Wikipedia

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 12

< Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Latest comment: 15 years ago by 76.210.145.66 in topic Placement of AK
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

List of editors

This list is was under discussion at ANI. Interested parties may review it using the page history.

Also now was at ArbCom at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Martinphi-ScienceApologist_clarification. (closed on January 29, 2008)

Potential retitle

Latest comment: 15 years ago125 comments21 people in discussion

Given that the above is tl;dr, has anyone considered List of pseudosciences and questionable scientific concepts which would allow inclusion, and clear marking as suggested above, of "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" as defined by WP:PSCI. Obviously the list will still seem biased to some, for starters it has no mention of storkism :-/ . dave souza, talk 14:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a title I could live with, so long as the criteria of the current article are kept (see my reasoning above). Thanks, and great suggestion, Verbal chat 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, "questionable" should be an adverb in which case the title would be List of pseudosciences and questionably scientific concepts. I'm intrigued, but not sold. I'm not sure what to make of "questionably scientific concepts". What is that supposed to mean? It sounds to me like "this subject is scientific, but it's questionably so" with emphasis on the idea that the subject is "scientific". That to me is a problematic connotation that I would like to avoid. Let's keep brainstorming, though. I like the sentiment from where this suggestion came. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to entertain this suggestion too. My first thought is that there must be a brightline division in the article so that it is clear to the reader which is the list of pseudosciences and which is the list of questionable scientific concepts. My second thought is that it may be hard to determine what exactly constitutes a "questionable scientific concept". I am not sure that this is a term readily used outside of Wikipedia. That said, ArbCom gave us a pretty decent definition. Essentially we are looking for concepts which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, but it is generally not considered so by the scientific community. And my third thought is: Why not just create two articles? One would be a "List of Pseudosciences" and the other a "List of Questionable Scientific Concepts". Or something to that effect. Each list would contain items based on the definitional criteria laid out for us in WP:PSCI. Seems simple enough, no? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I could live with this if necessary (absent Levine2112's novel interpretation), but I still think that Snalwibma said it best above (I made similar but less succinct points in the recent request to revisit arb.) - It is a core principle of Wikipedia that it is a tertiary source that relies on reliable external sources, and therefore "according to reliable sources" is implicit in any WP title. I would also not edit war over qualifying the title to include referred (purported and putative have more problems; described might be ok), though I find it awkward and a bit silly. Sorry, Fyslee - you make good points and are definitely trying to help, but that is how I see it. Both of these proposals carry the risk of giving the article a subtext of sources say, *wink*wink*, but we really mean that you should take this seriously, but so long as the entries themselves give neutral and properly weighted and contextualized descriptions, I do not think we would be wandering too far from the purpose of the encyclopedia. Still, the stylistically cleaner title without explicit qualification seems best. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Eldereft, how do you reconcile the presence of items which are not generally considered to be a pseudoscience in a list article named "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" given that WP:PSCI explicitly instructs us that we should not characterize such items as pseudosciences? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You asked this question before and I already explained we are not violating that policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
List of pseudosciences and characterized pseudoscientific concepts. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
We could just stick according to reliable sources on the end? I still like Dave's suggestion too. Verbal chat 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I am going to blow everyone's minds and yet again agree with ScienceApologist. according to reliable sources should be implied in every article on Wikipedia as WP:RS is (or at least should be) a non-negotiable standard for inclusion in any article. That said, QuackGuru's suggestion of "List of pseudosciences and characterized pseudoscientific concepts" only works if there is a bright line division in the list that distinguished which ones are pseudoscience (presumably by scientific consensus) and which ones are just characterized as pseudoscience by some but certainly not by any scientific consensus. Otherwise, imagine an article entitled "List of child molestors and characterized child molesters" that didn't draw such a bright line distinction between the two categories in the article title. You'd have BLP issues up the yin-yang for sure, no? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate Wikipedia-referential titles/content. Of COURSE it's "according to reliable sources", but that shouldn't be in the title. Would we want to say "A neutral, verifiable list of pseudosciences according to reliable sources judged by editorial consensus"? I don't think so. Please don't let our discussions about how to write according to Wikipedia rules bleed into article content. Someone reading this page should not have to be aware of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and arbcom rulings in order to understand our peculiar choice of terminology. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the grammatical concerns, I did think of questionably scientific topics but thought it best to keep close to the WP:PSCI definition which is headed "Questionable science" – no doubt a better variant can be found. Perhaps List of pseudosciences and concepts of questionable scientific validity. The idea that there's a bright line is dubious and in my opinion there's a continuum, which is why one article is appropriate. Some topics are the subject of genuine scientific research at the same time as involving pseudoscientific claims to a greater or lesser extent. So, we can subdivide each section using the PSCI criteria with sources, but be prepared to move topics if new sources become available. . dave souza, talk 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer that we try to stay far away from the WP:PSCI definition which is not meant to be used in the way people have been proposing at this page. In fact, I'm willing to go as far as to ask arbcom to vacate the decision since people seem to be so obsessed with it. It's a good guidepost, but it certainly isn't the voice of the gods. Arbcom did not magically solve the demarcation problem by a majority vote. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate your concerns, my intention would be that the definition would form a basis for including topics in the list and as a way of determining areas where the overwhelming scientific consensus is that they're pure pseudoscience, and mixed areas where there's genuine scientific research but inadequate validation and use by some proponents in a more or less pseudoscientific way. If the title gives that leeway, we can include all in a nuanced way instead of constraining the article to blatant pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure we can ever fully solve this problem as there are a number of real world (aka non-Wiki) debates re the definition of pseudoscience. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The aim as I see it isn't to "fully resolve this problem", but to reach a workable solution that all parties can live with. Further discussion with that aim seems to me to be the best way forward. . dave souza, talk 22:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of regarded or characterized pseudoscientific concepts. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

lol. How about List of putative pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, or List of things-in-the-world that are asserted by reliable sources to be pseudoscientific. Frankly, I cannot think of a title that accurately conveys the content here which could reasonably function as a title. BTW, having been a long while since I checked in on this page, I'm impressed with the progress to-date w.r.t. trying to achieve respect for WP:V#Reliable_sources, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. For that alone, kudos to everyone involved over the past year or two, no matter what their positions on the numerous issues that inevitably come into play when one is dealing with a word ("pseudoscience") that from the getgo requires a judgment about what's science, what's not, what's in between, for what reason, in what respect, for whose purposes, for what readership, etc. etc. etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I can understand the "lol" when looking at such hyperbolic suggestions! You must not have seen the suggested List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. It's actually shorter than our current title and describes our current content very precisely. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
If all "topics" within the list are agreed to consist of WP topics (i.e. articles), then indeed, why not? Speaking as just another WP user, that seems fair enough to me, Fyslee. I should think, or at least want to think, that WP's readership automatically assumes WP content is based only upon reliable sources-- silly me. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe using the word "subject" would make it clearer, since we're dealing with subjects, most of which are already described in articles, but if a V & RS has mentioned ... nah, I doubt anything not already mentioned would come up. Let's just try this alternative, since I think it is actually better. Thanks for triggering this:
The sourcing requirements are unchanged by this. The V & RS rules governing all of Wikipedia will apply here, not some special, local, temporary (since consensus can change), limited, twisted, POV version of how to select and choose sources. The rules that govern all of Wikipedia will apply here, which is what should have been happening all along, but wikilawyering has made a mockery of that, designed in such a manner as to keep certain subjects off the list. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and associated pseudoscientific concepts. QuackGuru (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In what manner does that suggestion (or any of your suggestions) solve anything? It just seems to be another wording without any new implications for content. It brings absolutely nothing new to the discussion, nor does it improve anything or bring us closer to a solution. Oh... I forgot...you see no problem, and therefore all this discussion doesn't even exist. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Fyslee, do please try to see the potential of this discussion rather than making assumptions about others. It strikes me that List of pseudosciences and associated concepts would be a possibility, as it removes any inference that everything on the list must be pseudoscientific, and indeed opens the way for a section on anti-pseudoscience positions or organisations such as Scientific skepticism if that were agreed on the talk page. Thus topics could be grouped within sections according to the weight of verification that they are pseudoscience, using WP:PSCI as a guide. . dave souza, talk 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about List of pseudosciences and concepts/ideas associated with pseudoscience? Take your pick if you'd rather use concept or idea. I'm not entirely happy (for example, skepticism is "associated" with pseudoscience, but it probably won't appear on this list), but we can make it clear that we mean concepts that have pseudoscience associated directly with them (as opposed to being antagonistic, or metaphysically connected, or being a philosophy-of-science critique of the subject, etc.) If we can have List of alleged UFO-related entities which has even worse "association" problems (are cows UFO-related since cattle mutilation is UFO-related?), surely we can have "ideas associated with pseudoscience". ScienceApologist (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think List of pseudosciences and associated pseudoscientific concepts is the best option. I'm not sure about List of pseudosciences and concepts associated with pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
They're almost synomymous but not quite, and each has it's strengths and weaknesses. The former may be too inclusive the latter too restrictive and open to squabbling. Request time to ponder. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, the title List of pseudosciences and characterized pseudoscientific concepts may work best. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Or, for grammar reasons (yes, I'm a PITA about that) List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific

{{editprotected}} I have removed this editprotected request. If the page should be moved, follow the procedure at Wikipedia: Requested moves. Oren0 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Request remove title tag and change the title of article to List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The above template is only supposed to be used to request uncontroversial changes. Given the obvious rejection of this title by numerous editors, as well as the support for other options expressed below, it is clear that this option has not achieved consensus and that the change would be highly controversial. This dismissal of multiple editors' opinions as if they didn't exist is similar to the attitude which prevailed previously when the disputed tag was edit warred out. It is hard to imagine how this will have anything but a negative impact on the collaborative spirit on this discussion page. I would therefore ask QG to retain his support for this option if he wishes but to withdraw his request to have the change implemented at this time. Landed little marsdon (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There is support to change the title. If you continue to be difficult I will report you to ANI for an indef-ban. QuackGuru (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
One: don't strike through my comments. Two: I didn't say there was no support, I said there was support and dissent (i.e., no consensus and therefore not an uncontroversial change). Three: rather than threaten people with lifetime bans for asking you to have regard to the views of other editors, you might try to have regard to the views of other editors. So, I ask you once again: will you withdraw your request to have a non-consensus and controversial change made to the locked article at this time.Landed little marsdon (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Two article solution

In this compromise, we would simply have one article entitled List of pseudosciences and one entitled List of questionable sciences. Each would have inclusion criteria based soley on that which is outlined in WP:PSCI. Simple!

Hmm, the two-state solution? This actually makes some sense, if consensus can be maintained about its right to exist. I like the idea for starters. But I'm not sure it's consensible as proposed, because what's conspicuously missing is "concepts characterized as pseudoscientific", which comprise a significant part of the current list. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
"Concepts characterized as pseudoscientific" is implied by the definition of "Questionable science" given at WP:PSCI ("...but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience...") and would therefore be a part of the inclusion critera (i.e. the lead) of the proposed List of questionable sciences article. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Questionable science would appear to vastly understate some of the entries. I'm leaning towards List of fields alleged to be pseudoscience and List of concepts alleged to be pseudoscience, even despite the problems inherent in the use of the word "pseudoscience". But with that said, I think that forking it into two lists makes some good sense. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Kenosis, you say, "Questionable science would appear to vastly understate some of the entries." Question: To whom would it appear to be this way? I ask this not to trick you, but more as a reminder not to confuse the situtation with our own POV. We can only distinguish between what is a Pseudoscience and what is a Questionable Science using reliable sources applied to WP:PSCI. The majority of the problem which occurs at this current article is when someone sees something included which they personally believe should be excluded or when someone sees something excluded which they personally believe should included. If we check our POV baggage at the door and rely on WP:V based on the criteria of WP:PSCI, we should be able to neutrally divide the list into items which are Pseudoscience (either obviously or by general consideration) and Questionable Science. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, if you're going to differentiate between List of questionable science(s) and List of pseudosciences, that makes sense as two separate lists. In addition, there need be a third list containing the concepts alleged to be pseudoscience, which would also reasonably give rise to a fourth list of questionable scientific concepts. Given the progress I've seen to date in working out POV disagreements in the current list (I'm not kidding--there has been discernible progress despite the current brouhaha), this approach would, I think, be very facilitative and more useful to readers than the current list. in some cases, I imagine we will see the possibility of some concepts, practices or fields on more than one list, depending on what the RS's are saying about that particular concept, practice or field. Yes, Levine, though I'm sure the arguments will inevitably continue, in general this split approach makes good sense to me. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
How about we keep the two lists as described above but based on your input retitle them to be List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (the current name of this article! :-) and List of questionable sciences and scientific concepts? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This also makes sense. The words "questionable science and questionable scientific concepts" are self standing. For pseudoscience, speaking just for myself, the qualification "putative pseudoscience and pseudoscientific concepts" more accurately captures the jist than qualifiers such as "alleged", "asserted" and other such adjectives that've been floated above. I do recognize "putative" would be a virtually impossible sell. So, what you likely end up with is, as you say, List of pseudoscience and pseudoscientific concepts with largely the same POV battles as before w.r.t. that list, with a safety valve of sorts to shunt a number of entries off to "questionable science". Nonetheless, IMO it's an improvement in categorization. Anybody else? ... Kenosis (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 00:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. So, what does one do with concepts and fields that are in the "grey" area that falls short of "clearly pseudoscience"? It's not a POV fork to list "questionable science" separately, but rather is quite arguably an extremely reasonable content fork. "Questionable science" has already been defined here. As I think most everybody here knows, WP:PSCI lays out a four-tier assessment, in which the first two appear to belong in the present list. Stuff that's in the grey area might reasonably belong both in a list of pseudosciences as well as in a list of questionable sciences. New entries would likely appear in a list of questionable science that do not meet the threshold for inclusion in the list of pseudosciences. Same old POV battles about what should be on the pseudoscience list, but at least it would be an opportunity to acknowledge that questionable science isn't the same as obvious pseudoscience. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose divide and conquer proposal. This is just another way of watering down the subject and would be a POV fork. I agree with SNALWIBMA that we need a single list with a single (and broad) inclusion criterion. That will stop most of the edit warring. A narrow inclusion criterion will always cause problems. The single criterion is that it must be cited from a V & RS. Any other criterion (once already included) would (for the cases of clear PS) be partially governed by WP:PSCI. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
In other words, Fyslee, the threshold question hinges on whether there is one reliable source that calls something pseudoscience or pseudoscientific? One skeptical RS calls my work "pseudoscience", another RS calls it "a testable hypothesis that merits further empirical study and evaluation", and it still meets the inclusion criteria for "list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts"? ... Kenosis (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it that way, but basically it's a matter of using the same rules here as anywhere else at Wikipedia, and that is that things must be sourced properly. Here a weird Twilight zone state of special sourcing rules have been developed that suspends the normal rules in favor of some special rules developed as a compromise because of incessant and persistent edit warring. Such a state should not exist. A local consensus cannot override the consensus that has established our sourcing policies. The same rules apply everywhere at Wikipedia.
While notability is a requirement for creating an article, it is not a requirement for content within the article, IOW a reference doesn't have to be from a notable source, but still must come from a V & RS. A list is a special situation, as each item can be considered a mini-article, and the references used should have the same criteria for acceptance as they would in the subject's article. Why do I mention this? Because there are editors here who for ages now (years!) have tried desperately to keep out anything but official statements from scientific academies, well knowing that scientific academies rarely give pseudoscience the time of day and just ignore them without comment. Such comments are very rare. This is no proof that those PS subjects aren't bald-faced PS BS, but the sources that always do call them what they really are have been edit warred to death to keep them out. Those are skeptical sources, which are completely allied with mainstream science, consist of scientists and medical professionals, and in every way are legitimate sources for making declarations about the PSness of things.
The situation you describe, where there are very different declarations (I assume from mainstream sources, since fringe sources only misuse the term PS as an illegitimate defense of their BS), if they are from numerous very strong and notable mainstream sources, likely indicate that the subject is a mainstream subject under debate, IOW a genuine "Questionable science" (QS) or "Alternative theoretical formulations". These are both mainstream objects of study, not alternative or fringe subjects.
According to PSCI, the QS one can be dealt with in this manner: "... but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."' We can thus (very) briefly describe the dispute, while linking to the main article, where the dispute should be described in more detail. This is something we actually do with all the subjects in the list.
I hope that answers your question. Since I'm speaking in hypotheticals based on a lack of information about the subject you allude to ("calls my work"), I'd like to know what your example is. -- Fyslee (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It was a hypothetical. As we both know from experience, numerous fields and concepts have had RSs weigh in on both sides when the demarcation problem rears its ugly head. Indeed AFAICT that's what the whole POV battle has been about. ... If, as proposed in the section immediately below, an appropriate adjective or adjectival clause ("putative", "asserted to be", "reputed", "characterized as" or whatever qualification is consensible among participants in this list) then it's conceivable the more inflammatory POV issues (all revolving around the question whether something is pseudoscience) might largely be rendered moot, or at least substantially reduced (by merit of referring to the list as essentially "things that have been asserted by RSs to be pseudoscience"). The latter approach has the effect of substantially reducing or removing the judgments of WP editors as to what actually is or isn't properly termed "pseudoscience", and instead focusing more directly on the judgments made by the RSs. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think that two lists are needed. Look at the warring on this one, then double it. I like the simple list below. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should have all the pseudosciences together. Putting them into two articles concedes the right of pseudoscientist advocates to engage in eternal warfare over the classification of their pet pseudoscience. --TS 12:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Tony, not all subjects are equally seen as pseudoscientific. The rationale for a "two state solution" is to segregate the really clear-cut cases (clear-cut being determined by RS's, not editors' informed views). --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Second choice (with or without the "questionable sciences" list) after title change. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple title

