, merely because a term can be misused does not mean that it does not have its proper uses." Feel free to discuss. KrishnaVindaloo 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard McNally, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, states: "The term “pseudoscience” has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites" and "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?".

Feyerbend

Feyerbend did not specifically mention PS, so it is irellevant to the article. Feel free to discuss KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Feyerbend's comments about epistemological limits are relevant, but he probably shouldn't be mentioned as explicitly as he is due to the fact that he probably wouldn't appreciate his comments being construed as a defense of hucksterism and pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 04:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My reading actually makes him sound almost anti-science. He is advocating that we stop pushing science as the know all and end all of every decision - even to stop pushing it in school. Interesting. I wonder how he would feel about it in healthcare? Hmm, what do you think KV? --Dematt 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

An MD using a chiropractor? Who'd'a thunk it? Chiropractic and Astrology

here &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You may be intereted to know that a growing number of US hospital and private medical clinic have chiropractors on staff. Many MDs and DOs refer their own patients out to chiropractors when they deem it necessary. You will also find chiropractors in the lockerrooms and sidelines of many (if not most) professional, olympic and collegiate sports teams. I know this information is presented here only for propoganda; however the overwhelming and growing acceptance of chiropractic is just more evidence that it doesn't belong anywhere near this article... unless of course your are describing things that are mistakenly (or purposefully) labeled pseudoscientific by fearful competitors. Levine2112 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, even my own doctor (who is quite good by the way), supports alternative med as a "last" resort. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There are most likely quite a few MDs who go to an astrologer for a detailed analysis of their past and future in medicine. Would you suggest that is evidence to stifle the view that astrology is pseudoscientific? KrishnaVindaloo 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you happen to have proof to back up such an absurd statement, KV, or are you just flapping away again. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying it would be absurd to believe that a GP or MD would seek advice from an astrologer? Do you believe that it has never happened? I am talking about things that are likely to happen. The numbers are probably in the hundreds per year on a global basis. The logical point is, does that mean astrology or chiropractic or scientology should be generally accepted by all and sundry? A normal person would say no. Only a proponent would push that as a reason to promote a particular activity. The majority science view is pretty clear on these points. It doesn't matter if Ron Regan sought a medium or an astrologer. Testimonials and anecdotes are not evidence of efficacy or theoretical robustness. KrishnaVindaloo 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But are there a lot of MDs who refer their patients to astrologers for health care? Levine2112 02:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It happens. Thats a great article on chiropractic astrology and horrid scientific critics KrishnaVindaloo 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. That article says nothing about MDs referring patients to astrologers. Did you read it? Levine2112 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) And now that you added a second article I see it too has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I;m assuming that you didn't read that one either. Levine2112 02:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, reading and comprehension can be rather daunting, I suppose. Seems that to KV merely posting a reference is as good as the reference actually being apropos to the discussion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Levine2112. Its extremely interesting. Planet chiron! KrishnaVindaloo 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And how does that show us that many MDs are referring their patients to astrologers? Levine2112 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another hint of more info to come: KrishnaVindaloo 02:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And what does he have to do with your claim that many MDs are referring their patients to astrologers? Levine2112 02:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A few MD's are erroneously referring their patients to pseudoscientists. EG, astrologers and scientologists, who are also chiropractors. KrishnaVindaloo 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming you have proof of such, yes? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to show you the evidence I have until I present the fact for inclusion into the article. I am merely discussing with you why an MD going to a chiropractor, or being a chiropractor, is evidence for anything other than enthusiasm for the pseudoscientific, gullibility, or desperation. KrishnaVindaloo 11:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, here is a nice article about reading auras, chi, prana etc as "technologies" and chiropractic . Fascinating stuff! KrishnaVindaloo 08:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And he does speak for all chiropractors, no doubt. Bah. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, what about your claim that Webster's defines "scientism" as the use of PS language? I really would very much like to read that definition. Please provide us with that. Levine2112 02:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just stated it above. Feel free to read my line again. KrishnaVindaloo 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OED " 1. The habit and mode of expression of a man of science. 2. A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences." No PS mentioned in the preeminent English dictionary. Odd, that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a citation regarding a medical doctor writing a book on medical astrology: . KV is not just tilting at windmills here, KV actually has a point. --ScienceApologist 00:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is what? That the entire medical profession should be labeled pseudoscience because of the existence of medical astrology? Wait a mintute... there's astro-psychology too. I guess Freud is a pseudoscientist too then. (See how easily this can get out of hand when you castigate the majority for the fringe's actions?) Levine2112 01:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The point that KV made many days ago was that simply because a medical doctor endorses a subject that doesn't magically make that subject scientific or recuse that subject from a pseudoscience-label/critique. The endorsement of isolated doctors of various alternative medicines should not be taken as a scientific endorsement of alternative medicines. Medical doctors can be led down the garden path just like any other human being. And calling Freud a pseudoscientist may not be too far off. It is verifiably true that there are people who have criticized his work as being just that .--ScienceApologist 03:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Florida Uni, chiropractic dept, astrology faculty

