User:Jim Butler/Pseudocat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I started editing on WP, there was a great deal of confusion and contentiousness surrounding the proper use of category:pseudoscience. Following what NPOV says about categorization, I argued that "sensitive" (e.g., pejorative, not-too-clearly-delineated) categories such as "pseudoscience" should be used carefully on Wikipedia. To categorize on WP is to apply a label without qualification or comment, and that violates NPOV in certain cases.

Fortunately, in December 2006, the ArbCom rendered a particularly well-reasoned decision on pseudoscience. Since ArbCom decisions are binding, I proposed that this decision be formally incorporated into NPOV, and it was, with no objections: WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Here are some of the principles they decided upon:

(begin quote)

Obvious pseudoscience

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

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

Generally considered pseudoscience

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

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

Questionable science

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

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

Alternative theoretical formulations

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

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

(endquote)

The razor here is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Per WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus:

"Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

Scientific-consensus-type sources can be found in articles like this:

• List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
• Scientific opinion on climate change

If we can find such a source for a given topic, and that topic is not a tiny-minority absurdity (like Time Cube), then that topic is for our purposes "generally considered pseudoscience" and may be put in category:pseudoscience. If not, we should not use the category, but can include criticisms in the article (and, imo, put the topic on lists that are appropriately titled and annotated, e.g. a "List of alleged pseudosciences").

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

Additionally, for "questionable sciences" that are called pseudoscience by some critics, we can use a list of pseudosciences (and alleged pseudosciences) rather than category:pseudoscience. Cf. WP's categorization guidelines:

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.

[edit] What is pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience essentially means "something misrepresented as being scientific". The definition thus depends both on what is meant by "scientific" and on whether misrepresentation is taking place, and the term remains ill-defined. Unless one explains the ways in which a particular field diverges from the scientific method, the term pseudoscience remains little more than an epithet, like "cult".

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

Scientists generally comment on evidence, not on whether something is "pseudoscience". Pseudoscience is inherently a contentious term because it says that a topic's advocate is engaging (knowingly or not) in misrepresentation. Wikipedias's categorization guidelines, at WP:CG, suggest that we avoid using categories when they are contentious. Thus, for topics that are in "grey areas", i.e. that have significant scientific and pseudoscientific elements, we should be very careful about using the pseudoscience category. (Fortunately, since I wrote this section, the ArbCom has clarified matters and we may rely on WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience.

[edit] Inspirational quote

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

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