List of concepts characterized as pseudoscience
List of topics referred to as pseudoscience
List of subjects described as pseudoscientific
&c. Fyslee has suggested a number of similar titles (thank you for all your work on this dispute). If we are going to move the article, we might as well make the title slightly less unwieldy. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, as I have explained to you elsewhere on this page. If a V & RS says it, it doesn't violate BLP, and in this case with PS subjects, it won't skirt around PSCI and NPOV if we change the title. We will still comply with NPOV and PSCI. In fact you have agreed that the current title violates NPOV. As to PSCI, only obvious PS will be so labelled "by us" in the list. All other mentions will just be referenced mentions. PSCI does not forbid us from producing V & RS that declare a subject to be PS. It only forbids us, as editors, from doing so. In fact, if we do this with a neutral title in a neutral manner, we don't even divide things up into obvious PS or generally considered PS, but just list things alphabetically by topic and let the sources speak for themselves. Let the readers decide. Nothing in the title identifies or declares any of the subjects as obvious PS. The title only declares that the list consists of references that describe subjects as PS. It does not declare anything in the list to be PS, as our current title does. Neither Wikipeida or its editors are declaring anything on the list to be PS. We are staying out of it and letting the sources speak. Our job is to document the real world using V & RS, not to come with our declarations about the real world. -- Fyslee (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So essentially, according to you, we can put George W. Bush (and pretty much every modern U.S. President) on a list with Adolf Hitler without violating BLP. Okay, try to start List of people characterized as war criminals and populate it. See how long that article lasts before an AfD goes through. It will be deleted and salted before you have time to alphabetize the list. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. On reflection, this is better than the more complex "PS and concepts characterized as PS". This is simple, easy to understand, and should avoid the arguments. The bipartite title looks as if it is setting up a distinction between things that are PS and those that have merely been called PS, even if that isn't the intention. I like List of concepts characterized as pseudoscience. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support second choice, still not seeing what the NPOV problem with the current title is. Verbal chat 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. None of these titles can be called simple. In fact every single one of them is more wordy and ridiculously hedged than the current name. We should give the article a simple name that describes the content: List of pseudosciences. --TS 12:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The obvious title

List of pseudosciences

Let's give it the obvious and sensible name. All the other ones are just weaseling. --TS 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this as a general rule. We can explain in the lead that not every topic listed will be wholly pseudoscientific. For example, with the caveats regarding hypnosis which currently appear. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I support this view. The title is not biased if the content is reliably sourced and explained neutrally, with he content it has now. Verbal chat 16:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems very reasonable. As well, the title need not necessarily use the plural form. It's equally reasonable to use an abstract noun such as List of pseudoscience. This approach would have the benefit of requiring no additional explanation in order to incorporate, as the list already does, pseudoscientific concepts that aren't clearly definable as a "field" or "practice" that can be referred to with a concrete, countable noun such as "a pseudoscience". ... Kenosis (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading the article - support. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The only way this obvious title would work would be if we limited the inclusion criteria to Obvious Pseudoscience and Generally Considered Pseudoscience as defined by WP:PSCI. Essentially, our list is already titled "List of Pseudosciences" yet the article remains unstable. Therefore, maybe we shouldn't be spending so much time rethinking the title, but rather rethinking the inclusion criteria. And why not use WP:PSCI as our inclusion criteria? Seriously. It is part of a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. It is generally accepted by all. And best of all, it's already written for us. So really, is there any good reason not to use PSCI as our criteria for inclusion in this list? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    We should not have non-pseudoscience on this article. The fact that there may be some inappropriate entries (and I'm open to argument) does not mean we should mend the problem by renaming it to water down the meaning. Rather, we should make sure we have clear consensus, based on policy, for what it contains. --TS 17:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
But this is the very problem which has been stated above in many different ways. The title may be obvious, but it quickly gets out of synch with the content when, for example, treatments endorsed by the medical establishment worldwide are included here on the say so of a magician. Landed little marsdon (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Llm and TS. TS, would you be opposed to defining the inclusion criteria of this article to be in accord with WP:PSCI? (Meaing that the only entries to this list should fit into the "Obvious Pseudoscience" or "Generally Considered Pseudosciences" definitions.) -- Levine2112 discuss 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This makes as much sense as an article titled "List of crackpots". We could surely use verifiable sources to make a long list of the latter, but many would surely be disputed, and some simply false. Not every crackpot has been so labeled, and not everyone who has been labeled a crackpot is (or is always) one. Just so with pseudosciences. It is simply not a well-defined, or definable, group. hgilbert (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree. But what about if we limited inclusion to just the criteria defined in WP:PSCI? IOW, the lead of this article would read something to the effect of:

This list contains concepts which are either obvious pseudosciences (theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus) or generally considered pseudoscience (theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community).

-- Levine2112 discuss 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support My first choice is List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific. The simpler title would be my second choice. We can start a RFC on these two choices to seek outside advise. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most of the proposed titles are reasonable IMO. The problem appears to be in matching the content to the title, or vice-versa. A simple title such as this makes sense, but may require more stringent inclusion criteria. A title with a built-in caveat like "characterized as" or others proposed above does rather the opposite, matching the title to the present list with the present inclusion criteria. If there's ever to be a realistic possibility of attaining a new agreement that even remotely resembles a consensus, I think it would be useful to keep this question up front and try to decide whether the objective is to find a title to match the existing list, or to develop a list that matches the chosen title. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tally

Alright, the flood of comments seems to have died down on this particular issue. For present purposes, the multiplicity of options are somewhat condensed - I do not feel like enumerating the lack of consensus for the two-article solution, nor sorting through archived discussions of whether we really need a new title (List of pseudosciences is functionally equivalent to the present title). Support (2nd choice) is noted with 2 if the second choice is the other major option. Please correct this list if I have mischaracterized anyone's position. There seems to be little support for major changes to the inclusion criteria, so I have interpreted support only if ... to mean oppose. All opinions are assumed to have been offered in good faith and to have retained relevance. Opinions expressed in other sections have not been tallied, though they should be included if anyone finds one. Adding yourself here is also acceptable.

List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific
Support: QuackGuru, Jim62sch, ImperfectlyInformed, Orangemarlin, Verbal, Snalwibma2, ScienceApologist, Hgilbert2
Oppose: Levine2112, Eldereft, Landed_little_marsdon, Fyslee, MaxPont, Crohnie, Tony_Sidaway

6+2 / 7

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Support: Eldereft, Fyslee, Landed_little_marsdon, Hgilbert, QuackGuru,2 Crohnie, Snalwibma, Verbal2
Oppose: Levine2112, MaxPont, Tony_Sidaway

6+2 / 3

I would like to interpret this as a consensus to rename the article to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (or something similar). If there are no major objections, I will submit this to requested moves for further discussion in a few days. Perhaps after that we can request unprotection? - Eldereft (cont.) 02:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just went ahead and moved List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience; if anyone thinks we should go through the full Requested moves process, please revert and use the link above to open another new discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I'd given up on anything happening with this. Good move, Eldereft. hgilbert (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's reminiscent of the saying "Only Nixon could go to China" -- i.e. good, bold move at the right time. Kudos! --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What is this nonsense about tallies? We don't make decisions by votes. --TS 14:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a better suggestion for wrangling intransigent editors into agreeing to stop editwarring? Can you think of any way to make any other solution viable? There was plenty of discussion, this was just an attempt to boil it down into something actionable. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the absolute tearing urgency to rename this article. There is no consensus to rename it to anything else, and I see no convincing arguments to do so. If people are edit warring over the name (and I don't see it myself) then they should stop it. --TS 14:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Whatever objections there might be to the use of the word "tally" or "vote", everything was done properly. There has been plenty of discussion about changing the name, with a number of different suggestions. Most of the edit warring that has occurred on this article through the years has been because the (1) old name clashed with the (2) content and (3) inclusion criteria. By changing the name, we now have harmony between all three. The name change was discussed, suggested, alerted, and done in a proper manner, so there is no problem. Please don't attempt to undo months (actually years) of labor by belaboring this point. We've already been there. Just read the archives and let the involved editors develop the article. I say "involved", because you are a relative newcomer and your comment that you "don't see" "edit warring over the name" reveals you don't really know the history of this list. You're welcome to join the efforts to develop the list, but beating the dead horse won't be constructive, IOW this "particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved." -- Fyslee (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Does a title categorize the content?

Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion

Here's a yes or no. Does inclusion in a "list of Xs" effectively categorize something as an X? I think yes.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (Copied from above by Fyslee as it's a related matter.)

I agree with LLM. Looking at it from the other direction, I think that a title (a) categorizes and (b) describes the content, and that it also establishes the basic (c) inclusion criteria. When content and title are not in agreement, one or the other must change so as to establish harmony between the two. A title must also (d) be NPOV. A loose title establishes broad inclusion criteria, while a very specific title establishes narrow inclusion criteria. In this case the narrow inclusion criteria allow a number of fringe POV pushers to keep their favorite PS delusion from being mentioned at all, in spite of the fact that those delusions are widely described as pseudoscientific by many V & RS, many quite notable. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
According to what policy a title of an article is a category. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not what is being asked here, but WP:CLS is the answer to your question. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Does a title categorize the content? Absolutely not. QuackGuru (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, see WP:CLS. Categories and lists on Wikipedia are different methods of doing the same thing - catergorizing. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Titles do not categorize. This list is not meant to be a categorical denigration of everything that appears on it as a pseudoscience. On that everyone agrees (I think). ScienceApologist (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Definitely no agreement on that. Without qualifiers, the title is clearly and unequivocally declaring ALL the content unquestioned pseudoscience. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be clearer still, so I will ask again and clarify. We are not just asking a general question about whether titles of articles categorize or are categories. Instead we are talking about a very specific type of article (a list) with a very particular type of title (list of Xs). So, the question is: does including A in a list entitled "list of Xs" effectively categorize A as an X? I think it does. Landed little marsdon (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course. That's the nature of a list and why WP:CLS says that Lists and Categories are interchangeable - both exist as a matter of editor preference. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
In maths, A would indeed be a subset of X. Hence the importance of a neutral title like that which QG and I prefer. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Is that a "yes" Jim?Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
In maths, yes. However, maths knows no nuances. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 01:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't maths, so your comment doesn't answer the question. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And in this case, the non-maths case, do you think the subtle and complex nuances of the language which preclude a simple yes or on answer are primarily down to the word "list", the word "of" or the variable "X"? Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It's neither of the first two, but it may well be both variables: x and a, or at least how we define them and include or exclude them. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might say that. OK: for any A and any X, if A is included in a list called "List of Xs" then that effectively characterizes A as an X. Now, given your point about the variables creating nuance, you must think that particular As and Xs make a difference, and therefore you must think it false for at least some As or some Xs (otherwise they wouldn't make a difference), so I'll put you down as a "no" then. Landed little marsdon (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How about putting me down as a qualified "maybe"?  :) Subsets can have subsets too. If we list numbers, 1.7, 4, 77.6, 9, 7 and 11 all qualify; but if we list whole numbers, only 4, 9, 7 and 13 qualify; but, if we go further and specify primes only 7 and 11 qualify; and if we want to be really esoteric and go for Mersenne primes only 7 qualifies. Language, which is all we have to express the sub-issues in this debate, works the same irritatingly difficult way.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
i'm not sure you're not missing the point. Of course different sets will have different members and subsets will partly overlap, but the point here is simply about the relationship between the title of any particular list and its members. That is, does the title of any particular list determine and categorize its members? In the examples you gave, in any example I would argue, the answer is obviously yes - thats what allowed you to specify so easily what should be in each list. In any event it doesn't really matter at this stage since all this is about is trying to get a rough idea of the areas of disagreement. So far i think we have two yes's and one undecided since the guestion was further clarified. Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Not missing a tick :) Nonetheless, in maths you would be correct, but maths is objective whereas language is not. So, while I really do understand what you're saying, I'd still, as a linguist, need to remain a qualified maybe. OK, I might lean toward yes, but it really depends on the clarity of the title and sauid title would need to both avoid and encompas nuances. Sorry to be so difficult (as I'm sure that that's how I seem in this case), but it's really not as simple a question as one might imagine. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're being difficult, i just think you're confusing yourself and the issue by constantly bringing up maths examples which, when shown not to support your point, you claim only don't do so because they're maths. Then why bring them up? If you actually have an example using language where you would want to include something you would not characterize as an X on a list of Xs then I'd love to hear it.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not confused either. In linguistics, most morphology, syntax, grammar and even nuances can be reduced to maths terms.
Let's say that our list is "words". We can classify love as a noun. Also as a verb. (In rare cases, as in "love potion", it's an adjective) Which is it? Both? All three? We could get much more complicated, if I wished. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the title does categorize the content. The name should be List of pseudosciences and it should consist largely of a list of pseudosciences (other items such as the list of former marginal theories now mainstream are also relevant).

The difficulty seems to me to be convincing advocates of various pseudosciences that their pet pseudoscience does belong here. Paradoxically, the presence of such advocates, and the absence of mainstream support, is a good sign that a field is in fact a pseudoscience. --TS 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

TS, I totally agree with you here, but I also want you to consider that there seems to be difficulty convincing adversaries of various disciplines/theories that their personal beliefs on a subject should not be factored into the inclusion criteria. Basically, the difficulty you speak of above cuts both ways. Even though per WP:PSCI we may not be able to call a certain discipline/theory a "pseudoscience", some editors' personal distaste for this discipline/theory seemingly dictates their mission for including said discipline/theory on this list. Make sense? -- Levine2112 discuss 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we have a "list of frauds" and then have disclaimers that not everything on the list has been proven to be a fraud. Any flaws with that? See Wikipedia:CG#Category_naming. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well put! -- Levine2112 discuss 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Preparing to start deletion process very soon

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This has dragged on long enough. I'm considering beginning the deletion process soon. If we can't choose an NPOV title, one that allows readers the freedom to make up their own minds based on the sources, then this will forever be a battlefield, per my comments immediately above this section. With a better title, the actual content, LEAD, and inclusion criteria can indeed label and categorize some of the content as unquestioned PS, but the title shouldn't. That is totally unnecessary and a violation of NPOV. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd not think that deleting an article would delete the issue, so I don't see any benefit to an AfD. - Jim62sch 21:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course. The situation is that when the foundation of a house is faulty, there will always be problems with the house. Unlike with a physical house, we can change the foundation of this article quite easily. If we aren't willing to do it, we will be faced with continual disruption here. In that case we should start over with another foundation (an NPOV title) and build on it, using the same content we have now. We need a new foundation that will justify and support the current content. Right now there is a mismatch. Any title that includes a POV element that conclusively identifies content as unquestioned PS will always meet resistance from unreasonable editors, of which there are and will be any number who will plagued the article. I have suggested a title that is immune from such attacks. -- Fyslee (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with that. The titles you've suggested seem OK. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
For the nonce we need to reduce the choices, and the drama and shit-stirring instigated by an unamed editor/admin needs to stop. Then, we can get down to business. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
How can an editor become an admin whilst remaining unnamed? That doesn't make sense. --TS 12:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Parsing of WP:PSCI

Latest comment: 15 years ago42 comments11 people in discussion
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.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI
  • 1. 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.
  • 2. 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.
  • 3. 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.
  • 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I have previously parsed the ArbCom decision's four groupings, here reproduced above and commented below:

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 these:

  • 1. Obvious pseudoscience
  • 2. Generally considered pseudoscience

These are subjects that are recognized by the scientific mainstream as fringe/alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to mainstream science, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The ArbCom decision allows the scientific mainstream criticisms to be stated, IOW that the fringe/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), or by labeling them as PS in articles. IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:

The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above:

  • 3. Questionable science (IOW, things like psychoanalysis, which is considered mainstream and is specifically addressed by the ArbCom, and would not be allowed to be categorized as PS, but could be mentioned).
  • 4. Alternative theoretical formulations ("are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process," IOW also considered mainstream, and would not be allowed in this list. "Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation."[1])

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

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

Changing the title of this list would greatly help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by NPOV and sourcing inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a List of subjects referred to as 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 notable 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 narrow-inclusion-criteria 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.

Other sabotage attempts have been attempted by slurring the distinction between groups 2 and 3, IOW when fringe supporters attempt to claim that alternative medicine concepts that are "Generally considered pseudoscience" by the mainstream are really considered "Questionable science" (by fringe supporters), merely because they have a "following" (or even a "substantial following"...duh!), or because fringe supporters believe that such methods (by using crystal ball thinking) might someday be proven or accepted by the mainstream. Such slurring should be rebuffed. Only when such PS concepts actually have been scientifically proven do they become mainstream. It has to be an unquestioned historical reality (IOW V & RS) that such a transition has occurred. Read Marcia Angell on the subject,[1] where she (ultra mainstream) makes a clear difference between groups 2 and 3. The ArbCom also makes that difference, and we as editors on this list need to do the same. No slurring should be allowed.

Fyslee (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Fyslee's take on #2 and #3 as he relies less on parsing and more on interpretation. Here is the actual text from PSCI with my commentary below.
2. 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.
I take this at face value. It says nothing about "alternative" nor "fringe" so we shouldn't make a generalization that all alternative/fringe ideas are definitionally pseudoscientific. If something is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community then there will be a preponderance of reliable sources saying so (hence "generally considered"). We shouldn't rely on Wikipedia editors' POV in any way, shape or form; that's where we historically always get into trouble. Present the sources - the more authoritative, the better - which verify that the theory is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community and there really can't be any argument for exclusion from the "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts".
3. 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.
Again, I take this at face value. This says nothing about mainstream. It is possible for an alternative or fringe theory to have a substantial following too. Whether the theory be considered a mainstream or alternative one is irrelevant here. What is relevant here is that the theory has a substantial following and there are only "some" critics alleging it to be a pseudoscience. Present reliable sources which verify that the theory has a substantial following but is only alleged to be pseudoscience by some critics, and there there really can't be any argument for exclusion from the "List of questionable sciences and scientific concepts".
All we have to do is follow WP:PSCI to the letter, and we can't go wrong! :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 08:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
But that's what we've tried for years now and it hasn't worked. That's why we are here. A change of title will guarantee that we can preserve the current content pretty much unchanged and eliminate much of the edit warring. That single problem has been at the foundation of most of our problems here. Without a change of title, much of the content should be removed, or the whole thing deleted. Much of the content has been edit warred into the article, in spite of the title not justifying such inclusions. I believe those inclusions are good ones, and that changing the title will solve the problem. It will make the list cover the subject much more deeply and completely than is allowed by the current title with its narrow inclusion criteria. -- Fyslee (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring and failing to meet NPOV is what we've tried for years. The solution is not to disregard NPOV and relax our inclusion criteria. This will only lead to a huge list filled with unhelpful entries with more and more WEIGHT, NPOV and RS disputes. Why? Because we are creating our own made-up inclusion criteria which will keep on getting changed to suit different editors' POVs of what this article should be. Some people will want to keep things such as Psychoanalyis, Evolution, and Vaccination out. Others will want to keep it in - and when these people present reliable sources that indeed verify that the subject has been characterized as a pseudoscience, the ones wanting exclusion of such obvious non-pseudosciences will have very shaky ground to stand on. So if you want an article where Psychanalysis is listed with Phrenology, where Evolution is listed with Intelligent Design, and where Vaccination is listed with Homeopathy, then by all means rename this article as you wish. However, if you'd rather have an list-article which could only present pseudosciences as per the general consensus of the scientific community and another article which could only present questionable sciences according to reliable sources, then I ask you to reconsider the "two article" solution and also to reconsider which solution is a better tool for a researcher to use to learn about what is an example of a pseudoscience according to the general scientific community. With your solution, the researcher will be presented with a huge list, most of which will just be assertions of pseudoscience but will actually be poor examples. With your solution, we would be reducing the term "pseudoscience" to its basest perjorative meaning where it is lodged at a discipline like a blunt instrument rather than used as proper scientific nomenclature. With your solution, inclusion criteria will be very loose and will be at the whim of any editor who wants to come along and change it. However, if we created two lists with inclusion criteria already rigidly worded and demarcated for us at WP:PSCI, then no one can argue it (short of changing the ArbCom ruling). With the two article solution, the pseudoscience list will not be a perjorative name-calling POV list, but rather a useful list of pseudosciences per the scientific community. In short, why do we keep trying to invent some new fangled way to transport a heavy load across open ground when we already have the wheel? :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 02:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Using WP:PSCI as the inclusion criteria

I move that we use WP:PSCI for the sole inclusion criteria of this article. In other words, we limit inclusion to the "List of Pseudosciences" to those concepts which are deemed "Obvious pseudoscience" or "Generally considered pseudoscience" as defined by WP:PSCI. The text for the Lead of this article would generally read as such:

This list contains concepts which are either obvious pseudosciences (theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus) or generally considered pseudoscience (theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community).

Short and sweet. And hard to argue with since this is a faithful summary of PSCI which is part of NPOV which is a pillar of Wikipedia's policies.

So, if you oppose limiting the inclusion criteria of the "List of Pseudosciences" to the very Wikipedia policy which tells us how to deal with pseudoscience on Wikipedia, then I'd appreciate an lucid explanation as to why. Thanks.

Comment for Dave Souza. I think the point is more about sources than about debates between editors here. That is, the PSCI criteria refer to general scientific consensus, for which there will either be mainstream scientific sources or there won't. If such sources exist then the entry will be added on that basis, but if no such sources exist then we will lack acceptable evidence of scientific consensus and the entry will be excluded. We can therefore conclude that under this proposal all current entries which lack mainstream scientific sources would be removed since those are the cases where we lack acceptable evidence that the scientific community regards them as PS. Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
We're getting into a WP:FRINGE issue here. If "Theories" have no evidence of a substantial expert following within mainstream science, unlike psychoanalysis, and a large majority of available mainstream sources allege it to be pseudoscience, then it would be reasonable to characterize it as pseudoscience with a caveat as to any lack of overwhelming evidence that it is rejected by the scientific community, and an indication of any significant minority mainstream scientific support. Which is why I'd like to see examples, as nothing on the list at present jumps out as being unfairly characterised. . dave souza, talk 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to run now, but let's start with hypnosis. I'd say that according to the sources presented, hynosis itself is not generally regarded as a pseudoscience. So why is it included here? It seems so because hypnosis has roots in now discredited science and because it is used for some paranormal instances. Well, if that is the case, then why isn't psychoanalysis included here? It seems to fit the same mold. I am not advocating the inclusion of psychoanalysis , but rather the removal of hypnosis. If you want to include "Pastlife regression therapy" in this list or animal magnetism, it would probably be uncontested. But hypnosis in general? It doesn't seem right labeling the whole concept when only subsections and odd uses of it are pseudoscientific. There is some kooky forms of cancer treatment out there, but are we going to list "Cancer treatment" as a pseudoscience. I would hope not. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The entry currently states that "It is clinically useful for e.g. pain management, but some claimed uses of hypnosis outside of hypnotherapy clearly fall within the area of pseudoscience", so presumably your concerns would be met by changing the start of the paragraph to:
•Certain uses of hypnosis outside of hypnotherapy..." – anyone have thoughts on that approach? . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That looks pretty good. This is the way to deal with subjects like chiropractic, where it would be improper to call the whole profession PS, but very proper to call parts of it PS. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
See, I'd go the other way and say that we should only list the pseudoscientific children while not listing the non-pseudoscientific parent. It's kind of a "one-bad-apple-spoils-the-bunch" situation and I am sure if we looked at many, many other "parent" disciplines not listed here, we could find pseudoscientific "children". As such, I don't think we should be listing the parent discipline here, but rather only list the "children" as such:
What say you? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Dave, if there exists "a large majority of available mainstream sources alleg[ing] it to be pseudoscience" then it would go on the list no problem. Even one such source would probably do. The problem arises for those entries where no such scientific sources can be found. Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget that for "theories" to attain the status of "questionable science" they also have to have a substantial following in the scientific community, so if they lack that a source such as a notable skeptical organization, or by notable academics or researchers, would be reasonably sufficient. Just because something's ignored by the scientific community doesn't mean that it's science, questionable or otherwise. . dave souza, talk 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The quality of sourcing would logically vary depending on the grouping listed in the PSCI. It would take extremely strong and notable sources to declare anything in group 4 ("alternative formulations") a PS, while it would only take a good skeptical source to declare anything in groups 1 & 2 a PS, simply because science ignores them. They exist, and are certainly PS, but only scientists who are active skeptics bother to comment on them, and thus such comments are legitmate if they are published in V & RS. Items clearly in group 3 ("Questionable science") can be mentioned as considered by some sources to be PS, but we, as editors, can't call them PS, according to the PSCI ruling. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose However, I'd like to choose 3 or 4 topics listed in the article and see why they should or shouldn't be included per the proposal by Levine (I think Levine proposed it, since he was the first support). Right now, I can't see how any of the topics listed currently shouldn't continue to be listed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • My guess is that the argument will be made that because some journal article said there was some evidence for a certain alternative medicine, then it must be "questionable science" or an "alternative idea" and not "pseudoscience". It's a really common argument when it comes to pseudoscience-promotion. "There's an article which says that my pet idea works published in the Journal of Obscurity and Unrelated Ideas! It MUST BE that there is ongoing controversy WITHIN the scientific community. The jury is still out. You CAN'T call it pseudoscience!" ScienceApologist (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I willing to posit that there are a few borderline cases where we can battle back and forth as to whether it's supported by reliable sources. For example, Martin used to argue that the Paranormal group belonged to the AAAC, so therefore, it wasn't pseudoscience. But, I'm still willing to see what Levine's logic is...I'll change my oppose if it makes sense. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it helps to characterize others' arguments in that way. There are actually some fairly compelling arguments against inclusion which have been cited repeatedly without really being addressed. Foremost amongst these, IMO, is the complete lack of anything resembling a source capable of representing general scientific consensus for many of the entries on the list. Once such a source is cited some may fall back on the Journal of Obscurity to bolster their position, but at the moment there is no need to because the sources being used to support inclusion are guite a ways below even that lowly title. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that type of argument has been used here! It's not a hypothetical situation. Whatever the case may be, if there is significant disagreement among mainstream scientific sources, then we document the disagreement, as we should do per NPOV. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, this looks like setting a high bar for evidence that "questionable science" is regarded as pseudoscience while not requiring evidence that they have a substantial following in the scientific community. As Fyslee says, there's a good case for making any disagreement within mainstream science about the subject explicit, and I'd also say that the quality of sources should be indicated where there's reasonable doubt about them having high standing. . dave souza, talk 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Dave, I think you're overplaying the "inclusionist" hand. The fact is that many entries currently in the article are there on the say so of one non-scientific source alone. And this means a substantial following within the scientific community does not have to be demonstrated by those opposing inclusion because the minimum requirement has not been met by those wishing to include a topic - the minimum requirement being a sound scientific source saying "X is pseudoscience". The lack of such sources is one of the major points discussed above. The point being that to include something in the list on nothing more than the say so of one non scientist is setting the bar for inclusion far too low given the definitiveness of the title. Thus some have argued that the title should be changed to align it with the low bar inclusion criteria, while others have argued that the title should stay the same and the article be aligned by rejecting all the entries not sourced to solid scientific sources. Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Stop writing in generalities and give a specific example of a problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This section is about inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria for a list apply to any potential member of that list and thereore a discussion of such criteria will always be general with regard to any particular potential member. I simply don't see any benefit in going off topic and arguing the toss about particular entries. My point here is about the inadequacy of some of the current sources per the current title and per PSCI, and about why it is wrong to describe the debate as mainstream science sources versus the "journal of the obscure", when many of the sources currently used in the article are not mainstream science at all and are clearly not up to scratch per the current title and per PSCI.Landed little marsdon (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't have any specific objections or suggestions, then there is no reason to entertain this line of inquiry any further since it is not helping actual content of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine anything having a more direct and far-reaching impact on the content of a list than its inclusion criteria. I therefore think there is much to be gained by following this line of inquiry. Landed little marsdon (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Suit yourself. However, no one is going to pay attention to someone who refuses to discuss actual article content. Eventually, you may find your contributions removed as a violation of WP:TALK. Fair warning. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't understand how discussing inclusion criteria is very much discussing article content then I can't help you. I would also point out that many here seem to understand this point quite well and have been discussing this important point in some detail. I therefore don't think that threatening to remove clearly relevant talk page discussions is either appropriate or helpful. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you have not been forthcoming with offering specific examples of content changes you would like to offer. The relevancy to article content of your continuing refusal to do so is weak at best. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I am talking about the overall basis for determining article content in a section devoted to that very question. The points I have made have been specifically on that point. If you do not want to discuss that point but would rather debate the merits of particular entries seperate from the question of how inclusion criteria would affect them, then you are free to start a new section on those entries and make whatever points you want to make about them there. I happen to think that this attempt to develop the general principles for inclusion is important enough to warrant discussion free from distracting arguments about particular entries.Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Glad you agree that you have no objections to any of the included material at this list. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

At no stage did I say that and it is hard to believe that you genuinely think I did (please see WP:TALK about the care that should be taken not to mischaracterize others). Anyway, by way of clarification; there are in fact a number of entries that are, IMO, quite ludicrous. However, I think these are better handled by getting at the source (pun intended) of the problem, rather than by laboriously arguing the toss on a case by case basis. I also happen to think that sources trump personal opinion, and so it is far more appropriate to resolve the general principle of the inclusion criteria rather than to quibble about particulars that would be resolved automatically by tightening up those criteria. Landed little marsdon (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As others have advised me that conversations with you are pointless, I will cease for the time-being. I think you're not going to get your way. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as second choice. It's internally consistent (and lines up with the pseudoscience category on WP), but I would prefer Fyslee's renaming idea and then putting big asterisks and annotations next to the non-obvious examples. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This newly created article, previously a redirect to the deleted BLP Myron Evans, was formerly on the list of pseudoscientific theories here. I have classified the article as "fringe science", although it was previously marked by consensus with a "pseudoscientific concept" template. If any other editor wishes to classify the article as such and re-add it to the list, I have no objection. Mathsci (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like pseudoscience to me (well, it is). I realise that GUT or a TOE is desired by all physicists, but we're not there yet. Gravity keeps proving to be a real bugger. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Balancing Quackwatch, CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Earlier, Backin72 tried to balance some of the Quackwatchish sources with scientific sources - statements from the NIH and WHO - on traditional Chinese medicine [2]. He was continually reverted by QuackGuru. His references need to be added back in. We can't portray a misleading picture of a subject based entirely upon the extremist and less reliable sources listed in my subject title. II | (t - c) 02:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Those sources are not directly relevant to the topic of pseudoscience unless we decide to take a novel synthesis. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

II is absolutely right. These are diplomatic consensus statements by the most RS there is. MaxPont (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article about "diplomatic consensus statements". ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
No, but it is an encyclopedia based on NPOV. The article itself says "inclusion does not necessarily indicate that any given entry is in fact pseudoscience." Readers will want to know why, cf. WP:WEIGHT and WP:PARITY. Including WHO and NIH as balance to CSICOP is a little bit like balancing an ant with an elephant. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Restored. Lists are nice because we can annotate the entries. All the sources are, as MaxPont correctly notes, top-notch. (QG had earlier noted that the NIH source is from 1997, and would be inappropriate if we were using it to discuss the evidence base. But for what it's cited for, it's still up to date.) --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the view that this is synthesis. The following statements seem out of place here:
A 2007 review led by Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst finds that research is active and growing and the "emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions." The World Health Organization lists 28 conditions "for which acupuncture has been proved - through controlled trials - to be an effective treatment", and several dozen more for which evidence is suggestive.
A treatment might well be somewhat clinically effective at the same time as being based on pseudoscientific notions. Here we don't class traditional chinese medicine treatments as pseudoscience, but rather, the magical thinking that underlies them. The words "traditional Chinese medical concepts" are used advisedly. For that reason I'll remove the words (above) which refer to the effectiveness of treatment. --TS 06:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd ask you to reconsider removing comments about efficacy, because one of the first things an average reader is likely to conclude upon seeing a treatment modality called a "pseudoscience" is that it doesn't work. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That information can be conveyed by adequate framing in the lead of the article. The distinction to be conveyed isn't subtle. Looking at the lead, I think this part does a reasonably good job:
Some subjects in this list may be questioned aspects of otherwise legitimate fields of research, or have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them. For instance, while some proposed explanations for hypnosis have been criticized for being pseudoscientific, the phenomenon is generally accepted as real and scientific explanations exist.
I believe the same can be said of acupuncture. Where it works, resort to pseudoscientific concepts such as energy flows does not help us to understand or predict why and when it works. --TS 09:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi TS -- yes, agree that the introductory wording is very good. It caveats just about anything we put on the list, whether widely held to be pseudosci or not. What I'm suggesting is that in cases like TCM/acu, it wouldn't hurt to flesh out how those caveats specifically apply. It's good in terms of NPOV, because many other items on the list won't have such caveats. Seems only fair to note where there's something empirical and real, like efficacy, ya know?
By the way, science doesn't predict the specific activity of acupoints like LI 4 or PC 6 or UB 67. There is no explanation at all that I know of. We have to resort to pseudoscience to predict that. :-) --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't about efficacy, it's about pseudoscience. The article about acupuncture should deal with efficacy. --TS 13:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but as I said above, efficacy and "scientific-ness" are connected, and many readers may falsely assume that the pseudo designation = "it doesn't work". Why not err on the side of NPOV and inform our readers? It's not as if we lack the space, or something. If readers take away the notion that all topics listed are equally seen as pseudo, then we've failed. That may be an area where we disagree, but "pseudoscience" is a qualitative label on which reasonable people can disagree. I'm firmly in the WP:NOTTRUTH camp, and like to see us stick close to good sources (and not make, or encourage, assumptions in the absence of such sources). --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This is going around in circles. --TS 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is, and I think it's because you're not addressing the point that readers are likely to link pseudosci and efficacy, whether or not you intend them to. Pseudoscience, like fraud, is a pejorative. Some qualification is in order, or else deletion from this particular list. I'll be a bit bold and restore, given II's and Max's concerns. BTW, have you been able to find better sources for inclusion yet? --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine

Latest comment: 15 years ago75 comments15 people in discussion

Our coverage of this pseudoscientific subject seems unbalanced by advocacy. To say that Chinese Medicine is regarded as pseudoscience merely by CSI or some skeptical advocacy group is to grossly misrepresent it. Chinese Medicine is fundamentally pseudoscientific, depending on the existence of all kinds of fanciful forces and relations between the organs. The remedies are quite often toxic, where they are not completely useless. If there ever was a blatant pseudoscience, Chinese Medicine is it. Our articles on the subject should not contain weaseling intended to misrepresent the fact that Chinese Medicine is almost universally regarded as mumbo-jumbo. --TS 12:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(Note: none of these meet WP:MEDRS for what a majority of scientists think. It's good to hear TS's opinion, but he hasn't supported it with RS's.) --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. There might be some traditional Chinese medicine that has been incorporated into Medicine, but that's done through a scientific analysis of it. But then again, I'm just a shill for Big Pharm. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Also agree. Verbal chat 10:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a useful example of #Parsing of WP:PSCI when used to argue that items should be excluded from this list if there isn't a top quality source describing them as pseudoscience, when the items fail to meet the standard set for Questionable science of having "a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis". Arguably Chinese medicine has a huge following outside scientific medicine, but these criteria are to do with pseudoscience and science, and WP:WEIGHT is clear that the reference should be to expert opinion in the field of science. It also illustrates the curate's egg problem of some items on the list – they may be good in parts, and we have to make that clear in the entries, but that should not exclude them from this list. . dave souza, talk 11:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that degree courses were (are?) being offered suggests a level of support that muddies the water sufficiently to make inclusion problematic. And that's only using the negative sources provided above. Prima facie, then, this seems to clearly meet the criteria for questionable science. It certainly shows that TS's analysis "that Chinese Medicine is almost universally regarded as mumbo-jumbo" is completely mistaken. Landed little marsdon (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't, there are degree courses in Homeopathy (although some universities have started to close these now) and that doesn't mean homeopathy can't be called pseudoscience here. The use of refs supporting the placement in this list is entirely appropriate. I fully agree with Dave and OM here. WP:PSCI does not support LLMs contention. Verbal chat 12:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I made the same observation as User:Landed little marsdon when I inspected the sources and so endorse his point. Note also that the second source provided is a personal opinion which is explicitly disavowed by the publisher and so is a poor source. Furthermore, TCM is quite a broad and general category comparable to Western medicine and so contains numerous different therapies which will vary in effectiveness, usage and so forth. It seems to be officially supported by the Chinese Ministry of Health under whose auspices it is used to treat hundreds of millions of patients each year. It is questionable but the same can be said of Western medicine which is widely questioned too. Since any and all forms of medicine are routinely questioned, selecting particular forms for derogatory treatment here demonstrates the non-NPOV nature of this list which seems quite synthetic and so inappropriate as an article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Response to Verbal, are you rejecting PSCI and saying you don't care whether something has a significant following or not? Or are you saying that degree courses do not demonstrate a following?Landed little marsdon (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The "degree courses are offered, so it's not pseudoscience" argument is unsustainable because that isn't the definition of science. There are undoubtedly going to be some degree subjects on any pseudoscience list. There are undoubtedly going to be lots of subjects with immense followings on any pseudoscience list (and if WP:PSCI says otherwise it is wrong). --TS 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't my argument. My argument is that according to PSCI, topics with a substantial following in the scientific community (in this case the medical community) should not be categorized as pseudoscience even if some people have described them as such. And the existence of numerous degree courses is clearly suggestive of such a following. Please also note that I don't have to show that that following is correct, I only have to show that it exists.Landed little marsdon (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hence the curate's egg issue. If there are aspects incorporated into medical science, we say so. As for "the existence of numerous degree courses", whether that can be counted as "a substantial following" comparable to psychoanalysis, that's a matter requiring evidence. dave souza, talk 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no substantial following for Chinese Medicine in any part of the scientific community. Insofar as there is medical support, it is not scientific. The principles of Chinese Medicine are explicitly pseudoscientific. And again, the existence of university courses does not make something a science nor does it amount to a substantial following. --TS 14:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
How can you be so sure? It sounds to me like you have already made your mind up and are not interested in any evidence to the contrary. What would you accept as demonstrating a substantial following?Landed little marsdon (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We have WP:RS, that's all that's needed. The discussion about degrees is irrelevant. You are also misinterpreting PSCI. I fully agree with Dave. Verbal chat 15:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I am interpreting PSCI in exactly the same way as Dave, and a major part of that interpretation is that topics with a substantial following should not be characterized as pseudoscience even if some sources so describe it. You therefore need more than just an WP:RS, you need the absence of a substantial following. The degree courses are not a clincher in this respect but they go some way towards demonstrating a substantial following. Landed little marsdon (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

<ri> Two things – "3. 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." The question remains as to whether the following is as substantial as the scientific following of psychoanalysis, which requires reliable sources and not bald assertion. Secondly, where aspects of the "theory" are clearly pseudoscientific, we can identify these aspects without characterising the "theory" as a whole as pseudoscience. As in the case of hypnotism. . dave souza, talk 17:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of having a substantial following; what kind of thing would you like a source to say before you would accept that something has a substantial following? Also please note that when I say that numerous degree courses is suggestive of a substantial following, I am not merely making a "bald assertion", I am citing evidence (the courses) in support of my claim. A bald assertion is what you are making when you baldly assert that hypnotism shall be included.

Landed little marsdon (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How does having some university courses make Chinese Medicine somehow not a pseudoscience? Could you please explain this? --TS 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering that there are a number of university courses in creationism and astrology, I would also appreciate an explanation. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a course on Astrology when I was in college, offered through the Astronomy department. It's sole purpose was to debunk astrology. Who knows what these course actually offer, including debunking the non-science stuff. Besides, there's a huge pushback on offering these crap courses in medical schools. The realization that they don't help patients was enough. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That is not my point as I explained above. My point is: degree courses run by the medical/scientific establishment are indicative of support within that establishment. And, given that PSCI says that where there is a substantial following topics should not be characterized as pseudoscience, the following, demonstrated by the courses, means that this topic should not be so characterized. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Great. Since there are no degree courses run by the medical/scientific establishment which take these ideas seriously scientifically, there is therefore no support in the establishment and there is no substantial following. Therefore we rightly characterize the subject as pseudoscience, demonstrated by the fact that none of the courses offered by the mainstream treat these ideas as legitimately scientific. Meaning that this topic is appropriately categorized! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Two points: courses do exist in fairly high numbers according to the cited source. And, courses are not a necessary condition of a substantial following and therefore it doesn't mean such a following wouldn't exist even if no courses existed. FWIW, the fallacy you have committed is called the fallacy of Denying the antecedent. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the fallacy you have committed is an argument from ignorance. Cheers. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to get back to the question. Since Chinese Medicine makes all kinds of claims that are not scientifically verified but, if true, would have testable, predictable, real world effects, it is de facto pseudoscience. What evidence do we have to counter that? --TS 20:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine of course still has a substantial following in China. This is not an American encyclopedia. Labeling Chinese Medicine as pseudoscience and defining it in terms of American standards might indicate an encyclopedia with an insular view of the world and of medicine The United States and even the West does not have the final say on what constitutes medicine. The POV of editors on whether this kind of medicine works or not can't be an issue, because that would be, well, POV.(olive (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
another very valid point.Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Not only is this comment amazingly lacking in any basis in fact, it is one of the rudest things I've seen written at Wikipedia in a LONG time. The comment simply attests to an orientalists attitude that assumes the Chinese think that TCM is more scientific than Americans. The comment is, in fact, extremely culturally insensitive and offensive to people who are themselves Chinese. The Chinese medical scientists and most respected doctors in China are just as good as their American counterparts at recognizing the inherent pseudoscientific nature of various folk rememdy propagation. I suggest retracting it entirely. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh SA, that's not what I said at all. I didn't say the Chinese think anything, and no you're can't lay any "attitudes" on me.I merely place traditional medicine where it belongs in the hands of the country that uses it rather than in the hands of Americans. This is a comment about context. The context is "traditional" and "Chinese", not Western or American. In fact I am showing great respect for the tradition by assuming that we as Westerners may not be the best to judges something outside our experience. But just a short comment on what seemed to be an important point on context. (olive (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
That's a red herring. The statement of fact that Chinese Medicine is pseudoscience has nothing to do with America. It has to do with the unscientific nature of the disciplines gathered under that heading. --TS 20:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The conflation of "Chinese medicine" with "Tradiational Chinese medicine" seems to be the big problem here. In any case, Littleolive oil has told me on her talk page that she's not going to continue the conversation. I'm so surprised that people make such offensive characterizations of what is "traditional" and "Chinese" versus "Western" and "American" as though the bodies are fully indepedent. Her use of "Westerners" and "judges" seals the deal that this is a characterization of rational thought being a peculiarly "Western" idea: culturally insensitivy to the extreme! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Olive's comments seemed to me like nothing more than an innocuous recap of WP:WORLDVIEW. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinese medicine is many thousands of years old. Maybe they didn't have microscopes and current scientific methodologies, but I am sure they did have some ways of determining which herbs/methods work for what. Is traditional Chinese agriculture a pseudoscience, or did it feed hundreds of millions of people through centuries without bringing soil to nutritional depletion after only a few decades (unlike the current methods used in China). Is Thomas Edison a pseudo scientist because he was using a trial and error approach? I would welcome here an input from a Chinese speaking person who may be able to provide sources to whether Chinese consider TCM a pseudoscience. I would also welcome here some reference as to number of Chinese people subjecting themselves to TCM. I would also welcome here a reference to a number of USA doctors recommending to their patients to also try some TCM methods. TCM includes many things, and labeling all of them collectively as pseudoscience would require extensive referencing. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC) u

Would you prefer someone who speaks Mandarin or Cantonese? I know a little of both and have plenty of Chinese colleagues who will gladly let you know what they think of the way TCM is currently being applied. This is NOT an article on TCM. If you want to know about prevalence, US references, etc. the place to do that is at the article about the subject. Otherwise, this is a non-starter. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I would prefer a Chinese (speaking) person, and not about their personal opinions, but about Chinese sources they could provide. My comment was a reply to the first comment in this thread, and therefore references which could be provided by that commenter would be helpful. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
If you're looking for sources, you could probably have just said that and left out the majority of the unhelpful rhetoric. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That "rhetoric" gives a context for asking extensive sourcing for a claim that Chinese consider TCM a pseudoscience. If all rhetorics was excluded from this thread, including yours, this whole thread would have only few sentences. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A start.[3] Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrible source. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
[4]Landed little marsdon (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC).
Well done. You've found the pseudoscience school. What's that supposed to prove? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

[5][6][7] Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Astrology is millennia old, too: so what. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The first ref to the independent gets tossed because it's so conditional as to be meaningless. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
As for the next two, the Brits also acknowledge homeopathy. But, they used to paint themselves with woad and dance around trees too. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
LLM has not provided a single reliable source for his arguments. About the only thing that might qualify as interesting is the fact that acupuncture does work for certain types of pain, and that's it. There are SOME reliable sources that are under debate right now, so the jury, so to speak, is still out. LLM, try pubmed if you want to make a point. Otherwise, you're arguments are pushing the limits of rational discussion. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
TS didn't provide any RS's either for his far-reaching assertion "that Chinese Medicine is almost universally regarded as mumbo-jumbo". He said that sources went far beyond CSI and skeptic groups, and then went on to cite a few more individual opinions. Thanks TS for sharing your view, but it doesn't look like you've backed it up with sufficient RS's. We need more than "truthiness" and OR to classify topics. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a good general source for the kind of information we need here: the WHO report]. After reading the section on China (p. 148, i.e. p. 158 of the PDF file) I think it's quite likely that this falls under the "substantial following" clause. In particular: "[...] 95% of general hospitals have units for traditional medicine and 50% of rural doctors are able to provide both traditional and allopathic medicine." "There are 170 research institutions across the country with perhaps the most prestigious being the Academy of Traditional Medicine in Beijing." --Hans Adler (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, WHO is hardly reliable. It's a governmental body that really doesn't have science in its focus as much as it should. And I don't give a crap how many people use an idiotic idea, science doesn't magically appear just because a certain number of people believe in it. And by the way, have no clue what allopathic medicine is???? Must be some pejorative word used by CAMmies. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
...WHO is hardly reliable. Please provide some reference for this. Or is it only your personal opinion? 212.200.243.116 (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I would assume that the WHO is about as reliable as it gets for the kind of statistics that I cited. Of course you are right that this doesn't imply TCM is scientific; it does, however, imply that you are likely to offend roughly 50 % of your Chinese colleagues if you call TCM pseudoscience, just like you offend a sizeable number of psychologists if you call psychoanalysis pseudoscience (which, of course, it is). As to "allopathic medicine", they define it for use in the document as "the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, scientific medicine, or modern medicine". --Hans Adler (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the WHO source, but it doesn't prove "substantial following". Sure 50% of doctors in rural China may believe in some forms of TCM, but I'd wager to guess that a substantial percentage of rural American biology teachers (some estimate up to one in three) believe in creationism. That does not make creationism any less pseudoscientific. Rural Chinese doctors are not reliable sources of demarcation. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
How about the Chinese scientists in this survey. I presume their views can be ignored as well. [8] Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You really got your finger on the pulse of pseudoscience supporters, don't you Landed little marsdon? A cursory investigation into Michael Paton's career shows a certain avant-garde sensibility and peculiar attraction to TCM that can best be described as "pathological" in my book. Not only is this "survey" not peer-reviewed, he hasn't even gone through the normal process used in conducting such a thing. The questions and survey design he describes are all leading in a way to drive the respondent to the answers he desires: normal social science editors would reject the proposal on sight, but conference proceedings do not have such editorial oversight. Reminds me a lot a bit of [9] ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And the source for your libelous attack on Michael Paton is... ? Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Enough. Landed little marsdon, can you please find some other article to work on for a few days? If you'd like, I'll make this a formal request, but hopefully an informal one will work? --Elonka 00:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope. There is no evidence they were not educated in rural environments, and as we all know, rural mind is by far inferior to urban one. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Snarkiness aside, it is hard to see what this comment is supposed to do. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The BMA is the medical establishment, and so their recommendation that a form of TCM be more widely used shows exactly the kind of substantial following PSCI requires for something to be considered questionable science. That point is clearly conceded when racist slurs are offered instead of rational argument.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Astrology is followed by hundreds of millions. too. So? Hell, from a study I did 17 years ago I know that only 8.25% of Americans kniow how many times a year the sun earth goes round the sun. Just because the masses show utter ignorance doesn't make an alleged science correct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over what "substantial following" means here. It doesn't mean "a lot of people use it." The question is whether there is substantial agreement in the scientific community that it qualifies as science at all. In the case of Chinese Medicine, there is almost nobody within the scientific community saying that it's anything other than a collection of traditional practices, some of which may have some value, none of which are scientific, and few of which have ever been rigorously tested. That's pseudoscience.

The BMA saying this or that therapy may be of some clinical use is neither here nor there. It isn't science. --TS 05:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" as a necessary criterion for characterizing. TS has strongly expressed his opinion, but hasn't provided any RS's for Chinese medicine being "generally considered pseudo". (Same for chiropractic.) As for "substantial following", I presume this refers to both doctors and scientists. Research is active in acupuncture (according to Ernst), and globally it certainly has a substantial following. In the West, I've seen numbers on the order of 5% of people who have received acupuncture (need to dig up source). Additionally, a majority of US docs said acu was useful as a complementary (as opposed to "alternative") therapy.[2] Between the above and WHO's practice guidelines, significant following is established. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
A "collection of traditional practices, some of which may have some value, none of which are scientific, and few of which have ever been rigorously tested". Is that your working definition of pseudoscience? Then quite obviously it's defective. Otherwise almost every traditional cultural practice is a pseudoscience. Why is someone in Africa who builds a traditional clay house not a pseudoscientist? Were the builders of Gothic cathedrals pseudoscientists? How about bookbinding? Would the missing criterion happen to be "is a medical practice"? Or "is being used in the West by the wrong kind of people, those who also love pseudoscience"? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The personal definition that anyone has for pseudoscience is irrelevant. The most reliable sources indicate that it is pseudoscientific. That's good enough for inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
"The most reliable sources indicate that it (TCM) is pseudoscientific": really? I see CSICOP and some sources that don't meet WP:MEDRS. The better sources don't say it's pseudo, and in fact affirm scientific aspects, like efficacy and the fact that research is active. Or am I missing some better sources? Please clarify. I fear there is a tendency to rush to label topics. That's bad enough, but it gets worse when TS argues for the omission of explanatory notation on grounds that seem arbitrary at best (e.g., "this article isn't about efficacy").--Bodhi Agonist (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that picking holes in personal definitions gets us nowhere. If an African village architect stated that the house would fall down unless he hung a tribal fetish in the roof, that would be pseudoscience. If medieval architects claimed that the cathedral would fall down unless the archbishop walked around the grounds with a procession to drive away the devil, that would be pseudoscience. If practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine claim that eating bits of a seahorse cures male impotence, that's pseudoscience. --TS 16:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the word pseudo-science, as its components indicate, means something which has pretensions of being scientific. See the OED, which has the entries, "As a count noun: a spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth. As a mass noun: spurious or pretended science; study or research that is claimed as scientific but is not generally accepted as such. Chiefly derogatory.". So, an essential ingredient in pseudoscience is what you might call men in white coats - some show of the appurtenances of science. Witch doctors and priests obviously don't qualify as their stuff is magic, religion, faith and the like. Better candidates are management consultants, toothpaste salesmen and economists who like to dress their pitches with statistics and scientific language to make them more plausible. Since TCM is explicitly based upon tradition rather than science of the modern kind, it seems to be more the former than the latter. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
That was exactly my point. And I think the fact that this kind of confusion ("pseudoscience" as a catch-all term for everything fishy, including voodoo) seems to be so widespread is one of the reasons for the high demands for using the term that are set in WP:PSCI. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Just as with "quackery", the important thing to focus on is not the idea or practice itself, but on the claims made for it. Building cathedrals isn't PS, but making PS claims regarding them and their construction is PS. Different people can make differing statements about building a cathedral, or about spinal manipulation, or any other idea. They could then be divided up into all four of the PSCI groupings. Some claims would be mainstream and accepted science (group 4), while others would be clear nonsense (group 1), and the others would cover the span in between. It's all about the claims. We should focus on them. List the claims that V & RS have described as PS claims.
An important thing to consider is that (as mentioned above) the pretense to be scientific is essential for an idea to be considered PS, but it doesn't have to be conscious or overt pretense. The word "science" doesn't have to be present at all. Simply making a claim that is scientifically testable, IOW falsifiable, places the claim within the bullseye target zone for potential accusations of being PS. If it's not falsifiable (AND doesn't make overt pretense to be scientific), it's more likely religious or metaphysical. Where religious and metaphysical ideas become vulnerable to PS accusations, is when they make overt claims to be scientific, and/or make falsifiable claims. One or the other is enough to qualify. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Fyslee about this, but I think it is a side issue. The criteria for inclusion are made clear in the article. I think TSs definition was too broad, but equally LLMs and CWs were both far too restrictive. The criteria in the article seem to be correct. Aspects of TCM are rightfully included. Verbal chat 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though I find the terminology in TCM hard to accept (wind, earth, liver, etc.) it might very well be the case that they have over time discovered empirical regularities that are valid. Compare that to the rituals used by traditional Japanese swords makers. Most of them are perfectly consistent with metallurgy. (BTW, I think that traditional Japanese swords making should be included in the list.) MaxPont (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have similar feelings about a lot Chinese terminology such as "energy". But I think it's mostly the fault of the tradition of translating the Chinese terms rather than taking the original Chinese words as technical terms. I am sure some established Greek or Latin terminology would sound equally ridiculous when translated into English words of Germanic origin. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the map isn't the territory. TCM's maps are inevitably written according to the ancient Chinese worldview, but they are describing clinical territory sufficiently well that clinicians still use them without taking the terms as literal, physical realities. (Which is why, TS, we should keep the efficacy stuff in there.) And some of the predictions can't be made biomedically (PC 6 for nausea, LI 4 for orofacial pain etc.). That's why they keep the old books around. Commentators screaming "superstitition" just miss the point, IMO: it's as if they're looking for superficial catchphrases and then banging out another article for the monthly non-peer-reviewed, editorially self-selected, preaching-to-the-choir skeptical rag. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Marxism as a pseudoscience

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Classical "scientific" Marxism should probably be added to the list. I think that Karl Popper can be used as a reference for that. I also don't understand why psychoanalysis (the other example used by Popper) is not included in the list. MaxPont (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle. One of the advantages of this list over a category is that we can qualify inclusion in some way. (However I think we are not doing it in a satisfactory way, and I am not sure what would be a satisfactory way. This problem will become more obvious with the inclusion of psychoanalysis.) --Hans Adler (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hardly a "problem". If reliable sources describe "Classical "scientific" Marxism" as pseudoscience, and it has no significant following in mainstream science in the way that psychoanalysis has, then it's clearly suitable for a list of pseudoscience. If it's "questionable science" by our definition but in part is clearly pseudoscientific, then it can be shown on this list in a way that makes that clear. A caution about Popper, his descriptions tend to be thought experiments which can be rather easily taken out of context, as shown by quote mining of his thoughts on evolution. . dave souza, talk 09:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I didn't read MaxPont's statement very clearly and didn't write very clearly. I agree with including both, and the "problem" was meant to refer to the inclusion of psychoanalysis. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we can't include psychoanalysis. See new section below. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Scientific Communism as taught in the Soviet Union was pseudoscientific. The field of political science is prone to pseudoscientific fads, as are all the social sciences, and I wouldn't like to single out a single fad as more pseudoscientific than another. The word "scientific" has certainly been tossed around with gay abandon in marxism generally, but I suspect that that may be more due to its hegelian lineage than any real pretensions to science. --TS 06:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine, so lets follow this excellent proposal by TS and include political sciense and all the social sciences in the list (with the possible exception of neoclassical economics and financial economics). MaxPont (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSCI applies to this list

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

WP:PSCI applies to this list.Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of psychoanalysis

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

According to PSCI (see top of page), we can include psychoanalysis:

  • "... such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."

The list "may contain information to that effect," so we can include sources that claim it is a pseudoscience. It is a mainstream subject with little (but some) criticism as being PS, and we mustn't characterize (categorize) it as such, especially at other articles. We already have the sources we need at the psychoanalysis article's "criticism" section. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of the non-neutral-title-versus-the-inclusion-criteria, we can and do include several questionable sciences (rather than pseudosciences) in this list. As psychoanalysis is considered a "questionable science" per the definition given by WP:PSCI, then you are absolutely correct; we can include psychoanalysis on this list.
However, if we were to limit this list's criteria to just "Generally considered pseudoscience" and "Obvious pseudoscience", then psychoanalysis should not be included in this list. Also of consenquence, changing the criteria to just "Generally considered pseudoscience" and "Obvious pseudoscience" would solve the non-neutral-title-versus-the-inclusion-criteria issue. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Psychoanalysis is not "pseudoscience", though it may be mistaken science. The part that is not falsifiable according to Popper is more philosophy than scientific claim. The ego, id, superego trichotomy is influenced by Plato's desires, intellect, and spiritedness. If we include the trichotomy as "pseudoscience" we might as well put Platonism as one, which is surely not. Wandering Courier (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
WC, I understand your reasoning, but that's not the issue here. We aren't determining if something is or is not pseudoscience, but if V & RS have claimed it is. In this case, PSCI specifically states that the list "may contain information to that effect," (that "some critics allege [it] to be pseudoscience."). -- Fyslee (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Let work on finding the sources first, crafting the language second, and inserting it into this list third. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Aside from Popper, I am finding a lot of sources discussing the pseudoscientific pitfalls of psychoanalysis. A Google scholar search resulted in several published papers and books asserting such a criticism. Much of these are discussing Popper's views on falsifiability. Based on these sources and the loose POV-ish inclusion criteria of our current lead, I see no reason to leave Psychoanalysis out of this list. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see verifiable sources that state that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. Just because a few nutjobs believe a real medical science is "pseudoscience", we are under no obligation to give it undue weight. And the reverse of this argument, that a few reliable researchers claim pseudoscience to be pseudoscience, we are giving weight to the science. This feels like someone is trying to make a point, and if they are, I'm not getting it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, Popper (among many others) has made the assertion that Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience or contains pseudoscientific elements. Popper is a notable academic. Per the inclusion criteria of this article, psychoanalysis fits perfectly. Remember, this is not a list of "obvious" or "generally considered" pseudosciences. This list is much broader than that as it allows for any field which has been called pseudoscientific by the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or by notable academics or researchers. As the lead states: The existence of such expressed opinions suffices for inclusion in this list, and therefore inclusion does not necessarily indicate that any given entry is in fact pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The situation of psychoanalysis may be changing. According to the German journalist Martin Altmeyer, psychoanalysis is currently trying to overcome its pseudoscientific baggage. The following is a translation of part of an article of his that appeared in Süddeutsche Zeitung:

At the beginning of the 20th century - an anti-psychoanalysis environment that no longer exists - Sigmund Freud had tried to secure the pureness of doctrine and the cohesion of the movement through a "shibboleth" which haunts the psychoanalytical discourse even today: the acceptance of drive theory and infantile sexuality, of opposition and transference.
This Konfessionszwang [German neologism; hard to translate in this context] of all things made for the fact that the history of psychoanalysis must also be written as a history of dissidence and treason, of exclusions and withdrawals: Alfred Adler and Otto Rank, C.G. Jung and Wilhelm Reich, Jacques Lacan, John Bowlby, Harry Stack Sullivan, Erich Fromm and Karen Horney are only the most prominent names on a long list of heresy suspects who were hit by the thunderbolt of anathema. The current state of diffusion both institutional and with regards to content is the ironic result of a tradition in which scientific differences are decided not by empirical research, but by confessions of faith and belief - leading in cases of doubt to the incessant foundation of new schools with other convictions, up to the Babylonian language confusion of the present.

The following is part of his report from two psychoanalytical congresses in the US:

Leaving the track of hostility to science, the downside of which is the hopeless fragmentation of psychoanalysis - this tenor could also be discerned from a series of other talks and discussions. Exemplary for this new path was the presentation of literally transcribed sessions of a psychoanalytic treatment. In contrast to the material of the usual case studies, which is already contaminated by the sectarian [less negative in the original] conditioning of the analyst, this procedure permits to track the interaction between analyst and analysed in detail. [10]

He also quotes the former IPA president Otto F. Kernberg:

The itinerant preacher for a reformation of psychoanalysis in a scientific spirit didn't mince his words: According to him, the psychoanalytic schools still equalled priest seminaries, in which canonical schooling and bible reading replaced intellectual exchange. The current form of training analysis breeded dependency, conformity and credulity. Far from developing scientific criteria for testing the validity of a certain theory, the plausibility of a new concept, or the efficiency of a new therapeutic intervention, the debate was carried out as an undecidable battle about pure ideas and within the framework of group loyalties: just a religious war.

This doesn't sound to me like science at all, while the pretense is clearly there and they are apparently trying to become scientific. But literal transcripts as an encouraging sign in 2004? That's truly amazing. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of psychoanalysis, in particular of training analysis (which supposedly produces "normopaths") was quite prominent in the German media for a while. Frank Cioffi (1970), "Freud and the idea of a pseudo-science" is often cited, and I think it might be a good source. Part of it can be read on Google Books, as part of a later book by Cioffi on the same subject. It is also generally interesting because of its view of pseudoscience:

A successful pseudoscience is a great intellectual achievement. Its study is as instructive and worth undertaking as that of a genuine one.

--Hans Adler (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Insertion of Pharmacology

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Similar to our discussion of Psychoanalysis above, the field of Pharmacology has been alleged to be a pseudoscience or to contain certain pseudoscientific principles according to some critics. Richard DeGrandpre's book - The Cult of Pharmacology - comes to mind. Based on current loose inclusion criteria where we can include "Questionable sciences", we should look into crafting the delicate insertion of Pharmacology into this list of pseudosciences as well. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're doing this intentionally to make a point? If so, it's going to fail. Pharmacology is the scientific study of drug interactions with cells, organs, etc. The Cult of Pharmacology IS pseudoscience, because it's a popular book that, in its essence, tries to make pharmaceutical companies out to be evil. Give me a list of peer-reviewed articles with PMID references that state that pharmacology has ever been considered a pseudoscience by any reasonable scientist, and I'll support you all day long. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
"Give me a list of peer-reviewed articles with PMID references," and I'll give you.... a thoroughly depopulated list. Little if anything on this list has refs of that quality. Basically, we're allowing crappy references when and if they accord with the gut feeling of a sufficient number of editors. Way to write an article! --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No point at all. I am just reading the inclusion criteria for our article which calls for a list of fields characterized as a pseudoscience by notable academics and researchers. It says nothing about compiling a list of peer-reviewed articles. Remember, despite the title of this article, we are really just listing notably alleged pseudosciences here. Pharmacology happens to be one such field. Yes, "The Cult of Pharmacology" is a very popular book written by a notable author (Degrandpre also wrote Ritalin Nation among others) and that's what makes this criticism of pharmacology notable enough for inclusion in this list article. Remember, we are not answering the question "What is undeniably a pseudoscience?" with this article, but rather "What has been alleged to be a pseudoscience by a reliable source?" -- Levine2112 discuss 08:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems pointy to me.
DeGrandpre has a great on-line bio: Associate Editor, Adbusters magazine; psychologist and science writer; author of Ritalin Nation: Rapid-fire Culture and the Transformation of Human Consciousness and Digitopia: The Look of the New Digital You. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 13:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone here actually read the book? It's about the sociological aspects of our relationship to pharmaceuticals - the arbitrary distinction between "legal" and "illicit" drugs, the curious evolution of American drug policy, our tendency to look for the solution to all of life's problems in a pill, and so forth. Interestingly, the full title of the book is The Cult of Pharmacology: How America Became the World’s Most Troubled Drug Culture. There's a dose of criticism of the pharmaceutical industry's business practices as well. What is lacking is any assertion that the entire field of pharmacology is a "pseudoscience". It's interesting reading. And I kinda like Adbusters, too. MastCell Talk 23:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no doubt that many negative epithets might be applied to things that have occurred (and occur) within the pharmaceutical industry (Big Pharma!): fraud, scientific dishonesty, false advertising, hiding evidence of harm, etc., but pseudoscience doesn't really apply. The mainstream healthcare community has a love-hate relationship to the drugs and research that are necessary, and the business methods that are sometimes used. It's a business, in it for the money, but without it we'd be living as our ancestors did - high child mortality rates, lifelong invalidity from the damages caused by childhood diseases, epidemics, shorter average lifespans, etc.. Even Marcia Angell, M.D., an extremely notable and high profile opposer of the fraud and quackery so prevalent (basic to most of it) in so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM), is honest about this relationship, and has written a book on the subject (The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It). Where promoters of fringe medicine go wrong is their all out attacks on the whole thing. They don't seem to understand the nuances involved in the whole matter. Not only do their attacks do more harm than good, they propose as substitutes their "alternative" methods which lack proof of efficacy. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Above Mastcell writes: "What is lacking is any assertion that the entire field of pharmacology is a pseudoscience". Showing that the "entire field" is ps is not necessary for inclusion here. All that is needed is for some aspect or other to have been described as ps in a reliable source. If hypnosis can be included, then there seems no reason not to include pharma. Landed little marsdon (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Granted that part of a field may be PS, without the whole field being PS. What particular aspect of pharmacology do your RS claim is PS? Let's see what you have. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Universities drop “pseudo-science” degrees "in subjects that are not science"

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Here we have the reaction to the successful objections from the scientific community. The universities are money making institutions, but they also have to think about their credibility:

Universities drop degree courses in alternative medicine
"Universities are increasingly turning their backs on homoeopathy and complementary medicine amid opposition from the scientific community to “pseudo-science” degrees.
The University of Salford has stopped offering undergraduate degrees in the subjects, and the University of Westminster announced yesterday that it plans to strengthen the “science base” content of its courses after an internal review which examined their scientific credibility.
Both universities are following the lead of the University of Central Lancashire, which last year stopped recruiting new students to its undergraduate degree in homoeopathic medicine.
The decisions by Salford and Westminster open a new chapter in the fierce debate about the place of awarding of Bachelor of Science degrees in subjects that are not science."[3]

-- Fyslee (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

University abandons homeopathy “degree”, DC's Improbable Science, August 27th, 2008
Homeopathy degree suspended after criticism, The Guardian, August 27, 2008
(DC, who runs the blog I cited above, is David Colquhoun) --TS 07:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
All these sources show is exactly what many here have been arguing all along. There is a debate. There is a following. There is support. Nobody is arguing that various types of comp med have never ever been called ps. Of course they have. But psci makes clear that that is not enough to treat things as ps in actual fact- not if they have the type of following shown in those sources. What, then, is the point of these references? We know some people have strong feelings against some comp med. That has never been in dispute.Landed little marsdon (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
They just go to show that we can include alternative medicine as a "topic that has been characterized as pseudoscience." We let the sources speak, but we don't characterize/categorize it as such. That's not our job. We can categorize some aspects if we have clear cut reasons for doing so, but alternative medicine is a broad field and a mixture of many different things. Here we can just mention that it has been characterized as PS because many alternative medicine practices are PS. Simple as that. End of story. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, LLM, what are you doing here? Just because you deleted Elonka's request to do something else than work here for awhile, doesn't make the request go away. I'm really beginning to wonder about your true identity myself. Your knowledge and editing are eerily familiar and I suggest you find something else to do or risk a ban, as threatened by Elonka. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka asked of to do something else for a few days and I complied completely with her request by not editing here for almost a week. Any fool (although apparently not) could have seen that if they had bothered to look. If E's request was in effect a lifetime ban from this article them I think that needs to made clear and better reasons have to be given than those offered so far (i.e. none). In any event, I suggest you refrain from attacking me and use this talk page for discussing what further improvements can be made to the article following the selection of the nice new name. For me, i'm pretty much done here now that the name has been changed. I might drop in from time to time when real silliness rears its head, but debating CSICO's is never much fun and winning a battle of wits against unarmed men is a bit of a hollow victory.Landed little marsdon (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good vs. bad sources, and government sources

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

IMO, many sources are of disputed quality, but to have a consensus on what is good source is hard, as many sides disagree with one another. However, I have a suggestion that the best source probably comes from the governments of democratic countries, such as United States, Britain, France, etc. If the government of a free country (that is, decisions are not based on whims of despots) recognize a discipline as legitimate scientific study, then it is not a pseudoscience. The governments, as the central decision-maker in those countries, are in the best position to integrate the scientific idea of all sides that are present. Does that help? Wandering Courier (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Under a GW Bush administration, I wouldn't have been so sure of that, but in general, I think what you say makes sense. Quasi-governmental bodies like the UN may be good too. Even better are scientific academies, IMO, which are less connected with political pressure (which can flow both for and against so-called pseudosciences).
Sidebar re sourcing: Now that we have the title/criteria/contents harmonized, one my hopes is that we can make sure we're annotating entries according to strength of sources, so that readers can tell at a glance which topics are (verifiably) widely held to be pseudo and which are more borderline and have less firm sourcing. We tried "tiering" but that was unwieldy and somewhat unpopular. We could just use asterisks or bolded footnotes or something ... --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
WC, governmental bodies/political committees (and insurance companies) are notoriously influenced by political pressure and financial incentives, not by scientific accuracy. While they are certainly often RS for what's happening in the real world, they are sometimes less useful for determining questions regarding quackery and pseudoscience. Each instance needs to be weighed. There are occasionally committees that make strong pronouncements against quackery and pseudoscience, pronouncements which are based on scientific reasoning, contrary to the usually politically correct manner in which politicians tiptoe around issues. Those pronouncements are often good indicators that politicians and governements are (for once) actually deciding that the scientific thing to do is the right thing to do. (Don't hold your breath, because that's not often the case. ;-)
BA, I agree that the tiering wasn't very good, often creating more heat than light. I do think that using more attribution would be helpful, but without editorial POV tiering. Let the readers decide. That would pretty much allow most readers to keep their own POV and prejudices intact, while more discerning readers or true searchers for knowledge might be swayed one way or another. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a really good idea, Fyslee, regarding attribution/annotation: just have the "according to" front and center in the entry, without categorizing it further as, e.g., DUBIOUS SKEPTIC DUDE or ROCKIN SCI ACADEMY. Just say who it is making the argument, right there, and why (cf. WP:ASF). As you say, that lets the reader decide without leading them. That seems like the most neutral and up-front way to do it. It's gratifying finally to be discussing this level of things with the name change resolved. cheers - Bodhi Agonist (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I have been working on the Anthroposophical medicine article for a while and noticed that it is referred to here as pseudoscientific. In an effort to be consistent, I was going to add the "pseudoscience" category to that article, but at least one editor objects. What do I do? It seems odd that one part of Wikipedia says that AM is considered pseudoscience, while the AM article, itself, does not.Desoto10 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to this on the Talk:Anthroposophical medicine page. It seems that we're still not clear enough in the introduction; this list does not say that the topics included on it are pseudoscientific. The arguments pro and con should be listed in detail in the topic's own article. This is just a list to conveniently locate possibly relevant areas. hgilbert (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
However, Anthroposophical medicine is PS. Verbal chat 15:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Not everything that goes on this list, or warrants a mention of pseudoscience in the article, goes in category:pseudoscience. The criteria for that category are a bit stricter (per WP:PSCI, and the criteria listed on that category's page). Whether AM would qualify depends on the quality of sources. Ever since the big fuss over homeopathy a year or so ago, consensus has been that the threshold for categorization (of non-trivial examples) is triggered by a statement from a mainstream scientific body, e.g. the Royal Academy cite for homeopathy. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC) (note: I'm the same editor as User:Bodhi Agonist, and have consolidated accounts originally meant to edit separate articles. Sorry for any confusion.)
The references presented (several of them added by yours truly) do not, I warrant, suffice for categorization - as Middle 8 points out, the bar for unnuanced categorization is somewhat higher than the bar for explaining here that some aspects of Anthroposophical medicine (especially the hypothesis generation paradigm; the denigration of clinical trials as a measure for efficacy is certainly questionable, though) are pseudoscientific. The perspective seems sufficiently prominent to the topic of AM that it should be included in the article, however. Please keep in mind that that family of articles is subject to its own special arbitration restrictions, in addition to the pseudoscience case mentioned above. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
To further clarify one last aspect of the (well-put) above comments: AM practitioners have no problem with clinical trials generally; what Eldereft refers to is a mild moral (not scientific) objection to blinded trials, whereby e.g. some patients are purposefully not given treatment (or given placebos) for comparison purposes. The long-term value of blinded trials is obviously at the cost of a short-term good (treating some patients). Of course, this moral objection is only tenable if one assumes that the proposed treatment actually works, which is why in the real world there are a (slowly) increasing number of blinded trials of AM. The alternative route, hitherto more trodden, is to try to create systematic clinical trials that offer objective, evidence-based verification of the treatments' efficacy without withholding treatment from any patients. hgilbert (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated material

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Chiropractic

This edit added text unrelated to pseodoscience. We should stick to the topic of this article. For example, the effectiveness of chiropractic is unrelated to pseodoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit confuses me. Perhaps Eldereft can explain his rationalization? If not, then I agree with you. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The fact that Chiropractic is demonstrably ineffective for many conditions for which it is sometimes used (for instance, allergies) is, however, related to pseudoscience. It did not sit right with me to include that information without also mentioning that, debatedly, the philosophy-independent effectiveness of Chiropractic for chronic back pain has not been determined. I would, though, be open to wording along the lines of back massage is no replacement for the germ theory of disease,[citation needed] to focus on the patently pseudoscientific applications.
While I am fully in favor of not turning this list into a collection of apologiae for the entries, we do need a brief explanation of what each entry is in addition to stating why they are listed. When these purposes can be combined, great (perpetual motion machines violate the laws of thermodynamics), but sometimes we need a little more detail and nuance (EHS is reported sensitivity to "electrosmog". Provocation studies and biological plausibility say no.)
That said, what if we replace the final three sentences (Recent systematic ... artery dissection) with:

The effectiveness of chiropractic has not been demonstrated for any condition, with the possible exception of the management of nonspecific low back pain.87-90

Better, we could apply a little WP:ASF and dig out a reference discussing the prominence of the use of chiropractic in various conditions, such as sinusitis (A non-trivial number of chiropractors ...). - Eldereft (cont.) 19:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Acupuncture

This edit removed content unrelated to pseodoscience. This edit restored content unrelated to pseodoscience. We should remove all the unrelated content and stick to the topic of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have so reverted. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There was some discussion of this exact issue above, in the section entitled "Balancing Quackwatch, CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer". II (Imperfectly Informed) and MaxPont agreed with me (posting then as User:Bodhi Agonist; I've since absorbed that account) that the material was germaine. SA and TS disagreed, as did QuackGuru just above. So, we'll have to work out some principles for annotating.
There is no reason to believe that annotation need be restricted to arguments about pseudoscience per se. It can just as well be used to explain what a topic is, and what its scientific aspects are. That comes under NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT. I was pleased, SA, that you left this NIH quote in:

According to the NIH consensus statement on acupuncture, these traditional Chinese medical concepts "are difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information but continue to play an important role in the evaluation of patients and the formulation of treatment in acupuncture."[4]

That goes straight to why TCM ideas are used, and is thus directly relevant to arguments about pseudoscience. I like to think of it as a map vs. territory issue: one need not buy into a literal "qi" or "meridians" in order to explore clinically relevant territory that the ancient Chinese discussed using the (prescientific, etc.) map-making tools available to them. I hope most editors would agree that the NIH quote should stay.
That leaves how we should deal with issues like efficacy and parity of sources. I'm not sure how to handle this. I argued above that an average reader, seeing a medical topic called pseudoscience, is likely to conclude "it doesn't work"; that's why a balancing comment (about science, not pseudoscience, and still well under our umbrella) seems appropriate. And then there is the rather tender subject of parity that II mentioned. CSICOP is a wonderful organization that helps educate the public, but the simple fact is that they, and just about all our sources calling TCM pseudo, do not meet WP:MEDRS. Arguing to keep out sources like the WHO and Cochrane reviews, which offer somewhat contrasting views and are very good MEDRS's indeed, might appear a little perverse.
Maybe we need another poll. For now, thoughts? Fyslee, Eldereft, what do you think about how to thread this needle? --Middle 8 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
One aside: The term "content violation" in SA's edit summmary overstates our fairly simple editorial disagreement over annotation. A "content violation" implies something more drastic and overtly in violation of core policy. SA, if you could avoid that exaggeration in the interest of keeping the temperature cool, it would be... cool. Thanks. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's important to get clear about just how widely endorsed a lot of tcm is by the medical establishment. Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: mention the heterogeneity of religiophilosophical thought underpinning TCM and name it alternative medicine. Religion itself is, of course, beyond the scope of this list until it makes testable predictions. Briefly describe the diagnostic practice (pulses, tongue, &c.), and its lack of relation to much of anything. Potentially mention publication bias and poor quality of evidence base.[5] Optionally, the 1997 NIH Consensus Statement on Acupuncture can be cited to say that independent of efficacy, TCM is based on concepts "difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information." Then list as subheadings the pseudoscientific (when taken literally rather than as metaphor or mnemonic) aspects, such as qi, meridians, Zang-fu, Wu Xing, ingredient selection in Chinese herbology (which article includes animal and mineral preparations) ... whichever are most relevant of the TCM concepts of what the human body is, how it works and fails, and how various chemicals and procedures relate to it. While I would not fund it, model-independent acupuncture has enough of a research presence that it arguably should not be included; model-dependent acupuncture is covered by the foregoing concepts; either we can make this distinction or we can exclude the practice entirely, I am not at present sure which course would be better. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The ones to mention but exclude are Medical acupuncture and Dry needling. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ach, sorry, that was poorly phrased - I meant we should exclude any explicit mention of acupuncture at all unless we mention, well, what you just mentioned. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
But acupuncture should be mentioned, and its PS aspects specifically listed as items in this list: acupuncture points, qi, meridians, as you mention above. List them, and then mention that they are a fundamental part of acupuncture theory. Without them acupuncture is needling, not acupuncture. Then readers can understand why scientists and skeptics consider acupuncture to be PS, and they can make up their own minds whether having such a basis justifies calling acupuncture itself PS or not. Needling (acupuncture stripped of the PS baggage) is neither one way nor the other. It all depends on the claims made.
A significant parallel is chiropractic's spinal adjustment. Without its PS aspects (vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, and Vitalism), an adjustment is a spinal manipulation. The only real difference is the belief system surrounding it. There is no verifiable anatomical, biomechanical or physiological-effect difference between the two. Chiropractic is already dealt with in this manner in the list.
The inclusion of acupuncture should be modelled on the way we deal with chiropractic. That model works very well. Spelling out the relationship between the whole and its parts is quite important. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text (drawing heavily on the current entry and relevant articles):

  • Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is the traditional medical sytem originating in China and practiced as an alternative medicine throughout much of the world. It contains elements based in Taoism, Buddhism, and Neo-Confucianism,[6] and considers the human body more in functional and vitalistic than anatomical terms.[7][8] Health and illness in TCM follow the principle of yin and yang, and are ascribed to balance or imbalance in the flow of a vital force, qi.[4][9] Diagnostic methods are solely external, including pulse examination at six points, examination of a patient's tongue and hair, and a patient interview; interpractitioner diagnostic agreement is poor.[7][10][11][12] The TCM theory of the function and structure of the human body is incompatible with modern medicine, though some of the procedures and remedies have shown promise under scientific investigation.[13][4]
    • Acupuncture is the use of fine needles to stimulate acupuncture points and balance the flow of qi. There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[10][14] Some acupuncturists regard them as functional rather than structural entities, useful in guiding evaluation and care of patients.[15][4][16] Dry needling and medical acupuncture are similar practices not based on the TCM conception of the body; there is some evidence for efficacy in some conditions independent of the points chosen.[17][18][19][20]
      • Acupressure is manual non-invasive stimulation of acupuncture points.
      • Acupuncture points or acupoints are a collection of several hundred points on the body lying along meridians. According to TCM theory, each corresponds to a particular organ or function.
    • Meridians in TCM are the channels through which qi flows, connecting the several zang-fu organ pairs.[21][7]
    • Moxibustion is the application on or above the skin of smoldering mugwort, or moxa, to stimulate acupuncture points.
    • Qi is the vital energy whose flow must be balanced for health. Qi has never been directly observed, and is unrelated to the energy used in science.[22][20][23]
    • TCM materia medica is the collection of crude medicines used in Traditional Chinese medicine. These include many plants in part or whole, such as ginseng and wolfberry, as well as more exotic ingredients such as seahorses. Preparations generally include several ingredients in combination, with selection based on physical characteristics such as taste or shape, or relationship to the organs of TCM.[24] Most preparations have not been rigorously evaluated or give no indication of efficacy.[25][26][13] Pharmacognosy research for potential active ingredients present in these preparations is active, though the applications do not always correspond to those of TCM.[27]
    • Zang-fu is the concept of organs as functional yin and yang entities for the storage and manipulation of qi.[7] These organs are not based in anatomy.

I am happy to treat acupuncture in the same vein as chiropractic, modulo discussion in the preceding section. I have tried to be conservative and representatively thorough, and discussion is welcome. There is plenty more to be said about essences and elements and whatnot, but this entry is getting kinda long, and those are basically covered by the 'concepts unrecognized by medicine' sentence. I have not included auriculotherapy, as the ear-map is a considerably more recent hypothesis. If it is treated as a subheading here rather than as a separate entry, this should be mentioned. Several other modalities, such as fire cupping, are listed at the TCM article, and could probably be included if anyone feels up to it. I have tried to minimize redundancy, hopefully the citations justifying inclusion of each subheading are clear. There is also an argument for mentioning the adulteration scandals associated with Chinese herbology - adding prescription drugs is clearly not the traditional practice, but it does relate to present practice. Use of and contamination with heavy metals is probably better treated at the full article. On a related note, several of the above articles royally suck. On an unrelated note, I am really looking forward to the day semantic search gets good enough to discriminate between "energy + qi" and "energy + qi". - Eldereft (cont.) 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please discuss here if you must revert. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Belatedly, a note of appreciation for that excellent re-write. I may make a tiny tweak on point specificity a/o interrator reliability (if I find any other pertinent studies on the latter), but no major objections. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained content deletion

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit removed several entries from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine and NSF source

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion

I agree with this edit by Fyslee, and went ahead and made a tweak. The NSF source discusses pseudoscience in general, while attributing to CSI a list of particulars. I have no problem with either CSI or NSF as a source for including alt-med here, but we should be careful with attribution: previous discussion at WP:RSN (see here) was not able to reach consensus for the idea that NSF is explicitly endorsing CSI's categorization. No harm done by our being clear about who said what, imo. Middle 8 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch and excellent solution. Kudos! -- Fyslee (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I see your edit got reverted, so I tweaked it to a hopefully acceptable compromise, which ensures that proper attribution is preserved. I also added a couple high quality sources for examples of how altmed is considered synonymous with pseudoscience. Other examples of how altmed is considered pseudoscientific are numerous, but this is just supposed to be a short summary to justify inclusion in the list. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Good work. My wording was awkward. For balance and qualification, maybe we should include something from an RS (say, the IOM) that doesn't portray (all of) Alt-Med as pseudosci? We both know that there are particular disciplines in alt-med that (are verifiably said to) have scientific aspects. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What are you thinking of? Let's see it. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the "scientific aspects" characterise them more clearly as PS? If it's scientific, it's medicine or medicine research, not AltMed. Verbal chat 13:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well.... it actually depends on which definition for alt-med one is using. See the first section in alternative medicine. best, Middle 8 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources are fine, but included elements from both sides of this debate; I have changed the entry to reflect this. There were also some problematic passages; for example, one of the articles also talked about science-fiction, but since it did not relate this to AM this portion of the article is wholly irrelevant here. Similarly, no article ever claimed that AM and pseudoscience are synonymous; to do so would be to claim not only that all AM is pseudoscience, but also that all pseudoscience is AM, which is ridiculous. I am sure that others will want to include more material for balance, but let's keep it accurate to the sources. hgilbert (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to some tweaking of the content, but not to butchering it because you didn't get the point of the sources used. We need to discuss that first. The matter of "synonymous" can be discussed. Maybe I used the wrong word, but the sources used were two specific examples where the sources had used the two terms interchangeably in a form of "parallelity". Don't take it for more than that, as if in every imagineable situation AM=PS and PS=AM. No, I just provided two examples of where they were used interchangeably, since many scientists equate them as so closely related and intertwined, that alternative medicine will often be termed "pseudoscience" by them. That's all. Maybe a better word would work? -- Fyslee (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the wrong article for dealing with "whether" it is or isn't PS. We are just documenting that it is termed such at times. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed. But we need to be fair in representing how it is portrayed. hgilbert (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice job on the rewrite, Hg. WP:WEIGHT requires mentioning various views on topics in proportion to their prominence, which your revision does. Alt-med is a huge, loosely-defined set of many different modalities, so it's no surprise we'd see some scatter in terms of how it is viewed among scientists (and physicians, who may be a little more inclined to accept clinical experience as valid evidence). regards, Middle 8 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This should not be reverted without addressing the issues raised above. hgilbert (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, anyone invoking BRD had better discuss, by gum! :-) I really don't see how bypassing WP:ASF (regarding views on alt-med, as mentioned above) is an NPOV improvement. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the original version and now am prepared to discuss. I had begun to do so earlier but was prevented from continuing. What Hgilbert seems to forget is the subject of this article. Whatever edits we make, we must stay on-topic, and this isn't the place to discuss the whole subject, only document that the subject has been described as pseudoscientific. Period. There is no need for balance here. This is the wrong place to go in depth on the subjects presented. That is done in the respective main articles. We aren't even discussing whether something "is" or "is not" PS. That doesn't concern us as editors. We are just letting the sources speak, and the only ones relevant in this list are those which somehow declare the subject (in this case alternative medicine) to be pseudoscientific. It is the sources that do it, not us. Those that take the opposite position are off topic here, but are definitely used in the main articles.
The removal of the NSF article's precisely worded headings, which framed the whole reason for why they included alternative medicine as a subcategory of pseudoscience, rendered the whole thing rather pointless. It amounted to removing the source (even if the ref was left in place). That is pretty close to vandalism. This probably happened because Hgilbert forgot this wasn't the main Alternative medicine article, where all sides of the subject must be presented. The NSF's presentation was actually quite logical: science fiction breaking down the ability to distinguish science from pseudoscience, which in turn leads to acceptance of alternative medicine. They are all related by the fact that they are based on fantasy, wishful thinking, and anecdotes, not solid evidence.
All we need here is a very short paragraph. This is just a "list", not a main article. All we need is (1) a wikilink, (2) a short definition or description, and (3) just a little bit of the available sources documenting that the subject has been "characterized as pseudoscience". Nothing more. That's how we stay on-topic. Above all, this is definitely not the place to mount a defense of the subject. That can be done Presenting the other side can be done (very carefully) in the main article, but observe that doing so can easily be considered forbidden advocacy of fringe POV, a dangerous matter in a mainstream encyclopedia. Such matters should be documented very carefully to avoid such charges. We should never allow an actual defense of fringe/alternative nonsense, only document that such foolishness exists. We do, after all, document the real world here at Wikipedia, nonsense and all. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
hi Fyslee -- I can understand your objection about removing the very precise wording re NSF, and in fact very nearly mentioned that above. Hgilbert's revision read well enough that I didn't bother to raise the issue, but anyway, I do see your point about the need to preserve it, and I think we should. I don't see why we can't take a both/and approach and use your wording along with the basic elements of the balance Hgilbert seeks. Seems pretty basic: 40% are ditching it, 60% are keeping it -- both seem to tie into sig POV's. I thought we were supposed to mention both, and that articles where we don't do are frowned upon as POV-forks. If somebody calls something PS, I don't see why a balanced article can't devote at least one sentence to notable opposing or balancing views. It's not like we'll run out of room or something.
So while I agree we should keep the detail of your wording, we also lose something important by omitting the basic approach Hgilbert is getting at, and that's the basic gesture toward WP:ASF and WP:WEIGHT. Your first paragraph practically sounds like you're saying those things don't apply here. I find it hard to believe you'd mean that, though. Did I miss some buried nugget in NPOV saying that the rules for an article like this have got to be different from alternative medicine? What's the reasoning? I'm just trying to grok this issue before we proceed since it seems like we might have a very fundamental disagreement about the ground rules for the article. I'm probably just being dense and overlooking something simple here. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha ha! You know me. I could be the dense one! I hear you (to some degree). My problem with Hgilbert's edits were that I didn't see the "point" you may have been seeing, but I did see what seemed like a treatment usually reserved for main articles, not lists devoted to a very narrow topic area, like this one. This is expressly not for covering all sides of the issue, but for listing examples. That's all. The main articles serve the other purposes and "points" you and Hgilbert may be seeking. We haven't been doing what he was doing with the other items listed, and doing so would turn this list into a battle zone, and we have renamed it to avoid that situation. We've had a peaceful list. It would also significantly enlarge the list, and we also need to avoid bloating the list. Minimalism is the trick here. There is no attempt to hide the fact that there are significant disagreements with the things listed here, just that they are (or should be) dealt with in the main articles. I don't know if that helps you understand where I'm coming from. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
When I reread your last paragraph, it looks like reproducing the LEAD from Alternative medicine would satisfy your need in this situation, and doing the same for each other entry would likewise fill that need, but that's a totally different need that has nothing to do with the purpose of this list. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW, (a bit off-topic) I've been working on something. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Fyslee's version is far superior to that proposed by hgilbert. Verbal chat 07:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
@Fyslee - Yes, cutting and pasting a whole lead section would be a little over the top! We have good blanket caveating language in the intro, so we needn't go into too much detail. Where relevant, I'd envision just a qualifying sentence indicating any notable sci acceptance of a topic. (A wee sentence, only wafer-thin.) That would suffice to address ASF and parity concerns. Probably most things on the list won't even have good sources along these lines, but I know acupuncture does. For example, acu might mention the BMA [11] statement.
BTW, nice work on the article-to-be. I remember one semi-interesting exchange involving Marcia Angell; she was arguing that the first-line SSRI's are , based on the evidence, just as good as the newer ones for depression. Taking the "counterpoint" was a pharm industry guy who said it was kind of unlikely that the very best SSRI's just happened to be discovered first, and that the apparent superiority of older SSRI's was just an artifact of there being a lot more data on them compared to the newer ones. Only with a greater evidence base for the newer SSRI's, he argued, could meaningful comparisons be made. It was an interesting exchange, with some good arguments on both sides. I'll see if I can dig it up; it may or may not turn out to be useful in the article. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added a balancing statement to the lead that should help to ensure that readers will know where to seek opposing POV, which certainly do exist (otherwise the main articles probably wouldn't exist at all!).
Marcia Angell is a notable skeptic who doesn't compromise her ethics. She has publicly expressed the concerns held by many MDs and her proper criticisms of certain abuses of the pharma industry are having their effect. Perks and freebies are seen less and less now. I hold her in high regard. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Fyslee's version quite works. WP:NPOV states that "article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant". This is one of those cases. The majority perspective on the definition of alternative medicine, as reflected by the definition adopted by the U.S. Institute of Medicine or the Cochrane Collaboration, is that it is the non-mainstream approach. That needs to be stated in the article. II | (t - c) 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. No one is claiming that AM is the mainstream approach. Of course it's non-mainstream, and nothing here implies otherwise. In fact, it is non-mainstream to such a degree that it is often considered to be pseudoscience by some notable sources, and that's all we are documenting here. We aren't covering the whole subject, or making long, drawn out discussions about whether it is called other things, which it is. The AM article is the place for that. This is the "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience." When we have established that some V & RS have done that, we have served the purpose of this list. Lists are by nature very short summations of specific and narrowly defined points. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

POV fork

Responding to the following, quoted from Fyslee's contribution above: "this isn't the place to discuss the whole subject, only document that the subject has been described as pseudoscientific. Period. There is no need for balance here. This is the wrong place to go in depth on the subjects presented. That is done in the respective main articles. We aren't even discussing whether something "is" or "is not" PS. That doesn't concern us as editors. We are just letting the sources speak, and the only ones relevant in this list are those which somehow declare the subject (in this case alternative medicine) to be pseudoscientific. It is the sources that do it, not us. Those that take the opposite position are off topic here, but are definitely used in the main articles."

How is what you are proposing not a POV-fork? My understanding of this article would be that it would cover topics that have been characterized as pseudoscience, but fairly - if representations that universities are giving up degrees in AM belongs here, as they surely do, then the fact that 60% of medical schools still offer courses in AM also does, as does the existence of scientific institutions representing and studying AM. Otherwise we are drifting into POV-pushing, which is not, I hope, our goal here. hgilbert (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you completely, Hgilbert. The problem stems from the inclusion criteria of this article. Because it limits the POV that can be presented, this article will always have NPOV problems such as POV-forking and POV-pushing. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is very little (if any) distance between the implication of Fyslee's comments and a POV fork. But what about the inclusion criteria excludes balancing/opposing views? Sure, we can read about them in the article, but there should be some reference to them here. If there isn't, it's a POV fork, plain and simple. That logic flows straight from WP:ASF and "parity of sources", and it applies to every article on WP. Since lists (unlike categories) allow annotation and qualifaction, we should use the annotation to cover balancing views if they can be sourced to good RS's.
We can use common sense in terms of how much to cover; obviously, as Fyslee alluded, including the entire lead section of every topic wouldn't be practical. And his tweak to the lead was good, but isn't enough to balance particular entries that need balancing. Summarizing opposing views with a sentence or two is only fair, in a Wikipedian sense (especially when they exist in sources that equal or exceed the sources used for inclusion, e.g., for acu, the WHO and BMA > CSICOP; just read WP:MEDRS.). A list without balancing views is fine, but perhaps someplace like Rational Wiki or a blog, etc. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Universities

If it's relevant that universities are dropping degree offering in AM, it is relevant that 60% still are teaching courses on the subject. How can one claim that the one fact is significant, the other not. BTW, the two facts even come from the same source! hgilbert (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but with caveats. If what they're teaching has to do with (A) understanding and communicating with patients who use AM, as opposed to (B) using AM or knowing when to refer patients to AM providers, then that wouldn't really constitute any kind of endorsement of AM, and therefore wouldn't be relevant as a balancing view. AFAIK, what it taught is a little of both of A and B, so if we can turn up evidence of B, we'll have a firm case for including it. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing a big one

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Feng shui is fairly obvious pseudoscience. Michael Shermer mentions it in his dictionary and can be used as a source. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Placement of AK

Latest comment: 15 years ago44 comments8 people in discussion

In keeping with the format we are using elsewhere in the list, I suggest that AK be made a subsection under chiropractic. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is logical to make AK a subsection of chiropractic. This would be a non-controversial move without any change to article content. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is AK a chiropractic technique?

According to the AK article, it is "used by chiropractors, naturopaths, physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurses of various stripes." I don't believe that it is exclusively a chiropractic technique. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you have done what you have always done -- try to avoid any possibly negative mention of chiropractic in this or any other article. That's whitewashing.
Your comment and your edit summary don't match with the edits you have reverted. The edits did not concern themselves with who used the method, but only with the facts about the origins of the method. It is a method created by a chiropractor and widely used by chiropractors, and has since been picked up by a very few other professionals who are into alternative medicine. Those are the facts. You have removed the facts. That AK is used by others is already documented in the articles, an addition by you which I approved in a modified manner (since your original additions misrepresented the facts). There was no justification other than your declared agenda here to protect the reputation of chiropractic. That's unwikipedian. Please self-revert. or I will report you to those who were previously just about to block you, forcing you to take a voluntary break from chiropractic subjects. I have reported you here and here (since Elonka is on a wikibreak), since your previous record with this type of thing has revealed that waiting would be pointless. As long as you continue to edit chiropractic subjects in this unbalanced manner (removing documented facts), you should refrain from editing such articles. Try to build, rather than destroy. Your voluntary pause was a good thing. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
For reasons I explained at ANI and on Talk:AK [12], I think Levine2112's edits are well within the realm of reason. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Google Scholar hits: kinesiology: 50,200; chiropractic: 43,500; both terms: 1,660. Apparently then, making some assumptions about Google Scholar's search algorithm, most articles mentioning kinesiology do not mention chiropractic. Some of the sources from the search for both terms together:
  • [13] "Applied Kinesiology (AK) is a diagnostic and therapeutic approach used by a large number of chiropractors." This would support saying something like "a technique used by chiropractors"; not necessarily support for "a chiropractic technique".
  • "from the specific applications that distinguish the Applied Kinesiology (AK) chiropractic technique." [14] Tends to support calling it a chiropractic method.
  • "of the various forms of diagnostic procedures that are utilized by alternative medicine practitioners, such as chiropractic, kinesiology, reflexology, and" (Google snippet) [15] Seems to imply that chiropractic and kinesiology are two different things, at least in the context of diagnostic procedures.
  • Title: "Are chiropractic tests for the lumbo-pelvic spine reliable and valid? A systematic critical literature review" [16] Uses "applied kinesiology" as a search term used to search the literature for information "about the reliability and validity of chiropractic tests used to determine ...", and generally seems to assume kinesiology is a chiropractic test. Tends to support calling it a chiropractic method.
  • "Applied kinesiology is a relatively new development used by chiropractors, which dates back to 1964. Holistic and eclectic in approach" [17] "used by chiropractors" is not the same thing as "chiropractic method", but in this context (i.e. an article about kinesiology) in my opinion it tends to support calling it a chiropractic method.
  • "based on a combination of knowledge and techniques borrowing from Western medicine (allopathic) and traditional Oriental medicine (e.g. chiropractic, kinesiology, and acupuncture)." [18] Seems to imply that chiropractic and kinesiology are two different things.
In my opinion, the above information is not sufficient to verify that kinesiology is generally known as a "chiropractic diagnostic method". I haven't seen any sources presented by others that would help answer the question one way or another. Note that for Wikipedia to assert that it's a chiropractic method, it's not enough to find at least one source that says it is; we would have to establish that that's a generally accepted POV. Until sources are found which verify this, I suggest deleting "chiropractic" or possibly replacing it with either "used by chiropractors" or "used by chiropractors and others", although either of those is problematic (in opposite ways) unless further sources are found to establish whether it is or is not used to a significant extent by others.
Therefore, for now at least until more sources are presented, I oppose this edit which inserts the word "chiropractic". I oppose the wikilink from "diagnostic method" to "chiropractic treatment techniques" as things stand because that page has no paragraph-style information on kinesiology and the word "diagnostic" doesn't appear on the page. We don't seem to have a page on Alternative diagnostic method or Chiropractic diagnostic method, so I can't think of anything good to wikilink it to; I therefore support removing the wikilink as Levine2112 was doing. However, just "is a diagnostic method" seems less than ideal because it could be taken as implying that it's a medical diagnostic method. I suggest "is an alternative diagnostic method". To support referring to it as "alternative" here is a Google snippet: "Some alternative therapies currently popular (such as EEG biofeedback, kinesiology and long-chain fatty acid preparations - see Mercugliano13 for review) were" [19], as well as the 3rd reference in the list above.
Summary: for now until we have more information, I oppose inserting "chiropractic" before "diagnostic method"; I support removing the wikilink; and I suggest inserting "alternative" before "diagnostic method". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig, you have done a beautiful job of summing up my objections to the edit. Essentially we don't have a source stating that this is exclusively a chiropractic technique. On the other hand, we have sources such as the American Cancer Society which states that though AK practitioners are ofter chiropractors, they may also be may also be naturopaths, doctors, nurses, and other health care workers. Further, the source states: Today, practitioners who use applied kinesiology include chiropractors, naturopaths, physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurse practitioners. Clearly, from this source, we know that AK is not exclusively a chiropractic diagnostic technique, but rather a diagnostic technique used by the whole range of medical practitioners, from mainstream to alternative. This is why I had removed the text. Saying that it is a chiropractic technique or making it a child of chiropractic in this list is inaccurate.
As a side note, Fyslee, please don't try to assume editor motivation in the future. It is unfair and unwikipedian. I know I don't need to remind you, a longtime editor, about WP:AGF. So let's discuss content and check the drama-inducing, personal baggage stuff at the door (I know you are a much better editor than that.) Deal? Please? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
After posting my above comment, I've just noticed that the Wikipedia article(s) state that Kinesiology and Applied kinesiology are two different things. If true, I didn't know that. Therefore some or all of my above comment may be off base. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
[ec] Coppertwig, there are at least five fundamental flaws in your method: (1) Kinesiology is not the same as Applied kinesiology; (2) Google Scholar is a poor place to get information about fringe matters, since much about chiropractic is fringe; (3) One should ask the chiropractic profession itself, especially the NBCE; (4) The AK article itself makes it clear that it is a chiropractic technique, and the LEAD should state that fact. It was created by a chiropractor, and widely used within chiropractic for many years before a very few other professionals with fringe sympathies began to use it; (5) You could have just asked me ;-) for the evidence before going to all that work, as done at ANI.
The documentation is provided in the AK article, and an actual diagram is provided here at the left. It is the tenth most used chiropractic technique, used by more than a third of chiropractors. If you'd like to see it demonstrated, a PBS special includes video footage with Alan Alda and a chiropractor who debunks it: Adjusting the Joints: Video - PBS Go to the "Adjusting the Joints" section. Then turn on your speakers and watch the video. (Stricken, because I mistakenly mentally switched tracks to Activator technique).
BTW, it is categorized here:
-- Fyslee (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Levine2112 is using a straw man argument. No one is claiming that it is "exclusively a chiropractic technique" (my emphasis). It is a chiropractic method that has begun to be used by a few others. One doesn't have to be a chiropractor to learn it and use it. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Chiro is primaruly about spinal manipulation. AK doesn't have anything to do with that. You say it's used by "a few others", but we need a source quantifying that, per my comments at Talk:AK. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is the one technique which all chiropractors use at every patient visit, but they use many other techniques which they have created, as well as some created by others. This is a technique created by a chiropractor, marketed to chiropractors for many years, and over 1/3 of American chiropractors use it. It is the tenth most used technique. The board of the ICAK is still overwhelmingly dominated by DCs, although they are allowing other professions to learn it. It really makes no difference how many chiropractors or others use it, it was created by a chiropractor, was initially only taught to them and used by them. That's why it is a chiropractic technique. We may need to compromise and state that it "was originally a chiropractic technique that is now also used by some others." There is certainly no doubt about that. What Levine2112 seems to be fighting for is that a technique loses its historical affiliation if it ceases to be "exclusively" used by the original users and becomes used by others, which is nonsense. This is about its history. One cannot change that.
The ironic thing is that even spinal manipulation (SM) cannot be claimed to be a chiropractic technique, since it precedes chiropractic, was not created by a chiropractor, and is used by many others than chiropractors. To top it off, the profession is actively (using laws and lawsuits) attempting to claim that SM is a chiropractic technique that should be reserved for their "exclusive" use. They want to take something they did not create, and claim that SM is a "chiropractic" technique. Odd... Even Levine2112's argument about "who" uses AK as a reason for it not being legitimate to call AK a "chiropractic" technique is undermined by the reasoning they use for the SM situation. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No straw man at all. By calling AK a chiropractic diagnostic technique, we are effectively disregarding all of the other professionals that use AK as a diagnostic technique (as verified by the ACS source). Further, by placing AK as a child to chiropractic in this list, we are for all intents and purposes stating that AK is in fact exclusively a chiropractic technique - something which we know to be factually inaccurate given the ACS source provided. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Few chiropractic techniques are "exclusively" chiropractic. Just because others have begun to use it doesn't change its history and who uses it most. Very few others use it. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
ACS states: Today, practitioners who use applied kinesiology include chiropractors, naturopaths, physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurse practitioners. From this source, we know that it is a diagnostic techique used by a wide-array of practitioners. Do you have a source which says otherwise? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not disputing that they and probably more use the technique. They also use every quack technique known, so what's the point? You use that less-than-informative cite in an attempt to give AK undeserved legitimacy as a mainstream technique, which is far from the truth. It's a quack, pseudoscientific technique used by most anyone who is willing or ignorant enough to use it, which, considering the number of alternative medicine practitioners of all stripes out there, will soon outnumber the whole mainstream medical professions. It is still a fringe practice. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your take on AK. I agree that it is a quacky technique. Our take is irrelevant. What I am asking you for is a source which refutes the ACS and thus supports your edits and requested edits - a source which verifies that AK is only a chiropractic diagnostic technique. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please drop the disruptive use of a straw man argument. "Only" isn't the issue here. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) Fyslee, would you please be more specific about where the sources are which establish that applied kinesiology is a chiropractic technique? For example, you could state that it's a reference listed at the applied kinesiology page and state the name of the author and the year; then I can find it. It would also be helpful if you would give a quote from the source which supports the point. Thanks. To my mind, demonstrating that it's one of the techniques most frequently used by chiropractors does not establish it as a "chiropractic technique"; talking to the patient before giving treatment is also probably used by even more chiropractors but that wouldn't justify classifying that as a "chiropractic method". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