Hello. This section is for discussing the majority scientific view that chiropractic is unwelcome at universities, along with bigfoot institutes, and crop circle laboratories etc. KrishnaVindaloo 02:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (because it is pseudoscientific)

Okay. Now read an actual official report submitted to FSU which lays to waste the mythological propaganda that chiropractic is a pseudoscience. The FSU decision was more about politics and less about health care. Honestly KV, really read this through. (I know it is long!) Everything is documented. Everything is cited. I think it might be a real eye opener for you. Thanks. Levine2112 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it already. Here's an interesting scientology method that chiropractors use: . KrishnaVindaloo 02:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Some people use chiropractic for some pseudoscientific reasons. Some people use astronomy for pseudoscientific reasons. Some people use math for pseudoscientific reasons. Still doesn't make any of those a good example of pseudoscience. I am happy you read that report that independent council submitted to FSU. Care to comment or discuss anything? Levine2112 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me KV has (again) put the cart before the horse. That Scientology latches onto something speaks more to Scientology's parasitic nature than it does to the validity of whatever it has latched onto.

In any case I echo Levine2112's question: Care to comment or discuss anything (from the FSU submission)? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure! So when are the chiropractors going to move in? KrishnaVindaloo 11:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It must be a lonely life when one's sole quest is to prove chiro to be pseudoscience. BTW: we've already had the discussion regarding the true, not pathological, skeptics on this page who do not feel that all of chiro fits the mold and thus should be left off the page, and that we find your one-man crusade to be tiresome. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be time to move for a community ban of KrishnaVindaloo from this and related articles. His involvement is profoundly disruptive and serves mainly to advance a position, which is a violation of core policies. Guy 12:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. KV definitely has a POV, but the impulse of KV to use chiropractic medicine as an example for this page isn't terrible. There are some real issues with chiropractic medicine as pointed out by Skeptical Inquirer . Books have been written on the subject. It's abundantly clear that subluxation is pure drivel. What exactly is the issue with KV? --ScienceApologist 13:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

