Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: 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.
  • Questionable science: 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.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
The Wikipedia Community has placed homeopathy and pages subject to related disruption on probation (see relevant discussion).
Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of sanctions, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.
An arbitration case, reviewing the results of the probation and various editors of homeopathic articles is currently ongoing. If you would like to participate, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 31, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Shroud of Turin

As someone already pointed out by editing the article, there is no universally accepted carbon dating result for the shroud in the scientific literature; I would remove the carbon dating part from the paragraph about the shroud if we agree.

--Achillu (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not universally accepted, but the majority-viewpoint is that there was no funny business with the radioactive decay. Interested readers should of course check the main article for details, but the age measurements by three independent laboratories are a major inclusion criterion. (Note - I am the one who added this point). Eldereft (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the carbon dating of the sample used is of course accurate and this is not controversial.
But this does not mean (according to the sources) that you can extend the dating of the sample to the whole shroud because the location of the sample was not accurately chosen. The laboratories themselves asked to repeat the carbon dating on another sample because of this inaccuracy, but unfortunately the Holy See disagreed.
--Achillu (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The ideas that the sample area was invisibly rewoven to repair fire damage or that more recent14C contaminated the sample are both adequately addressed in sources that, last I checked, were in the main article. Drop me a line if the article is not making this point clearly enough. Eldereft (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding. I am talking about the paragraph in this article and not about any paragraph in that article. That article is good as that is.
But being the carbon dating of the shroud a controversial topic I think that we should remove that information from the paragraph in this article, and keep only the part about the analyses of the paint and the herringbone twill weave of the cloth.
--Achillu (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
So should I be WP:BOLD and remove the carbon dating part from here?
--Achillu (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As is probably obvious from the above, I at least would not support such a removal. Noting the fact that there are claims contrary to the Damon et al. 14C dating, though, would probably improve the entry as long as we do not simply rehash a fairly lengthy and involved debate. Perhaps "Radiocarbon dating of the shroud ..., though some claim[citation needed] that the material tested was not representative of the whole shroud," with an actual citation, and the paint and cloth points as a separate sentence. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I did as you suggested; I added Rogers' and Ball's references to your exact quote; I think that the whole paragraph still needs some copyediting due to my non-native level of English :)
Thanks, --Achillu (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks great, thank you. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptics Encyclopedia

I have obtained copies of the Skeptics Encyclopedia articles on anthroposophy. The closest the article comes to connecting its subject matter to pseudoscience is the following, "Steiner claimed to be able to make scientific observations in the spirit world." That is a characterization; it would be OR to connect this to pseudoscience absent any more direct characterization. The article, in any case, is by someone with no academic or professional qualifications to comment on the area; he is a sound engineer and inventor of a microphone; the encyclopedia's contributors page lists no academic degrees in any field whatsoever.

I strongly suspect that other articles from this encyclopedia also do not justify the themes for which they are cited's inclusion here. But I am removing this entry as not fulfilling the list's own criteria. Hgilbert (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the book from Shermer, with the Skeptic Society? Or a different one? --Jim Butler(talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the Shermer book —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks HG. Is it OR to assume that the book's title suffices as a characterization for topics it covers? Or does it have some articles where Shermer is saying foo is not really PS? thx, Jim Butler(talk) 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe it actually does have some articles about non-PS. However, it's eminently obvious which those are. In this case, I'd have to read a bit of the article to judge; it's quite possible later discussion would go into why anthroposophy is bunk. If so, then it's fair to say the book characterizes it as pseudoscience. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree that the source is a V RS as long as we stick close to what it says. It doesn't have to use the exact word pseudoscience as long as it says something synonymous, like misrepresented as science. In this case, presumably the article disagrees with Steiner's claim of being "able to make scientific observations in the spirit world"? If so, then yes, the source is probably sufficient here, and the best thing would be to use the exact quote above. --Jim Butler(talk) 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. The article doesn't use any wording that is equivalent to a claim that anthroposophy is pseudoscientific.
  2. The author of the article has no scientific or academic qualifications and doesn't qualify as a verifiable source, in any case. Hgilbert (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
On (1), I haven't read the article, but I find the title of the book to be "fairly explanatory", to quote a fine moviepiece.
On (2), skeptics don't have to have any qualifications to be skeptics. Just opinions and someone to publish them. (That's part of what makes them, as defenders of scientific rigor, such wonderful examples of pot/kettle.) Besides, Shermer edited, and even if he's wrong he's still as qualified a commentator as any, and he and his group notable V RS's for "skeptical opinion", which is what we're explicitly citing, nothing less, nothing more. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 09:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, as mentioned above, in Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Heliocentrism, Thomas Kuhn, Occam's Razor, William Harvey, and Meteorites all have prominent articles. Shall we include them here as areas of pseudoscience? If memory serves, Continental Drift also has an article. I suggest that we expect some sort of wording in the actual article that supports inclusion. Otherwise we might just as well copy the tables of contents...but then identify them as such (topics with articles in various Encyclopedias of Pseudoscience). Hgilbert (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course we'll need a little wording within the chapter to justify it, but don't go expecting every article on a pseudoscientific subject to have a line specifically saying "...therefore X is pseudoscience." The book was written with the goal of being a source for a Wikipedia article. You just have to use your brain a little in determining whether a given article characterizes its subject as pseudoscience, or whether it's discussing some pseudoscience-related issue. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I was being slightly facetious re (2) above, but I basically agree with Infofile. As long as this source is factually correct on Steiner's claims about Anthroposophy's being scientific, and is critical of that claim, then it is OK here. --Jim Butler(talk) 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I just read the WP:BRAIN guideline, which says that "Your brain is not a source for article content." (first line) You mean, I think, just do a little WP:Original Research which can link what is not said in an article with what you interpret into it. If an article doesn't call something pseudoscience, then neither should we. We can characterize what is said. But that doesn't qualify it for inclusion on a page of things people have called pseudoscientific. If nobody has called it pseudoscientific or the equivalent, it is not up to us to do original research to determine whether it is or not. Hgilbert (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Applied Kinesiology (2)

Recently the Applied Kinesiology entry was edited to remove references (and the redundant word "pseudoscientific"). I believe this to have been done with good faith, but the explanation given in the edit summary cited WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, which, while having a certain broad relevance, seems to my mind not to provide motivation for removing these references. I would like therefore respectfully to request a more complete explanation for this edit. Eldereft (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience lists fours characterizations as follows:
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: 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.
  • Questionable science: 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.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Of these, AK falls under "Questionable Science" - for if it were an "Obvious Pseudoscience" or it was "Generally Considered Pseudoscience", it would be recognized as such by scientific bodies and fall under the first section of this list article. Since it is one deemed "pseudoscientific" by some skeptic groups, it falls under the latter section of our list article. Therefore, it's status as "scientific" is questionable. (I wouldn't imagine that it is an Alternative Theoretical Formulation.) That being so, the ArbCom ruled that Questionable Science should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience. Therefore, I removed the statement and refs characterizing it as such. Further, and outside of the world of ArbCom decisions and NPOV and FAQs, it doesn't make sense to outright label AK "pseudoscientific" if it is in a section where it is only considered pseudoscientific by some skeptical groups. Technically, if this list article was to present just examples of "pseudoscience", AK's existence here would violate the WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience guideline. However, since we have a POV-Fork-ish section here which merely provides examples of what some skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific, we seem to be skirting the guideline. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree, with one caveat: "obvious pseudoscience" doesn't necessarily require a source, but the ArbCom used that term to refer to tiny fringe topics like Time Cube. Topics with a following, big enough to attract commentary, are according to the ArbCom to be dealt with based on what V RS's say. Astrology, widely considered PS by scientists, falls at one end; psychanalysis at the other, and in between is where we have to do our homework source-wise. And this list helpfully adds an intermediate level, between "Generally Considered" and "Questionable": the "skeptic group" tier, for those "Questionable" sciences that have documentably ruffled a significant number of feathers.
No doubt there are some "alternative theoretical formulations" that have been rashly labelled pseudoscience; the idea that rocks fall from the sky comes to mind. Self-identified skeptics have been known to be full of (...the obvious), as when Penn & Teller: Bullshit! attempted to debunk global warming[1]. Anyway, our requiring statements from groups, as opposed to individuals, helps keep things a bit more encyclopedic. And the fact that scientific bodies tend to, as User:Gleng said, use the PS label sparingly gives me hope that discussion of grey-area issues can evolve in a less bumper-sticker-ish direction. --Jim Butler(talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see (either in the diff or the current entry) a reference citing a skeptical-group statement that AK is a pseudoscience. It shouldn't be on the list at all if it lacks that. --Jim Butler(talk) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not disputing the removal of the blanket "pseudoscientific" tag, but by Levine's logic, the entire entry should be removed, not just some of the sources (which, along with the entry itself, have been argued ad nauseum, if I recall). The problem is that, like acupuncture (yes, I am coming back to that eventually, but it is complex; thank you JB for all your fine work refining the issue) or hypnosis, there are both legitimate evidence-based applications and patent absurdity. The entry should reflect the fact that, for instance, manual muscle testing has a place in physical therapy, but using MMT to determine allergies is pure magical thinking. There is no mystical energy field to be disrupted when a patient grasps a "harmful substance", and certainly nobody can make a medical diagnosis based on such purported disruption.
As for the forkishness of the latter half of the list, I believe that this also has been argued past the point of usefulness (see above). Additionally, the demarcation does not really divide how it says it does since there are scientific consensus type references in the section. Eldereft (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please reconsider my logic. According to the ArbCom ruling, we shouldn't label questionable science (which AK is) as pseudoscience. However, we get around that ruling by labeling AK as something which some skeptic groups have called pseudoscientific. So technically we are not calling AK pseudoscience.
I think this is kind of bending the rules to satisfy a specific POV; which is why I think this section does violate WP:POVFORK or something to that effect. I really don't think it is encyclopedic to have a list which has inclusion criteria solely based on the opinions of a very specific and narrow POV. It's equivalent to having a list called "Unethical politicians according to members of the Republican Party". The party with the opinion is too involved to give a non-partisan viewpoint or one with any encyclopedic merit.
Finally, if there is something in the weaker "skeptical group" list which has sources worthy of placing it in the stronger "broad consensus" list, please do so. The "skeptical group" list is shaky information at best. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have in the past supported keeping the second tier exactly as it is, neither conflating it with the first nor removing it. However, Levine2112 makes an excellent point about the wording "should not be so characterized". Since ArbCom decisions are binding, that's a pretty strong argument that having such topics in an article called "list of pseudosciences" is inherently an NPOV violation, no matter what the fine print in the body of the article says.
So why not just keep the info but fork out a new article with an appropriate name, as was done with the redirect from the POV-as-it-gets article List of cults? Or pester the ArbCom about it again, if such a list just feels too wishy-washy. I'd recommend against that course.
Finally, for Eldereft, I understand your concerns about AK (and generally concur with them); I also see that V RS's do exist along these lines and are covered in some detail at Applied kinesiology. If none exists from a group, then I'm not sure what else to do for this list's purposes, given WP:NOTTRUTH. As for the demarcation between the first and second sections, it's quite explicit; any sci-consensus type sources in the second would simply justify moving the topic to the first, right? Or am I not grokking something? regards, Jim Butler(talk) 23:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Eldereft: AK doesn't advocate the use of muscle testing while holding an object in the hand or placing it on the body. That is a common misconception. Anthon01 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, while stuff like NAET incorporates AK, you're right (afaik) re AK per se. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindented)
The common misconception is that all techniques that use muscle testing are AK. It doesn't cost anything to do muscle testing as there are no machines to buy. And that has been a major problem in that anyone can start their own "muscle testing technique", and it often gets lump under AK. Misuse of the muscle testing should not be conflated with the AK, as we are striving for accuracy. Furthermore, AK does not claim to be a diagnostic technique per se, as it is to be used as an adjunct to standard medical diagnosis. Use of it as a standalone is not sanctioned by the ICAK. Finally, the research on AK is inconclusive. As is the case with many, alt-med techniques, they do not easily fit into existing models of scientific research, since alt-med seeks to treat individuals and not conditions. The science of how to test alt-meds is evolving. Anthon01 (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon: A satisfactory entry certainly would make it clear that AK covers a variety of techniques, but insofar as I am able to discover the touch/think about an object and homonculus-map aspects of AK are precisely what distinguish it from garden-variety MMT. Ultimately, in an unregulated profession practitioners can say and do pretty much as they like, but it would be a misrepresentation of how the term is used to disqualify such considerations. Eldereft (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As for AK meeting the inclusion criteria, these references are really not difficult to find, and if we dig just a little an unassailably balanced entry can be made briefly outlining all relevant points.
  • The Massachusetts Medical Society (which publishes The New England Journal of Medicine) compiled in 2001 a review (pdf) of naturopathic practices, which calls applied kinesiology "outright quackery."
  • The American Cancer Society considers that "[a]vailable scientific evidence does not support the claim that applied kinesiology can diagnose or treat cancer or other illness." This is given expressly in reference to the 'muscles as map to the organs' aspects of AK, not "kinesiology, a field of scientific study of the movements of the human body," as our entry should make clear. This is also an example of why I support inclusion of reference quotes to make it easy to determine that a citation really supports what we say it does even after heavy revisions.
  • British Columbia and Alberta Skeptics (pdf) call AK "most deinitely pseudo-science." (might not meet WP:RS, though I think their notability is sufficient)
  • CSI does not have an article exclusively on applied kinesiology, but mentions in a couple of refereed Skeptical Inquirer articles that it is "a scientifically discredited procedure"[2][3] (note the use of "discredited", not "unproven").
  • Entries are in at least the online versions of both The Skeptic's Dictionary and An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural, I can check the published versions of each (which are not self-published) at my local library if we need them.
  • Even an insurance company specializing in complementary care (pdf) considers AK "scientifically implausible", and does not recommend it "as a useful diagnostic method because validity was not confirmed in any of three independent research groups that have assessed the validity of this technique under a variety of circumstances in a rigorous manner." Translation: tests have been performed which would be expected to have shown an effect if AK were valid. This is not an area where the jury is still out. This site is not so much WP:RS on this subject, but it is telling that even a company promoting other complementary techniques denies AK's scientific basis.
Eldereft (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That first one, MassMed, looks like a home run for our purposes, i.e. a first-tier source, if I'm not mistaken. --Jim Butler(talk) 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends upon how accurate you want to be.

The Myths of “Toxins” and “Food Allergies,” and Associated Diagnostic Quackery
Equally false and alarmist are naturopathic claims regarding toxins and food allergies (e.g., 25% of Americans allegedly suffer from heavy metal poisoning,and food allergies are claimed to be a major cause of problems ranging from learning disorders to kidney diseases). Many of the means by which naturopaths diagnose these toxins and allergies are outright quackery: electrodiagnostic devices (banned by the FDA as worthless), hair analysis, applied kinesiology, iridology, and more. A practitioner who expects to find multiple offending substances may well “uncover” these with some of these methods, while missing the occasional real one. Imagine the pressure on the DPH to do something about these horrible toxins and allergies, once legitimized by the official diagnoses of licensed practitioners. Imagine, for that matter, the effect of this on worker’s compensation, disability insurance, union grievances, and civil court caseloads.

According to the Mass Medical statement, the means by which naturopaths diagnose include applied kinesiology. Please compare this statement with the Status of the ICAK. [4] The following from the bottom of the statement.

... Provide an interactive assessment of the functional health status of an individual which is not equipment intensive but does emphasize the importance of correlating findings with standard diagnostic procedures ...

When properly performed, applied kinesiology can provide valuable insights into physiologic dysfunctions; however, many individuals have developed methods that use muscle testing (and related procedures) in a manner inconsistent with the approach advocated by the International College of Applied Kinesiology-U.S.A. Clearly the utilization of muscle testing and other A.K. procedures does not necessarily equate with the practice of applied kinesiology as defined by the ICAK-U.S.A.

There are both lay persons and professionals who use a form of manual muscle testing without the necessary expertise to perform specific and accurate tests. Some fail to coordinate the muscle testing findings with other standard diagnostic procedures. These may be sources of error that could lead to misinterpretation of the condition present, and thus to improper treatment or failure to treat the appropriate condition. For these reasons the International College of Applied Kinesiology-U.S.A. defines the practice of applied kinesiology as limited to health care professionals licensed to diagnose.

Herein lies the problem I mentioned above. Naturopaths using muscle testing as a means of diagnosing heavy metal toxicity, or any other malady, are using muscle testing but are not practicing AK. If AK muscle testing required the purchase of expensive machinery or a precription to purchase machinery, AK wouldn't be having this problem. Anthon01 (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01: Please refrain from impugning my editorial rectitude. Please forgive if such was not your intention, but your words were not appreciated. On a lighter note, I am also confused by your apparent non sequitur about the price of testing equipment.
In response to your actual point above, yes ICAK restricts membership to those licensed to diagnose or in a program resulting in such licensure, ensuring that AK diagnosis will not be the only tool available to their practitioners. They are not, however, a professional organization governing legal restriction on the use of the term, even within the US. As I mentioned above, we as editors are restricted to reporting accurately how the term is used, not how ICAK wishes that it would be used. Finally, even restricted to the views of ICAK, applied kinesiology still includes "the use of manual muscle testing to evaluate body function through the dynamics of the musculoskeletal system." Unless I am misreading their description, this indicates an acceptance of the pseudoscientific theory that specific muscle groups mystically map on to particular organs in such a way that their degree of function correlates even in the absence of known or hypothesized neurochemical pathways or evolutionary advantage to such a system. Eldereft 04:18, January 12, 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I wasn't intending to question your integrity. There is some degree of latitude we have as editors. Consider it my poor attempt to appeal to reason. If muscle testing required the purchase of an expensive unit (eg. similar to a small X-ray device (35,000 US), then we wouldn't have 'everyone and his mother' starting a new technique that inappropriately utilizing muscle testing for diagnosis. I will respond to the rest later today. Anthon01 (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Now that I see where you are coming from, I see that you raise a very good and pertinent point about imprecision in the definition of an unregulated practice - anyone with some office space and a printer can say they are practicing AK, which dilutes the specificity of the term. Certainly this should inform our entry, doubly so since there are also scientific aspects. I would also like to seek your expertise (or that of anyone more familiar than I with the issue at hand): is it more correct to say "the practice of applied kinesiology includes a variety of techniques, including both evidence-based (e.g. manual muscle testing) and pseudoscientific (e.g. allergy/tocsin diagnosis or relating organ health to muscle status)"; or to say "applied kinesiologists use a variety of techniques, including ..."? Eldereft (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed subject(s)

There seem to have crept in several topics lacking sourcing to meet the list's stated criteria: "This is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts regarded as pseudoscientific by organizations within the international scientific community, and/or skeptical organizations." Rather than revise those criteria (which were hammered out over a long period of consensus-building and attention to WP:CLS, NPOV, VER and OR) on an ad-hoc basis, I suggest moving such topics to the talk page, and (like references) keeping them in their own dedicated, always accessible at bottom-of-page section, Topics under review. Also removed the subheader "disputed subjects", which had only one entry (organic farming, itself lacking adequate sourcing).

Apologies if this bold editing treads on any feet; it's done in the spirit of WP:L#Listed_items, excerpted below. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 05:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to question a few things. Firstly, the stealth edit that took away the qualifier of notable skeptics. Not only did that take away a giant class of reliable sources, it excludes one of the most important sources for this article, notably the Encylopedia of Pseudoscience. Secondly, Jim, the issue of Anthroposophic medicine was discused many months ago. In fact, these talking points are still way up at the top. The Bates Method entry follows along the same lines. The scientific racism one is clearly important and Dr. Gould is clearly a reliable source for this claim. I do congratulate you on your other bold edits though, as alot of cruft does need to be culled from this list. Baegis (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't go by hidden criteria that are inconsistent with the explicit ones. It's hard to imagine that my fixing hidden text to make it consistent with the article is a "stealth edit". Baegis, I'd a appreciate a retraction of that characterization (although I do appreciate the AGF in your ES). I could not have been more explicit in my edit summary.
I have not been aware of this (putative) change until now, as my comments above and my edit summaries show. As far as I (and IMO most editors) knew, the inclusion criteria were summarized by the mantra "statement by a group", which has good foundation in WP:WEIGHT and WP:VER. The hidden text said "in this section, skeptics or skeptical bodies", but that was never reflected in the visible text of the article, so I don't think we should populate the list accordingly until or if we agree to the change.
After a little digging, I found the edit in which the hidden text was added. However benign Infophile's intentions, (his|her) ES said nothing about expanding the inclusion criteria to include individual skeptics. Evidently, this change was made without discussion, per archived talk. The only relevant comment I see is this opinion from Infophile, which doesn't say anything about actually changing the article's criteria. I'm sure the reason there wasn't more discussion is that it was hidden, and not mentioned on the talk page, or even explictly in an ES.
There is no consensus for this change to the list's inclusion criteria. Absent that, all my excisions appear to be sound, given the sources cited. Will leave that for someone else to revert. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 08:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC) edit: Actually, I feel strongly enough about this to rv Baegis's edits myself. I simply cannot agree with including topics based on a non-agreed-upon "hidden" criterion. --Jim Butler(talk) 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
A little clarification of what was going on at the time: My intention with that note was to help prevent editors coming in and blindly adding items unsourced. I wasn't aware at the time that the threshold was determined to be groups, and at the time some of the sources used were individual skeptics. So, I put the note in reflecting what I saw to be going on. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that if we are going to include skeptics at all in the list criteria (a subsection with even a weaker threshold for existence in the face of WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience) that its inclusion criteria should not only be limited to skeptical groups, but notable ones at that. We are treading on thin ice as many of topics we list which some skeptical group considers to be pseudosciences, are for all intents and purposes more along the lines of questionable sciences or alternative theoretical formulations - topics which NPOV/FAQ:Pseudoscience warns us should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience here at Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
For Levine2112: Yes, it is undue weight to depict the opinion of any individual as being on par with the opinions of entire skeptical societies, let alone mainstream scientific groups. (I'm uncomfortable enough with putting the latter two groups under the same unbrella; the article ought to be called "List of pseudosciences and alleged pseudosciences".)
Additionally, WP:NOT#DIR applies. I doubt WP needs an list of everything every "notable" individual has called a pseudoscience. Look at the mess List of cults has become. V RS statements by individuals that foo is a pseudoscience can go in WP, but are better put in individual articles. I see no reason for WP to duplicate Robert Todd Carroll's list here. That's what his website is for, and WP duly links to it, in the article about Carroll. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Carroll is a very notable skeptic and his views are very important in this article. The hidden criteria that could only be viewed by an editor when they tried to edit a page is completely acceptable. Could you imagine how unwieldy the title of that section would be if it was included? Topics which skeptical groups or important or otherwise notable skeptics consider to be pseudoscientific. Not a very pretty section title, to say the least. The exclusion of Carroll, on dubious grounds, takes away a giant RS, in the Skeptic's Dictionary (I misspoke earlier about the name). And you are right, WP does not need to chronicle what every skeptic has said about these topics. Only those that are very notable, ie Carroll. I fail to see a valid reason for excluding this source. Baegis (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just imagine the disruption it would cause if we made the inclusion criteria visible. We might have to get consensus or something. (/sarcasm) So far, three editors oppose your rv and no others support it, so methinks it is a "valid concern". Nota bene: this isn't intelligent design where scientific consensus is clear-cut. Topics are disputed, and there are cases where notable skeptics express views at odds with sci consensus[5]. Full-steam ahead S(kepticical, not necessarily even Scientific)POV editing here is a bad idea, and ignoring consensus is always a bad idea. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Make that two for. Carroll is a notable and reliable source. What is the rationale for his exclusion? Vsmith (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed Carroll is notable, but he's not an organization. The wording in the lead section and second subsection has, for at least a year, clearly indicated something along the lines of "organizations within the international scientific community, and/or skeptical organizations". We discussed that extensively (see archived talk) and agreed on it for WP:WEIGHT and WP:VER reasons, so that inclusion of topics on the list would reflect at least some level of consensus. Now if we want to change that, fine, but that needs to be discussed, and the article's wording changed (visibly). Make sense? cheers --Jim Butler(talk) 04:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For Infophile: Thanks; I didn't think you were being sneaky or anything. You were trying to bring some order to chaos. Apart from the unwarranted inclusion of individual skeptics, it was an excellent edit. Agree very much on rigor in sourcing. Hope you understand my concerns as well. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No need to pile on praise; I wasn't put off by your comment, just thought I'd explain it a bit more since the edit was under question. Primary point I was trying to make was that the inclusion of individuals reflected the current state of the article - which used sources from Robert Todd Carroll to justify inclusion - rather than consensus from past discussion. Which means that anyone who's now using that text to justify using him alone as a source is begging the question. Anyways, I do see your concerns here. I'll have to think about the issues a bit more before weighing in what the criteria should be (though for now, I think it would be best to go back to the past consensus criteria until we've established that consensus has changed). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. --Jim Butler(talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Concerning weight - I put forth that e.g. Carl Sagan or Stephen J. Gould (disclosure - I added the "Mismeasure of Man" citation to the Scientific Racism entry) might be considered better a source than an entire raft of less notable individuals. Clearly we should not open the doors to include, for instance, your average young physicist well below the WP:PROF bar, but it would seem to be within the bounds of WP:SOURCES to include the considered opinions of an individual "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, we may wish to spend some time with the instruction creep guideline, and hereafter simply evaluate each source on its own merits. People, groups, and bodies noted for an ability and tendency fairly to represent scientific consensus may be cited as such; all others should be referenced only in their own articles or when their opinions are relevant. We have (and should maintain) a stated policy that any legitimate uses of or explanations for a term or technique (one of us really should get the hypnosis entry up to snuff, it is the prime example for this sort of discussion) must be noted, but that does not preclude informed evaluation of each source on its own merits. Eldereft (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Further, I fail to see why this (disclosure - I added this reference as well) reference is disputed as regards to showing that CSI, a notable skeptical organization, considers that there is no good science justifying any sort of racism. Eldereft (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Eldereft - Generally, this is reasonable enough as long as we cite sources properly and don't overreach re claims of consensus. (Re CSICOP: do articles published by orgs = position statements? We don't cite articles in NEJM and say "NEJM says....". Does CSICOP certify otherwise? Anyway, certainly can cite Kurtz as Kurtz in CSICOP.)
Entirely agree with Fyslee that all this will be much easier to handle if we get the name-change in the RfC below to fly. --Jim Butler(talk) 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
And then we should change the introduction to match: individuals as well as organizations. Hgilbert (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree; good edit. Just did a couple more along those lines... getting better, assuming we can also bring the title up to speed. Agree with your points in section above. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topics under review

Per WP:L#Listed_items: "Difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page in order to attain consensus and to ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced and that the page on which the list appears as a whole represents a neutral point of view."

  • Organic farming – a set of techniques for food production that avoids the use of synthetic pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and genetic technology. One prominent skeptic, Robert Todd Carroll, claims that this is "based on anti-scientific beliefs, myths, and superstition".[1] A recent study, however, has shown the possibility of limited beneficial effects to the consumption of organic dairy products.[2]
  • Anthroposophic medicine is a form of complementary medicine[3] founded in the 1920s by Rudolf Steiner in conjunction with Dr. Ita Wegman. Adherents believe in a holistic and salutogenic approach to health. Skeptic Robert Carroll asserts the underlying thinking can be explained by sympathetic magic out of touch with conventional medicine.[4] No thorough scientific analysis of anthroposophical medicine generally has been undertaken; studies of individual medicines have shown a range of positive and negative results.[5] An "anthroposophic lifestyle" has been shown to reduce atopy.[6]
  • The Bates method for better eyesight is an educational method developed by ophthalmologist William Bates, intended to improve vision "naturally" to the point at which it can allegedly eliminate the need for glasses by undoing a habitual strain to see.[7] These claims are viewed with skepticism by ophthalmologists and optometrists, and in 1929 Bates was cited by the FTC for false or misleading advertising in connection with his book describing the method.[8] Although many people claim to have improved their eyesight by following his principles[9], Bates' theories about vision continue to lack mainstream support.[10][11][12]
  • Integrative Manual Therapy is a combination of modalities developed by Sharon Weiselfish, Ph.D., P.T., the originator of Developmental Manual Therapy. Integrative Manual Therapy borrows from Craniosacral Therapy.[13]
  • Cryptozoology is the search for animals believed to exist, but for which conclusive evidence is lacking. This includes both seeking out and cataloging undiscovered species in remote areas and searching for known animals believed to be extinct. While much of the planet, particularly the deep oceans, remains underexplored, claims of the more outré cryptids such as Bigfoot or Chupacabra are often considered pseudoscience by mainstream zoologists and biologists.[citation needed]

[edit] Single individuals as sources

Many, many items presently only list single individuals as sources. These should be removed from the page under the present criteria. Hgilbert (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is a single critic's classification sufficient for this article or not? Hgilbert (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If we change the title to something like "List of purported pseudosciences", then provisionally, I think that should be OK. But there will then ensue much argument over who's a V RS. More commentary in another section below; I'm afraid discussion here will get lost because of the large amount of material you pasted in here. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The following seem to all be sourced to individuals and thus do not meet current criteria:

[edit] Earth and Earth sciences

  • The Bermuda Triangle is a region of the Atlantic Ocean that lies between Bermuda, Puerto Rico, and (in its most popular version) Florida. Frequent disappearances and ship and aircraft disasters in this area have led to the circulation of stories of unusual natural phenomona, paranormal encounters, and interactions with extraterrestrial.[16]
  • Out-of-body experiences are experiences where a person seems to see the world from a location outside of the physical body. Qua experience, OBEs are real and theory-neutral, but some explanations invoke the paranormal.[16]
  • Pseudoarcheology is the investigation of the ancient past using alleged paranormal or otherwise means which have not been validated by mainstream science.[16]
  • Animal mutilations are cases of animals, primarily domestic livestock, with seemingly unexplainable wounds. These wounds have been said to be caused by natural predation, extra terrestrials, cults, or covert government organizations.[16]
  • Tutankhamun's curse was allegedly placed on the discoverers of Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun, causing widespread deaths and other disastrous events.[16]
  • Tunguska event is an anomalous meteor strike said to actually be the impact of a miniature black hole or a large body composed of antimatter, or Ball lightning.[16]

[edit] Misc.

[edit] Medicine and Health

  • Anthroposophic medicine is a form of complementary medicine[3] founded in the 1920s by Rudolf Steiner in conjunction with Dr. Ita Wegman. Adherents believe in a holistic and salutogenic approach to health. Skeptic Robert Carroll asserts the underlying thinking can be explained by sympathetic magic out of touch with conventional medicine.[4] No thorough scientific analysis of anthroposophical medicine generally has been undertaken; studies of individual medicines have shown a range of positive and negative results.[17] An "anthroposophic lifestyle" has been shown to reduce atopy.[18]
  • Hypnosis is an extremely relaxed state in which a person is unusually responsive to suggestions made by the hypnotist. While hypnosis in some sense is almost universally regarded as real, explanations of the phenomenon are split between whether hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness, or falls within conscious psychology.[citation needed] Certain applications of hypnosis in psychotherapy, such as smoking cessation and self-esteem improvement, currently lack robust empirical support.[citation needed] Evidence in support of hypnosis comes from hypnotic suggestion studies, neuroscientific data (eg. EEG), and from patients who have received surgery under hypnosis.[19][16]. Some claimed uses of hypnosis outside of hypnotherapy clearly fall within the area of pseudo-science, such as using the hypnotic technique of regression beyond plausible limits; past life regression. Also see false memory syndrome.

[edit] Religious and spiritual beliefs

Spiritual and religious practices and beliefs are normally not classified as pseudoscience.[20] At least one prominent skeptical source relates the following to pseudoscience in some way, however:

  • Feng shui is the ancient Chinese practice of placement and arrangement of space to achieve harmony with the environment and improve health and fortune. There is an article about Feng shui (with unknown content) in the Skeptic's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience.[16]
  • Neoshamanism is a combination of shamanistic, new-age spiritual, and other philosophies which include belief in spirits, meditation and sometimes the use of entheogens. There is an article about neoshamanism (with unknown content) in the Skeptic's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience.[16]


[edit] reincarnation as pseudoscience

  • Reincarnation is the belief that souls inhabit a succession of physical bodies over the course of their existence. It is not usually believed that memories survive reincarnation, but some people have claimed to have remembered past lives, which can be scientifically studied. There is an article about reincarnation (with unknown content) in the Skeptic's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience.[16]
this entry is laughable, unserious and for some people (eg. Hinduists, buddhists and many neopagans it can be offensive as well.

It's not right for Wikipedia to offend one's religious, philosophical or mystical beliefs. To be frank, I for instance believe in reincarnation and I feel offended seeing it in a row with crooky or obsolete theories. Religious matters are non-verifiable and therefore, they can't be deemed pseudoscientific or scientific. I've never read this so-called "skeptic encyclopedia', but I think that the topic may relate to some unscrupulous form of reincarnation research or some unsound pseudo-psychological or pseudo-medical theories; that could be pseudoscientific; reincarnation itself, however, as well as damnation, salvation, heaven, hell, purgatory, etc. are RELIGIOUS, NON-SCIENTIFIC MATTERS which are neither "scientific", nor 'pseudoscientific'. As for now, I'm for deletion of this entry. Critto (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] neoshamanism as pseudoscience

I think that mentioning of neoshamanism as pseudoscience may also be offensive to many people, who treat it as religious path (ie shamanistic reconstructionism or building-up a new religion based on old shamanism). Neoshamanism as religious and spiritual path is no more 'pseudoscientific' than Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Neopaganism. It doesn't matter here, what traditional shamanists and shamans think about neo-shamanism, as this is a big debate and Wikipedia should be neutral (NPOV) in it. Only some unscrupulous theories, willing to "explain" some verifiable facts by shamanistic theories (eg. some crooky medical practices offered for big money) could be referred to as 'pseudoscience'. As for now, I'm for deletion of this entry. Critto (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Shroud of Turin is a length of linen cloth believed by some members of the Christian community to have been Jesus' death shroud.[16] [[Radiocarbo

n dating]] of the original material has shown that it dates from the 13th or 14th century,[21] and analyses of the paint and the herringbone twill weave of the cloth similarly point to a medieval origin.[22]

[edit] shroud of Turin as pseudoscience

Also, I consider mentioning of Shroud of Turin as pseudoscience to be offensive to many people. While Shroud itself is not a part of religious belief of any organized religion or church, and the object itself is a verifiable phenomena, there's a lot of research for and against authenticity, and both sides have a solid scientific background; I've read about the subject recently and there are some facts that could prove the Shroud to be coming really from 1th century AD (eg. the material itself); also, the blood on it has been proven real; moreover, NO pigment of any kind was found in it, and some scientists (eg. Raymonds) believe there's some complicated chemical reaction between amines of the dead body and starch, possibly also with a soap-like substance from the plant Saponaria, that was used at the production of the material. The medieval artisan would have to really crucify a person and put his/her body to decay. Therefore, as the Shroud is the subject of a serious scientific debate, it should NOT be included here. Critto (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other

[edit] RfC: New article title needed

I fully agree with Jim Butler when he writes above:

  • "...the article ought to be called "List of pseudosciences and alleged pseudosciences".)" [6]

The current title is a major underlying cause of many of the problems we have with this article. Titles are inclusion criteria, and the current one has always given us problems. Therefore it needs to be changed. We (editors here) aren't in the business of declaring (in articlespace) our opinions of what is pseudoscience or not pseudoscience. We document what others say about the matter. We need a title that is in harmony with any and all inclusion criteria found in the article and the talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 05:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree. Or "purported" in place of "alleged", but that basic idea. --Jim Butler(talk) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: And if you don't believe me, ask the ArbCom, who said:
"Questionable science: 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."
Inclusion of such topics in the present list amounts to a characterization as pseudoscience, and thus a violation of canonical policy. The ArbCom's ruling on pseudoscience, now a part of NPOV policy, was intended to help settle contentious issues like this. Let's heed it. --Jim Butler(talk) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This subject has been broached many times, with many suggestions. Some earlier discussions on this subject are found above:
A few titles that have been suggested and that might be good, simple, and NPOV, are:
  • "List of concepts critiqued as pseudoscientific"
  • "List of topics ever termed pseudoscientific"
Jim Butler's newer suggestions:
  • "List of pseudosciences and alleged pseudosciences"
  • "List of pseudosciences and purported pseudosciences"
Which can be cooked down to:
  • "List of purported pseudosciences"
There's plenty to think about here. -- Fyslee / talk 08:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. Many of these, contrary to the introduction, are supported by a reference to one individual author, not even a skeptical organization. Hgilbert (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • How about "List of purported pseudosciences" as a separate article? Anthon01 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment That is a possibility, although it would leave us wondering where to put "obvious pseudosciences" like Time Cube (granted, not a big deal, since those are barely notable anyway). With a single renamed article, we could use section headings to demarcate, e.g.:
1. "Pseudosciences according to scientific consensus"
2. "Purported pseudosciences per notable sources"
...and the rest. It may be easier to get consensus for a straight name change without forking, but we'll see. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This also helps avoid conflating pseudoscience with the fringes (pun intended) of pseudoscience. Anthon01 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The proposition is not about a fork, but a new title that would be more inclusive and NPOV. Everything related to charges of pseudoscience, including obvious pseudoscience, would clearly be included, since it has been labeled as pseudoscience by V & RS. Our inclusion criteria at Wikipedia for sources is not notability (that's the inclusion criteria for articles themselves), but V & RS. We have been excluding sources on an illegitimate basis (editorial biases) not founded in Wiki policies. Individual sections and clear attribution can then let readers determine what weight to give the individual accusations.
BTW, let's not let this RfC section get sidetracked with individual examples from the various discussions. This is about the title change, and only that. We need a title that doesn't label anything "pseudoscience". The article itself will be filled with sources that do that, more or less successfully. They do it, we don't. That will leave readers with more free hands, which is what we want. Exclusionism, deletionism, and prior censorship are killing this article. It could be huge and rich. If (generic) you know that your favorite subject has been the subject of criticism, and it isn't listed here, then there may well be a chance that something's wrong. If you have been instrumental in keeping it out, then you are failing as a Wikipedia editor and violating NPOV. Wikilawyering has been used extensively to keep well-known controversial subjects (labeled as pseudoscience in V & RS) out of this article, and the inclusion critieria have constantly been revised to do the same thing. That's wrong. We need to stick to what V & RS say, whether we like it or not. Notability doesn't apply. -- Fyslee / talk 16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comments below on V RS's for this article. --Jim Butler(talk) 11:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any disagreement, so please reconsider your vote. It will be a list of what others (who CAN be quoted) consider pseudosciences, and what we (who CAN'T be quoted) also consider pseudosciences. There are plenty of good sources that call a spade a spade. Let's use them. Readers who are looking for some examples of pseudosciences will come here and find that many reliable sources assert that this or that practice is a pseudoscience. The sources will stand on their own merits and readers will have a chance to believe them or not. The sources that are very notable will likely be regarded as more meritorious than the sources that aren't as notable (but are still considered notable enough to be published in V & RS, which are the inclusion criteria for references in ALL articles here). There is no legitimate argument for having different inclusion criteria here, against wiki policies. It is not our burden to personally assert anything. Our job is to find and include those who do assert it. -- Fyslee / talk 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what we do already. There's really no need to pander to true-believers by changing to such an ugly new title. Jefffire (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think the straightforward title "List of pseudosciences" is NPOV, that's fine for you, but other editors will never buy it. I think we need clarification from higher authorities here about that. We are editors and are always thinking in terms of NPOV, but readers aren't, and our forcing of NPOV on article titles could be problematic. Whatever the case may be, it is undeniable that the current title has been the source of much contention because it sets the tone as the first and most obvious inclusion criteria. If this were my (much neglected) website, I'd use that title, but NPOV is not a concern there....;-) We need to get all discussions about inclusion criteria correct from the start, beginning with the title. It has always been a thorn in our sides and has provided an excuse for believers in some pseudosciences to keep their pet ideas from getting listed.
Let's change the title and then move on with a more focused discussion of inclusion criteria. This RfC isn't about that. -- Fyslee / talk 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Pseudoscience peddlers will always oppose whatever the title is. At least this way it is accurate and succinct. Jefffire (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
And in violation of WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience ("Questionable science"). --Jim Butler(talk) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Is psychoanalysis in the article at the moment? You can't just claim a pseudoscience is "questionable science" to circumvent the rules. Jefffire (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
And you can't claim a questionable science to be a pseudoscience. The ArbCom gave us a razor: "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Not a single topic in the second , "skeptical groups" section includes a sci-consensus type source. See WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus. I'm not a fan of many of those topics, but so what? Still need an adequate source. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Anthon01 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree I'm afraid this cure may be worse than than the disease. Essentially it appears to lower the threshold for criteria to be included on the list, which means more subjects will be put on the list that are in the gray area... therefore more edit warring than we have now. This is a contentious list, it will never be totally stable because the definition is not clear and it is used as a pejorative. To include more is to require more maintenance. Our efforts can be used better elsewhere. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree: Per Dematt, but also because the title of an article is not a summary of the article. "Alleged" can just be a subsection within the article. Personally I would prefer an even shorter title to be honest but I'm definately against making it longer and longer. Shot info (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Um.... the title is indeed a summary of the article.... see Wikipedia:Lists#List_naming. --Jim Butler(talk) 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Agree If you have been on Wikipedia any length of time, you will know we spend an inordinate length of time trying to get things in this category. Supporters of assorted pseudosciences fight frantically to keep their favorite flaky idea from being labelled as pseudoscience. We waste huge amounts of efforts on this when we could be just writing more articles, and making this category more inclusive so that it is more useful. Lets cut the crap and get on with writing an encyclopedia. If this makes it easier to get crank articles into this category, lets try it. Also, some of these extremely flaky topics might turn into real science, so this gives us a fig leaf (although I hardly think it is needed and the chance of this happening is almost zero). --Filll (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this problem would be far better sorted by a change in policy to make it easier to remove such supporters. Jefffire (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I trust you're not referring to editors like myself and Dematt who have advocated for balanced treatment of controversial, well-known topics like acupuncture and chiropractic, which some have called pseudoscientific, but are also taken quite seriously by many scientists. I have no problem with criticism of either topic, and a long history of "writing for the enemy". I just don't want undue weight given to critics. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jim Butler. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with the name change, and I'm against making "alleged pseudoscience" a separate article, because that may require someone to judge whether it is really pseudoscience or alleged to be. Bubba73 (talk), 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. But making it a separate article would allow the Pseudoscience page to achieve stability and carry the contentious topics to that page alone. Anthon01 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
But my concern is that a seperate article like that could be POV fork. Is a topic really pseudoscience or does someone allege that it is? Bubba73 (talk), 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In this context, it doesn't really matter whether it is "really pseudoscience" or whether "someone allege[s] that it is." We can only quote what someone alleges. They will allege that homeopathy, for example, is a pseudoscience, and we will of course agree that it is indeed one of the most pseudoscientific concepts that exist, but we can't say that in the article. We can provided V & RS that allege it and we can sit back and let readers be the judge in the end. Our job as editors is to present what the sources say, not say it ourselves in the list. They say it absolutely is a pseudoscience. What more needs to be done than that? Nothing! -- Fyslee / talk 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a matter of how weighty the collective opinions are. Scientific consensus is as close as we can get to a topic "actually" being pseudoscience, but they save their commentary for really notable, egregious things. For topics that haven't received sci-consensus commentary (as opposed to, e.g., astrology and creationism), we have the ArbCom's decision (see top of page, and NPOV): include critical opinions, but don't categorize or characterize as pseudoscience. That suggests, among other things, not putting them on a "list of pseudosciences". --Jim Butler(talk) 01:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree Well, I've been thinking about this one for a bit, trying to figure out which title I'd prefer, but I've come to a bit of a mental impasse. The problem I see is that if we harden the title ("List of pseudosciences"), then we'll be forced to only include the very small number of subjects which are unquestionably pseudoscience by editors with an axe to grind regarding their own fringe subject. On the other hand, if we make it too soft ("List of alleged pseudosciences"), then we'll get overflowed with everything that had once been called pseudoscience. Even though these problematic editors will have to let their own pet subject in the list, they'll make the list useless by adding a good chunk of mainstream science as well. (Off the top of my head, we'd have to worry about inclusions of evolution, global warming and psychiatry, for instance.) I guess what I'm saying is that whichever way we go with the article, there's a certain contingent of editors who will try to support it for their own benefit. Even if we try to clarify what the inclusion criteria actually are within the article, they'll use the title as an argument for why the criteria should be changed.
However, I do agree that the title here is a problem, and I have come to the tentative conclusion that the recommended title, "List of pseudosciences and alleged pseudosciences," albeit a bit clunky, is probably the best solution. What I'm thinking is that if we make the title this way, we might be able to segregate the subjects within the list a bit, according to how well-sourced the view that they're psuedoscientific is. So if we are forced to include subjects only a few cranks call pseudoscience, we can place them in a special section at the bottom. I don't think we really should have to do this, but it might be necessary depending on how far they try to stretch the inclusion criteria. At least this title gives us this safety net. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • not convinced either way- one problem with the title change is that pretty much everything has been alledged by someone to be a pseudoscience. I've seen the term used by cranks to talk about relativity for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • neither - I agree with Josh about the problem with using alleged. It is way too much of a loaded word to use in this context. The problem with this article is that everyone wants to make sure their pet fringe theory isn't included. It will always be a problem on this page and many pseudo pages. A simple title change is not going to rectify the problem. Baegis (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree: Keep one list and include all the things which are not included in mainstream science, but which aspire to be. The word science doesn't mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, it means mainstream science. And topics which attempt to gain credibility with the scientific illiterate by trying to look scientific when they are not should all be here, if they are notable enough. Of course a few repeatable scientific experiments written up in a reputable peer reviewed journal would be all it takes to move a subject off the list. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
And the main thrust of the name change is correct - the article name should be understood to mean the same thing by all editors, and not depend on the personal views of editors. The title could be even List of subjects considered pseudosiences by mainstream science. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A noble idea, but then getting everyone to agree on the definition of "mainstream science" will be near impossible. Everyone with a pet theory will try to argue for a definition that will allow for their pet to be excluded. Baegis (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And every "skeptic" will try for a definiton that allows as many topics as possible. "James Randi - he so clever - he get to say what science is!" Or better, I know, let's have editors vote on what science is! Moving away from wikiality, Claims of consensus aren't that hard to demonstrate for notable pseudosciences, as one can see from the list's first section. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not the ones in the top of the article that are of much concern. Those are all nailed down, no questions asked. It's the other ones that will be the source of endless bickering and edit warring. And again, not every skeptic warrants inclusion. Notable ones certainly are though, and Mr. Randi would definitely qualify as notable. Baegis (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, he's notable, but do you think his opinion is sufficient to characterize a topic as "pseudoscience" on WP? As you may know, the ArbCom doesn't think so. --Jim Butler(talk) 04:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Mainstream cannot mean just a single person. The subject is complicated by the number of speculative and untested theories scientists are coming up with. We must differentiate between the hard core of tested theories and the wider range of it would be nice theories. There is probably a continuum here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a tangent here, but in the current title, what purpose is served by the "and pseudoscientific concepts" portion? All it seems to do in my eyes is to make the title more unwieldy. I can see how it might have been meant to be more inclusive, but is that really necessary in the title? If we want the article to include more conceptual things as well, let it, and just leave the title simple. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Methinks it was for parts of sciences that have aspects or fringe theories that are questionable. I guess the best example might be the Tunguska Event entry. Of course, thats not science, so I guess we are back to square one. Baegis (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I guess it was meant to refer to aspects of fields that were considered pseudoscientific. But I'd remove it from the title. Rather would have a qualifier in there, like "purported". There is no objective test for pseudoscience, only the weight of attributable opinion. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename to List of Pseudosciences and per WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience only include obvious pseudosciences or subjects generally considered pseudosciences rather than our current article which includes alternative theoretical formulations and questionable sciences. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree per Fyslee below. List of putative pseudosciences might also work, and I vote for alleged before purported. I also oppose forking the list according to strength of source, as that is almost certainly not the first concern of anyone who might actually desire to use this list. Topic sorting seems much more sensible. Eldereft (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree per Fyslee, first post in this section. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with "list of pseudoscience" as a name, but my concern is that true believers might try to use it as an excuse to remove obvious pseudosciences like homeopathy. Jefffire (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is a sci-consensus type source, nobody's going to mess with it. And with an expanded list title and criteria, even more topics can be added. --Jim Butler(talk) 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. Will happily change my vote when some of this is removed:
The first, because it's WELL recognized by the psychiatric community. There are a wealth of pyschological disorders that have critics (ADHD, PTSD, Bipolar Disorder etc), but that doesn't qualify them for a list of pseudosciences. The second because it's an idea, not a scientific principle. And it's simply silly to be quoting someone from article written in 1965. At the time, a PC would have been considered a hoax/pseudoscience.
Both were hoaxes, and intended to be hoaxes, so why is it on a list about pseudoscience?
Why not add the "Earth is Round" theory on there. So at one time there were thought to be pseudoscience, now they aren't. Why are they on a list about pseudoscience?
Remove these "examples" and I think the title would be just fine. Justin chat 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename this to just "List of pseudosciences" and keep only those items that WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience lists as pseudosciences. Otherwise Agree, because "List of pseudosciences and alleged pseudosciences" is what this article is about. --Achillu (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree per Jefffire and the discussion following his comment. MilesAgain (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is a list of pertinent examples from the OED
  • 1823 New Monthly Mag. July 83 The trifling scene of the false herald alone, could not be detailed without a more intimate acquaintance with the pseudo-science of blazonry.
  • 1831 N. Amer. Rev. Apr. 484 This geological text-book,..one of the most extraordinary productions with which pseudo-science ever imposed upon the public.
  • 1911 J. G. FRAZER Golden Bough: Magic Art (ed. 3) I. iii. 113 (table) Magic as pseudo-science.
  • 1937 Brit. Jrnl. Psychol. 27 246 We may..consider..psychoanalytical theory as illustrative of the manner in which various influences combine to produce what we may call pseudo~science.
  • 1957 J. S. HUXLEY Relig. without Revelation iii. 47 Theology has been, as my grandfather T. H. Huxley said, only a pseudo-science.
  • 1960 Guardian 9 Dec. 5/3 The pseudo-science of the academic pollster.
  • 1996 Time (Special Issue) Fall 43/1 Homeopathy, despite the A.M.A.'s characterization of it as a pseudo science, is another popular alternative.

The article doesn't seem to have good coverage of these, only having homeopathy (twice!). The above list also reveals an error in the current version: "Phrenology was the first theory to be characterized as pseudoscience in 1843." This is not good enough. As the term is derogatory, there needs to be a better standard for NPOV.

Rutherford famously said, "In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting." Since the subject seems inherently POV, the title should make this clear: List of alleged pseudosciences. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: That exact section you quote explicitly says it's OK to use "alleged". Please also see comment below to Silly rabbit. --Jim Butler (t) 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Rebuttal: per WP:WTA, "they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear" -- which is not the case in the proposed title change. HrafnTalkStalk 03:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply: The allegers are the sources cited for each item. --Jim Butler (t) 02:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree per Hrafn's observation that using the weasel-word "alleges" or similar does lend undue credibility to disciplines which are, as a point of fact pseudoscience. The requirements for being labelled a pseudoscience are clear-cut and unambiguous: Pseudoscience is any alleged body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific but does not adhere to the scientific method. (From Pseudoscience.) The content of the ArbCom decision is perhaps less clear. However when there are literally hundreds if not thousands of reliable sources in medical and scientific journals attesting that a so-called scientific discipline fails to follow the scientific method, along with sources such as statements by national science foundations and academies labelling the field pseudoscience, it is totally consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the decision to list the subject here as pseudoscience. That is the meaning of the "generally considered pseudoscience" paragraph. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. You are basically proposing a list that can only include about five items. The current title is problematic and doesn't allow very much at all. A revised title will be NPOV and allow much more. Make your choice and think about the real consequences. Do you want to make the quacks happy by giving them an excuse to keep their nonsense from being mentioned here? That's what you are doing. -- Fyslee / talk 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: For Silly rabbit and Hrafn. Regarding topics that are "in point of fact" or "not really" pseudoscience, what about psychanalysis? Some say it's pseudo, some don't. Who's right? We're talking grey areas, and with "alleged" we can put those in, and annotate (per WP:CLS the pro and con arguments. I find it fascinating that some "scientifically" minded editors actually think there is a bright line between science and pseudo as opposed to a spectrum occupying a region between very clear-cut examples of each. --Jim Butler (t) 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Rebuttal: This is disengenuous. Where its numerous scientists who say its pseudo, and only supporters of the pseudscientific field in question who say its not, then putting it under the banner of "alleged pseudoscience" is blatant WP:WEASEL-wording. If you wish to include fields that are legitimately debatable whether they are pseudoscientific, you would need an "alleged pseudoscience" section, and explicitly state who is alleging that they are pseudoscientific (to comply with WP:WTA, as the "identity of the alleger" would otherwise be unclear). HrafnTalkStalk 03:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply: I'm talking about areas that a majority (or significant plurality) of the sci community neither embraces nor rejects, but that have been called "pseudoscience" by some V RS. IOW, I'm talking about "questionable science" in WP:PSCI. (What part is disingenuous?) And yes, if we have an "alleged pseudo" section, the title of the list should reflect that. But I'm losing all interest here, since there seems to be no likelihood of consensus on the name change, and a significant number of editors don't seem to think the issues raised in the RfC are of any great importance. --Jim Butler (t) 07:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody elaborate a bit on what exactly we think pseudoscience stands for. Is it:

  1. Anything claiming to be scientific without scientific evidence to support that claim, i.e. Intelligent Design, or is it
  2. Anything the scientific community explicitly identifies as pseudoscience?

The first seems more logical to me as the latter would make it impossible to include evident pseudoscience that is so not-notable and outlandish the scientific community simply ignores it, i.e. HHO gas, mucoid plaque. Second, it seems fair to ask for V in RS when asserting to be scientific, i.e. adhering to the scientific method and peer review. Making unscientific claims and then demanding an official statement to establish it being pseudoscience feels like an episode from Through the Looking Glass. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources (2)

Under the RfC section above, Fyslee wrote[7]:

Wikilawyering has been used extensively to keep well-known controversial subjects (labeled as pseudoscience in V & RS) out of this article, and the inclusion critieria have constantly been revised to do the same thing. That's wrong. We need to stick to what V & RS say, whether we like it or not. Notability doesn't apply.

While I agree with the title change, the contentiousness is just going to shift to the threshold for V & RS unless we also agree on list criteria somehow. The criteria were set up not only to avoid listing fringe views (e.g., people who call Darwin a pseudoscientist), but also to avoid a huge, messy, contentious list.

So, assuming we do the name change and proceed as Fyslee's quote suggests, what degree of authority does a source need to have in order to be cited? Groups and individuals who self-identify as "skeptics", a/o have PhD's but crank views, abound. Cite 'em all? Presumably WP:SELFPUB at least should apply. Cite the global warming deniers? --Jim Butler(talk) 07:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

IOW: re "It could be huge and rich", as the saying goes: be careful what you ask for, you might get it. Look at what List of groups referred to as cults morphed into: by including every source that has ever used the term, it's practically useless. Huge, but thin. (I know that the analogy between "cult" and "pseudoscience" only goes so far, since the latter represents the distortion of an enterprise based on evidence and reason.)
Well, whatever. With an NPOV title, we can annotate the cases where the views of label-happy skeptics are disputed by other V RS's. I guess that's the bottom line: properly weight various views. Between annotation and keeping the sci consensus statements in their own section heading, we can probably do that. Party on. --Jim Butler(talk) 11:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to keep the inclusion criteria discussion and the RfC about the title separate. I think we can agree that the current title could be improved. -- Fyslee / talk 19:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to get all discussions about inclusion criteria correct from the start, beginning with the title. It has always been a thorn in our sides and has provided an excuse for believers in some pseudosciences to keep their pet ideas from getting listed. We have seen numerous examples of them "working backwards" here, which shows their intent, whether deliberate or not. Some editors have very successfully kept their pet ideas (that have been clearly labelled as pseudoscientific by numerous V & RS) from being listed here. They start with their pet idea which they protect, then by constantly wikilawyering, as well as constantly changing and refining inclusion criteria, they end up creating just enough change to give them a "legitimate" excuse for why only their idea shouldn't be included, no matter how well-sourced the accusations are. When they haven't succeeded, they have then often resorted to suggestions of getting rid of the whole list. They end up succeeding by sheer persistence and refusals to accept the current consensus at the time. They twist and turn so much that others just tire of restoring their deletions. That type of editing is a violation of policies, including NPOV and tendentious editing. The excuse they find in the current title needs to be taken away. This article could become a rich and interesting article if deletionists weren't getting their way by twisting the inclusion criteria into such a narrow channel that the article isn't nearly as informative as it could be.
We need to follow inclusion criteria policy. Article content require V & RS, no matter who the source might be. If they are published in a V & RS, then they would nearly always be allowable. Crackpots and off-the-wall types will often fail on this count. Notability factors in because that's what gets them published in the first place, so notability is a factor, but not the only one. -- Fyslee / talk 19:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether a source is "V & RS" for a given article depends not only on who wrote/published it, but also on what it's cited for. A notable scientist/historian/magician may criticize a topic. That criticism may go in WP, someplace, but not necessarily in every article. Quackwatch is a good example.
Also, I disagree strongly that editors who don't want to widen the list as much as you do are violating policy. Over-inclusionism can screw up an article just as much as under-inclusionism. Editors of good faith can disagree on that. --Jim Butler(talk) 05:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I said that. I spoke of unwikipedian protectionism, which is the opposite of "widen[ing] the list". Here's the original quote:
  • "If (generic) you know that your favorite subject has been the subject of criticism, and it isn't listed here, then there may well be a chance that something's wrong. If you have been instrumental in keeping it out, then you are failing as a Wikipedia editor and violating NPOV. Wikilawyering has been used extensively to keep well-known controversial subjects (labeled as pseudoscience in V & RS) out of this article, and the inclusion critieria have constantly been revised to do the same thing. That's wrong."
What is there about that that you can disagree with? I think my latest addition below takes care of your otherwise very legitimate worries regarding over-inclusionism, which happens to be done by alternative believers acting as pseudoskeptics. (If any idiot skeptics actually do try to editorialize by including unsourced or very poorly sourced criticisms of alternative ideas that aren't criticized by anyone else, then I'll help you label them too as pseudoskeptics!) And, of course, we can disagree and still be friends...;-) -- Fyslee / talk 07:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Shorter me: "You talkin' about my Mama??"  ;-) I don't think it's Wikilawyering to argue to keep a topic off the list because of NPOV concerns with the yes-it-is-pseudoscience-no-bones-about-it title. That goes right to the difference that the ArbCom, in one of their better decisions, noted between "generally considered pseudoscience" and "questionable science". But yeah, we are pretty much on the same page... cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstanding of two very different matters

In the section above, the following comment is made:

  • Sure, he's notable, but do you think his opinion is sufficient to characterize a topic as "pseudoscience" on WP? As you may know, the ArbCom doesn't think so. --Jim Butler(talk) 04:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Jim, I think you are stretching "sufficient to characterize" in a manner that would not allow the use of sources who allege something, and I doubt that the ArbCom decision was intended in that way. I think it was intended to do what you have long contended, IOW not to misuse the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag to do it ("categorized as pseudoscience"). In this sense, for Wikipedia editors "to characterize" and for them to allow V & RS "to allege" are two very different matters. You are basically misapplying the phrase and applying it to sources, when it is intended to be applied to editorial misuse of categorization, a practice you have opposed for this category (and which I have finally had to admit was probably best - hat's off to you!).

I'll rephrase your quote above and give it a different twist: Sure, he's notable, and his opinion is sufficient to be used as a V & RS for his opinion of a topic as pseudoscience on WP. He is very notable and a reliable source for his own opinion, regardless of whether the subject of the article in question can or cannot have a [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag at the bottom. That doesn't forbid the use of V & RS in an article or list. IIRC, this list was started as a repository for things that could and couldn't have such a category tag, but which were still criticized as pseudoscience in various V & RS. It's a list that showcases those criticisms.

Secondly, there is an obvious demarcation line that the ArbCom members seemed to recognize, and that is "who is supporting or criticizing what." They made four groupings, and the first two are always recognized by the scientific mainstream as alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to the mainstream, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The scientific mainstream criticism is allowed to be stated, IOW that the alternative believers are wrong, and that their position is pseudoscientific, all by the use of V & RS, and can (in addition) even be so characterized by editors at Wikipedia (by using the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag). IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting alternative editors:

  • Obvious pseudoscience
  • Generally considered pseudoscience

The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above. They are mainstream ideas that may or may not be firmly entrenched, but are somewhat trusted or still being researched in a legitimate manner. They may actually be experimental. No matter what, they are not considered alternative (medicine) ideas. They are sometimes accused by the alternative side as pseudoscientific (in true pseudoskeptical style - see Carroll), and the ArbCom decision forbids the alternative editors here from categorizing those mainstream ideas as pseudoscientific. Again, the ArbCom decision is supporting mainstream editors and limiting alternative editors:

  • Questionable science (IOW, things like psychoanalysis, which is considered mainstream and is specifically addressed by the ArbCom, and would not be allowed in this list).
  • Alternative theoretical formulations ("are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process," IOW also considered mainstream, and would not be allowed in this list).

I think this parsing is more accurate and it makes sense. The ArbCom members would hardly be expected to disallow V & RS, but they certainly would set limits on what certain alternative editors have occasionally tried to do - editorially calling mainstream ideas pseudoscientific by categorizing them as such. The ArbCom members support mainstream science and set limits on how far alternative editors can go in (mis)using Wikipedia categories. They are not addressing the use of V & RS in lists and articles.

The changing of the title of this list would help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a "List of subjects alleged to be pseudoscientific." That would be the primary inclusion criteria (IOW what was "on-topic"), and would allow well-sourced criticisms by scientific academies, various organizations, and even individuals who are quoted in V & RS. At the same time the ArbCom decision would disallow the disruptive POINT violations of pseudoskeptics who attempt to include more-or-less mainstream ideas in this list (such as vaccinations, antibiotics, etc., as has happened). Such sabotage attempts would not be allowed. Those who are still acting in a protectionist mode will of course attempt to retain a hard title "List of pseudosciences", since that will allow them to keep their widely criticized pet ideas out of this list. That's unwikipedian and such attempts should be defeated. It limits the list by disallowing many very notable opinions in V & RS.

If I am incorrect, I count on being corrected using sober and sound arguments! -- Fyslee / talk 07:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fyslee -- refactoring/rewriting my comments here. Decided to stick around a bit. I think we're more or less on the same page; when I question using (say) James Randi's opinion to "characterize" a topic as pseudoscience, I mean precisely that we may cite his opinion as such, and not use it to say that the topic "is" pseudoscience (e.g., putting that topic on a "list of pseudosciences"). That's basically your position, yes? Sorry if I wasn't clear about "characterize".
So, I do agree that it is alright to put "questionable sciences" that have received criticism on this list, with adequate annotation (skeletal presentations of pro/con arguments). However, I disagree that such cases are inevitably a case of mainstream vs. alternative. Very often the mainstream may be divided, or the jury out. There is a large grey area, including some of the more famous CAM's (or alt-med's) like acu and chiro, that are neither "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" nor generally accepted by the same (and indeed only aspects of them may be contested, e.g. qi for acupuncture, although critics usually miss the point there... but other sources clarify that, so whatever). No problemo including here as long as we attribute and weight properly, and retitle as we've suggested.
Basically, the ArbCom's razor "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" is what we have to go by. If a topic isn't a tiny-minority absurdity like flat-earthism or Time Cube, then we have to whip that razor out. Do we have a sci-consensus source? If yes, use [[category:pseudoscience]] and put in first section here. If not, but we do have other V RS's saying so, then include here as "alleged" pseudoscience, and annotate according to the weight of the critic(s) (and include such in article too). Shouldn't be that contentious.
At the same time, I do grok Dematt's and Levine2112's argument that it's undue weight to devote an article to what individual critics say. I think we can handle that by proper annotation of a renamed list, just as we do in articles themselves. Be that as it may, if we don't change the title to include something like "alleged", I will argue strongly against populating the list with "alleged" pseudosciences that are, in WP-speak, "questionable science". --Jim Butler(talk) 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I think we basically agree. What this list does is to avoid misuse of the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag. You have fought long and hard against such misuse, and this is a way of dealing with the matter without a hard category tag at the bottom of every single article. Some are borderline, and can be included here (using a new title). Here there is room for citations, attribution, nuancing, and reference to the articles for more details. This will reveal that there are discussions and disagreements, which is a good thing and reflects reality. -- Fyslee / talk 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Right on. I remember around a year ago, during the ongoing categorization debate, citing this passage from 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."
I still agree with that entirely. We can present here in a nutshell the various arguments pro and con alleged pseudosciences, and refer readers to the topics' articles for more. best, Jim Butler(talk) 06:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EMF

WHO website states : "It is not disputed that electromagnetic fields above certain levels can trigger biological effects. Experiments with healthy volunteers indicate that short-term exposure at the levels present in the environment or in the home do not cause any apparent detrimental effects. Exposures to higher levels that might be harmful are restricted by national and international guidelines. The current debate is centred on whether long-term low level exposure can evoke biological responses and influence people's well being."

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html

Therefore this should be mentioned in the article. Opinions?--Area69 (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WHO has an EHS-specific factsheet, which concludes that "there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure" (disclosure: this reference was originally added by me) Basically the only research in the field (if you will excuse the pun) since the Canada Power study has been 'confirm, b/c that is how good science works'; this despite the methodological problems identified in the original exposure study (low SES is positively correlated with both worse health and living near power lines, and the data were poorly estimated). The ubiquity of low level low frequency electromagnetic fields makes the question worthwhile in epidemiological studies (especially those involving children), but the matter is essentially closed. Nobody has proposed a credible biophysical hypothesis for EHS. EHS sufferers can have genuine symptoms, just they are not caused by or even correlated with EM field exposure.
As a side note, does anybody want to include in this entry some of the fraudulent "remedies" like anti-EMF jewelry (huh?) or expensive paint (ineffective at shielding wall current radiation, does not form a Faraday cage, and useless against power cords)? Or would that be an unnecessary level of detail for a list? Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 09:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hee hah! I almost choked when I realized the inconsistency of these frauds who sell those things. They sell anti-EMF jewelry AND jewelry that contains magnets. I guess immunity to cognitive dissonance is at work, or is it the sound of the cash register that drowns out the voice of conscience and reason? -- Fyslee / talk 05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Park's characterization of magnetic jewelry as using "homeopathic magnetic fields" is particularly choice. There is absolutely no physical or biological mechanism by which they could be behaving as claimed, but at least there is nothing there so it balances out. And, lest I miss a chance for legitimate use of one of my favorite numbers, wall current frequency is to low to cause cancer by the usual route by a factor of about a million billion. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences - National Institutes of Health produced a report in 2002 pdf which provides the best summary I can find of possible adverse health effects from occupational or environmental exposure to electric or magnetic fields or electromagnetic radiation in the radio or microwave spectra. They did not address hypersensitivity directly, but concluded that "For most health outcomes, there is no evidence that EMF exposures have adverse effects. There is some evidence from epidemiology studies that exposure to power-frequency EMF is associated with an increased risk for childhood leukemia. This association is difficult to interpret in the absence of reproducible laboratory evidence or a scientific explanation that links magnetic fields with childhood leukemia." Health outcomes investigated included metrics that might have been expected to reveal a correlation with EHS-type symptoms. The leukemia link is weak, and lacks in vitro corroboration. Yes, there is in serious research a proper attention to pervasive environmental effects, but EHS is a different beast altogether. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy

Many metanalyses and studies dont regard homeopathy as PSC. It is a controversy. This point of view also has to be included. --Area69 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Would these be the same meta-analyses showing that homeopathy
Or the ones showing
Or just in general that "None of these systematic reviews provided any convincing evidence that homeopathy was effective for any condition. The lesson was often that the best designed trials had the most negative result?
Or perhaps even "the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos" (letter also noting the inverse relationship between study quality and homeopathic effect)
Or better yet, a systematic review covering the decade leading up to 2003 which even uses the keyword pseudo-science, almost unheard of in the notoriously conservative ivory tower, and concludes that "ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable."
One more, just because I like Ben Goldacre - this editorial from The Lancet mentions five metaanalases showing "no significant benefit over placebo," with a nice discussion of the utility of placebo.
Or maybe you are referring to the analyses relied upon by the American Cancer Society to inform their statement that "The basic premises of homeopathy, developed over 200 years ago, are not in agreement with modern scientific principles"?
The great number of trials is only a testament to the popularity of homeopathy, not its scientific merit - anything which makes testable predictions is susceptible to the methods of science, regardless of the outlandishness of any proposed explanation. It is, however, indicative of a definite pretension to superficial scientific rigor. The paucity of properly designed trials (blinding and randomization as well as size), as well as the well-established across the board failure of homeopathic methods clearly justify the "pseudo-" prefix. Hormesis can occur with measurable doses; causal cure of an unrelated disorder or illness (e.g. malaria or AIDS) using nonexistent doses is pseudoscience. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 13:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There may be overcounting between the cited reviews. Certainly this quick list is hardly exhaustive. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 13:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a sceptic's guide of studies. Exeptional sources like nacam http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#q8 regard homeopathy as a controversial subject. So it has no place in this list.At least according to wiki rules in case we decide to follow. --Area69 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Probably the best argument for homeopathy not being through-and-through pseudo is that, apart from a 19th-century theoretical foundation, it is testable and is the subject of RCT's. Not that the weight of those studies seems very promising... but, fair is fair; if a V RS says it's still worth researching, we should mention that. --Jim Butler(talk) 05:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NSF source posted at WP:RSN

I posted this at Talk:Homeopathy yesterday and just realized it should be mentioned here too:

I've posted at the Noticeboard for Reliable Sources, here, requesting clarification on the reliability of the NSF paper for the assertion that NSF regards homeopathy as pseudoscience. Summary: When X source quotes Y as saying "foobar", can we cite it as "X says foobar"?

The only relevance here is that homeopathy might change tiers, but it will remain on the list.

And no bad faith intended to Jefffire, to whom I responded[8] when he asked about homeopathy above[9]. I was willing to let the source slide, but meltdown at Talk:Homeopathy made it necessary to seek input at WP:RSN.

As far as renaming this list goes, if we opt to continue with the rather metastable current situation, I won't oppose including homeopathy, although any editor could rightly do so on the grounds that NCAHF[23] is weak (since it is self-published), CSICOP isn't clearly a group statement, and Beyerstein is an individual and not a colony[24].

For those who want to populate the list more, and avoid such concerns, please realize that the best way to do this is by including the very NPOV "alleged" (or its equivalent) in the title. Not all pseudo's are created (or intelligently designed ;-) equal. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Jim Butler for posting this here. Sadly, as of this moment, the only consensus I can get out of that discussion is that everyone agrees that people have strongly held beliefs about homeopathy and are willing to argue them ad nauseam. So I bolded to my point of view that it is more pedantically correct to cite the NSF report as citing CSICOP; if we can ever agree that homeopathy=PS should be cited as 'obviously the tone of the report' or that CSI must be cited without the intermediary, well I welcome that too. As for downgrading the entry (though I support having each entry clearly explain itself and applying only topical categorization; also, 'alleged' or 'putative' in the title would make sense), I just added NCCAM and ACS links clearly indicating a consensus lack of support in the scientific community for the principles upon which homeopathy is based. Neither of these is of the form 'it is the considered stance of this body that ...', but neither do I think that the citations as given are misleading. NCCAM, obviously, considers homeopathy to at the very least be promising enough to merit further investigation. Not even they, however, think that there is any indication that overthrowing atomic theory would lead to greater scientific understanding. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you put it well in your comments at RSN. From what I can see, the sci community is in the midst of birthing a consensus on homeopathy, and it will probably take a few years till all the ducks (or diluted duck livers?) are lined up.
Anyway, I think this source lays the issue to rest for our purposes and places the article within the first tier: In a statement, the Royal College of Pathologists said they were "deeply alarmed" that the regulation of medicine had "moved away from science and clear information for the public". Kudos to User:SchmuckyTheCat [10] (whom I'm unable to address by name without feeling like I'm violating WP:CIVIL...). --Jim Butler (t) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Applied kinesiology (3)

The entry has been radically improved by the diligent efforts of Eldereft. Good work! Here it is:

  • Applied kinesiology is a means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can identify health problems or nutritional deficiencies through practitioner assessment of external physical qualities such as muscle response, posture, or motion analysis. A variety of therapies are prescribed based on weakness or smoothness of the tested muscle action, and the organ associated under the theory. The sole use of Applied Kinesiology to diagnose or treat any allergy[25] or illness[26][27] is not scientifically supported, and the International College of Applied Kinesiology requires concurrent use of standard diagnostic techniques.[28] Applied kinesiology is used in one form or another by a wide variety of practitioners, including chiropractors, naturopaths, physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses.[29] Applied Kinesiology should not be confused with kinesiology, the scientific study of human movement. diff

I think this is a great improvement and a model of how other entries here need to be covered. I do have a couple concerns:

  1. I am wondering about the inclusion of the phrase "posture, or motion analysis". Is that really a normal aspect of AK? It sounds more like scientific kinesiology, which studies more than strength, but also function in all aspects of bodily movement, whether in working situations or very active sporting situations. That's where posture and motion analyses come in. AK doesn't usually study muscle function in relation to normal body use, but studies varying muscle strength as a measure of what they consider a sign of pathology in supposedly related organs and organ systems. The goals of investigation for the two groups are quite different, hence the difference in the way muscle testing is used in practice. One uses analysis to help understand what is going on, while AK uses muscle strength as a diagnostic tool.
  2. I am also wondering about the inclusion of so many professional groups who use it. Yes, some members of those professions do use it, and that can be sourced. No question about it. But there is a great disparity in the way they use it and the number who use it. It is used by a very large portion of chiropractors (it's a chiropractic technique, duh), as evidenced by good sources from the ACA and other chiropractic sources. I expect that many naturopaths also use it. On the contrary, very few (percentage of total practitioners) physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses use it, since it is an alternative practice that most of them would disdain, while a few (quacky?!) ones among them would use AK. We could also say the same about voodoo and necromancy being practiced by a miniscule minority of physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses. Yes, some few do it, but their out-of-character (for their profession) actions are hardly representative of any support from their professions for the practice of AK. The inclusion of that quote was (IIRC) a POINTy addition designed (initially to smear PTs) to give the appearance of widespread mainstream support for AK within the named professions, when nothing could be further from the truth. I guess what I am saying is that there is a good source for that quote, but it is being seriously misused. That's not good editing. It is an editorial agenda that is behind its inclusion. Just because we have a source doesn't mean we have to use it, especially if its inclusion gives a false impression.

-- Fyslee / talk 07:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos :)
  1. ICAK on their website encourages the use of scientific kinesiology while still calling it a part of AK. If you can find a way succinctly and clearly to present the conflation of terms, please do so. Better yet, find some way to make it clear that (so far as I can tell) the distinguishing features of AK are precisely those which make it pseudoscientific, viz. that it posits for each organ a link to a normally unassociated muscle group; and that determination of disorders or beneficial/harmful substances can be made by contact or association. I think that as long as not everything that some relevant people call AK is PS, the distinction should be made. And, contrariwise, that as long as significant identified applied kinesiologists diagnose by e.g. sticky note to the forehead, this should also be noted.
  2. Yes, but given NoTimeLimit I decided to err on the side of leaving in verifiable information, despite being a bit of a misleading mischaracterization. I doubt also that this level of detail is really called for in a simple list entry, as it does not really address the demarcation issue. Perhaps 'also used in a variety of health and allied health professions, most notably chiropractic'? Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee & Eldereft: Motion is fundamental to AK. The proposed AK relationship to organs exist and is based on clinical observation; there are viscero-somatic reflexes. But this is only one aspect of AK. AK is also used to treat athletes, rather sucessfully, and is often represented in the Olympics as chiropractors on the Olympic Medical Board are often AK practitioners. Motion is fundamental to understanding muscle function and AK teaches posture and motion analysis. In fact a well trained AK practitioner can watch an athlete walk or run and see by aberrant motion which muscles are likely weak. Anthon01 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have never witnessed an AK practitioner using total body motion in their practice. That certainly doesn't prevent one from using observation in addition to AK, as the DC (at the Olympics) you mention. That AK practitioner, as many are, was more than just an AK practitioner. AK interpretation of muscle testing may have been used for a partial diagnosis, and kinesiologic observation (unrelated to AK, and as used by DCs, PTs, MDs, and DOs) was also used when analyzing the movements, but chiropractic and physical therapy methods were likely used for treatment. The basic AK diagnostic method involves a special interpretation of otherwise legitimate muscle testing, not of whole body movements during sports, etc.. It is based on the science of muscle testing, which does not include such things. Scientific Kinesiology involves muscle testing and all things related to body movement, and not for any diagnosis, especially as related to claimed connections between certain muscles and certain internal organs. -- Fyslee / talk 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The basic AK diagnostic method involves a special interpretation of otherwise legitimate muscle testing, not of whole body movements during sports, etc.. You are totally incorrect. I can see why you have such disdain for AK. There is no special interpretaion of the muscle test. A muscle test is a muscle test. It either test weak or strong. The muscle test used in AK is a legitimate test. The interpretation of what the test means varies depending upon the situation. When we find a weak muscle we consider that there are 'many interpretations as to why that muscle is weak,' including the patient didn't try hard enough. Some of those interpretations are based on standard sciences as neurology, myology, angiology, biochemistry etc... and some of these intepretations are novel or more likely fall under alt-med concepts. A well trained AK practitioner has to differentially diagnosis the result of the muscle test. And AK is not just muscle testing and muscle organ connections. The AK initiate is infantile in their understanding of AK, so your exposure may have been limited to 'beginners.' I on the other hand have had the opportunity to spend days in George Goodheart's office watching him treat patients. I have been trained by him and can tell you that postural analysis both static and motion is fundamental to AK diagnosis. It has been that way from early on. You think that PT are the only ones who study motion? In the earliest textbooks motion pictures were used to illustrate pre and post effects of different AK treatments. There was limited discussion of motion in entry level courses, but in the intermediate and advance courses, treadmills are used for observation and correlation with muscle testing and for observing pre-post therapeutic effects. I have a treadmill in my office with a camera. BTW, the DC at the Olympics was George Goodheart. Anthon01 (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Diagnosing with sticky notes? I have no idea what that is. Anthon01 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I also think that the "wide variety of practitioners, including chiropractors, naturopaths, physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses" should remain. Anthon01 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, the reference is certainly from a reliable source. My objection is that leaving it as it stands introduces a false impression, which violates good editing practice and is a misuse of a good source. As you know, the inclusion of that quote was designed to give the appearance of widespread mainstream support for AK within the named professions, when nothing could be further from the truth. That source is being seriously misused. That's not good editing.
If you intend to gain our confidence as a good editor, you will seek to change this situation so as not to leave a false impression in the article. Proposing that it remains as is doesn't do that. I am sure you don't intend that to be the result.
We could easily introduce good sources to back this point:
It is used by a very large portion of chiropractors (it's a chiropractic technique, duh), as evidenced by good sources from the ACA and other chiropractic sources. We can include this using resources that are absolutely incontrovertible, and happen to be chiropractic sources.
We could also introduce one qualifying word ("few") that covers this next point. (This type of edit has previously been done by yourself.):
I expect that many naturopaths also use it. On the contrary, very few (percentage of total practitioners) physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses use it, since it is an alternative practice that most of them would disdain, while a few (quacky?!) ones among them would use AK. We could also say the same about voodoo and necromancy being practiced by physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses. Yes, a miniscule minority of them do it, but their out-of-character (for their profession) actions are hardly representative of any support from their professions for the practice of AK.
That last part would be hard to source, but it is obvious fact (and easily falsifiable) for anyone who has studied the subject of AK, and knows the workings of the named professions. If no one objects, and in an effort to keep things somewhat true and NPOV, we could simply include this wording:
"A few physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses are known to use AK in their practices.
Since we know this is the true nature of the case, but cannot easily source it (it's hard to prove a negative), we need to solve the problem so that we don't leave a false impression. I therefore suggest that we solve the problem as suggested, using both solutions. -- Fyslee / talk 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So far I hear a lot of original research from you. I don't know the percentages. You reading into the sentence that it has wide acceptance. I don't see that. I have no idea how prevalent its use is among different professions. Lets stick to the sources, and no OR. Anthon01 (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Anthon01 - if you think that the extant definition misrepresents AK by inappropriate de-emphasis of motion studies or in any other way, by all means source'n'update.
The sticky note comment was my poor attempt at hyperbole, though sub-lingual or olfactory stimulation are hardly more plausible. The inspirational anecdote may be found here - scroll about halfway down to the paragraph beginning "A third chiropractor ..." It would much better have served the encyclopedic interests of this article to have cited an actual example from the research base, such as "placing a quartz wrist watch anywhere on the patients body, thinking about smoking, or therapy localization (in which the patient's hand is placed over "an area of suspected involvement" during MMT).
I have not found percentages for either the make up of applied kinesiologists or their representation in other disciplines, but a quick stroll through the above ICAK citations indicates that chiropractic and dietary/nutritional advice seem to be the most common non-AK-specific treatments.
I assert that in the absence of a source giving some indication of the importance of to AK the several professions listed, devotion of space on this limited list would be undue. The citation belongs solely in the main article where it can properly be contextualized. Neither the AMA nor the ADA mention AK on their respective websites at all, and the only medical and pseudo-medical WP pages linking to the article are chiropractic (which notes that the method is used by 37.6% of chiropractors), Thought Field Therapy, NAET, BDORT, massage therapy (only in See Also), Holistic kinesiology (note - article needs a good, possibly terminal, cleaning), and the very extensive List of oral health and dental topics. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the importance of AK to the majority of the practitioners of most of the professions currently listed. The language I proposed above, "also used in a variety of health and allied health professions, most notably chiropractic," addresses the fact that AK techniques are used by practitioners in a variety of fields without implying that said techniques are standard to those fields. Failing that, I would accept a consensus of "few" as per Fyslee.Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 09:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with the current description. Fyslee wants it changed. My response was to him. You remedy for listing the practitioners using AK seems like WP:SYNTH to me and may be OR. We have a RS, ACA, why don't we go with that until we find a better source or used largely by a minority of chiropractors and to an unknown extent, by physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses. or Applied kinesiologist are often chiropractors, but may also be physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses.
Regarding you statement sub-lingual or olfactory stimulation are hardly more plausible. The connections from mouth to muscle are there. Are you aware that smell effects the limbic system and create global changes in the CNS? Did you know that "Tasting sweet food elicits insulin release prior to increasing plasma glucose levels, known as cephalic phase insulin release?[11]
Are you aware that in rats, food deposited in the mouth makes its way to the brain in less than 30 seconds? Anthon01 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


None of those other therapies using muscle testing are considered Applied Kinesiology by the ICAK or by the practitioners of those other techniques. Anthon01 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I, yes, am aware that humans are fantastically adapted to recognize and use foodstuffs, that e.g. fluorine elicits a negative response in ppb without prior conditioning, that we can "feel hungry for" particular foods based on nutrient/caloric status ... this barely begins to address the plausibility of even just that aspect of AK. On the other hand, this is probably not the appropriate forum for such a discussion, especially since NOTTRUTH makes it irrelevant.
I like your second proposal, as it addresses the undue weight concerns and is written in a duly encyclopedic style. This would seem to be a valid compromise. With your kind permission, I will add that to the entry now. (I also indented one of your comments above to match the surrounding formatting, I hope you do not mind.) Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Go right ahead, if you haven't already. Reformating is fine with me. Would consider clarifying your comments on your talk page or mine? Anthon01 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly - I will expound further later tonight (or tomorrow if real life interferes). I am not a biologist, and welcome any opportunity to further my understanding of the body I inhabit and how it is affected by the environment. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Creation Science bit

Shouldn't the section on creation science be in the bit about pseudoscientific religious concepts? 124.187.128.32 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the list is for inscrutable reasons of consensus-building divided into those topics which have and have not gained sufficient notoriety to be officially denounced as pseudoscience by a national or international association of scientists. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] just my quick $0.02

the religious concepts section really seems out of place. Are we sure it has to stay? I'd be for removing it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the viewpoints currently listed in this section appear to purport to be scientific, making it questionable whether they can be legitimately deemed "pseudoscientific". However there are areas (such as Scientology and Creation science) where religion & pseudoscience overlap. HrafnTalkStalk 06:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the arguments that the Shroud of Turin is not of medieval origin verge into pseudoscientific, but I am ok with the rest of them being tossed. Not that they are scientific, just wholly religious. This leaves the whole subcategory underpopulated unless we reorganize the list to merge down the ultra-notable category. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Then drop the category, and place Shroud of Turin elsewhere if worthwhile to hold onto at all. Hgilbert (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiable sources

Web pages not published by a scientific organization or other verifiable authority are not considered verifiable sources; I am removing several of these recently added to the anthroposophic medicine listing. Hgilbert (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the correct thing per WP:SELFPUB and other parts of VER. --Jim Butler (t) 02:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acupuncture (again)

Meridians and qi do not exist, the whole underlying theory is prescientific (making continued use in any other than religious contexts pseudoscientific), and any attempt to diagnose or treat using these concepts as anything more than a useful analogy represents faulty reasoning. Also, point specificity may or may not exist, clinical relevance has not necessarily been established, and action above the non-specific effects of a nice warm glass of placebo is uncertain, but these are I think irrelevant to demarcation. That acupuncture has placebo-or-greater effect on some mild pains and nausea is pretty well established, as is the generally high reported satisfaction with treatment (which might provide clinical relevance), but no biochemical model for action is yet established.

This leaves us in a bit of a grey area - there is perfectly legitimate scientific justification for use in some cases, and further studies are a perfectly reasonable course of action in others; the lack of understanding of the precise mechanisms under which it acts makes the researchers' lives more difficult, but again the mere lack is not sufficient to warrant inclusion here. I would wager that there are unscrupulous practitioners who advocate its use in unproven and disproven cases, but there are also physicists who think they are just the suggestions of thermodynamics, so we would need a good source indicating relevance to the profession before inclusion on those grounds.

So, we have on the one hand a theory (and possible usage) that patently qualifies for inclusion, but on the other hand there is an active research base which is not bound to that theory. My question is, does this qualify for an entry for acupuncture along the lines of hypnosis (suggestible states exist, but suffer pseudoscientific abuse), would it be better to list the components separately, or does vitalism have this covered already? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it an entry but mention the caveats. As this is a list, rather than a category, including the gray areas is perfectly fine, as long as we mention them as such. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Good summary of the salient points, Eldereft. However, I haven't changed my opinion that if we are going to include grey areas, we need to have the title reflect that (alleged or whatever), unless we can source the criticism to the agreed-upon threshold of a V RS from a sci or skeptical body. I would say the same for any list. --Jim Butler (t) 19:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :)
I agree that it would be a mistake to categorically brand all investigation and practice of acupuncture as pseudoscience. We do, in contrast, present hypnosis, face on Mars, and Tunguska event as 'real but associated with PS'. These are cases where perhaps the average is some shade of grey, but really exhibit a bimodal distribution with some aspects clearly real and others equally clearly pseudoscience without much communication between the two. Acupuncture has decent evidence for efficacy, which should be stated up front, but there is also pseudoscience by the same name. It may be that this would still be weighty, but I would ask for reconsideration along the lines of good/ps cohabiting under one name rather than just as a borderline case. Alternatively, is there a better term which would accomplish the same aim without possibly misleading readers? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, we could say "qi theory", as with other forms of vitalism (agree we can annotate the nuances). But I'd still ask for a V RS consensus source, unless we are able to change the list title. Either we loosen the inclusion criteria and adjust the title, or keep the restrictive title and populate sparingly. (Note that nothing is stopping us from creating another list with the title we want. If some editors love this list in its contentiously metastable form, great. We can create another one and let people try and AfD it.)
And re-reading, I'd have to dispute your logic that since TCM is prescientific, its "continued use in any other than religious contexts (is) pseudoscientific". No. If it makes good predictions that biomedicine can't yet explain, like the efficacy of distal points for particular conditions, then it's not pseudoscientific. It's just the map being different from the territory, but still pointing to particular landmarks. Same idea as a tribe having a calendar that tells when the dragon in the sky swallows the sun and moon. Pseudoscientific? Yes, chortle the editors of Smirktical Dismisser magazine, because we all know there's no dragon in the sky. No, responds infinitely wiser User:Jim Butler ;-), because it's really a prescientific mapping of eclipses. We can present arguments like this in articles. We can sorta annotate them on lists too, with above caveats... best, Jim Butler (t) 03:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I like that solution (with adequate sourcing, of course) - it allows for a clean separation of what exactly is included in the list entry. As for the connection between prescience and pseudoscience, I concede that my original statement was over-broad - accurate calculations are accurate calculations in any context. The problem, I think, lies in overextending the analogy (predicting other dragon-sign) or accepting folk wisdom without subjecting it to proper scientific validation. But anyway, that is a problem for another day. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed AI

I removed Artificial Intelligence from the list. The two references provided were from 1965 and 1992 (which was a reprint of a book from 1972) and are by the same person. The former is useless, as it may as well be from 1665 as far as technological advancement. The second is nearly useless, as he never calls the study "pseudoscientific". Ignoring that, his arguments are a complete violation of WP:UNDUE. One voice is hardly enough to list such a topic here. I don't have time now, but I'll likely be going through the references for other questionable topics, and removing them if they are used inappropriately. Justin chat 23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Artificial intelligence is a major area of mainstream computer science research. (Although it is doubtful that it will ever deliver on the fanciful promises of many a science fiction depiction of the future of AI.) Good call removing it. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is trying to blur the line between an idea that won't work, and an idea that violates the scientific method. That being said, I think the idea of autonomous machines plain silly :P. Hopefully this starts bringing this article from the brink of a POV mess to a real list. Justin chat 00:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This gets back to the central question of this list: is a single allegation of a topic's pseudoscientific nature sufficient? This has been the standard to date; if this remains the standard, AI qualifies here. If it does not, many of the other topics here should also be removed. Perhaps Justin has some thoughts on how to make a meaningful sorting here. Hgilbert (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless a consensus exists among scientists in a related field, it isn't pseudoscience. Cryptozoology is pseudoscience because the majority of zoologists consider it as such. Homeopathy is pseudoscience because nearly every scientist in the medical field considers it as such. Whether or not one source is enough depends on the source. For example, if the American Medical Association calls homeopathy pseudoscience, than it is, because the AMA is a group of medical doctors.
References aren't just a matter of someone saying something. Who said it, when they said it, why they said it, all of this matters. The AI example is horrible, given Hubert Dreyfus is a philosopher. If you want a good laugh, read his Rand paper. He comments that, in chess, heuristic search techniques will always be better than the "tree of moves" a computer uses. And yet, in 2008, we have chess computers which routinely beat Grand Masters. He goes on to explain how language translation is an utter failure, along with pattern recognition and a few other notable areas. However, today, computers are capable of complex language translations (albeit, with mistakes) and extraordinary pattern matching.
The point is, how many references is moot. Who the reference is, and when it was written is highly appropriate. In this case, we have a philosopher who once called AI alchemy. And, when it turns out he was wrong in nearly every aspect in his 1965 paper, he wrote a book about what computers still can't do. Even though he was critical of the folks who did the same thing 50 years ago. WP:FRINGE is still WP:FRINGE no matter how pretty a spin we put on it. Justin chat 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The above argues that what is verifiable is not true. As my interlocutors well know, Wikipedia uses verifiability as the criterion, and in this article the editors have come to a consensus that a single critic terming a field pseudoscience (or the equivalent) is sufficient for inclusion here. The standard for inclusion here has been set; it should be applied uniformly. Dreyfus is certainly a notable source. If published critiques of Dreyfus are available, as no doubt they are, they can be included here as well.
Unless a uniform standard can be found that excludes Dreyfus - and is applied uniformly to other areas as well - the AI entry should be restored. Hgilbert (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Multiple Personality Disorder

Controversial and pseudoscientific aren't even in the same ballpark. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the diagnosis, however, listing it as pseudoscientific is a violation of WP:UNDUE. The disorder is listed in DSM, and as such recognized as a psychiatric disorder. While there is not a consensus that it is "valid", there is DEFINITELY no consensus that it is pseudoscientific. Whether it's truly a psychiatric disorder or a cultural phenomenon is moot. Unless there is a solid view from the mainstream psychiatric community that it is indeed pseudoscientific, it does not belong here. Justin chat 00:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. MPD is probably much rarer than once thought, but still it is not pseudoscientific in of itself. There were (and are) some pseudoscientific therapies and literature that iatrogenically produced it and/or used strong suggestion, leading to lots of people believing, falsely, that they had it. So maybe the MPD should not be listed, but specific therapies or theories. Zonbalance (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topical organization

In light of recent improvements in sourcing and descriptions (if I do say so myself), I would like to re-open the issue of leaving this list organized according to notability of demarcation source instead of sorting related topics together. As has been pointed out before, this system decreases the utility of the article by making it more troublesome for the average reader of this encyclopedia to find relevant information (for instance, homeopathy). Though some degree of housecleaning remains to be done, to a large extent the entries describe their topics and sources well enough for the current somewhat artificial division to seem more troublesome than it might be worth. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, this represents a huge weight problem, a bit like having a list of terrorists according to the U.N., George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Hamas all in the same group. There is no objective demarcation we can rely on. The problem is exacerbated by the title remaining as it is without the "alleged" caveat. It might be OK if we explicitly stated the source along with each entry, and not in a footnote, thus: Astrology .... (source: California Academy of Sciences). --Jim Butler (t) 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primal Therapy proposed addition

I request the consideration of primal therapy to be listed under one of the lists on this page. I consider it to be pseudoscience, and I wondered if I could get a consensus. See the criticism section on the wiki primal therapy section. AN argument is made for primal therapy being a pseudoscience on debunkingprimaltherapy.com . I will wait for your advice before I list it here, Zonbalance (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"The theoretical basis for the therapy is the supposition that prenatal experiences and birth trauma form people's primary impressions of life and that they subsequently influence the direction our lives take... Truth be known, primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. This is not surprising considering its questionable theoretical rationale."[30] - I think you have a winner. That ref. is I believe by the same Timothy Moore as the one at Glendon, and is currently absent from the article. I have enough edit wars on my WatchList right now, but feel free to incorporate it. Note also that the website you linked probably does not qualify under WP:RS, as it appears to be self-published. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EMF (2)

Did anyone remove the EMF reference?--Area69 (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I provided above two solid references, the WHO factsheet on electromagnetic hypersensitivity[12] and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences report on EMF[13](pdf), as well as some discussion asserting that the current entry is in accord with scientific consensus. I am also unclear from the previous discussion what precisely you think should be removed and why. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] agreed on pento water and bates method

seconding Eldereft's excellent recent additions, there is a scientific consensus on these. Zonbalance (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)