User:Jim Butler/Pseudocat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note, added 2007-02-26: My comments at the bottom of this page were made prior to the recent ArbCom decision on pseudoscience, the "principles" portion of which I thought was well-reasoned. Here are some of the principles the ArbCom decided upon:

(begin quote)

Obvious pseudoscience

15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.

Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally considered pseudoscience

16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable science

17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative theoretical formulations

18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(endquote)

The existence of a significant scientific minority view (w/ prominent proponents and peer-reviewed debate) puts a topic into one (or perhaps both) of the latter two categories. A majority of scientists may consider foo not valid (or even pseudoscientific), but majority is not the same as consensus, and not sufficient for categorizing as pseudoscience.

Overall, I find the term "pseudoscience" to be of limited value, but I recognize that some editors believe it is important and useful. So, as long as we're going to keep it around, we might as well be internally consistent about it. To that end, the ArbCom ruling provides a good framework.

[edit] General comments (predating ArbCom decision discussed above)

A theme that has repeatedly come up in some articles I edit is whether it is appropriate to place them in category:pseudoscience. Pseudoscience essentially means "something misrepresented as being scientific". The definition thus depends both on what is meant by "scientific" and on whether misrepresentation is taking place, and the term remains ill-defined. Unless one explains the ways in which a particular field diverges from the scientific method, the term pseudoscience remains little more than an epithet, like "cult".

Notable critics have argued that some topics in alternative medicine have particular pseudoscientific characteristics. I often agree with such criticisms (and the ways in which alt-med topics diverge from the basic requirements of the scientific method are too numerous to list here). However, it's overreaching to assert that critics of pseudoscience who write for popular audiences (e.g., in publications like Skeptical Inquirer) necessarily represent the views of a majority of scientists. (For that, we need to follow WP:V, which says to use reliable sources that meet particular standards.) I believe that some self-identified "skeptics" err on the side of pseudoskepticism, and in their zeal to debunk have tended to throw out some "baby" along with the "bathwater".

Scientists generally comment on evidence, not on whether something is "pseudoscience". Pseudoscience is inherently a contentious term because it says that a topic's advocate is engaging (knowingly or not) in misrepresentation. Wikipedias's categorization guidelines, at WP:CG, suggest that we avoid using categories when they are contentious. Thus, for topics that are in "grey areas", i.e. that have significant scientific and pseudoscientific elements, we should be very careful about using the pseudoscience category. We can and should present signficant views about a subject, but that doesn't mean using the all-or-nothing category in every case. At the very least, a good, objective threshold for medical practices is whether editors of evidence-based medicine (EBM) reviews find evidence for their efficacy. (I've commented more on this general theme in archived talk.) Under that criterion, acupuncture and chiropractic would be excluded from category:pseudoscience. I've proposed the EBM threshold as a bare minimum, for the sake of consensus, but I question how encyclopedic it is to apply the label when scientists rarely use it in peer-reviewed journals. For example, should homeopathy be categorized as pseudoscience when a Pubmed search turns up a scant three citations of the terms "homeopathy" and "pseudoscience"? Why doesn't it suffice simply to let the facts speak for themselves, as WP:NPOV suggests?

Not only WP:CG, but NPOV itself says not to categorize too broadly: WP:NPOVT#Categorisation. The argument has been made that NPOV (being a policy) trumps WP:CG (which is a guideline), but no one can argue that NPOV trumps itself. The issue is how to apply NPOV intelligently, and I believe there are ways to improve contentious articles beyond sticking contentious labels on them. For example, there's a whole section in acupuncture devoted to criticism of TCM, including several quotes from "scientific skeptical" POV sources. There is also a section on evidence-based medicine and acupuncture. I feel it's a better use of editors' (and readers') time to focus on that level of explanation rather than all-or-nothing labelling. Thanks for listening!

[edit] Inspirational quote

From User:Gleng, this[1] is a keeper:

Like most scientists am sparing with the term "pseudoscience" because it is both offensively perjorative and irredeemably imprecise. My resource is PubMed, this vast repository of the scientific literature spanning all disciplines and many languages, in all this trove only 71 articles even use the word, of these only 11 are reviews [2], and mostly concern the historical debates about now rejected areas of science. Scientists deal with the merits of arguments, case by case; they do not categorise by prejudice, either arguments or those who make them; to call something a pseudoscience or someone a pseudoscientist are either gratuitous insults or they are serious charges, worthy of close and careful argument, of meticulous rigor and precision, to justify what might be seen as a libel.Gleng 15:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)