William Jarvis and Stephen Barrett (authors, ediots of these articles) are at the forefront of anti-chiro promotion. Most of what you will find out there comes through their various nefarious organizations... NCAHF, Chirobase, Quackwatch... of course all of it falls victim to confirmation bias, which many notable critics of them have pointed out. The Keating article is decent. He knows his stuff, especially when it comes to chiropractic history. Emphasis on history. The concept of the vertebral subluxation has changed so much since its discovery. It is certainly not drivel anymore, but has a very solid scientific base. Despite what critics will try to assure you, there is no magic or cults or religion. It's all biology and it can all be confirmed. FACT: The brain sends and receives messages through the nervous system. FACT: Many signals pass through the spinal cord. FACT: A misaligned vertebra can cause swelling and impinge a spinal nerve. FACT: Removing the impingement allows for more efficient communication between your brain and the rest of your body. That's all there is to it really. Levine2112 00:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nefarious organizations"? "Very solid scientific base"? "magic or cults or religion"? There are some serious buzzwords you are pushing here that are not helping any. FACT: Chiropractic medicine is criticized TODAY as being pseudoscientific by a number of mainstream organizations. FACT: Chiropractic medicine has had very little confirmation in double-blind studies and is not endorsed by the AMA (which ignores it since Wilk v. American Medical Association) nor taught at major medical schools. FACT: There is no solid indication that chiropractic is the most effective way to remove "impingement" nor is there any study that shows people who undergo chiropractic treatment exhibit "more efficient communication between your brain and the rest of your body". That's all there is to it. --ScienceApologist 00:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First, let's discuss Double-Blind studies. Just like with surgical procedures, double-blind is a very difficult thing to acheive when researching chiropractic adjustments. Okay, perhaps you can fool the patient into believing he is getting a real adjustment when you are only giving him a sham (I don't know how, but let's assume that is possible). Okay, now how are you going to fool the practitioner in believing his is giving a real adjustment while he is only giving a sham? It's like fooling a surgeon into believe he is putting in an artificial heart but the whole procedure is a sham. Impossible. As for single blind studies, there are many which supports chiropractic. Allow me to point you to several hundred single blind and case studies published in a wide variety of scientific journals... . Perhaps this will help you get your facts straight. Now you also say it is a fact that chiropractic is criticized today by a number of mainstream organizations. What is that number? Is it a large number? Is it a small number? What about the number of mainstream organization which endorse chiropractic? The AMA for instance does not criticize chiropractic and more and more chiropractors are found in hospitals working right along side MDs and DOs. Perhaps you would like to take a look at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics . Very informative. Levine2112 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Apart from you citing laudatory works from sources that would hardly be called impartial, you have just expelled a lot of hot air for really no reason. It doesn't matter "how many" organizations criticize chiropractic pseudoscience, it only matters that it happens and that it is a verifiable occurence. Regardless, this talkpage is not the place to argue over the status of chiropractic medicine, and it is really irrelevant to the point I am making which is that it is VERIFIABLY TRUE that there are groups and people including quite a few in the medical profession who currently dismiss chiropractic medicine as pseudoscience. Take it or leave it, that's a fact. There are also people who point out that there may be tangible benefits to chiropractors adjusting people's backs. Whether any of these facts deserve mention on this page is a matter of editorial opinion, but trying to skirt around the fact that chiropractic medicine has been denigrated is to deny the reality of the situation. By the way, the only reason the AMA doesn't criticize chiropractic medicine is due to litigation avoidance. I might also point out that there are also plenty of hospital chaplains working in hospitals according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but that doesn't make chaplaincy a scientific enterprise. Please dispense with the red herrings and realize that criticism of chiropractic as pseudoscience is a perspective you cannot argue people away from simply by yapping on a Misplaced Pages talkpage. --ScienceApologist 02:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112. Keating talks of chiropractic's PS aspects. This is an article on pseudoscience, so the aspects that he calls PS can be mentioned here. KrishnaVindaloo 02:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I have had some issues with KV, but I don't see anything wrong with his argument that chiropractic medicine has often been called a pseudoscience. Now KV may be a bit more dedicated to get that point into Misplaced Pages than I am, but the basic claim is certainly defensible and notable. Phiwum 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong support for article ban from pseudoscience articles at least, add to ArbCom case? The ad homs and instant mis-direct whenever discussion is attempted is highly disruptive. The vindictive "tit for tat" is especially annoying. KillerChihuahua 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

