Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Should Pseudoscience be merged with Religion? 2 That controversial section again... 3 Title of This Entry 4 Original research tag 5 Sockpuppet discussion 6 Kenosis edits 7 Sentence on Lacatos temporarily removed 8 Freudianism and Psychoanalysis 9 Chiropractic 10 Anthroposophy 11 The definition of science 12 Citations that do not support the entry 13 Pseudoscientific fields 14 Williams (et al) as a credible source 15 Use of Fact templates 16 Paul Feyerabend 17 Alleged pseudoscientific fields 18 Cosmology as pseudoscience 19 Scientific theories once widely criticized as pseudoscience 20 references 21 Template disparity 22 General Remarks on the Categories

Should Pseudoscience be merged with Religion?

--Greasysteve13 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the subjects are very different. Religion can be mentioned in the pseudoscience article though. Especially regarding religious beliefs. Some new pseudosciences are considered to be associated with new age or new alternative religions (eg, NLP, TFT, Energy Therapies, Dianetics) Bookmain 05:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Put dont all preachers present at least some unproved material as fact?--Greasysteve13 08:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they're based on (a) different paradigms (b) one's based on faith, the other on not following rules. --Iantresman 09:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Its all faith.--Greasysteve13 09:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience can be faith-based, but it can also be based on industrial interests (as in the psuedo-science presented by the smoking industry). So, not the two articles should not by any means be merged. --Kristjan Wager 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's all a matter of consensus. This proposal needs a highly unlikely one: pseudoscience is generally seen as a negative label, while billions of people see the label "religion" as a positive one. What's more, even if you would be able to align editors (which means convincing editors writing for a religious POV that this merge is necessary), you can't ignore current use of the "pseudoscience" and "religion" categories. Information on (i.e. a tally of) current use is vital; an uninformed consensus is usually very shortlived, especially regarding a change that would impact many articles at once.

For new editors who may be wondering why this should be a matter of consensus:

• We can't answer the question by thinking about these categories (see WP:NOR). Wikipedia documents knowledge available from reputable reliable sources. The WP:NPOV policy compliance of content (including categorization) is safeguarded by means of the consensus process. We can argue about categories all we want, but in the end their use needs to conform to the NPOV policy as ensured by the consensus process.
• Categories often contain many articles, all of which will be changed somewhat if this proposal would be implemented. Existing categorization has already gone through many iterations of the information gathering and consensus processes. This has been a massive effort and its results cannot be disregarded. Before seeking consensus regarding the removing, renaming or merging of existing categories, one had better assess how they are used in practice. In this specific case I would say that categories are identical for practical WP purposes when the consensus process invariably puts articles in both. AvB ÷ talk 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe its a matter of pos or neg. One sign of pseudoscience is the use of obscurantist language, disguising itself as science, whilst trying to immunise itself against scientific testing (often under the mantra of holism). This makes it quite different from religion. Its also not really a matter of consensus. If an author states that E.G. primal scream therapy, is pseudoscientific, then it can be mentioned with proper attribution. If the same author also says it is a religion, then that seperate fact can be placed on the PST article with proper attribution. There may be some mention on the pseudoscience article, that some religions use pseudoscientific subjects according to (name, year, page number) authors. Bookmain 03:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have a problem with much of your take on this. But we can't merge two subjects on the say-so of a single author. That would require both concepts to be equal in the eyes of just about the whole world. And contrary to what you're saying, consensus always has the last word. Consensus, WP style, does not decide whether an assertion is true; it decides whether the policies have been followed (especially the main policy WP:NPOV, where consensus decides whether or not the various POVs are given due weight). The reasoning behind this is that the consensus process is a practical method to represent the various POVs out there in the world (see WP:CON). (I've learnt to live with this reality of Wikipedia, but don't like it nearly as much as I like the WP:NPOV policy.) This means that some half of the editors will oppose such a merge simply because they do not want to associate (their) religion with something seen as negative. That is a lot of editors, ready to dig up and quote pages of major POVs voiced by notable people/etc. in reliable sources. In any case, my main point is that merging these two articles would radically influence the categories of the same name and even the NPOV policy itself, causing a backlash in the form of a swift reversion. (See also what links here.) The community has already given its verdict on this merge idea; just sample the overlap between the articles in Category:Religion and Category:Pseudoscience. AvB ÷ talk 11:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In general, pseudoscience is stuff claiming to be science that isn't. Somethings can be both religion and pseudoscience, such as some forms of creationism (especially intelligent design), but they are not by any means the same thing. JoshuaZ 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So its only pseudoscience when someone has claimed it be science when it isn't? In this case religion is hardly ever been considered science because of the negative impact of the word science.--Greasysteve13 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

True enough. Some things can be in several categories. For example, Scientology can be in the science and religion categories, because it makes religious and scientific claims, and fits the bill for being a pseudoscience and a pseudoreligion.

As far as merging? Definitely not. -- Fyslee 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely No to merge. Almost completely different. Bubba73 (talk), 04:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay no merge. We've all reached the consensus that its only psuedoscience when someone has said its science when it isn't.--Greasysteve13 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In which case can I add Christian Science to the list of Fields alleged to be pseudoscientific and phenomena associated with pseudoscientific methods of study?--Greasysteve13 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"If the shoe fits....", and it does.....;-) -- Fyslee 05:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'll add it. Its just that when you edit that section it tells you to discuss it on the talk page first... and I have.--Greasysteve13 07:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this addition. Despite its name, Christian Science seems to be just a religion and not a pseudoscience. I don't see adherents trying to overthrow existing scientific theories, though they do believe in healing-through-prayer. Nonetheless, I don't see this belief as being particularly pseudoscientific. Is every faith-healer also a pseudoscientist? I'd say not.

But Christian Science is Science based on the divinity of the Bible... how can this be scientific?--Greasysteve13 10:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it really portrayed as science in the same clear way that Scientology is? That's not so clear to me. I know it has "science" in the name. I know it's refered to as "divine science". But nonetheless I don't see believers claiming that their religion is a scientific theory as such. It seems to be just a religion to me. (Citations could prove me wrong.) Phiwum 11:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Caveat: I don't know much about Christian Science, so if you can show some evidence that adherents consider it a scientific theory, then I'll withdraw my complaint. But when they call it "divine science", that seems to be a rather different sense of "science" than is relevant here. Phiwum 10:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I just joined the discussion. I know quite a lot about Christian Science (it's my religion!) Christian Scientists have little interest in overthrowing or challenging mainstream science and they're not even that interested in measuring the results of CS, just in healing sick people. I'm not sure we are that interested in being up there with evolution or relativity either, though we don't have a major problem with either. Personally speaking I've relied on CS for more than thirty years and had many healings that I attribute to it, and in that time have used no medicine (apart from some associated with dental treatment). I became interested in CS because there was no successful medical treatment for a physical problem I had (they still haven't found one). All of that is "anecdotal" of course, but I'd rather be anecdotal and well than "scientific" and sick ;-)In principle though I think you could set up a method whereby the claims of CS could be falsified a la Popper. What you would need to do would be to take a group of people who relied exclusively on Christian Science and a comparable group who used no healing method whatever. Then you could compare their respective morbidity/mortality over a set period of time. (The contrasted group could not use medical means since that would simply compare the respective efficacy of CS and medicine.) Such an experiment would be difficult but not in principle impossible, and consequently CS passes Popper's criterion of falsifiability and should therefore be removed from the Pseudosciences category, apart altogether from the fact that I am asking with a smile :-)Thanks.81.108.23.116 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear from someone in the know. What you're saying tallies with the information in the Christian Science article. Since there is no (incorrect) claim of being human/naturalist science and/or the use of the scientific method, this is not pseudoscience. Actually I removed the cat yesterday since the article itself does not quote any sources, let alone a majority view, calling CS pseudoscience. By the way, although some editors brought this up here, (further) discussion should take place on the relevant talk page. AvB ÷ talk 23:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. Just to reiterate; A subject does not have to be considered science by its adherents in order to be thought of as pseudoscientific. For the sake of this article, all that is required is a reliable view that concludes a subject is pseudoscientific. EG, Prof Smith considers David Icke's new technology of consciousness to be pseudoscientific. Bookmain 04:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Remember that a lot of quacks will concoct a whole set of comforting and easy to swallow theories, put new age neuromyths all over their literature, refer to themselves and each other as Dr. whassname, and use a multitude of obscurantisms that require a large glossary at the back of their bible. They will then state that they are not doing science, but are up to some kind of technology, spiritual development, religion, philosophy or epistemology. They do this to avoid being falsified empirically. These are all classic indications of pseudoscientific commercial developments and cults. Bookmain 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the opinion of a scientist can change the meaning of a word overwhelmingly used differently. If so, I'd like to point out that, at least in Wikipedia practice, the opinion of a single scientist, however notable, and however verifiable and reliable the source (media), does not establish fact.

About your example and rationale: although I'm sure it's not intentional, they constitute a bit of a straw man really. You argue that certain nonscientific tricks (intended to obscure) can be used as markers of pseudoscience in the absence of a scientific presentation/claim/etc. However, the latter does not apply to your example. It contains classical ingredients that together automatically denote a claim to be science. The presence of a range of scienthy terminology, titles and paraphernalia, e.g. "technology" in a definition, continuous use of the Doctor title, easy to swallow theories, the application of neuromyths - it's pseudoscience because it presents as science even though it isn't. (Although it's not (yet) in the article, when a scientific-looking set-up/theory/rip-off/etc. is denied to be science by its promoters, I tend to view such a denial as another indicator that something may be pseudoscience.) AvB ÷ talk 10:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the trick: Pseudoscience presents itself as if it were science. Not merely as if it were true, but it claims to be following scientific practices to reach truth. In general, "God told us." isn't part of the scientific playbook. Thus, even if religion is false while claiming to be true, it is not pseudoscience because it does not claim to be science. This is not to say that there are no religious pseudosciences. Some religions and religious sects like to cloak themselves in the mantle of science. They adopt scientific trappings. However, the majority of religion does not do this. That's how I draw the line. Does it purport to be "science". "True" is another matter, altogether.Dogface 04:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That controversial section again...

Look, I know that the list has seen some controversy and that the section title has been formed by long and tedious negotiations. But really: Fields alleged to be pseudoscientific and phenomena associated with pseudoscientific methods of study? That title reflects its origins: something so awkward could only be formed by committee!

Is it possible to agree on a shorter, less awkward title? Frankly, I don't mind if the title is slightly controversial and folks have to read a sentence or two to understand what the section is about. It's better than having a title longer than a haiku. (Haiku? It's approaching epic proportions!)

How about: "Fields associated with pseudoscience"? It's not quite accurate: the association is really more allegation that they are pseudoscience. Some of the list items aren't fields but objects of study and so on. Nonetheless, it's an improvement over the current clunker and we have an introductory passage clarifying the list anyway.Phiwum 06:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not that bad of a title. "associated" is not a good qualifier, because then things like quantum mechanics ans string theory would fall under such a title because they are often associated with pseudoscience via New Age "philosophy", but obviously are not pseudoscience.

The title really isn't that awkward. It is the best description of the content of the list compared to any of the past titles. --Brentt 20:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Title of This Entry

Hi again :-) I think the problem is with the term "Pseudoscience". "Pseudo" has the connotations of false. As a Christian Scientist I think that the Christian Science religion might well have problems in acceeding to contemporary requirements re scientificity in terms of prediction, falsifiability etc. (though I've suggested above how this problem might be overcome). However, that doesn't mean it's false or "pseudo". As the roots of Christian Science are in the nineteenth century (pre-Popper etc.) I don't think it's fair to attach the term "pseudoscience" to it. BTW, could someone explain to me what the criteria of falsifiability would be regarding e.g. the theory of evolution? How well--in practice--would a graduate student fare in one of the mainstream universities if he/she wanted to set up an experiment as part of their thesis project, whereby the theory of evolution might be falsified? (I should state here that Christian Scientists are not biblical literalists and personally I don't have any problem with neo-Darwinism--in fact it's fair to say that the fundamentalists dislike Christian Science probably as much as they do the theory of evolution!)81.108.23.116 08:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Such an experiment will always be welcomed if something new and interesting may be gleaned from it. However, so far no one has falsified the basic tenets of the evolution theory. Although evolution has its controversies, the evidence for it is overwhelming, with a probability approaching 100% which is good enough for the vast majority of scientists. AvB ÷ talk 11:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi 81.108.23.116 and thanks for your input. We really have no need to go into deep philosophical debate over the nature of science or pseudoscience. If a view is notable and reliable, then it can be included. Our goal here is not necessarily to keep everyone happy (though its a nice utopian ideal), but the goal is to present information on what pseudoscience is, and what certain notable views are on which subjects have been considered pseudoscientific. I understand that people may object to their interests being associated with pseudoscience, but Wikipedia guidelines do state that objectionable subjects should be tackled. This is all very easy as long as you are willing to be an editor, rather than an interested party in the particular subject you are trying to edit. Bookmain 09:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a view can be included - if relevant, not original research, correctly sourced from reliable, non-partisan publications, etc.; (we do not require a view to be reliable, just that it's reported in reliable, verifiable sources).

