Talk:List of pseudoscientific theories/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Memes?

Just a question, not really a suggestion or anything, but why isn't the concept or idea of a "meme" in this list?Adolon 06:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's generally well-accepted, maybe? Also, it seems to play a bigger part in sociology than the natural sciences, and it's a ton harder to know for sure that a theory there is pseudoscience. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these really pseudoscinetific?

I'm a little concerned that some topics are included here that aren't really pseudoscientific. In order for something to be pseudoscience doesn't somebody notable have to first claim that it can be rationalized using science, and then present bad/warped/twisted science or something that sounds like science but is really junk?

  • Séances: As far as I'm aware this topic is basic level mystisism/spiritualism which nobody notable have ever tried to conceptualize through science. If people don't try to use bad science to explain it then it's not pseudoscience.
  • Fung Shui: Spiritual belief. As above, people don't attempt to justify it through bad science then it's not pseudoscience.
  • Full moon lunacy: At best, statistical dishonesty. Somebody notable would have to claim that cosmic rays from the moon were causing it, or something similar, and then try to prove it through science, for this to be pseudoscience
  • Channeling Same as for Seances. Nobody notable is trying to explain it through warped science
  • Cryptozoology recognized science which is sometimes abused
  • Earthquake prediction An area of geology, real science with some weirdo handers on
  • Elves, fairies, gnomes, pixies Folklore, not pseudoscience
  • Neoshamanism new-aged faith type thing. Nobody claims that it can be rationalize scientifically so it is not a pseudoscience
  • Polygraph/Lie detection based on real science but it falabel. Not a pseudoscience
  • Face on Mars Urban myth and conspiracy, not pseudoscience

perfectblue 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Full moon: Tides are influenced by the phases of the moon why not human behaviour?
Polygraphs are accepted even though there is litte proof.
I think there is a real confusion about what is pseudoscience. I think the term is generally used as a pejorative term without any real justification. TheBestIsYet 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia articles is reliable sources not personal opinion. FeloniousMonk 16:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the standard here would be verifiability of mainstream consensus, this means sources representing multiple professionals in a related field, or a source from a representative agency. For example, the opinion of a biologist that earthquake prediction is a pseudoscience is worth a lot less than the opinion of the US geological survey. - perfectblue 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't you also need a consensus to change anything? TheBestIsYet 17:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The point that I was trying to make here, which people seem to be missing, is that while questions have been raised about all of the above, "most" of them fall outside of the boundaries of pseudoscience because nobody has ever tried to justify them using what they claim to be scientific methods but which are actually unscientific methods. For example Fairies are blatantly not pseudoscience because nobody notable has ever claimed to have a scientifically valid hypothesis for their existence. Equally, nobody ever claimed that there was science behind Fung Shui so it's not pseudoscience.