KC, you have defended chiropractic several times and similar to Kenosis, you have used spurious arguments. So I will point out your bias and say you are pro-chiropractic. You have also been uncivil towards myself. What is disruptive is a group of proponents constantly throwing accusations of liar or dishonesty at myself, simply because I keep finding facts that show their interests in a pseudoscientific light, and use those facts to improve this article. KrishnaVindaloo 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe your accusations (Guy and Jim) are unconstructive. I have done nothing more than to discuss, and to present NPOV compliant edits. If you wish to banish editors for doing such things, then I suggest you are in the wrong place. Above all else here, I have sought discussion. You don't have to join it. Its up to you. BTW, do you know when chiropractors are going to be allowed to present their pseudoscience in universities? KrishnaVindaloo 13:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you look carefully, you will find that the article, and many others, are made up of my own edits, all perfectly NPOV compliant. All in the face of proponents hurling abuse and personal attack towards me. With the help of other editors, I've helped uphold the Misplaced Pages convention of presenting pseudoscience as science sees it. By Misplaced Pages standards, I'm pretty cool! KrishnaVindaloo 13:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your constant harping on NPOV when virtually every editor disagrees with you, when you provide unacceptable sources or no sources, in violation of V and NOR, is reminiscent of Sam Spade. I suggest you stop trying to "prove" you are NPOV by dint of repitition; this does not accomplish anything but redundancy in your posts. KillerChihuahua 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out my edits, KC. You will see I (like some others) have contributed much to Misplaced Pages. And so many good edits have been denied by those with a soapbox or those with a liking for certain pseudoscientific subjects. Its a common problem that needs solving here. This article tends to get either censored by those wanting to create a fuss for no other reason than stifling negative views, or it gets locked by others who have ignored the reasonable goal of creating a clear article. It seems the view is, - clarity causes trouble, so its best off getting locked. Its in need of mediation. So, I will reiterate my message. Under mediation, my (and other's) NPOV compliant edits are more likely to be presented without the normal antagonistic soapboxing, whitewash, and censorship from the usual anti-Misplaced Pages, anti-clarity proponents. KrishnaVindaloo 15:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is apparent in the above edit; KV consistently and offensively attributes motives to many editors who have suggested that his sources are weak, or miscited, or that what he takes to be NPOV is far from it, and this subverts any discussion.Gleng 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. In every case it seems to be "you prove me wrong" not "I'll prove me right"; I think KV is suffering from m:MPOV and needs to stop the disruption. Guy 17:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the disruptive editing and tendentious argumentation should cease. ... Kenosis 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kenosis. So who was I attributing my comment to above? Do you think I should be booted for honesty or dishonesty? KrishnaVindaloo 02:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As a (relatively) uninvolved observer, it seems that, while KV has made constructive additions to the article at times and is a valued contributor, his comments on the talk page have tended toward trolling. This whole thread is an obvious example; it opened with an inflammatory, over-general, and unsupportable salvo from KV which had its desired effect. Angry denunciations feed into the problem, as would a page-specific ban. The most effective approach may be to stop rising to the bait that KV keeps laying out. Engage him/her on his/her constructive edits/suggestions and ignore the rest. Easier said than done of course. MastCell 18:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We tried that. KillerChihuahua 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello MastCell. You are not supposed to accuse people of trolling on discussion pages. If you suspect anyone of trolling, then contact the correct authorities to sort it out. If it is trolling to mention the term chiropractic or to place the term in the article, then there is something wrong in your definition of trolling. KrishnaVindaloo 03:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