But please note that even if a view is included in a Wikipedia article, it can't be called a fact unless there's broad consensus in the real world. A significant change of the generally accepted definition of a phenomenon like pseudoscience can't be changed in Wikipedia unless the definition has, indeed, been changed by a significant proportion of those who use the word. One scientist's opinion is not sufficient to declare something to be pseudoscience.

Also, I would at this point like to ask you to not suggest that other editors who have a personal POV somehow are not willing to be an editor without actually saying whom you mean and where they are pushing their POV. AvB ÷ talk 10:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The principle of falsifiability no longer has the same importance in philosophy of science that it once had, so your question about evolution is not so fundamental to its scientific status. I'm sure others on the group could quote the appropriate arguments from Quine better than I could. Aside from that quibble, I agree that calling Christian Science "pseudoscience" is odd at best. It seems a plain old religion, not a pseudoscience. I still have not seen any good justification for its inclusion on the list. Phiwum 09:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I see that someone has added a reference justifying the inclusion of Christian Science. I haven't seen that reference, so I withdraw my complaint until I read it. Phiwum 09:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the reference? I must be overlooking it. AvB ÷ talk

I see you are no longer talking about the original question (inclusion of CS in Wikipedia's Pseudoscience category, which I reverted two days ago). This is about its inclusion in the disputed list of "alleged" pseudoscience in this article, which is something else altogether. Looking into it now. BTW, this does not negate my points in this section regarding the application of policy, civility, etc. AvB ÷ talk 11:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Me again. Well, I guess I can live with Christian Science being included as a pseudoscience given that someone, somewhere, has published something stating that it is! I have a broader problem, though. It would be fairly easy to find some published resource, either hard-copy or on-line, denoting e.g. neo-Darwinism as a pseudoscience. But if someone were to add neo-Darwinism to the list of pseudo-sciences, the entry would probably last about three nano-seconds. Consequently, how does one differentiate between "acceptable" references and non-acceptable ones? What gets left on and what gets removed seems to have a lot to do with how many people have the time and interest to edit material on the relevant entries. Isn't this a game of power rather than truth?81.108.23.116 10:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good point. Fortunately, it has been made before. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy explains how editors handle such situations. Declaring for a fact, based on flimsy sources, that CS is a pseudoscience would not last all that long either. AvB ÷ talk 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to post the definition under which items are included in The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (in general, and for CS if another definition is used there)? The article states: The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which critics such as Robert Carroll, author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, and William F. Williams, editor of The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another. This is broader than the definition of pseudoscience in the lead of the article in that it seems to include items that are not portrayed as or claimed to be science. Perhaps Bookmain... you seem to have a copy of The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience? Thanks in advance. AvB ÷ talk 12:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

PS If this book calls CS pseudoscience, I think we would also need to know what has informed this qualification (e.g. editor's opinion, author's opinion, journal article). AvB ÷ talk 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. Well, the book (encyc of pseudoscience) is edited by Williams, and there are about 20 contributors all of whom are experts and professors. So its a well supported source. Clearly in the book the CS is explained in terms of mind over matter, and this is a common pseudoscientific subject. I say this in the most neutral terms. Take another look on the article. There are many older pseudoscientific healing subjects such as vedic science, which are clearly pseudoscientific, but can be very easily seen by the reader as different from the other new age quick fix pseudosciences such as Scientology and NLP. I'm sure most readers will understand that the older religions are full of old pseudoscientific healing notions, and its quite acceptable as a historical fact. If there are some criticisms over the dangers (avoidance of conventional medicine) then again, that is a view. But certainly, I wouldn't read CS as a dubious quick fix, characteristic of new age pseudosciences. Experts classify it as pseudoscience because its theory and tennets have been tested and falsified. If its your religion all the best to you, belief counts for something and I'm sure most other readers would think the same. CS may use ideas that are incompatible with the scientific method, but it certainly doesn't present itself as a money-grabbing scam or hazardous cult like many other pseudos today. The average reader will understand that. I've a friend who follows "the healing path of Druidry". I find it funny, though perhaps I shouldn't laugh. He knows it is pseudoscience, but he still says he benefits from it. People have the choice, and the reader will make up their own minds on this article. Bookmain 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Actually Christian Science is not mind over matter, but Mind (God) over (the belief in) matter. But let that pass. I have never heard of the theory and tenets of CS being falsified, though I have heard of the argument that they cannot be falsified (therefore, the argument goes, CS is not science). So either they've been falsified or they cannot be falsified: the two arguments are logically incompatible. I'm going to be a bit ironic now ;-) but it would appear that I've been hallucinating for the last thirty years because I've certainly had numerous physical healings following CS treatment that would be difficult (though not impossible) to ascribe to chance, natural remission or whatever. I've also saved both myself and the taxpayer an awful lot of money on medical treatment that I didn't have to have! (I know, I know, it's anecdotal, like stones falling from the sky...) I don't have a problem with my religion being accused of failing to conform to the rigorous standards of proof required in principle of mainstream contemporary science, but I do have a problem with its being labelled "pseudo". A person who for whatever reason was unable to prove his/her legal existence would, I am sure, object to being called a "pseudo-human". Christian Science developed long before Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend or Quine and consequently it is not fair, I think, to desigate it as being being "pseudo." I can't speak for any of the other "pseudo-sciences" listed but if CS stays in the list, I for one would be happier if an alternative title could be chosen for this entry, one which is descriptively correct but doesn't have pejorative connotations like "pseudoscience".Thanks.81.108.23.116 09:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bookmain for the information about the book. It sounds like an interesting resource and a welcome addition to my bookshelf (so I'm buying myself a copy). But for now, would you say that the book classes CS under pseudoscience using the definition given in this WP article, or a broader def? Perhaps if a broader definition is being used by a significant minority it should be included in the article.

BTW, I'd like to ask you not to mention guesses regarding my possible POV in cases where I have chosen not to divulge that information. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 10:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi AvB. Well they use a pretty standard definition. I did say "If it is your religion". That applies to every editor and reader here. I have noticed a lot of articles where believers seem so effected by criticism that their entire time is devoted to advocating its removal (censorship or whitewash). And I've noticed that some of those believers are able to accept it, and they reasonably move on. I prefer to encourage the constructive behaviour of the latter. I've noticed how easy it is to remove facts on Wikipedia, and how fast they come back fortified after a little research. Pressure to remove verifiable fact tends also to result in all sorts of other cans of worms being opened and presented on the article. And as a result, they all seem to be presented very fairly and indelibly. Bookmain 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Well it seems I'm in a kind of double bind--if I remove the reference to Christian Science it would probably be called censorship and if I ask for it to be removed, or the heading changed, that's censorship or whitewash :-/ BTW I have no objection to "verifiable facts" being published in Wikipedia or anywhere else. In fact I would even outline how one could set up a research project to test the healing claims of Christian Science (or any other non-conventional healing system, call it system X). What you do is you take a group of people who have used system X exclusively for a defined period of time, and you compare their morbidity / mortality against that of a comparable group who have used no system whatsoever for the same period of time, bearing in mind--and controlling for--the fact that adherents of system X probably include a significant number of people who either had at one time problems that could not be healed by conventional medicine, or have immediate ancestors in that category. I am not aware of any research that employs that degree of rigour. Research that claims to "disprove" the claims of Christian Science shows only--at best--that its track record does not equal that of conventional medicine. (In other words, the negative conclusion is relative not absolute.) Anyway I'm now going to "reasonably move on" and I wish everyone the very best!81.108.23.116 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bookmain, given that the definition matches the one applied in the article I agree that CS belongs in the list.

81.108.23.116, this is so not because CS is truly pseudoscience, but because a reliable, verifiable, peer-reviewed source says it is. If this is difficult for you to accept, it may help if you (re)read Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Bookmain, I certainly hope you are not suggesting that my entire time is devoted to advocating censorship or whitewashing. What I'm trying to explain to you is one of the things I myself have noticed on Wikipedia: in general, suggestions that other editors are nothing more than POV warriors, however slight, can poison the atmosphere pretty quickly. For that reason it is generally frowned upon and may even in some cases be a personal attack. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that Bookmain is a sock puppet of HeadleyDown and has been blocked indefinitely. See User:Bookmain. AvB ÷ talk 02:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research tag

Vast swaths of this article remain uncited, e.g. the list in "identifying pseudoscience", and the section discussing protoscience appears to have veered into OR. Also, the definition of pseudoscience given in the lead section goes beyond at least one of the sources: it says the term applies not just to ideas but to practices. The OED citation says "Pseudoscientific - pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific". Robert Todd Carroll's definition (IMO a succinct and good one) says "A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific." Carroll's discussion refers entirely to theories and not practices. I think the article (and the lead) should be clear (including in the lead) that there are at least two senses of the term: one referring to theories, and another to theories a/o practices. The distinction isn't trivial; cf acupuncture practice vs. TCM theory. thx, Jim Butler 07:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a curates egg Jim. I agree with some of what you say but not all. 1. I'm happy to delete the whole protoscience section as OR. 2. Your quote of the OED (2nd ed, update to 1997, republished 2002) is not complete. Here it is for ref:

A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have.

Since science is also a set of practices I can't agree with you that the same doesn't apply to PS. So I'm reasonably happy with the lead. 3. On the ID section, yes it needs a rewrite, but as you know, we don't have to source everything. Reasonable inferences and logical conclusions can legitimately be made. Personally, I'd like to include something about belief systems and their brain physiology. It's fascinating to watch believers convince themselves. I'm reminded for example of the case of the guy with the brain lesion who was convinced his mother was an imposter. Mccready 09:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin - never heard the expression "Curate's Egg" before -- learn something new every day. (1) Protoscience section is probably salvageable with fact-tagging. (2) Thanks for OED; I was going by the shorter def of the adjective given in the footnotes. Having slept on it, I think you're right re acts as well as ideas falling plausibly within the def. My old copy of Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines pseudoscience as "a system of theories, assumptions and methods erroneously regarded as scientific". Close enough. On (3), please see my comments below to Kenosis.

In general, we're going to continue to have disagreement if you continue to insist on categorizing things as PS without references. If the basic definition of PS is "something misrepresented as science", then whether something is PS hinges on both mispresentation and on science: i.e., the nature (and degree) of misrepresentation, and the demarcation problem, including the nature of acceptable evidence. Even EBM folks disagree on evidence, and docs differ on applying it in practice -- it is POV and OR to label all non-EBM practice PS, and you're just gonna have to reference use of the label. Wouldn't that be easier than venturing into edit war land and having to keep asking third parties? Some things like "creation science" are obviously pseudoscientific, but labelling trigger points as PS is I think pretty debatable. For most alt-med stuff that you want to call PS, I think it's pretty clear that NPOV requires citing sources.

BTW, On psychobiology, agree, fascinating stuff, but Brentt is right below -- probably would be OR to cover without a citation. thx, Jim Butler 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is more than one "guy", its called Capgras syndrome (if you think thats wierd, check out the related Fregoli syndrome). Unfortunately I don't think there has been such studies specifically related to "pseudoscientific" beliefs, nor could there be without a more rigourous definition of such beliefs. Brentt 19:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Which specific assertions in the sections on "Pseudoscience contrasted with protoscience" and "Identifying pseudoscience" are under dispute here? Thus far I see only a complaint that theories and practices are not distinguished in the article. In fact, both "theory" and "practice" fit under the offered definitions of pseudoscience, specifically (1) claiming scientific basis, and (2) not having followed accepted methodology of science. This, give or take a few words, is what is already offered to the reader in both the introduction and the section on identifying pseudoscience. Both the intro and the first paragraph of the section on Identifying pseudoscience involved lengthy discussions and consensus of at least a dozen editors... Kenosis 18:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kenosis - great work on the article! Agree on the OR tag applying just to the sections you mentioned, and after sleeping on it I agree that practice falls within the definition as well as theory (see comments above to Mccready). To answer your question, the entire list of criteria under "identifying pseudoscience" appears unverified or OR. Some of the criteria are based on well-accepted demarcations of science, and some are related to logical fallacies that any bullshitter could use. Pretty much the whole protoscience section looks ORish. Don't get me wrong, it's good stuff but needs citation; otherwise probably better on the talk page. Lots of notable folks have commented on these issues and I'd rather cite them than compile our own OR syntheses of ideas and lists of supposed criteria. More to follow within a few hours: just got kicked off computer by spouse. cheers, Jim Butler 23:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for fact-tagging that list, Kenosis. Jim Butler 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite welcome. I trust in due course it'll get filled in one or two reasonable citations at a time, and we can further proceed to remove any remaining chaff. ... Kenosis 06:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. You're probably already familiar with the content of the External Links section; browsing them, I noticed some lists of characteristics given in Simanek's What Is Pseudoscience? (currently second from the bottom) as well as in Carroll's SkepDic entry. I reworded the second para of the ID section; I hope you'll agree that the examples listed are useful but not definitive. The first paragraph's discussion of documentation is good, but seems incomplete given the discussion of other issues (intersubjective verifiability, falsifiability) in the introduction. The introductory section of the article, however, is really good! I think a little tweaking can bring the ID and protoscience sections up to speed. As always, sleeping on this will help. Thanks for being so on the ball. cheers, Jim Butler 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I believe the protoscience section is inappropriate on this article. In fact, it looks to be too much like a stillborn attempt at an excuse for pseudoscientists unwillingness to test their inflated assertions. It may be helpful if the OR is tagged somehow, wherever you find it. Overall, the article needs more solid citations, and I will work on providing some more. Any reliable view that states what they think pseudoscience is can be quoted. I have some information by Devilly (2005) on power therapies (NLP, TFT, Energy therapies) that gives some excellent information on how modern pseudoscientists set up their followings. Also, Lilienfeld (2003) offers a set of characteristics of pseudoscientific subjects especially within psychotherapy. This may turn out to be a list, and I'm sure there will be overlap. But as long as we are organized about it, it should improve the article. I will provide the information soon. Oh, there is also a good line by Beyerstein (1991), who states that one of the biggest disservices of pseudos is the spread of mind myths and other misconceptions throughout society. Bookmain 05:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet discussion

Bookmain is a sock puppet of HeadleyDown and has been blocked indefinitely. See User:Bookmain. AvB ÷ talk 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bookmain and Headley Down are both members of the Hong Kong University Skeptic Society. So am I. No doubt some Wikipedians (the pseudoscience promoters) will be bent on banning the whole of Hong Kong and China for presenting any facts that just happen to be against American home grown bullshit. Just to prove my good faith, I will not advocate any changes to the article here. I'll just present solid verifiable fact. SciSkepticisMa 09:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting - so you're saying this is not sock puppetry. Will you and/or the other user(s) contend the "verdict"? FWIW, and I'm aware this is not the place to discuss the matter, I do not know Bookmain or any alter egos other than from the brief discussion re the 'alleged pseudoscience list', but in my opinion Bookmain's contributions towards building an encyclopedia here were solidly in line with Wikipedia policy and practice. I am not particularly fond though of the recurrent references to other people's POV, but it looked like newbie-ish behavior in an otherwise remarkable experienced newbie, not anywhere near actually being disruptive. The verdict that Bookmain is a sock puppet of a veteran editor certainly rings true to me. I see this user is now permabanned. A pity since s/he has everything one needs to be a good Wikipedian. Especially if there are now two such editors with a permaban.

As to pseudoscience promoters, I believe Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, if not intentionally biased in favor of knowledge/information gained by scientists using the scientific method, is certainly strong enough to prevent it from becoming a platform for fringe views. Or, indeed, any views. Wikipedia aims to present any view fairly, including notable/etc. criticisms leveled at it, so that readers are fully informed and can reach their own conclusions (which may well be very different from yours and mine). AvB ÷ talk 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I happen to notice that the arrival of new user SciSkepticisMa coincides nicely with the blocking of HeadleyDown and the previous sockpuppet Bookmain. I would hate to be too skeptical about this coincidence, especially after the allegation that blocking a user and derivative sockpuppet(s) amounts to a cultural or national bias. ... Kenosis 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think some skepticism is allowed when dealing with skeptics. AvB ÷ talk 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well sure guy, its a crock. Skeptics only use the facts and science. Social pressure is something a fanatic uses (and scientology like vexatious litigation in the NLP case). And you say fringe is not promoted, well look at the article now. There's no science voice in the group any more (after the arbitrators' cockup), so fringe is promoted above science (and US above China). It'll only change if you put your knowledge where your mouth is. Enough bagua, here are some facts:

Devilly describes NLP and Power Therapies as pseudoscience and a threat to psychotherapy and consumers alike.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Volume 39 Issue 6 Page 437 - June 2005 Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Grant J. Devilly

Page 440 (on how pseudosciences (such as NLP) are promoted).

1 Create a phantom An unavailable goal that looks real and possible; it looks as if it might be obtained with just the right effort, just the right belief, eg, "excellence".

2. Set a Rationalization Trap

The rationalization trap is based on the premise: Get the person committed to the cause as soon as possible. Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. They seek confirmation of efficacy.

3. Manufacture Source Credibility and Sincerity

The third tactic is to manufacture source credibility and sincerity. In other words, create a guru, leader, mystic, lord, or other generally likable and powerful authority (psychological authority)

4. Establish a Granfalloon Establish what Kurt Vonnegut terms a "granfalloon," a proud and meaningless association of human beings Using in house jargon and beliefs, shared goals, shared feelings, specialized information, enemies (e.g., alternative medicine opposing the AMA and the FDA).

5 Frequently Use Heuristics and Commonplaces

Use heuristics and commonplaces. Heuristics are simple if-then rules or norms that are widely accepted; for example, if it costs more it must be more valuable.

If you like, I can put them in straight quotes. No BS, just facts. Or you could just forget about facts and boot me for being a collectivist chink. SciSkepticisMa 00:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This was actually interesting. I'll keep Pseudoscience and NLP on my watch list for a while. May the Force be with you. ;-) AvB ÷ talk 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries AvB. You're not gonna see me on the NLP article, or even here any more. HeadleyDown explained that Woohookitty is fine at clarity and NPOV. I reckon thats right. No need for skeptics. Bye SciSkepticisMa 03:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty is indeed. But you're wrong about the need for skeptics. Perhaps I'm one. I still think we'll meet again... some sunny day etc. AvB ÷ talk 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis edits

Kenosis, your edits on the psuedoscience page are unacceptable. Your edit summary Revert factually incorrect POV pushing. To say the boundaries of science are disputed is incorrect without the statement about the "precise" boundaries, is also incorrect in logical terms. Removal of the qualifer "precise" does not achieve what you claim. You then edited the page MORE THAN TWENTY TIMES!!! I gave up counting. This is going way beyond what is acceptable, in my view. If other editors feel the same perhaps they could say so. Please take this in good faith, I am only trying to explain to you that your behaviour makes it much harder to work together to create an excellent article which I assume we both desire. You may also like to check my Editing principles for pseudoscience articles. I'm always keen to talk and try to reach consensus. Mccready 12:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't seem like Kenosis's edits were over the top. Since Kenosis didn't rearrange the order of paragraphs in the article, once can readily see the diffs between your previous edit and Kenosis's string of edits easily compared. Your most recent ones look OK to me although some might question "broad agreement exists on the basics ..." vs. "broad agreement exists on certain basics..." thx, Jim Butler 14:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And we're not finished editing either. All but three of these edits were in direct response to Jim Butler's demands for citation. Judging by the comments posted since I added these latest citations, Jim Butler is of a different opinion about the issue, as may be the case with other involved editors. There were roughly a dozen editors involved in the article when we arrived at the current language for that sentence (about the "precise boundaries" of scientific method being less than settled, and about wide agreement on certain core principles). Moreover, there is now one solid citation for this statement, with more to come in the near future. Having said that, there may be other ways of expressing the fact that there are core agreements about scientific method (among knowledgeable practitioners at least) with marginal disputes around various edges. Among other things involved here, there are actually four or five separate schools of how to define the edges, including that of Popper, Kuhn, Lacatos, and Thagard. Perhaps this should be summarized, but I think the "main" articles, Scientific method, Philosophy of science and Demarcation problem are the appropriate places for such detailed treatment. The sentence as it stands is correct. The sentence which attempted to say that the boundaries are disputed is misleading without qualification that there is wide agreement and consensus on the core principles of scientific method...Kenosis 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the "POV pushing" comment, perhaps an apology is in order, and is hereby proffered. There are numerous editors (usually "just passing through", so to speak) who read or hear about Feyerabend's sociological perspective on science, and come to believe mistakenly that there are no boundaries or widely disputed boundaries involved in scientific method. Fact is, if one diagrams the consensus and the areas of dispute on scientific method it tends to look rather like a sunflower, with a core and a bunch of separate petals. Add or remove a few petals and it still looks like a sunflower...Kenosis 16:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sentence on Lacatos temporarily removed

I've removed this sentence (from the "Introduction" section, where it was the last sentence of the paragraph introducing Popper and falsifiability) and am temporarily placing it here so it can be reworked, analyzed and re-integrated more effectively...Kenosis 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"These include the historiographical approach of Imre Lakatos in his Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes."17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lacatos has something important to contribute to this article, but the sentence as it currently reads does not tell the reader anything meaningful. I suspect the editor who originally placed it meant to say something like "In addition to Popper, other approaches to defining the bounds of science include that of Lacatos" or something to this general effect. To Lacatos we might perhaps also add other important commentators such as Kuhn and Thagard. ...Kenosis 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Freudianism and Psychoanalysis

Should we list psychoanalysis as a possible pseudoscience? This idea is more and more popular among skeptical thinkers (http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html) and scientists. One review of Frank Cioffi's book summarizes: "Freudian theory is pseudoscientific, Cioffi claims, because whatever occurs is taken to be confirming evidence. If, say, a patient is told that certain behavior manifests his Oedipus complex, he may respond by accepting the interpretation. If so, his agreement is taken as confirmatory. But if the patient rejects the theory, that also counts as evidence for its truth. Here the patient's resistance shows Freud's view correct." Cioffi, F. (1998). Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Open Court Publishing Company. ISBN 081269385X Dragice 03:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources appear to mostly be about Freudianism rather than all psychoanalysis. This seems to be a bit of a messy subject. All of the articles currently on the list are definately pseudosciences, so I would be wary to add something that that is a grey area. Jefffire 11:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. As for the "messy" problem, I think most pseudosciences listed here are messy subjects because you will always find deep believers. My opinion is, the fact that a pseudoscience has more numerous and perhaps stronger proponents is not a reason for not listing it here, on the contrary. I propose focusing on the two mere questions: "is freudianism a pseudoscience?" and "are all psychoanalysis schools pseudosciences?". Popper himself thought that psychoanalysis does not meet the falsification criterion. To my knowledge, the only decent analysis that refutes this idea is (Grünbaum, 1979) but has been in turn refuted by (Cioffi, 1998). I also notice that (Williams, 2000) is used as a canonical reference here because almost each line in the list of pseudosciences cite him. Now, psychoanalysis (not Freudianism) is listed by Williams [1]. You fill find plenty of additional arguments on this webpage. Dragice 21:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Grünbaum, Adolf (1979), Is Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory Pseudo-Scientific by Karl Popper's Criterion of Demarcation?, "American Philosophical Quarterly", 16, Ap 79, s.131-141.

Erratum. Apparently it was not The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience by Williams but The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience edited by Shermer. Sorry for the mistake. Dragice

There is probably a very valid case to make although these subjects are probably in a lower league of kookyness than the rest on the list which is my primary concern. Exceptionally robust sources would be required to add these I think. Jefffire 10:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call, Jeff. I have read that Freud's most whacko theories have been dumped by psychoanalysts. But I think this group should stay open to including it (as you say, with stronger evidence). On the other hand, the ones there right now should stay as there is good support (eg chiropractor). Overgrad 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the psychoanalysis case requires careful examination before being included here. But I want to make it clear that the argument of lack of evidence and using chiropratic as a comparison is not valid. Because if what you call "good support" is Carroll's Skeptic's Dictionary, I recall that Carroll also explicitly classifies psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html. Again, this highlights the issue of canonical references: if Carroll is canonical, then there is no reason why we should not include psychoanalysis here. Now, I agree with you on the basis that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Because for some reason people find the idea of mentioning psychoanalysis here funny and absurd, we should provide more references and perhaps be more specific. Let me think about it.

More to the same point, Carroll doesn't even call Chiropractic a pseudoscience. Read the page that is referenced about chiropractic. In fact, he says that there is a growing body of scientific evidence that chiropractic is effective in the treatment of many lower back ailments and neck injuries and that there is some evidence that chiropractic is effective for the treatment of certain kinds of headaches and other pains. I guess the question is: Is Carroll canonical? Levine2112 23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is definitively a pseudoscience. Has anyone of you read Jeffrey Masson’s Final analysis? [2]. —Cesar Tort 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Show us good support that Chiropractic is a pseudoscience. The practice of chiropractic is based on sound scientific principles. The existence of the nervous system as the primary control mechanism of the body is an undisputed scientific fact. Its relationship with the spine is the focus of the practice of chiropractic. The spine develops in utero to provide two primary functions: (1) allow for freedom of movement and (2) house and protect the spinal cord. When the vertebrae of the spine become misaligned through trauma or repetitive injury, two major consequences will result: (1) the range of motion becomes limited and (2) spinal nerves emerging from the spinal cord are compromised. DCs use the term "subluxation" to describe such disruptions. Interruption of nerve flow can eventually lead to pain, disability, and an overall decrease in the quality of life. Conversely, the removal of that interference has been shown to have significant, lasting health benefits. Through the adjustment of the subluxation, the doctor of chiropractic endeavors to restore normal nerve expression. The body is then able to respond appropriately to any imbalance in the system, thus relieving symptoms and restoring health. Levine2112 03:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The list states that chiropractic has been alleged to be a pseudoscience. The citation given proves this is correct (I assume, since I haven't read it). I see no controversy at all. I will revert. Phiwum 09:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is probably enough evidence to classify chiropractic as a pseudoscience, but I was personally apprehensive about adding it since, unlike the others on the list, there is a chance (however slim) that parts of it do work. Whilst I must stress that there is a distinction between invalid and pseudoscience (meaning that I consider this to be a pseudoscience but one that could have some validity to it) I felt that the addition muddied the water a bit. Basicaly I'm in two minds about it so I'm very open to persuasion one way or anouther. Jefffire 11:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is tough. According to the into to this section, it is clear that this list is POV (which is completely fine as far as Wikipedia goes). I cannot argue that there are people who consider Chiropractic to be a pseudoscience. I don't want to be like everyone else who comes to this discussion page and simply say that this opinion about my pet-science is based on ignorance. I would like everyone to recognize however, that chiropractic - though just over 100 years old - has been the victim of healthcare sabotage. Wilk vs the American Medical Association showed that the American Medical Association engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession by surpressing chiropractic research and denying their members to refer patients to chiropractors. If chiropractic is just pseudoscience, then what was the AMA afraid of? The AMA appealed this decision as recently as 1993. Bearing this large-scale conspiracy against chiropractic in mind (which the judge declared was more about eliminating economic competition rather than protecting patient safety), I would like to present some scientific research that shows the efficacy of chiropractic with certain conditions. In a study comparing the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment versus amitriptyline (a drug common for migraine headache treatment), the evidence showed spinal manipulation seemed to be as effective as a well-established and efficacious treatment (amitriptyline), and on the basis of a benign side effects profile, spinal manipulation should be considered a treatment option for patients with frequent migraine headaches. In the treatment of vertigo, researches concluded that chiropractic treatment is mandatory for the therapy of patients with vestibular affections and functional disorders of the craniovertebral joints. A study on whiplash lead researchers to say: Our results confirm the efficacy of chiropractic, with 69 of our 93 patients (74%) improving following treatment. A study on the effects of chiropractic on infantile colic lead its researchers to conclude: Spinal manipulation is effective in relieving infantile colic. This is only but a tiny portion of the scientific research that is out there supporting chiropractic. To learn more and to view hundreds upon hundreds of studies that are out there in support of the science of chiropractic, here are some good resources: [3] and [4]. Now then, if you want to keep Chiropractic in this list of Pseudosciences because some people consider it to be so, well you have a point. But if you think for one second that this opinion has not been partly shaped by a long-time, on-going conspiracy against chiropractic, then you are gravely mistaken. The research surpression and anti-chiropractic agenda rages on still. And though it is not coming directly from the AMA and big Pharma, there are links drawing back to these extremely powerful lobby groups. Please recognize that the intro paragraph of this section also states: Additional fields where research results are simply ambiguous or inadequate may be found on the Prescientific systems page and note that Chiropractic can be found on that page as well. I know that our job at Wikipedia is not to draw conclusions based on evidence, but merely to post documentable information. I am not here to convince you that chiropractic works. That would be soapboxing. I am only showing that there is a lot of documentable research pointing to and confirming the very scientific nature of chiropractic. Levine2112 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, I want to note that the citation given with Chiropractic on the alleged pseudoscience list does not in fact call chiropractic a pseudoscience. (Though I am sure, if someone looked hard enough, they could find a reference that does). However, this current reference has this to say:

For years chiropractors relied more on faith than on empirical evidence in the form of control studies to back up their claims about the wonders of nerve manipulation. This is changing and to some extent so is the relationship between the medical profession and chiropractic. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that chiropractic is effective in the treatment of many lower back ailments and neck injuries. There is some evidence that chiropractic is effective for the treatment of certain kinds of headaches and other pains. The chiropractor is one of the few alternative health practitioners that medical insurance will generally cover.

Let me remind you, that the above is from the Skeptic's Dictionary. So it seems that even the skeptics are conceding that chiropractic is backed by a growing body of scientific evidence. Levine2112 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to be extremely careful when using the term scientific. I suggest you refer to the Wikipedia articles on Chiropractic, Scientific Method and, indeed, the definition of pseudoscience itself at the beginning of the article:

Point 1: Chiropractors claim that there is a scientific basis to their practice and methodology.

Point 2: Chiropractic is unscientific because the so-called theory of "vertebral subluxation" that underpins chiropractic has never been adequately or consistently defined in scientific terms by practitioners themselves. The theory therefore cannot be scientifically tested and is not capable of falsification, thereby failing the accepted test of whether a hypothesis is scientific. This is THE distinguishing feature between chiropractic and mainstream medical science.

It does not logically follow that, because certain practices of chiropractors are perceived by some practioners and patients as being effective in the treatment of some ailments in some circumstances, chiropractic itself is scientific. The article on chiropractic contains numerous references to articles that refute chiropractic's claims as to efficacy and safety. Note that the judge in the oft-referred Wilk case explicitly stated that no well designed, controlled, scientific study in relation to chiropractic had been done and refused to provide an opinion in this regard based on anecdote. And the anti-competitive practices undertaken by the AMA have no consequence as to the objective test of whether chiropractic is or is not scientific.

It follows that chiropractic must be defined as a pseudoscience, and accordingly I am putting it back in the list, or else we need to think very carefully about what it is we mean by pseudoscience. This issue is much, much more than one of semantics and goes far beyong the issue of pseudoscience. Ill-informed opinion with no scientific basis is clouding the substance of debates ranging across childhood vaccination, global warming, nuclear power and genetically modified foods. We run a high risk of a massive misallocation of resources as a result of this phenomenon, at substantial cost to us all. --Dorado 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the link provided as a source for chiropractic's inclusion as a pseudoscience. The article does say that chiropractic practitioners use a variety of "pseudoscientific diagnostic techniques", but does not intimate that the whole of chiropracty is pseudoscientific; on the contrary, the conclusion of the article encourages people to ensure that their chiropractor is a competent one (implying that such a thing is possible, which means it's not a pseudoscience). I think there is a good case for dropping this from the list.

I have also just read Dorado's comments above (after writing the above paragraph). Dorado, one of the main things we need to focus on in this tendentious article is that we are not deciding on the pseudoscientific nature of these areas. We are only deciding if there is a verifiable source for including them, and trying to walk an egg-walk with terminology due to NPOV issues. Your arguments, however excellent in themselves, belong in a different kind of discussion. It is not our job to ensure that health care rates remain low! Hgilbert 05:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Prof Beyerstein believes Chiropractic is pseudoscientific. I will search for the other refs. I have come across many such views in my research. Savoylettuce 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So have I, Savoylettuce - plenty of them. However, this is about more than who can find references to support chiropractic's inclusion in or exclusion from the list. My statements in relation to the scientific basis of chiropractic are statements of fact, and do not consitute opinion (or original research, for that matter). Under the accepted tenets of science and the scientific method, chiropractic is objectively NOT science. Given that chiropractors claim otherwise, chiropractic is prima facie a pseudoscience. Accordingly, we must be sceptical of claims to the contrary, whether or not these claims are supported by references to the results of studies that may or may not themselves be unscientific.

More broadly, Wikipedia articles that purport to address scientific subjects must be based on foundations of logical integrity. If all one needs is to find a reference supporting a position no matter how illogical or irrational, then we might as well not bother with scientific articles at all.

Finally, in relation to your comment as regards competent practitioners, this is a very important point, so I'm going to try to say it a different way. Whether chiropractic techniques are sometimes seen to work or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether they are based in science. They may be functioning as placebos, for example, or even via some type of pathological mechanism. But if these mechanisms cannot be objectively tested, the practice does not constitute science. This will remain true until chiropractors define their field in scientifically falsifiable terms. The ball is in their court. --Dorado 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dorado. I believe you have pointed out some holes in this and other articles. Your points about chiropractic strike a certain chord. I will take a look on that article. In subjects of pseudoscience, clarity is key. I have noticed that some parts of Wikipedia NPOV policy have not been adhered to

• Criticisms can be stated (that is mostly done)
• Reasoning behind criticisms should be stated (often left out)

I believe this article needs more reasoning behind why something is considered pseudo. Your point on placebo is a case in point. Some pseudoscientists actually say their methods work BECAUSE of placebo. This is unreasonable. In science, placebo is noise to be filtered out. It shows non-efficacy.

Also, as pseudoscientists are here to generally confuse the public, it is important to state how pseudoscientists go about their business. I noticed that there were some refs posted here before that went into detail over this. I will follow up on them.

Anyway, I see on some pseudoscientific articles, that some believers place lots of "reasoning" for their pseudoscience. A lot of the actual scientific reasoning is left out though. So I see that more clarity is called for in all pseudoscientific subjects. This is an encyclopedia, and science does take priority over pseudoscience. Reasoning is key, as confusion is often a problem concrete examples are helpful. Thanks Savoylettuce 07:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User Dorado has not cited anything to back up his opinion here. If this is just about finding a person who thinks a discipline is pseudoscience and then adding it to our list, then I have a lot of things to add to this list including vaccination and medicine. Now, I have provided so many links above showing just how rooted chiropractic is in science and how, despite the AMA attempts to cover up the research, chiropractic is now finally taking its place as a completely legitimate scientific endeavor. Levine2112 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Levine. Chiropractic is notable pseudoscience. Readers will want to know why it is a pseudoscience. They can see from Beyerstein that it is very pseudoscientific. It is clear also in the chiropractic article that it is pseudoscience. Hylas Chung 04:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

References as to the efficacy and safety of chiropractic treatment

"For patients with low back pain, the McKenzie method of physical therapy and chiropractic manipulation had similar effects and costs, and patients receiving these treatments had only marginally better outcomes than those receiving the minimal intervention of an educational booklet. Whether the limited benefits of these treatments are worth the additional costs is open to question." New England Journal of Medicine 1998[5]

• Results After adjustment for base-line differences, the chiropractic group had less severe symptoms than the booklet group at four weeks... From study referenced above.
• For the treatment of low back and neck pain, the inclusion of a chiropractic benefit resulted in a reduction in the rates of surgery, advanced imaging, inpatient care, and plain-film radiographs. This effect was greater on a per-episode basis than on a per-patient basis. [6]Levine2112 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"In children with mild or moderate asthma, the addition of chiropractic spinal manipulation to usual medical care provided no benefit." New England Journal of Medicine 1998 [7]

• After 3 months of combining chiropractic SMT with optimal medical management for pediatric asthma, the children rated their quality of life substantially higher and their asthma severity substantially lower. These improvements were maintained at the 1-year follow-up assessment. There were no important changes in lung function or hyperresponsiveness at any time. The observed improvements are unlikely as a result of the specific effects of chiropractic SMT alone...[8]
• All three cases resulted in increased subjective and objective parameters and suggest the need for larger studies with appropriate methodology.[9]
• Patients afflicted with asthma may benefit from spinal manipulation in terms of symptoms, immunological capacity, and endocrine effects...[10]
• Direct chiropractic treatment (6 weeks) reduces salivary cortisol levels over the 14 week period.[11] Levine2112 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Patients, physicians, and chiropractors should be aware of the risk of neurologic complications associated with chiropractic manipulation." Neurology 1996 [12]

• For proper perspective, the risks of chiropractic neck treatment should be compared to the risks of other treatments for similar conditions. For example, even the most conservative "conventional" treatment for neck and back pain, prescription of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), may carry a significantly greater risk than manipulation. One study (16) found a 4/10,000 annual mortality rate for NSAID induced ulcers among patients treated for non-rheumatic conditions such as musculoskeletal pain and osteoarthritis; that extrapolates to 3,200 deaths in the US annually. [13] Levine2112 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Overall there is no evidence to suggest that spinal manipulation is effective in the treatment of primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea." Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 [14]

• Chiropractic manipulative therapy may offer an alternative therapeutic approach for PMS sufferers. [15]
• The (chiropractic) patient realized fewer episodes of (menstrual) pain as well as lower pain ratings during the treatment phase. [16]

"Our results suggest that adverse reactions to chiropractic care for neck pain are common" Spine 2005[17]

• Documented serious complications after manipulation of the cervical spine are very rare (1 in 3-4 million manipulations or fewer). This estimate is based on international studies of millions of chiropractic cervical adjustments from 1965 to the present day. The "one in a million" estimate is echoed in an extensive review of spinal manipulation performed by the RAND corporation... Levine2112 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

References as to allegations of pseudoscientific practices by chiropractors

"This is not to say... that chiropractic manipulation mightn't alleviate some cases of low back pain, for instance, but for reasons quite unrelated to the pseudoscientific theory used by chiropractors to justify the treatment" Beyerstein, 1996 [18]

To paraphrase Phiwum above, the list states that chiropractic has been alleged to be a pseudoscience. The citation given proves this is correct. The articles as to chiropractic's efficacy contradict many of the claims of its practicioners. I see no controversy at all. I will revert. --Dorado 05:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So if I find an "expert" or notable site that alleges anything is a pseudoscience, I take it you will find no controversy when I add it. Please affirm this as I plan to start adding alleged pseudosciences soon. Levine2112 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Levine, I was just writing the below and cross-posted with your comment above. I think that the threshold for putting something on a list is lower than using categories -- basically, all one needs for a list such as this is a good source, whereas the cat requires something like general (popular or scientific) consensus and no significant opposing views ... cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dorado, your arguments are excellent. Chiropractic does have pseudoscientific elements. However, as Levine2112 points out, it also has scientific elements: i.e., its claims of efficacy can be tested, are taken seriously enough by mainstream scientists to be subject to testing, and some RCT's show evidence of efficacy. (The situation is similar for some other alt-med fields; acupuncture is the one I'm most familiar with.) The question is how to handle this situation in the various namespaces per NPOV (and WP:V and WP:OR). In the article namespace, it's a no-brainer: just present sourced arguments for all sides. In terms of including chiropractic on a list of things that have been called pseudoscience by good sources, yes, that's also fine. But I think that including chiropractic in category:pseudoscience would be a very bad idea. WP:CG gives guidelines for applying NPOV to categories, and says:

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

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

Basically, putting chiropractic in cat:pseudoscience endorses just one side of the argument, and is misleading to the reader because chiropractic also has scientific elements. Please see also Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people, which offers some useful caveats, and suggests using lists instead of categories in situations like this. Does that make sense? best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim Butler. Every pseudoscience has some scientific elements, including Scientology, Phrenology, and so on. I understand the point here is to mention notable pseudoscientific subjects. Chiropractic is mentioned by scientists, skeptics, the news etc in terms of its pseudoscientific nature. It is notable for its pseudscientific nature. This pseudoscientificness goes even to the core of the theories (which are testable and have been found to be unsupported). The research you have presented is original research and that is against Wikipedia rules. The reviews of all the research are given by people who can do those reviews (eg, scientists such as Beyerstein). They conclude that chiropractic is pseudoscientific. It is not your or our job to do original research. The reviews say it all. Which is why chiropractic is called pseudoscience or pseudoscientific by professors (eg Beyerstein), journalists, and anyone who uses scientific skepticism, such as consumer protection bodies, in order to identify pseudoscientific subjects. If you want to use an encyclopedia to find out about pseudoscientific subjects, chiropractic should be in the category. It is not just the article that will help. The whole discussion section of the chiropractic article is full of pseudsoscientific argument. So adding it to the category will give the reader a chance to understand even better. I also notice this is possible because this talk page has a small section here on chiropractic. It is also full of pseudoscientific argument. Certainly chiropractic should be in the category of pseudoscience. Notice also that innoculation is devoid of pseudoscientists and pseudoscientific argument. Cheers Librelevate 07:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Librelevate! (Cool user name there.) I'm stumped as to what could possibly by OR about anything I said above. I'm just citing the fact that scientists take chiro seriously enough to research it, and have found evidence supporting its use. category:pseudoscience says:

This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. The term itself is contested by a number of different groups for a number of different reasons — see the main article for more information.

That last sentence doesn't in any way qualify the preceding one, which explicitly says "... alleged by ... the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method". "The scientific community": that's a high threshold. Some scientists clearly believe chiro's claims are testable and have withstood certain tests. There isn't scientific consensus, IOW: there is legitimate scientific debate. So it's fine to put chiro on the list we're discussing, since all the list requires is a good source per WP:RS, and Beyerstein is clearly fine. But to put it in category:pseudoscience presents NPOV and WP:V problems. On NPOV, it sounds like you disagree with the guideline WP:CG, which discusses applying NPOV to categories. Can you clarify? On WP:V, are you really suggesting that a prominent critic like Beyerstein, or popular magazine articles, suffice to demonstrate popular or scientific consensus? I don't see how chiro can go in the cat without misleading the reader and presenting high NPOV and WP:V hurdles. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jim Butler. There are no hurdles to clear at all. The description of the pseudoscience category is not meant as a set of recommendations for inclusion. If you read the cat's discussion page, inclusion is based on many factors, but mostly that a reliable source states it to be pseudoscientific. The category pseudoscience is there to help readers browse subjects that have notably pseudoscientific aspects. There is a clear view that the core theory of chiropractic is pseudoscientific, the behaviour of chiropractic proponents is pseudoscientific, and similar to other alternative medicines chiropractic has other pseudoscientific elements and relations. Chiropractic is perfect for the pseudoscience category. Librelevate 08:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, chiro has pseudoscientific elements, but also scientific ones. Your comments continue to ignore my concerns about NPOV as expressed in WP:CG and WP:V (Carroll doesn't meet WP:RS for speaking for scientific community. Do other editors find these concerns trivial? --Jim Butler^(talk) 09:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blinded study reveals that chriopractic is effective in relieving infantile colic.[19]

A randomized, double-blind clinical trial demonstrates that chiropractic was more beneficial than placebo in reducing pain and more beneficial than either placebo or muscle relaxants in reducing GIS. [20]

The science behind chiropractic goes on and on... Adding chiropractic to the pseudoscience list or category is effectively giving a Wikipedia user wrong information. Given that the U.S. courts proved that there was an active conspiracy by the American Medical Association to cover up chiropractic research and lie about chiropractic's effectiveness for decades in order to protect the financial interests of AMA (Wilk v. American Medical Association), is it not safe to assume that opinions such as Beyerstein's are tainted? Are we here to present misinformation? Even Robert Carroll (or Skeptic's Dictionary fame) has changed his tuned citing that there is scientific evidence supporting chiropractic and admiting that the AMA is responsible for chiropractic's labeling as pseudoscience. Carroll goes on to note that today, the American College of Surgeons has issued a position paper on chiropractic which sees the two professions as working together. "There is a growing body of scientific evidence that chiropractic is effective in the treatment of many lower back ailments and neck injuries. There is some evidence that chiropractic is effective for the treatment of certain kinds of headaches and other pains. The chiropractor is one of the few alternative health practitioners that medical insurance will generally cover."

So what do we do now? There is conflict within the skeptics' world and there is plenty of scientific evidence (research, control trials, blinded studies, etc.) supporting chiropractic. Additionally, it was proven and re-proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the all powerful AMA had engaged in an anti-trust conspriracy to supress chiropractic research for decades. I don't see how we can blindly put out misinformation because of something Beyerstein said 10 years ago. I'd like to also point out that Beyerstein made his claim just six years after the AMA got denied for an appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you want to classify some of chiropractic's aspects (such as Vertebral Subluxation) as prescientific, I think that is fine. VS is as much as a working theory as atomics, genes and gravity. But to classify it as pseudoscience is just irresponsible and wrong. Levine2112 19:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous. The heading to the section says, "The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which some critics fault as failing to meet the standards of scientific practice." Beyerstein is a UCLA PhD qualified critic who has very strong credentials in relatiion to the scientific review of alternative therapies. The broader scepticism as to the scientific basis of chiropractic amongst many practitioners of conventional medecine is well known - see for example the recent outcry over the proposal to establish a school of chiropractic at Florida State University - together with the fact that no such school exists at any publicly funded university in the US. How is this not enough for the list? --JermomeSampson 21:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Even chiropractors admit that chiropractic has pseudoscientific aspects:

• Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side -- Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD

-- Fyslee 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The definition of the list has now changed to, "The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which some portion of the scientific community faults as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another." However, the references I and others have cited remain compelling in terms of the case for chirporactic's inclusion on the list. The citations are clearly from members of the scientific community, and go directly to whether the field of endeavor of chiropractic (and not merely vertical subluxation) meets the norms and standards of scientific practice - and they all say that, in many instances and as practiced by many practitioners, it doesn't. --Dorado 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's like this. If there is a general consensus in the scientific community that an entire field or theory is pseudoscience and those are the only ones listed here, then we can say that this is a list which represents a consensus in the scientific community. If that was the case, you would be hard pressed to find a consensus that chiropractic is pseudoscientifc, and thus it wouldn't belong in this list. There is just far too much scientific research supporting it and far too much evidence of AMA conspiracies to supress this information.

However, if we are going to say that these fields and theories don't satisfy "some portion" of the scientific community, then I imagine you can include just about anything provided that you can cite that some (and any) portion of the scientific community feels this way. Dorado, I'm not sure what your expertise is with chiropractic. FYI, it is vertebral subluxations; not vertical subluxations. Verterbal refers to vertebrae which are the bones making up the segments of the spine. VS is included on this list right now. I don't support this, though given the current defintion of this list, it could certainly fit. I'm sure there is some portion of the scientifc community who incorrectly believe this to be true.

Either way, this list is very weak in its current machination. It just seems to be representing a specific opinion... the scientific skeptics opinion... which isn't neccessarily the scientific opinion. Therefore, it completely violates NPOV. I suggest allowing more fields and theories onto this list that might not neccessarily be cited from scientific skeptic websites or publications. Or you can slap a banner at the top of the list stating that this list may violate NPOV. The only other solution willbe deleting it.

I made this prediction some time ago, that as long this list exists to serve only the opinions of one group, there will never be rest. You will always have crusaders with differences of opinions. Pseudoscience is a perjorative label and should not be used if it is going to violate civility and NPOV. Levine2112 02:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Short of a survey conducted by a reliable scientist, there can be no way to prove consensus in the sci community. NPOV policy places science above pseudoscience. This is core NPOV policy. The reason for this is for the sake of explanation. NPOV policy is not designed to defend pseudoscientific subjects. We are here to explain pseudoscientific subjects and to say what scientists say about them. Explanation is the priority. Chiropractic has strong pseudoscientific elements. Its core theory is pseudoscientific. It deserves mention in the list. It also belongs in the pseudoscience category. I reiterate; we are here to explain, not defend. Readers want to compare pseudoscientific subjects. This helps explanation. It clarifies subjects. The study of pseudoscience is becoming all the more relevant, and all the more concern within the scientific community. Chiropractic is historically and currently pseudoscientific. Adding chiropractic to the list will help the reader. KrishnaVindaloo 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, chiropractic is not pseudoscientific. I have shown scienitific sources supporting this. You have given a couple of notable people's opinions that say otherwise. So I have notable sources that says it isn't and you have notbale sources that says it is. Here we are. This isn't about science vs. pseudoscience. This is about a difference in opinions. Since you are making the claim here that chiropractic is considered pseudoscientific by a significant amount of scientists, then the burden of proof lies with you. So far, we have seen three or four notable people who say chiropractic is rooted in pseudoscience, but that's it. I have pointed us to literally 300+ scientific studies supporting chiropractic. The courts have shown that the AMA has actively supressed chiropractic research for purely financial reasons and fear of competition. Now we are here to present the facts. And the fact is, no one has shown that a significant portion of scientists claim that chiropractic pseudoscientific. Therefore, chiropractic should not be part of this list. Levine2112 06:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112. Your alleged research constitutes OR (original research). It is against NPOV core policy. There are no reliable sources that review chiropractic and state that it does not have pseudoscientific elements. There are many reliable sources that place chiropractic as pseudoscientific. The level of pseudoscientific attributes in chiropractic are useful for the reader to compare with other pseudoscientific subjects. We are not here to determine if a subject is a pseudoscience. If a subject is considered pseudoscientific by a reliable source, it can be included with that citation. If there are pseudoscientific elements in a subject according to reliable sources and the subject is notable, then that subject belongs in the pseudoscience category for readers to compare with other pseudoscientific subjects. Console yourself with the fact that not all chiropractors are L.Ron Hubbard. If anything, the comparison will allow chiropractic some credibility to the average reader. All books on pseudoscience show the related subjects in a comparative light. That is how pseudoscience should be presented according to scientists. So that is how it should be presented according to NPOV policy. I notice on the chiropractic article there is a section for pseudoscientific elements. So why not focus on clarifying the scientifically credible aspects of chiropractic on the chiropractic article itself, instead of working your own original research into dismissing the scientific view that chiropractic is pseudoscientific. KrishnaVindaloo 06:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How come when I cite a study from a notable source you consider it original research, but when you do the same it is fine? Hypocritical? The opposite of pseudoscience is science. You have presented people that say chiropractic is pseudoscince. I have presented people that say chiropractic is science. Levine2112 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Really Levine2112. You are going to have to do a lot better than that. We could have deep philosophical discussion and do bean-counting on various studies until the cows come home. It'll not get us anywhere. Pseudoscientific subjects must be explained according to how scientific thought has received them. Again, it is not at all restricted to whether an aspect is supported scientifically or not. There are many other factors, which are discussed in depth even in the case of chiropractic, for example the insistence on "it works" or the inclusion of adjunct new age treatments, the adherence to outdated pseudoscientific theory and so on. This can all be explained better in the article. As far as the list of pseudoscientific subjects goes, chiropractic is both notable and pseudoscientific. It is considered by reliable sources (who are the only people qualified to sift the research you have presented) to be pseudoscientific, and there are no credible sources refuting the view that pseudoscientific ideas and activities occur in chiropractic teaching, promotion, and practice. Its inclusion will help the reader. It will explain aspects of pseudoscience, and aspects of chiropractic, and will be helpful for readers to compare with other pseudoscientific ideas. KrishnaVindaloo 08:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Krishna, you are saying a lot but you are not adding anything other than a few notable people have said chiropractic is pseudoscience, therefore it must be. I have pointed to many more people and much more actual research that shows that chiropractic is highly scientific. What is wrong with the insitence on "it works". Don't MD insist that pharmaceuticals work? And you mention the inclusion of "adjunct new age treatment". Huh? Some chiropractors may include stuff like that (just as some MDs and DOs do), but they are not part of the discipline of chiropractic and you can't fault chiropractic for that. Doing so - as you have done - is a very weak argument. You're going to have to do better than that. You have made the claim, therefore you are going to have to present us with the undeniable support (not just a couple of chiro-bashers who probably had a vested interest in the Wilk v. AMA lawsuit or are only notable because they are presenting wild ideas that the majority of the community disagrees with). Levine2112 17:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey everybody! Hope I'm not intruding. Looks like you've got things under control, but her's some more input:) I'm not sure what everyone's perception of today's chiropractor is, but I'm pretty sure that most (somewhere in the 90%) of chiropractic's patient's are for musculoskeletal problems. You've seen science that backs up spinal mainpulation for these conditions. In other words, most chiropractors are practicing scientifically sound methodology. While chiropractic may have been pseudoscientific during the dark ages, that doesn't mean it hasn't progressed.

That is not to say that some aren't practicing safely(as well as some MDs), but the legal system tends to eventually take care of those. That is also not to say that chiropractors are not waiting for reliable science to justify what they empirically think they see in their practices. This is the same way medicine advances. When you factor in research efforts that are realistically only about 30 years old and funding that has been slim for a number of reason that need no apology, those that are intellectually honest with themselves realize that the chiropractic theory of vertebral subluxation is advancing, and adapting slowly. It still holds that there is an effect on the nervous system, though the mechanism may not be understood. When that science becomes available from reliable sources, whether it supports or refutes this contention, I assume they will practice according to the findings. If not, it could then be considered pseudoscience. Until then, it would be unscientific to make a judgement, lest ye be guilty of the same offense ye accuse. It may be prescience, but not pseudoscience. You would then have to include most of medicine as well. --Dematt 20:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic currently satisfies the criteria for the list, as defined by the title and opening paragraph of the list: critics have faulted chiropractic "as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another". Further, the sources cited in this regard are robust and compelling in the context of the specific list criteria. It would be erroneous and misleading to exclude chiropractic from the list as it is currently defined. Of no relevance in this regard are selective citations as to efficacy, since considerations of efficacy do not form part of the criteria for the list. Nor, for that matter, do conspiracy theories, rhetorical claims as to the dyslogistic nature of the term "pseudoscience", or a subjective potted history of the chiropractic movement. --Dorado 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy

I'd like to question the inclusion of anthroposophy on this list as well. First of all, Carroll does not call it a pseudoscience, as this article currently claims. This is already ground enough to remove it from the list. But there is also a misunderstanding somewhere here:

In English, we generally use science in the narrow sense of natural science. In German there are Naturwissenschaften (natural sciences), Sozialwissenschaften (social sciences), Geisteswissenschaften (the humanities), Schöne Wissenschaften (belle lettres, literary criticism) and probably more uses of Wissenschaft, which literally means science. Its founder, Rudolf Steiner, called anthroposophy a Geisteswissenschaft, a part of what we call the humanities, not a Naturwissenschaft.

Note that Dilthey and Husserl, among others, strongly defended the use of the term science for subjects like history and literary criticism, emphasizing 1) that the methodological approach needs to be subject-appropriate, and 2) that these areas cannot be judged by the criteria of the natural sciences.Hgilbert 14:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I disagree with the rational above I don't think there is room in the list. Anthroposophy, also called spiritual science, is definately a pseudoscience as it presents itself as a science ut does not conform to the norms. However it is nowhere near as notable as the others on the list. I propose leaving it in the expanded list of fields which is linked to from the list. Jefffire 11:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for starting a discussion which belongs elsewhere (but see de:Wissenschaft for a substantial list of other surprising areas that are called sciences in German!)

In any case, Wikipedia excludes original research; this is sufficient barrier in and of itself. Hgilbert 15:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a sticky point. Like Jeff, I have seen suggestions that at least some proponents of anthroposophy do consider this science (or scientific?); for example, look at categorizations wars over WP articles on Steiner-related topics! I don't have time to research this, but hope that some kind editor will do so and figure out how to stick in a clear and concise discussion of this issue (probably broader than anthroposophy alone). ---CH 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. This a very simple issue. If a reliable source states that a subject is pseudoscientific, and it is notable, then it can be mentioned. Just because some say it is not science, that doesn't negate the former view of it being pseudoscience. Cheers KrishnaVindaloo 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree that this approach is consistent with NPOV and verifiability. But the related problem of whether to put articles in Category:Pseudoscience is not so simple, since it's an all-or-nothing thing without any nuance indicating the possibility of serious disagreement. This issue has been debated on that article's talk page for two years and is still not resolved. Jim Butler^(talk) 01:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right; it's a simple issue. No reliable source states that the subject in question is pseudoscientific; the source previously quoted, Carroll, does not say this.Hgilbert 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The definition of science

I have been uneasy with what appears to be an appropriation of the word science vs. the approved and common usage of this term in the English language. So I checked the latter. The Oxford English Dictionary lists the following as primary definitions (I am omitting a few usages declared obsolete):

Science:

1. The state of fact of knowing; knowledge or congnizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute. (Now only theological and philosophical.)
2. Knowledge acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of any department of learning. Also (plural) (a person's) various kinds of knowledge. b) Trained skill
3. A particular branch of knowledge or study; a recognized department of learning. b) Contradistinguished from art....d)A craft, trade or occupation requiring trained skill. (obs.)
4. In a more restricted sense: A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.
5. The kind of knowledge or of intellectual activity of which the various sciences are examples....In modern use, chiefly: The sciences (in sense 4) as distinguished from other departments of learning; scientific doctrine or investigation.... b) In modern use, often treated synomymous with 'Natural and Physical Science,' and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics.

Much of the discussion on this talk page as well as the Pseudoscience article itself seem to presuppose that the only valid use of the word science is that corresponding to the OED's definition 4,5, or even 5b. Is chiropractics (I am taking a random example) a science? It is certainly knowledge acquired by study and/or a trained skill. Is it a natural science? I doubt it (but don't know a great deal about it). Can someone call it a science without running the danger of accusations of pseudoscience? By the above definitions, this should certainly be the case...as long as it is not used in a misleading sense.

I suggest that the article needs a rewrite to avoid trampling common usage of the English language. Hgilbert 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done a preliminary, gentle rewrite specifying the narrower meaning of science used here.Hgilbert 10:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Oxford dictionary can be used to define science in this matter. I'll dig up a scientifically accepted definition in a bit. Jefffire 12:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert - that is a valid observation, however pseudoscience is psedo-"science(4)" (or possibly 5). The OED definition of pseudoscience itself says "...claims to be scientific but does not follow scientific method" or words to that effect, and clearly the scientific method is a part of definitions 4 and 5 only. ObsidianOrder 16:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears there is a wide range of opinions on what science actually is, which is confusing the matter slightly. Jefffire 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Yet this article presupposes that one of those definitions is the one everyone should be using. For example, Christian Science is a perfectly good example of a science according to the OED definition 1, knowledge as a personal attribute; note that this definition was once more general and is now restricted to theological and philosophical usages - as in, Christian Science. As long as they mean this definition and don't pretend to be an empirical science, which I'm pretty sure they don't, they are accurately describing their movement. Now, if you are a natural scientist (or even if you're not) and think that natural/empirical science is all science, you may not accurately understand what they are trying to say, but I suggest that the failure in communication lies with your limited comprehension of the range of English usage, not with the movement's false (pseudo-) claim to a scientific basis. Similarly with other areas; it is the false claim to an empirical/experimental basis that makes a pseudo-science, I would suggest, not the use of the word science in one of its other accepted meanings.

Somehow this distinction needs to be clearer in the article's text.Hgilbert 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Schoolkids do science at school, and seem to fulfil every characteristic of pseudoscience... yet they don't do pseudoscience. Comments? --Iantresman 17:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, good point. It's been called "Lies to children" what we teach in school. Anyway should there be a mention of some of the other defintions of pseudoscience? Jefffire 13:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting Iantresman. Yes, schoolkids do "experiments" to test hypotheses and theories that are no longer hypothetical and theoretical, but rather quite well confirmed and the outcome already known (or at least I would hope the outcomes are already known by those responsible for designing and implementing such curricula). So schoolkids study science, as differentiated from studying others' knowledge (scientia) about the arts "ah yes, the science of the arts"), humanities (some parts of which are said to be social science, except for, e.g., political science which is mere ideographic study and speculative generalization such as reactionary-conservative-moderate-liberal-progressive, all march in lockstep now, left-right-left-right). Perhaps in high school we would elect to take "Basic Electronics", more a science than political science but not called a science anymore because its methods and outcomes are already well known. Yes, I'd say this is conceptually problematic.

The issue of pseudoscience is far simpler, even if debatable, inexact, perhaps undefinable in strict terms. I arrive on the marketplace and use the word science to attach extra credibility to what I'm about to say. "Everyone listen up: This is SCIENCE". Others, including compulsive skeptics, reasonably adept practitioners in science, and those familiar with scientific method generally, look at me and say, "OK, where's your research, publication, data, methodology, so we can get OUR experts to double-check this stuff." At the core, somewhere in that type of exchange in the marketplace of ideas and exchanges of money, gambits for social respect and political influence and such, is closer to where we find the real debate about what is pseudoscience. Don't know the answer, but I think that's closer to the question. ... Kenosis 15:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Another [perhaps] related thought to Iantresman's excellent insight: Someone on another talk page recently referred to boxing as the "sweet science" ([21]). Now there's an analytical challenge-- why is it called "sweet", and why call it "science". Yet no one thus far seems determined to put that pursuit on the list of fields often accused of being pseudosceince. Sure, it would be doubtful and probably unverifiable for one to say it's "often accused", but why is it not often accused of being pseudoscience?. ... Kenosis 04:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations that do not support the entry

In the list of pseudoscientific fields, I found quite a few more citations of Carroll's work that do not support the inclusion of the entry. Some of these are radically far from a condemnation of the field as pseudoscientific, others are critical but do not give evidence for such an inclusion.

I have removed the citations; when the citation was the only evidence given, I have removed the entry. Please replace any entries for which other evidence can be given, or for which my (fairly swift) perusal of the Skeptic's Dictionary entries missed anything damning. (I did a search for the term pseudo and read over the articles to see if the equivalent in evidence was there, but erred on the side of caution; we are not researching the topic but summing up previous research).

The citations have been replaced; they need checking, for those that I took out simply do not support what they are claimed to support.Hgilbert 02:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed these citations again, as they are simply inaccurate.

I wonder about the fields that are listed here without any attribution of source. Since the list heading says that critics have called these pseudoscientific, if no such critics can be found the fields should be deleted from the list. If we agree on this - as I hope we could - we should then set a deadline for 'discovery of evidence'.Hgilbert 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that any fields still listed without citation on July 1 simply be struck. We can move them to the talk page for further research; if a citation later turns up, they can be put back. Some seem obviously erroneously listed, such as quantum mysticism, which is an entirely respectable interpretation of quantum mechanics. I am tempted to go ahead and delete this already; any thoughts?Hgilbert 09:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

ROFL. "Quantum mysticism" is patently pseudoscience. Stop trying to subvert the NPOV policy because it doesn't fit your POV (that applies to others as well). — Dunc|☺ 09:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

To whom is quantum mysticism patently pseudoscience? The article needs to cite the appropriate authority. The "no original research" policy says that it must be someone citable or the allegation does not belong in the encyclopedia. The NPOV policy does not mean everyone can enter whatever they feel like; it means all reasonably supported views can be included.

Incidentally, as has been pointed out before, it is this list that subverts the NPOV policy; only allegations of pseudoscience, not however supporters of the fields in question (John Wheeler is a supporter of quantum mysticism, for example) are given voice.Hgilbert 09:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Double ROFL. Shit, are you going to try to say that anything with the word mysticism in the title is not pseudoscience? That's just too funny. As for Wheeler, two things: one, you're going to need to provide a cite that he supports this slop (no doubt in his doddering old age, if so); and two, Sir Isaac Newton supported alchemy, which merely proves that great thinkers can be idiots at times. •Jim62sch• 00:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've described the idea better than I could. Of course mysticism in general is not pseudoscience. Perhaps you'd like to look up the definition of pseudoscience. As for quantum mysticism specifically, well, it's not up to us to decide if it is or isn't pseudoscience; after all, we're not doing research here. We've accepted the principle that any one authority's statement that a field is pseudoscience is sufficient to include it as a field in our thorough lists, however. If we cast our net so wide, we'll have to accept what fish come in. Now, if we want to talk about revising this principle to something more sensible, then let's apply a better rule to both lists.

How's this for a quote:

"Having studied the atom, I tell you that there is no matter as such [only force]....we must assume that behind this force is a conscious, intelligent mind or spirit. This is the very origin of matter." Max Planck, Florence lectureHgilbert 02:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific fields

The text says that Williams Encylopedia of Pseudoscience, includes Big Bang theory, continental drift and Pasteur's germ theory. Yet these fields are excluded from the list. If Williams is a credible enough source to include some entries, then his credibility is good enough to include all others. Fact selection does not conform to NPOV.

What is clear, is that there is a tremendous amount of subjectivity in defining Pseudoscience. Stephen Hawkins himself says that "Cosmology was thought of as pseudoscience"[22], and others have said that "cosmology had degraded into a state of pseudoscience"[23] --Iantresman 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd check in Williams to make sure of the context. If it is parallel to the other entries, then they certainly could be added; the list is simply those items that Williams, chiefly, and Carroll in a few cases, have called pseudoscience, so all such may be included.

By the way, I've tried to figure out who Williams is...trained scientist, journalist, or what ... and can't discover any info about him. Anybody know about this?Hgilbert 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Williams (et al) as a credible source

There has been some conjecture over Williams 2000 as a source. This can clear it up. Williams is a professor of science at the Pen State University and a fellow of the Universith of Leeds (England). The co-writers are Dr Carl Mitcham, Professor of Philosophy of Science, Dr Daniel Conway professor of neuroscience, Dr Lisle Dalton, Dr Alex Dolby, Dr Shannon Duval, Dr John Mcmillan, Dr J Gordon Melton, Dr Mearcello Truzzi. They are all professors. The list also includes Terry ONiel, Kenneth Shepherd, Steven Utley, Jeff Frazier and Honour Farrel. They are all science experts of some kind. Its a very solid source. Lots of corroboration, and a whole lot of knowledge. KrishnaVindaloo 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of Fact templates

Most of the Fact templates (those which read "citation needed") used in this article are unnecessary. For example, there's fifteen or so in the "Identifying pseudoscience" section alone. This is overkill. Those fifteen will likely be satisfied with by one or two cites in the end (which I may be able to add), so there's a level of overkill that is bounding on the surreal. It harms the article and serves no purpose. Regular editors of this article to find a better way remind contributors to comply with WP:V than just adding a fact template to every assertion or statement of fact. FeloniousMonk 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

While one or two references at the end of the article may provide the citations required, it is not always obvious which statement are verified. I think the article is harmed if such citations are not included. I think the tags provides a useful reminder as to which statements need verifying, and for the sake of a couple of weeks research, will result in a much improved article. --Iantresman 17:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

An article which claims to take the high ground of empirical, verifiable science will of course be expected to provide clear evidence of its statements and categorizations. It would be a pity if some objective reviewer would classify this article itself as pseudoscientific due to its unproven claims! Hgilbert 02:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the editor to whom any applicable blame belongs for recently placing those templates. They amount to a request to advance this article to a yet more developed level of verifiability (WP:VER). I am by no means adamant about them, but I surmised that in a controversial article such as this, these individual templates allowed each to be cited whenever editors had a chance to dig into the literature and cite accordingly. I do recognize the approach is a bit unconventional in WP to date. My opinion is that with a bit of patience, they can be cited one or two at a time, and what is left can either be weeded out or discussed point-by-point among the editors as to the merits of the particular "characteristic". So I'm OK with it either way. But this approach is one possible way to help selectively determine what is original research (WP:OR) and what isn't, rather than necessarily subjecting the whole section to unnecessary controversy. ... Kenosis 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'm new. I noticed this subject needs a lot more citations to keep it solid. I've got quite a few, and will add as soon as I can. Mindsight 05:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul Feyerabend

I think we are giving this gentelman undue weight in the article at present. Simply put his idea's, whilst interesting, haven't really had much impact on the subject. Coupled with the uncritical writing of the section, I think a rewrite is in order. Jefffire 08:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This article can indeed be further improved so as to be yet more informative, and yet more accurate without getting unnecessarily obscure. Right now Feyerabend is mentioned in two places, which in itself I have no problem with. In the "introduction" Popper is mentioned followed by Feyerabend-- quite reasonable as they represent the two extremes of advocacy (leaving out extreme scientism in the sense of "science" being limited to natural science or "hard science"). Conspicuously absent are mention of the alternate views of Kuhn, Thagard and Lacatos' descriptions of scientific method, though on the whole I think the article's content is fairly balanced, even if in need of citations for the list of "characterisics" and for some of the "fields often accused". If you diagram the areas of wide agreement on what is scientific method, it tends to look somewhat like a sunflower, with an identifiable core of agreement and a bunch of petals. Add or remove a few petals and it still looks like a sunflower. Problem for us, I think, is how to effectively explain that to the reader, giving credence to both sides of the debate in a reasonably compact summary.

As of now, the last paragraph of "Problem of demarcation and criticisms..." reads as follows:

• "As mentioned above in this article, Paul Feyerabend argued that clear distinctions between science and non-science or pseudoscience are not desirable. In Against Method, arguing from a perspective of sociology of science, Feyerabend argued that whatever rules science may establish for itself, successful science has always been done in violation of it.^[1]"
• The footnote reads: "For a further perspective on Feyerabend from within the scientific community, see, e.g., Gauch (2003), op cit at p.4:"Scientists typically find those objections either silly or aggravating, so rather few engage such controversies or bother to contribute in a sophisticated and influential manner. But in the humanities, those deep critiques of rationality are currently quite influential."

That seems fairly objective to me, though I'm sure it can be improved. ... Kenosis 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Alleged pseudoscientific fields

• I changed the subhead title to this shorter version, which pretty much sums up the section
• I removed the link to "List of alternative, speculative, and disputed theories", because there is no implied connection.
• I removed the commented text implying that consensus must be met before adding fields to the list; the only requirement is a verifiable citation --Iantresman 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed cosmology from the list of alleged pseudosciences. The quote was taken out of context. It is true that there were (and still are) people who study cosmology who advocate pseudoscience. That doesn't make the study of cosmology in-and-of-itself pseudoscience. Ironically, the quote by Hawkins was making this very point. --ScienceApologist 15:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote does say that Cosmology was thought of as pseudoscience, past tense. But I think you make a more import point... subjects in themselve are not pseudoscience, only some people who make certain claims about them --Iantresman 18:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he means "pseudoscience" in the strict sense. I think me means that it was full of speculation. But it was being studied by bona fide scientists, but none of them were claiming that their theory was correct, counter to evidence. Bubba73 (talk), 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added radionics since this is already classed as a pseudoscience in Wikipedia. --TimVickers 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology as pseudoscience

I've restored "cosmology" to the list of alleged pseudoscientific fields, on the ground that Stephen Hawkins has specified that he considers it once was pseudoscience. There is no doubt that Hawkins is an expert in the field, and the source is verifiable. Of course this doesn't mean that cosmology really is pseudoscience, but the list is not about that. --Iantresman 15:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also added the Big Bang, Continental Drift and Pasteur's Germ theory, as Williams also lists these subjects as pseudoscience. Williams is credible enough for all the other fields, so he must be credible enough source for these. --Iantresman 15:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

They were once pseudoscientific (in some views) but are no-longer. The list needs to be up to date. Jefffire 16:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In the article, there is a separate list for fields once considered pseudoscientific but now accepted; I have added the above subjects to this list. Please keep the two straight; the subject is entangled enough.Hgilbert 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to Williams, so we can see whether he still feels that the Big Bang theory is pseudoscience? If he does, then it should go into the current list --Iantresman 17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert appears to have copy. I personally would find it beneficial to have page numbers included in the citations to the Encyclopedia, if possible. ... Kenosis 18:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to confess I have hitherto trusted the surely absolutely dependable (!) editors of this page who have quoted him, but last night I finally ordered a copy of my own and will attempt to check these references (and put page numbers in where they are now missing). I have tracked down the person who added the existing references -Bubba73; this editor must have a copy of Williams (I would hope): Hgilbert 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have a copy of the book by Williams. There is an entry for Big Bang, mostly general stuff. It does say "Although scientists are fairly certain that the universe was created by the explosion of some sort of singularity, they are unable to determine what might have caused it." (This was written in 2000 or earlier, things have changed somewhat since then.) It goes on to say "Many scientists acknolege this problem by saying that time itself began at the big bang." I don't see anything that calls the Big Bang pseudoscience.

Williams is the general editor. It says that he was formerly visiting professor in the Dept of Science, Technology, and Society at Penn State Univ and is a life fellow of Leeds Univ. Besides him, there are four advisors (Jerome Clark and Marcello Truzzi are the only names I recognize) and contributors listed and thirteen contributors (including Williams)

Any questions aout the book? Bubba73 (talk), 20:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS, I don't think that the Big Bang or Continental Drift were ever considered pseudoscience. At the CD article, you can see that it was taken up seriously in several conferences, etc. It wasn't considered proven, but it wasn't considered pseudoscience. Neither was the Big Bang. It was competing with the Steady State theory, but never considered pseudoscience. Both were proto-sciences at one time but never pseudoscience. I don't know the history of the germ theory, but it may be similar. Bubba73 (talk), 20:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Does William's book give a categorical affirmation that he considers some of his entries to be pseudoscience? Perhaps we are to infer that all entries are in the book because they're considered pseudoscience, or perhaps he uses stronger language for some entries than others. I think we need at least a statement in his introduction to say that "all entries are considerd pseudoscience", or only include those entries where is is specific. Otherwise we'll have to remove Big Bang, etc --Iantresman 21:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we have to check Williams' terminology carefully. But plate tectonics and continental drift theory were certainly strongly rejected and even mocked by he scientific community of Wegener's time; see this brief summary or The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science, Naomi Oreskes, Oxford University Press, New York, 420 p., 1999, as well as this anecdotal evidence.Hgilbert 21:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Plate techtonics was never rejected. Plate techtonics is the theory which replaced Wegener's theory of continental drift, and was accepted quickly after the evidence supporting it came in. Bubba73 (talk), 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because theories are rejected, or slow to take up, does not make the pseudoscience --Iantresman 00:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientific theories once widely criticized as pseudoscience

I haven't looked at this article in a long time, but this section needs a lot of work.

1. Big Bang theory. There were two competing theories, Big Bang and Steady State. I don't think BB was widely criticized, it was only by supporters of SS. A reference to Williams is given, and he certainly doesn't say that it was considered pseudoscience.

2. Calculus of infinitesimals. Newton originated this whereas Libinitz (sp?) introduced the epsilon-delta methods. Libinitz's methods were proved to be rigorous whereas Newton's infinitesimals were not (at the time). So Libinitz's formulation of Calculus was used. Infinitesimals were made rigorous much later, late 1800s I think.

3. Cantor's transfinite numbers - not widely criticized, mainly only by Dedekind, I think it was.

4. Cosmology - it was speculative, but I don't think it fits what we normally think of as pseudoscience.

5. non-euclidean geometry - I don't know of any way this could have been considered pseudoscientific. People had assumed that Euclidean geometry was correct, but shortly after non-Euclidean geometry was proposed it was shown to be valid too.

6. Plate techtonics was never considered to be pseudoscientific, just unproven. Continental drift wasn't considered to be pseudoscience, it just has never been accepted.

7. Quantum Mechanics - never widely considered pseudoscience. It always had experimental backing. [unsigned by Bubba73, 23:46 24 June 2006]

This section was just added within the last day or so. ... Kenosis 23:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This section is now removed. It was based almost wholly on the work of one controversial comprendium by Williams and wasn't exhaustive so does not belong in the article. --ScienceApologist 00:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's easy for us to give a reason why these subjects do not belong, but our opnions do not count. What is more important is whether Williams provides a justifications; we already consider him to be a credible source. If he doesn't then the subject do not below.

However, Cosmology is verifiably cited by Stephen Hawkins as a subject that he considered was once pseudoscience, and that fact should be placed somewhere in the article. --Iantresman 00:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is clear that he doesn't mean that Cosmology was considered pseudoscientific the way ESP or dowsing is. There were a lot of speculations then, as there are now. For instance, String theory is specuative but not pseudoscientific. Years ago people were proposing theories of parallel universes, etc. Proposing a cosmological theory that involves parallel universes is not pseudoscientific. Saying that you have been to a parallel universe without providing any evidence is pseudoscientific. We don't know if string theory is correct or not. We don't know whether there are parallel universes or not. We may never know. But proposing them as theories is certainly not pseudoscience. Bubba73 (talk), 01:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!! The whole main list of pseudosciences is based chiefly on the work of that same compendium. If the compendium is so controversial, that list really doesn't belong here. Either Williams is a credible source or he isn't.

In addition, many of the items in the new section have citations to sources other than Williams. At most, we could add ^{[citation needed]} notes onto these.

If Hawkings says that cosmology was once considered a pseudoscience, then this should definitely be included. I suggest that we must be modest and try to quote what people said, not what we are sure they must have meant. (This last in reference to Bubba73's comments about cosmology.) Hgilbert 01:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that added references to most of the things. Several months ago there was a debate about whether the list should stay or go, and if there were references. I sat down with several books: "The Skeptics Dictionary", "The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" (Williams), Randi's "Flim-Flam" and "Encyclopedia of claims ...", Martin Gardner's "Science Good Bad and Bogus" and a couple more of his, Sagan's "Candle...", Asimov's "The Roving Mind", "A Skeptics handbook of parapsychology", "Pseudoscience and the paranormal", and maybe some other books. The first two books I named each had most of these things, so I listed them with the page numbers. I thought that would be enough, so I didn't go through the other books. (I could, though). Not everything in Williams is pseudoscience, e.g. black holes, big bang, etc. I don't know why it is that way, but many people worked on the book. So why is the Big Bang listed in the book (although it doesn't say it is pseudoscience), yet the rival Steady State theory isn't? Neither one was pseudoscience, and the Steady State theory never had any supporting data.

The Big Bang (BB) isn't and never was pseudoscience, as we understand the term. Let X be a pseudoscience:

BB: when proposed, was given as a possibility, not claimed to be true.

X: claimed to be true.

BB: Fit existing knowledge.

X: Contrary to existing knowledge.

BB: No negative evidence. (Old evidence fits with it, but that is "ad hoc".)

X: plenty of negative evidence, no positive evidence.

BB: after proposed, all new data supports it.

X: after proposed, no new data supports it.

I think the quote from Hawking can be left in if it is clear that he is not talking about pseudoscience as we understand it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It was stated above that this section had been removed. It is still there and getting worse. The issue of the tides - this was a legitimate scientific issue. Just because one scientist questions another scientist, that doesn't mean that he is calling his work "pseudoscientific". In fact, it is very rare. This is the normal scientific process/method at work. I think this section is both factually wrong, and putting these things in there are POV. Bubba73 (talk), 18:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please look carefully at the citations. Galileo didn't merely dispute the science, he called the suggestion of action at a distance "occult nonsense". If that's not a 17th century version of "pseudoscience", I don't know what is.

If we are allowing anybody's opinion that something is pseudoscience to justify the field's inclusion in a list of contemporary allegations, we should be consistent in allowing this in a list of past allegations. In addition, I suggest that the persons chiefly cited for the contemporary list, Williams and Carroll, have rather less scientific standing than Galileo. Hgilbert 19:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the actual term pseudoscience is a quite modern one, but I have tried to only include ideas which were considered the equivalent ("occult nonsense" is pretty good, don't you agree?) in their time; not just wrong, but based upon absolutely nonsensical, fundamentally unscientific ideas like action at a distance, mysterious fields, rocks falling from the sky and so on. I think the key is that people then as now accused these ideas of being unscientific, not just wrong scientific theories. I think the citations support this.

Some out there might think that I am a true believer in this stuff. Not at all: I doubt extremely strongly that UFOs really exist, for example, and probably no arguments under heaven could convince me that they do, unless they downright beamed me up. Nevertheless, I see no structural or essential difference between my skepticism here and that of the French Academy of Sciences to the idea that rocks (we call them meteorites now) fall randomly from the sky. They're both totally improbable ideas; only empirical experience could convince anybody that either is true. So why is the one pseudoscience and the other not? I think UFOs are not pseudoscientific, just delusions and illusions (probably...I hope no aliens are reading this and see an opportunity to convince me ;) ). In any case, I am chiefly concerned here that we as editors are are times applying the term without sufficient justification, and without a NPOV balance of opinion weighing in on topics where there is genuinely evidence on both sides. Hgilbert 02:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Big difference between reports of flying objects which lack explanation (UFOs,) versus claims of "alien spacecraft!"--Wjbeaty 03:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an attempt to shed light. There are many theories/discoveries which were resisted for years before being accepted, mostly on grounds of weak evidence, but not always. There are fewer which were not just resisted, but totally rejected and regarded as wrong, and where the rejection turned out to be based error or on closed-mindedness. There are even fewer which not only were rejected, but where the ideas and their supporters were subject to outright scorn, ridicule, and emotional attack. Of these, perhaps a small number were actually labeled "pseudoscience" (and not just called "pathological science," such as "n-rays" and polywater.) So, which ones were not only resisted, rejected, and ridiculed, but were though to be pseudoscience? For example, Relativity and QM were resisted, and the "Big Bang" theory was certainly rejected and ridiculed by the astronomy community (the very term "big bang" was a cynical label applied by Fred Hoyle.) But these were not well-known pseudosciences which later were vindicated. I only know of a few: until the 1970s, the mind-body connection in medicine was seen as disreputable witch-doctor stuff. Reports of meteorites and of ball-lightning were long regarded as peasant superstition. The cure for smallpox was not discovered by Jenner, instead Jenner tested a long-known folk medicine cure: innoculation (explained in WIB Beveridge "Art of Sci. Invstg.") And both flying machines and space travel were reviled as complete fantasy. "Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable." -J. W. Goethe --Wjbeaty 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

But, but, if we determine that some now accepted matters were once considered pseudoscience that means we can't be REALLY sure about anything!! wE GON EXPLOOD!! It means we have to leave and admit to at least a tiny option that something we don't understand might end up being true. And great if it does. BUT THEN WHAT IF IT DOESN'T!??! WE'RE FUCKED!! SOMEONE FUCKED US!!! HAD A GOOD LAUGH!! AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE OFSPRING AND ANIMALS EAT US PIECE BY PIECE WHILE WE WANDER THE SHADOWS OF SOCIETY BEING BEATEN BY CHILDREN!!!! Is that a price you're willing to pay?!?!???? Well, you might be, but me and Bubba aren't!! --stlolth@net.hr

Hi WJ. I like the range of subjects you have presented. Well I think this is simple. I wouldn't assume closed mindedness as a default. Good faith may well be applied to scientists also. Some subjects are considered pseudoscience simply due to lack of evidence for efficacy or effect. Characteristics of pseudoscience go much further than that and subjects are mostly considered pseudosciences due to the behaviour of the proponents (reluctance to test, mantra of holism, emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation etc). So in this case it would be useful to know the reasons for why a subject is considered pseudoscientific. Its simply a matter of good research. KrishnaVindaloo 03:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually think this is a valuable "third test" for the label pseudoscience. First test, someone citable must call a field pseudoscience or the equivalent ("unscientific balderdash" might be reasonably assumed to be the equivalent). Second test, there must be scientific unanimity about the subject; minimal cognitive dissonance - otherwise a more differentiated approach is required, i.e. in the article about the field, "J.J. said it is balderdash, whereas K.K. sees it as an unproven but potentially valuable insight." Third test: there must be methodological weaknesses (proponents refusal to test objectively or to recognize the results of these tests, un-disprovable hypotheses, etc.)

In fact, I'm so pleased with these three tests that I'm copying this over to Category Talk:Pseudoscience - though I have principled doubts about the category Hgilbert 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily on the same line of thought, but we should really remove the mathematical entries on this list. There's a clear distinction between Math and Science, so math-based theories can never be pseudoscience (instead, they fall under Pseudomathematics). ---DrLeebot 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They may be pseudomathematics, but the mathematical items on the list aren't pseudomathematics either. Bubba73 (talk), 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More examples (I'll be on the lookout for cites.) But some of these were only ignored by the scientific community and subjected to hostility and scorn. That's different than being "labeled as pseudoscience."

1. Before the 1970s, the medical community saw all body/mind interactions as pure magic and ridiculous superstition. Even the quite obvious placebo effect was only tolerated grudgingly and with great suspicion. Today it's all acceptable Neuroimmunology

2. String theory: in "Feynman's Rainbow," the author points out that string theorists had "failed," and were the butt of jokes, considered loopy, and thought to be hurting Caltech's reputation. They would have removed if not for secret funding by Murray Gell-Mann.

3. Hypnosis and the psychology of suggestion was debunked as part of Mesmer's animal magnetism, then rejected for many decades.

4. Robert Goddard's work on spacecrafts was rejected as science fiction fantasy

5. Zwicky's 1933 work on Dark Matter in stellar clusters was rejected, and Zwicky widely ridiculed as "crazy Fritz"

6. Einstein & relativity. Contrary to popular belief, Relativity fought an uphill battle in Europe. "One Hundred Against Einstein"

7. Barbara McClintlock's "jumping genes" was ridiculed and ignored for decades.

8. L. Galvani's discovery of bioelectric effects. "They call me the frog's dancing master."

9. Black Hole theory in 1930, S. Chandra was discredited and hounded out of Cambridge by Eddington and his supporters

10. Ben Franklin's early letters on pos/neg electricity were read before the Royal Society to howls of laughter. Only later was he taken seriously (for Sentry-box and kite experiment)

11. J H van't Hoff ridiculed for proposing that molecules had definite 3D structure.

12. Nottebohm's discovery that bird's brains do create new neurons. The biology community found this laughable, and ignored him. Later they essentially said that, well, maybe birds brains do create new neurons, but it doesn't happen in mammals. Later they said, well, it happens in mammals, but it doesn't happen in primates! Only over several decades Nottebohm prevailed. However, he still is considered an embarassment for turning up such a huge flaw in science ...for example, in Neurogenesis, Nottebohm is not mentioned, nor is his work in the references, yet Nottebohm essentially founded the entire field! (This would be like writing an extensive description of Relativity but while very carefully avoiding any mention of Einstein.)

Perhaps this should split off into a separate article. Yet another "list of" page. --Wjbeaty 08:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

references

I'm trying to look up some references where they are requested (I just added one). I saw that a large number of references were commented out - presumably because they are not referenced in the text. I saw some items there that could be listed as "further reading". Bubba73 (talk), 17:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Template disparity

I noticed that there is a different template being used for the two lists; one NPOV, one totally disputed, yet the two are equally well documented. We should match templates; either both should be totally disputed or both NPOV. Which do people prefer?Hgilbert 18:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

General Remarks on the Categories

The generally accepted scientific method involving repeatability, prediction etc. seems predicated on the notion that there is a material objective reality "out there" and independent of mental influence (since accepted experimental methods usually do not allow for the possibilities of such influences on the part of the testers, subjects etc). Consequently, any world view which postulates mental influence on matter seems disadvantaged from the start--it is playing uphill and against the wind for the whole game! Any comments? Preferably not relating to quantum theory :-)81.108.35.99 10:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)