Things like the the Polygraph are simply controversial, its effectiveness as a predictive tool is disputed but the principles that it is based on are quite well known (eg, people sweating when nervous etc). Earthquake prediction, too, is simply a field that's too new to have had much success just yet, or to be proven to be bunk, but which is largely grounded in conventional geology. - perfectblue 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make this argument before, and it fell on deaf ears. I hope you can do a better job of explaining it to them. ;-) However, polygraph tests do make some claim to being scientific, as well as cryptozoology. The rest of the list is just an example of the general problem of wikieditors equating supposedly false beliefs with false scientific methods. Good luck trying to correct that. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 22:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Aren't you guys forgetting that -for better or worse- this List also covers psdudoscientific concepts? In other words, concepts which would be psdudoscientific if held to be literally true, or held up -even in one's own mind- as being truths of the same sort as scientific truths (even when you consider that scientific truth is not absolute). Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that fairies aren't a concept, they're base mythology and nobody is trying to jstify their existence using flawed science dressed up to sound real. Also cryptozoology is (baring cranks of the type that show up everywhere and so should be discounted) isn't a concept either. Mostly it's regular run of the mill zoology. Most Cryptozoologist don't spend their days trying to prove that bigfoot exists or that mermaids are eating out of your garbage, many are far more likely to be looking for previously uncatalogued species of regular animals, known species that were thought to be extinct (we're talking species of wolves thought to have been hunted to extinction, not dinosaurs), or to prove that chupacabra attacks are the work of feral dogs (Many cryptozoologists are zoologically trained debunkers). Nothing paranormal, nothing pseudoscientific, just ordinary zoology but with animals that aren't in the text books. - perfectblue 20:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ours is not to question why, ours is but to report what reliable sources say on the matter. That is to say, it's not our place to make the judgment over whether something qualifies as pseudoscientific. If a reliable and appropriate source says it is, we put it in. If none such source says so, we take it out. Now, I believe many of those points you raised were indeed sourced; it's just hard to tell due to the default sourcing on this page. I'd try to fix it myself, but I don't have access to a copy of the Skeptic Encyclopedia which I could reference. If anyone here does, their assistance would be appreciated. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with you in principle over WP:V, I where you and I appear to diverge is that I don't consider an article in which a single person somebody uses the world pseudoscience in conjunction with a given topic, or in which they express a personal opinion that something is pseudoscience, to be sufficient. We need to find more representative sources.
Can you provide a statement of justification, backed up by sources knowledgeable in the topic (No botanist or parapsychologists Etc. Preferably geologists) as to why mainstream Earthquake prediction efforts are a pseudoscience? - perfectblue 20:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's something. I found a brief summary of some of the items contained in the Skeptic Encyclopedia (from [1]):
  1. A-Z — acupuncture, alien abductions, astrology, facilitated communication, Fen Shui, hypnosis, magnetic therapy, polygraph and lie detection, prayer and healing, recovered memories, reincarnation, spiritualism, subliminal perception, Tut's curse, UFOs and dozens more.
  2. Case Studies: In-depth analyzes: acupuncture, alternative medicine, Atlantis, chiropractic, homeopathy, immortality, police psychics, pyramids, Satanic Ritual Abuse, science and religion, witchcraft, and many more.
  3. Pro and Con debate section — evolutionary psychology, memes, Race and Sports, Race and I.Q.
  4. Historical Documents: Animal Magnetism by Ben Franklin, A. Lavoisier; Bryan’s last evolution speech; Hume’s “Of Miracles,” Condon report on UFOs. Bibliography, Illustrated.
While the items contained in sections 3 and 4 are simply additional topics addressed by the book, and we can't assume its conclusions on the subjects in section 2, the subjects in section 1 are all in the main section. This amounts to them being labeled pseudoscience by a notable skeptic body, which is sufficient for inclusion in the second section of our article. I'll go in and source them as such. For those subjects which have some redeeming value (such as polygraph), we can simply note this in the description in the article.
However, I can't say for sure that the other subjects aren't contained in it (the present state of the article at least implies that they are, but they may have been put up by other editors unsourced). We'll still need an actual copy to reference, it seems. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I only added the section 1 items. Any additional items on this list is unsourced or insufficiently sourced. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, acupuncture isn't in the first section (I have the book right here in front of me). I'll individually source the encyc items again. If "The Way" or some other disruptive character reverts it again, please undo it. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help here. Hopefully from this point on we can keep the article free from a little of the chaos if we maintain a hard line about inclusion based on sourcing. On that note, can we remove the NPOV tag yet? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics dictionary was written by a person with little scientific background and shouldn't be used as a source in itself, it should only be used as a guide of opinion. If you feel the need to key off of it, I suggest that you skip Carrol altogether and instead cite his sources as they are more reliable than him. - perfectblue 09:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The key is that Carrol has gained a great deal of respect among skeptics, likely on par (or close to) Michael Shermer. He easily meets the criterion of being a "notable skeptic," so I think being sourced to him should be sufficient. Now, if you think that criterion isn't sufficient, that's something else we can debate, but I fear if we drop it, this list could dwindle to nothing. It's hard as it is finding skeptics actually use the term "pseudoscience." Most of them prefer more colorful or encompassing terms such as "woo." --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Single source

I've noticed that a lot of the entries on the page are sourced back to a single location, a publication produced by a skeptical organization. This worries me. Could some alternative (and preferably neutral) sources be found?