KV reads "not rising to the bait" as acceptance of what he has proposed. It is, then, a no-win situation. And yes, Guy is guite right re WP:MPOV. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to reiterate as I don't want KV to continue to evade/ignore this request... KV claims above that Webster's dictionary defines scientism as the use of PS language. I have asked him repeatedly to give us the full definition as he was reading it as I could not find any mention of PS in Webster's online or any other dictionary. In fact, scientism seems to be nearly the opposite of PS. The reason I am asking and re-asking for this info is two-fold. One, if KV can't produce this definition, then it tells us something about him as an editor here. But two and more important, it shows that the resource (the K and E article) - or at least the part he is trying to use - is invalid (as he is trying to use it to link Pseudoscience directly to the resources examples of things mainstream science considers to be "scientism"). So it's either the resoruce has it wrong and KV has it wrong (and he is lying about what he saw in Webster's) or there is another definition of scientism (one that means the exact opposite of the common definitions of the word) which KV and the resource are relying on. Levine2112 21:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See above from OED. This is it from on-line Webster: "1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist

2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences , and the humanities)". My 1997 hardcopy agrees. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is clear. Look it up! Pseudoscientists are always using scientisms. . They call their pseudoscience a science (eg chiropractic science) and they claim their science will do amazing things for them (eg, spiritual development through balancing your innate). Whatever way you define it, pseudoscientists use a lot of scientism. So it should be mentioned here. KrishnaVindaloo 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

KV, "scientism" as a term cannot be made plural. It may be true that pseudoscience advocates utilize similar arguments as to scientism supporters, but conflation of the two definitely is original research. You need to find a citation to a philosopher/historian/sociologist who describes the two conflated in order to include the novel association in this article. --ScienceApologist 02:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, SA. I'm discussing, not quoting in the article. I'm sure we will sort something out along the lines of a good ref though. KrishnaVindaloo 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

KV, you insisted that Webster's define scientism as the use of PS language. You misrepresented Webster's by incorrectly citing it. Incorrect citation seems to be a habit of yours. Please check your references and reflect them more accurately in the future to avoid confusion. Levine2112 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I never even put it in the article. Now tell me. Does it or does it not include the term pseudoscience? KrishnaVindaloo 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this part of the Quote?

If so, format it properly:
""EMDR, Thought Field Therapy, and all the rest rightly deserve critique, just not on the grounds of pseudoscience." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

References (for whole page -- keep this section at bottom)

1. Cite error: The named reference Truzzi 1987 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Vindaloo, Krishna (1990-09-09). "The World According to KV" (asp). Time. 7 (1): 23–24. Retrieved 2006-10-24. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. Stephen W. Hawking, Hawking on the Big Bang and Black Holes (1993) World Scientific Publishing Company, Page 1 See also and .
4. Helge Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe, (1996) p.226, Publ. Princeton University Press,
5. Stephen W. Hawking, Hawking on the Big Bang and Black Holes (1993) World Scientific Publishing Company, Page 1
6. Encyclopædia Britannica describes Cosmology as "field of study that brings together the natural sciences, particularly astronomy and physics"
7. ^ Fraknoi, Andrew. "Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List (Version 3.0; August 2003)". The Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Retrieved 2006-10-24. Cite error: The named reference "Astronomy" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
8. See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
9. L'Imposture Scientifique en Dix Lecons, "Pseudoscience in Ten Lessons.", By Michel de Pracontal. Editions La Decouverte, Paris, 2001. ISBN 2-7071-3293-4.
10. "A book for burning?". Nature. 293 (5830): 245–6. 24 Sep 1981. doi:10.1038/293245b0. Attributed to Nature's senior editor, John Maddox (commenting on Rupert Sheldrake's book A New Science of Life (1981)), Maddox wrote: "Sheldrake's argument is an exercise in pseudo-science. — Many readers will be left with the impression that Sheldrake has succeeded in finding a place for magic within scientific discussion — and this, indeed, may have been a part of the objective of writing such a book."
11. Phrenology: History of a Classic Pseudoscience - by Steven Novella MD
13. Williams, William F. (editor) (2000) Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy.
14. Cover, J.A., Curd, Martin (Eds, 1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 1-82.
15. McNally RJ (2003) Is the pseudoscience concept useful for clinical psychology? SRHMP Vol 2 Number 2 Fall/Winter

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics