Talk:History of pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Template:WPScience History of Science WikiProject This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no WikiProject Rational Skepticism This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth. WikiProject Philosophy Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Difficult topic

This sounds like a fairly difficult topic to handle, in part because there is no clear definition of what is "pseudoscience" even with modern investigations, and trying to apply such a term backwards over time seems like a difficult and ahistorical approach (was Kepler's desire for a harmony of the heavens pseudoscience?). How are you intending on approaching this? --Fastfission 23:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure we've really found the best title...what I would think about putting here are things that have happened on the "wrong" branches of scientific progress. That is, after the mainstream scientific community has decided to settle on X, and some minority or non-scientific community adopts Y and carries that forward. (Kuhn would call it pre-paradigm thought, or something.) Kepler's belief in his theory of perfect harmonic shapes pre-dates the scientific consensus on elliptical orbits, and since he was actually a central figure in creating that consensus, I would consider his work on that question part of the mainline history. Though I've not entirely convinced myself that this should really be a unified article, much less one as part of a series on the history of science, but we'll see. -- Beland 03:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How on earth would you do a history of the "wrong" branches of science when that state of "wrongness" is itself historically contingent? That's what I'm getting at, here. We would label much of Kepler to be pseudoscientific in origins; history causes us to strip out the parts which don't work with our modern understandings. Are you talking only about sciences which were considered "wrong" in their time or those which are considered "wrong" in our time? (if the latter, the list contains every discredited theory ever used! if the former, then you are including many things we now view as just fine!) This would be a difficult theoretical problem to task out in writing a book on the subject, much less a Wikipedia article. --Fastfission 01:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) All i know is that i fuck real hard

[edit] Merge with pseudoscience?

Does this article need to be separate? I would suggest merging it with pseudoscience. Hgilbert 21:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Deletion

This article contains very little content, while what content it does have seems to contain original research, is of poor historiographic quality, and obviously written from a Eurocentric/Imperialist POV. ("it was the Christian initiative that helped maintain a civilization recovery plan"???) Furthermore, pseudoscience is an ahistorical concept. To talk about a history of pseudoscience is a contradiction in terms, judging previous intellectual moments by present-day scientific standards. Many historians of science today would reject such a clear-cut demarcation. Where do such taxonomies such as "good," "questionable," and "faulty" sciences come from?

I would put this writing under the category of "pseudohistory." Fokion (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)