perfectblue 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Skeptics (real skeptics, not denialists) are biased only in the same way scientific organizations are: toward reality as best as they can determine it. Essentially, these are simply non-scientists who take a role in rooting out false science and other forms of craziness (many scientists consider it below their dignity to address these issues, so someone needs to do it).
Now, if you could show that there was significant controversy among reliable agencies over whether this particular organization was acting fairly, then maybe we could consider why it's neutral. It's quite possible for skeptics to go too far and immediately deny anything that doesn't mesh with their current worldview, but we'll need to see evidence that this is the case before declaring this isn't a neutral source. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

chiropractic medicine

Are editors here aware that the BMA and the OMH both consider this to be a genuine branch of medicine with verifiable health benefits?

perfectblue 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that BMA is the British Medical Association, but what's the OMH?
Aside from that, simply that one or two organizations are fooled into thinking some pseudoscience is real doesn't mean it actually is. Far too many people in science and medicine haven't been trained in what actually constitutes science (I only learned about it because I took a couple of elective courses as an undergrad), so it's possible to fool them into accepting certain forms of pseudoscience. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you that the BMA is pretty much the largest and most notable medical union in the world. For the purpose of WP:V and WP:RS it is almost unquestionable and it most certainly outweighs the skeptical cite offered on the page. Frankly, I think that it is far more likely that the skeptics have been fooled into thinking that it is pseudoscience.

"Far too many people in science and medicine haven't been trained in what actually constitutes science", and far too many skeptics haven't been trained in medicine at all and so are not WP:RS on medical issues.

The OHM is the Ontario ministry of health. The health ministry for Canada's second largest province. Again, a WP:RS source.

perfectblue 08:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the organizations there. I've done a bit more checking, and I think I've found what seems to be the problem: There are many different schools of chiropractic. The most reasonable, scientific school uses it only to treat certain forms of headaches and lower back pain. There is clinical evidence showing that it actually has benefits in these - and only these - areas. However, there are many less reasonable schools, which propose theories such as the existence of "subluxations" (which they've never defined), and say that misalignments in the spinal cord inhibit the body's innate "intelligence" from properly expressing itself, and these cause absolutely all ailments.
So, I can see it being perfectly reasonable that certain medical organizations would accept the former type of chiropractic as being legitimate, while the latter type still is still pseudoscience. Perhaps we should clarify that there are a few benefits to it, but some grossly overrepresent it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

Can this be counted as pseudoscience? From where I'm standing it's the reverse of pseudoscience, its trying to apportion knowledge not with twisted or wrong science, but without science all together. - perfectblue 15:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think part of it might be that people who claim this then extend this to claim that other, unverified claims in the Bible must therefore also be true. I agree that an item like this probably wouldn't make sense on its own, but presented as it is, as part of a list of topics related to ID, I think it's fine to have it in. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Apollo moon landing hoax accusations and Face on Mars

Do these deserve to be in the primary pseudoscience category?

I mean, they aren't even cohesive pseudoscientific hypothesis, mostly they're just a collection of urban legends and conspiracies that are the result of A) Scientific Ignorance B) Bull headedness (the refusal to accept other explanations). I think that they belong in the secondary category as they sometimes reference pseudoscientific concepts but are mostly just the result of uneducated people looking for alternative explanations for things that they don't believe.

perfectblue 15:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We've already debated this one extensively (mostly on the moon landing hoax). Why don't you go back through the archives to see all the arguments made there. If you still have concerns (or if you've already done this), then could you let me know what issues you feel haven't been addressed in there? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Other concerns

Spiritualism, Séances and Channeling don't really belong here. The Oxford American dictionary described pseudoscience as being something "pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific". Can anybody here actually find a WP:RS source where somebody claims that any of the above conform to scientific laws or principles, that they can be explained scientifically, or that they are in any way related to science?

As I understand it, most practitioners/believers of the above distance themselves from science and scientific concepts, preferring to explain it away as being something that science cannot explain, rather than trying to pretend that it is remotely scientific.

Unless somebody can find a WP:RS source attaching any notion of science to the above, I can see no way that they can be called pseudoscientific. Can anybody point out to me the paragraph in the he Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (the primary source for this page) where it highlights people who believe that these things are remotely scientific?.

perfectblue 15:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really wary about adding our own judgment on top of what a source says. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not truth." It's verifiable that the source labels them as pseudoscience; we shouldn't have to go in and try to double-check the truth of it (even if it is checking to make sure it fits the definition). And even if the book doesn't mention cases of them being presented as science, we don't know that they didn't check and find these before publishing the book. That's part of what we do in taking the word of reliable sources - we trust they've done their fact-checking. Now, if you don't consider this a reliable source, that's another issue. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
First, verifiable is just one criterion in the wikipedia policy. Verifiability is important but pseudoscience is rarely black and white. For example, there might be some practitioners in a particular field (eg. Hypnosis) who have more pseudoscientific features than others in the same field. In that case it would be necessary to identify exactly what methods (eg. memory recovery hypnosis) are pseudoscientific. Second, the term pseudoscience or pseudoscientific is not a categorical definition (not a label). The degree to which a method or collection of beliefs are considered pseudoscientific will differ depending on evidence of pseudoscientific features. ----Action potential t c 05:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You're definitely right that there's a whole range of greys when it comes to pseudoscience. The question then is, how do we handle it? Should we put notes next to all the items that have some legitimate scientific study as well? Do we put a general note in the header that this might be the case for some? Do we create a separate section for these? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think when there is significant evidence that there is legitimate scientific study then it should also be mentioned alongside the other views. It could be given relative weight (eg. number of words and emphasis) depending on the strength of the evidence (at best high impact peer-reviewed sources). As infophile suggested, a note alongside, separate sections, or additional notes would do the job. I attempted this my edit to the subliminal perception and hypnosis entries. When there are references to "skeptics' encyclopedia of pseudoscience" we should track down the original sources (ie. the sources the skeptic's magazine cited as evidence). ----Action potential t c 05:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately the book is out of print (and quite expensive besides that), and not in my local library, so I'm no good there. Besides, I think it's probably sufficient as a secondary source. The only times we might need to see primary sources are if we see some seemingly outlandish claims that we'll simply need more evidence to accept. So far, none of what we've sourced to it strikes me as that outlandish (well, in the sense that it's outlandish to call it "pseudoscience").
As for the grey-area subjects, I'm going to put a note in the header that subjects here may have some legitimate research past or ongoing, but in general the majority is pseudoscientific. We can leave it to the articles on the individual subjects to make the case of exactly how much is which. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I would not object to that. I'm going to step aside for a while. ----Action potential t c 13:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've removed the tag from this page as I saw no concerns raised as to why this article might still be NPOV. If anyone feels there's still a problem here, let's discuss it and try to fix it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Alternative medicine

Is it too controversial to include any of the alternative medicine beliefs like osteopathy, homeopathy, some aspects of herbalism, faith healing, spiritual surgery, medical dowsing, naturopathy, crystal healing, pyramidology, etc. as pseudoscience?--Filll 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as they're properly sourced as such, go ahead. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I am bit nervous about starting chaos and attacks etc.--Filll 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems most of the rabble-rousers around here have moved on. The worst that'll likely happen is I'll revert it if you don't source it or use a really bad source (finding a halfway decent one shouldn't be hard). If you're unsure whether a source is good enough, just ask here. I have a pretty good handle on what would qualify as a mainstream scientific body and who all the big notable skeptics/skeptical bodies are. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Faith healing, homeopathy, dowsing, crystal healing and psychic surgery, are now in the list. Pyramidiocy I think is fairly adequately covered by pseudoarcheology, daniken and ancient astronauts. ornis (t) 13:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Caroll

Hello. Just some information. Todd Carroll is an educator focusing on scientific skepticism and philosophy and teaches subjects that specialize in distinguishing science from pseudoscience in particular. His Wiley published book (2003) is consistent with accepted scientific view. Its an excellent source in my view, and is probably even more useful than Williams (2000) encyc of pseudoscience. Docleaf 11:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of "who" Robert Carroll is, my point specifically is this, Carrol's primary field is philosophy and critical thinking. He's not a scientist and his primary notability is as a commentator not as an authority. I have no problem in using him as WP:V for skeptical beliefs etc (I have cited him myself on a number of occasions), but I strongly believe that he should not be used in situations where scientific expertise is required. We already have a sound source, adding Carrol just detracts from it's credibility.

Let me turn this around, you are using Carrol; a skeptical advocate with no background in empirical science, to WP:V that a topic is not scientific, but would you accept it if another editor tried to use X; a belief advocate with an identical background to Carrol, to WP:V that a topic was scientific? I don't believe that you would. You would likely throw it out right away. Well the same is true here.

For what it's worth, Carroll often cites people who are qualified in empirical science, why don't you just cite them instead and cut out the commentator?

perfectblue 12:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Often, and perhaps the majority of the time, WP is not a secondary source, but a tertiary source.--Filll 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Why buy the CD when you can get tickets to the concert for the same price? Carroll is a commentator who makes no attempts to be objective, at most he's as reliable as his sources, so why not quote them instead? If they're not credible enough to stand up on their own, then he certainly isn't, but if they are credible enough to stand up then why not cite them instead of him? It certainly can't do any damage to cut out the middleman. - perfectblue 15:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Carroll gives a well qualified account of the science view and it is always based on primarily, the research findings. Then there is an analysis of why the methods are considered pseudoscientific or dubious. That is why authors such as Carroll are so useful to this subject. The primary sources are great, but they often fail to give explanations for why. This is why secondary sources are so well regarded in Wikipedia. Basically they pull together a set of research and discuss, then giving conclusions. The beauty of lists is the faculty for annotation, and primary sources often don't give much explanation beyond saying something is unvalidated. Authors such as Carroll give their view based upon the research, and from a scientific skepticism point of view which is supported by philosophy of science concepts, with explanations. I don't think you could ask for more. Docleaf 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

mysticism

I think that we need to be a little careful in relation to mysticism. Some of the items in this list aren't really pseudoscientific as they were never claimed/believed/related to anything other than pure belief.

For example, we wouldn't include Native American spirits as pseudoscience, or Hawaiian volcano beliefs.

perfectblue 13:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed the other times you brought it up. Simões (talk/contribs) 13:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yet nothing appears to have come of it. - perfectblue 15:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll just repeat the argument made before for the time being:
  • We're including them based on Verifiability, not Truth. We have a reliable source saying they're pseudoscience; so they go in. We assume that this source has done their research and found some instance of it being presented scientifically. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Then change the title to "List of concepts anyone has ever considered pseudoscientific"; mysticism and religion are not generally considered branches of pseudoscience, and a single author's inclusion of them in this area does not redefine the consensus. Hgilbert 10:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we'd better have quotations from the source which justify this inclusion. It seems that anything included in the Skeptics' Encyclopedia is being included here, whether there are actual citations that justify this or not. Hgilbert 02:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Malformed code

For some reason, whenever I try to click on edit to edit a section I get the section next to it instead. This is likely due to malformed syntax somewhere. Could somebody with some free time please have a look at the syntax for the citations etc to see where the error is.

perfectblue 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

The Shroud's section references the religious beliefs about the shroud. Shouldn't it reference the unproven scientific ones instead? After all, faith based beliefs discount science (therefore pseudoscience also) in favor of a unified explanation.

There's nothing pseudoscientific about saying "It's mystical".

perfectblue 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, it doesn't matter whether you or I think an item belongs here. The threshold for inclusion of content on Wikipedia is verifiability, not true. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that you have crabbed a hold of the wrong end of the stick. I'm not arguing whether or not the religious account of the shroud is factually correct, I'm arguing that religion is a separate category form pseudoscience.

perfectblue 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source labeled it pseudoscience. Therefore, it belongs here. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Ours is not to question why, ours is but to report what reliable sources say. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Blind faith is not a good thing. Reko 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.