?? I'm not sure what to do here. I have already provided sources. Maybe we should turn this around (not that it proves anything) to at least get some clarity. What proof would be necessary to establish a technique as a chiropractic technique? Created by a chiropractor? Marketed only to chiropractors for many years? Used by over a third of chiropractors? Do those qualify? Or does the fact that it has only recently been picked up by some others in other professions suddenly mean it can't be called a chiropractic technique anymore? (It always has been.) It is most certainly originally a chiropractic technique, and the ICAK only teaches it to "those doctors with a license to diagnose," IOW mostly DCs, MDs, and DOs [20], and the board is still overwhelmingly dominated by DCs. It used to be only DCs. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Levine2112's point about "who" is using it is dominating this too much. That point is already covered in the AK article, so what's the problem? -- Fyslee (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Fyslee, we all agree that AK is a diagnostic technique which is used by chiropractors, but that does not necessarily make it a chiropractic diagnostic technique exclusively. You seem to think that despite the fact that AK is taught to and used by MDs, DOs, PTs, naturopaths and nurses, that it is still okay to generally call AK a chiropractic diagnostic technique. All we are asking for is for a source to verify this position. To date, you have not provided a source (or what would be better - a direct quote from a source as I have done above). -- Levine2112 discuss 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Your source doesn't address "what" to call it, only "who" performs it. To call it anything other than a chiropractic technique (see the sources below) would be OR. It is definiely not OR to call it a "chiropractic technique".
We simply state that it is a chiropractic technique that is primarily used by chiropractors, but that it is now also used by a number of other practitioners. This makes it clear where it started, who uses it most, and that others also use it. There is no OR and all bases are covered. What is so controversial about that?
Please drop the disruptive use of a straw man argument. "Exclusively" isn't the issue here. --- Fyslee (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Some sources calling AK a chiropractic technique

Besides what's already documented in the articles mentioned above, here are some other interesting quotes (my emphasis):

  • "More than 100 studies related to MMT and the applied kinesiology chiropractic technique (AK) that employs MMT in its methodology were reviewed,..." [21] Goodheart (founder) and Cuthbert, ICAK Board member
  • "... the authors did not distinguish the general use of muscle strength testing from the specific applications that distinguish the Applied Kinesiology (AK) chiropractic technique." [22]
  • "Dr. George J. Goodheart Jr. (founder of the applied kinesiology chiropractic technique) passed away on March 5th, 2008. [23]. Tribute to Goodheart
  • "APPLIED KINESIOLOGY: Chiropractic technique that employs specific ..." [24]
  • Listed as one of several "Chiropractic system techniques" [25]
  • "Through the use of Applied Kinesiology, a chiropractic technique,..." [26]
  • "‘Applied Kinesiology (AK) is a chiropractic technique that evaluates..." [27]

These quotes demonstrate that it is considered a chiropractic technique. To do otherwise would be OR. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

These are all less than reliable sources save the first source which is a study from a scientific journal and the second one, which is a response to the study in the first source. Essentially, you have provided one reliable source which calls AK a chiropractic technique. However, from this same source, we learn that a host of other practitioners use this technique and a Manual Muscle Testing (MMT), sort of the generic version of AK. I wonder, if perhaps we should be listing MMT in this article rather than AK. Regardless, we should not conceal the fact that AK is not just a chiropractic technique but also a technique used by MDs, DOs, PTs, naturopaths and nurses. Anyhow, thanks for providing us with at least one reliable source; however, I don't feel that it necessarily backs up your position, but rather further confirms what the ACS source has told us about other healthcare practitioners using this technique. If we are just looking for sources which attribute AK to other kinds of practitioners those can be found as well:
So what is AK. Is it a chiropractic technique? A massage technique? A bodyworkers technique? A yoga technique? A physical therapy technique? It seems that according to the sources, it is all of these and thus it is not factual to label AK simply a chiropractic technique. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources, Fyslee. We have some sources calling it a chiropractic technique, and some sources which list it as something other than chiropractic. In order for Wikipedia to state that it is a chiropractic technique, what we need in my opinion is either (1) a number of sources that call it a chiropractic technique plus it being apparently rare for a source to classify it as something other than chiropractic, or (2) one very relevant source, such as a widely recognized association of alternative medicine practitioners, stating that is a chiropractic technique, not contradicted by other well-established sources. From what I've seen so far I don't think we have either of these yet.
My counting of numbers of Google scholar hits may not be relevant due to the distinction between kinesiology and applied kinesiology, but all the references I listed seem relevant: most say "applied kinesiology" and those that don't are clearly talking about the alternative medicine therapy nevertheless. Two of the sources I gave list chiropractic and kinesiology as two different things. New Google scholar search: "applied kinesiology" 1550; "chiropractic" 43,500; both terms 616. Less clear, but still apparently over half the AK sources don't mention chiropractic, which to me tends to support not asserting that it's a chiropractic technique, though it's not a definitive result.
If a source can be provided verifying that it was invented and/or developed by (a) chiropractor(s), instead of "chiropractic diagnostic technique" (which I don't consider verified yet) I suggest wording such as "diagnostic technique developed by chiropractors".
Fyslee, if you want the article to convey to readers the status of AK as not being an established therapy, associating it with chiropractic is not the only way to achieve this; to me, putting in the word "alternative" does it, for example. I'm a little surprised about your reasons actually (if I understand them right, which very likely I don't) because I would tend to assume that many readers would consider chiropractic to be more established and respectable than AK, so that associating them would have more the effect of making AK seem more respectable and/or chiropractic less so, than the other way around.
In reply to Fyslee's points: (1) see earlier in this comment; (2) I'm not sure why you consider Google Scholar a poor search engine for this. I think it tends to provide coverage of fringe topics which is relatively more NPOV than would a database with more information from within the fringe fields. It may be missing a lot of fringe sources, but the relative numbers of such sources are still of interest, as are some of the sources that I do happen to find that way. (3) Chiropractic sources would in my opinion be the best sources to establish whether chiropractors consider AK to be a chiropractic method, but that would be only one POV; we would need third-party sources to establish whether it's generally considered to be a chiropractic method, unless we want to word it something like "considered by chiropractors to be a chiropractic technique". (4) Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. (5) Thank you.
I oppose these two edits by QuackGuru which assert a relationship between applied kinesiology and chiropractic for which sufficient verification has not been provided; edits which were done without participating in this discussion or responding to the reasons I stated above for the change in wording. To assert that AK is a chiropractic technique based on some sources but in apparent contradiction to other sources is to have the article assert only one of a number of significant viewpoints, which directly violates WP:NPOV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the relevant question for placement is not do only or overwhelmingly chiropractors use AK?, but is is AK fundamental to the practice of chiropractic?. These sources certainly indicate that chiropractic should be mentioned prominently in the entry and article, but at the same time there are many chiropractors who do not use the technique. The fact that so many chiropractors do not use AK indicates to me that it is better treated as a separate heading.
On the other hand, acupuncture in the TCM model is explicitly dependent on the TCM conception of the body, but not all TCM practitioners use it. I believe that they do, however, overwhelmingly accept its validity.
I could see a compromise using a subheading stating Applied kinesiology is a diagnostic technique used by some/many chiropractors. The wikilink could point to an {{anchor}} at the entry. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be a workable compromise and certainly one which is supported by the sources. We should take care with the vague "some/many" though. Thanks for the suggestion, Eldereft. If the other parties here don't have any objection, I think we should implement such a compromise. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not averse to finding a compromise (I have mentioned a possibility above), but I don't think we've found the right one yet, so let's wait on changing anything.
Please give me a bit of time to answer some of the comments and concerns mentioned above before replying. I may need to make several edits to do this. Then start replying so we don't get too many edit conflicts. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Finished for now. See below. Go for it. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Coppertwig

I'll try to reply to some of your points above. I'm sorry I haven't gotten my points across to you very well. I have taken too much for granted. I got caught up in the discussion and had assumed you and others (including Levine2112) had some prior knowledge of this subject and had read the sources used in the article. I am a PT who has studied chiropractic for decades. I know PTs who use AK and others who have debunked it. Some years ago, after being encouraged to do so by several reform chiropractors, some MDs, and a few PhDs, I wrote a skeptical book about chiropractic, but after unwisely revealing some of its contents on the internet and getting several very ominous threats (and continual cyberstalkiung and harassment ever since -- even today), it will likely never be published. I value my life and peace of mind too much. I also have a family to protect.

You wrote above: "We have some sources calling it a chiropractic technique, and some sources which list it as something other than chiropractic."

If you are factoring Levine2112's links above into your comment, then double check them. The first one is especially dubious. It is based on a category heading, while the entry itself clearly identifies its "chiropracticness", using a totally common description of AK. Some of the others are also really stretching it by listing "who" uses it (of course others also use it), or which "type" of therapy it can be classified as (as in the NCCAM classification system, which doesn't always address origins).

Then: "... what we need in my opinion is either (1) a number of sources that call it a chiropractic technique plus it being apparently rare for a source to classify it as something other than chiropractic,..."

Here is some of what we have in the article. Please examine the references:

  • AK draws together many similar therapies. It attempts an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to health care. George J. Goodheart, a chiropractor, was the originator of AK in 1964.[28] In 1976, the International College of Applied Kinesiology[29] was founded. .... its use [has] spread to other chiropractors,[30] and a few physical therapists, dentists, and medical doctors.

This establishes its creation, background, history, and who uses it.

The most reliable sources (some above) are published peer-reviewed sources, then the ICAK itself, and finally other chiropractic sources. Here are some:

Here are the two most reliable sources I know of:

  • From the creator, and published in a peer-reviewed source: "More than 100 studies related to MMT and the applied kinesiology chiropractic technique (AK) that employs MMT in its methodology were reviewed,..." [28] By Goodheart (creator) and Cuthbert, both chiropractors (DCs) and ICAK Board members (but Goodheart is now deceased).
  • From chiropractic critics of the previous article, also published in a peer-reviewed source: "... the authors did not distinguish the general use of muscle strength testing from the specific applications that distinguish the Applied Kinesiology (AK) chiropractic technique." [29]

From the International College of Applied Kinesiology (ICAK):

  • "Dr. George J. Goodheart Jr. (founder of the applied kinesiology chiropractic technique) passed away on March 5th, 2008. [30]. Tribute to Goodheart (my emphasis)

Chiropractic sources:

  • VERY major chiropractic textbook: Listed as one of several "Chiropractic system techniques" TECHNIQUE SYSTEMS IN CHIROPRACTIC By Robert Cooperstein, MA, DC, Palmer Chiropractic College West, San Jose, CA, USA, Brian Gleberzon, DC, Assistant Professor, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Canada

Those five sources are pretty major and decisive.

A few other chiropractic sources, showing how chiropractors classify it:

  • "APPLIED KINESIOLOGY: Chiropractic technique that employs specific ..." [31]
  • "Through the use of Applied Kinesiology, a chiropractic technique,..." [32]
  • "‘Applied Kinesiology (AK) is a chiropractic technique that evaluates..." [33]

Those sources more than satisfy your first point above: "(1) a number of sources that call it a chiropractic technique." Those quotes demonstrate that it is considered a chiropractic technique. To do otherwise would be OR.

As to the rest of your sentence -- "... plus it being apparently rare for a source to classify it as something other than chiropractic,.." -- I doubt you will be able to find a source that classifies it as originating in any other profession. If you did, I'd like to see it (and it would be a lie).

As to classifying it in other ways as the NCCAM does (which Levine2112 has found in some of his links above), that's a totally different matter which we haven't even been discussing. Is it an "Alternative Medical Systems", "Mind-Body Intervention", "Biologically Based Therapy", "Manipulative and body-based methods", or "Energy Therapy"? [34] We haven't been discussing that, and let's not do so now. That's a totally different discussion.

Then: "... or (2) one very relevant source, such as a widely recognized association of alternative medicine practitioners, stating that is a chiropractic technique, not contradicted by other well-established sources."

I'll leave that up to others to find, as I don't consider that decisive. The first five above are decisive enough for me. I suspect some other sources may classify it in the NCCAM-type sense, IOW they may not address its origins in their general classification headings, and even when they list it, they will still likely describe it's chiropractic origins in their detailed mention of it, as is done by the first one Levine2112 found above.

Then: "If a source can be provided verifying that it was invented and/or developed by (a) chiropractor(s), instead of "chiropractic diagnostic technique" (which I don't consider verified yet) I suggest wording such as "diagnostic technique developed by chiropractors"."

That's clearly demonstrated above.

The ICAK is clearly dominated by chiropractors, and every President has been a chiropractor.

Then: "Fyslee, if you want the article to convey to readers the status of AK as not being an established therapy,..."

Not at all. I want to make it clear where it came from and its history. The matter of it being debunked as a pseudoscientific method is already taken care of. That's not the issue here in this discussion.

Then: "(2) I'm not sure why you consider Google Scholar a poor search engine for this."

It's just too limited. This is a fringe topic, and as such many good sources, even the best (except for direct medical matters), may not be listed there. I'm not say "don't" use it. Definitely use it, but don't stop there or you'll miss some of the best sources.

Then: "(3) Chiropractic sources would in my opinion be the best sources to establish whether chiropractors consider AK to be a chiropractic method, but that would be only one POV; we would need third-party sources to establish whether it's generally considered to be a chiropractic method, unless we want to word it something like "considered by chiropractors to be a chiropractic technique".

That has been demonstrated above. They clearly consider it a chiropractic technique. Since it is unquestionably created by a chiropractor, was only used by chiropractors for some time, and chiropractors are still the dominant user group, I don't see anything controversial in calling it a chiropractic technique that is now also practiced by some others. That's what my version does.

Then: "(4) Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources."

Agreed. I was referring to the background information, which must be backed up by the references, so it's ultimately the references I was referring to.

Then: "(5) Thank you."

You are very welcome. I hope that I have answered your questions. If you need some clarification, please be very specific. I request that anyone reading this not intersperse comments in the above. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am finished for now and will let Coppertwig reply, as I consider their comments and questions to be the most well-reasoned attempt to get to the bottom of this matter. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Fyslee. I haven't had time to read all your comments yet – I plan to – but this one reference does it for me:  ::"From the International College of Applied Kinesiology (ICAK):
* "Dr. George J. Goodheart Jr. (founder of the applied kinesiology chiropractic technique) passed away on March 5th, 2008. "
Based on this, I now support classifying it as a chiropractic technique. It can be placed under chiropractic and called a chiropractic method. This doesn't mean chiropractors are the only ones to use it; it means that it's generally called a chiropractic method by the reliable sources. I don't really know anything about applied kinesiology. Thanks for supplying the references. I'm horrified at your experience re your book: freedom of information is important.
Eldereft: to me, the question here is not at all "is AK fundamental to the practice of chiropractic?" but "Is chiropractic fundamental to AK"? The ref above, from the International College of Applied Kinesiology, which I'm not familiar with but based on its name assume it kindof represents AK, answers that question to my satisfaction for now at least. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I am convinced - making Applied Kinesiology a subheading of Chiropractic makes sense. Good arguments all around. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, certainly these two [35] [36] are reliable sources for saying AK is a chiropractic technique. It may well have evolved into a generic alt-med technique as well, but it remains a chiropractic technique as well (just cranial manipulation, despite Upledger teaching it to anyone who can pay, remains an osteopathic technique as well as an alt-med or bodywork technique, irrespective of Upledger legalistically assinging it a different name). Fyslee, I'm going to let you fix the AK article since you have ample references handy, and grokkage thereof. (I see that work has already begun, although QG's edits are pretty uncollaborative. His ES's read as if he didn't read the talk page. That's a good example of WP:IDHT, but whatever; required reading for anyone who gets to caught up in this is WP:DGAF.) regards, Middle 8 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Far be it from me to stand in the way of a growing consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Now there is the matter of the date for the start of the ICAK. One place on their website says 1976, but another states 1973, and yet another supports that by stating that the first presidency period was from 1973-1976. Odd descrepancy. Of course Goodheart was the founder and controlled whatever there was until 1973. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee says that 1/3 of Chiropractors use AK. How old is this data? A recent article published by Gleberzon (who she mentions above as the author of an acceptable source) suggests that its use is very limited: 4%. (Gleberzon 2009, JCCA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

From the AK article: "In 2003 it was the 10th most frequently used chiropractic technique in the United States, with 37.6% of chiropractors employing this method and 12.9% of patients being treated with it."[31]
Please provide the Gleberzon ref. It might be good to use since it's newer. Considering the source, it likely refers only to Canadian chiros, who are generally more scientifically based than their American counterparts. BTW, please remember to log-in. -- Fyslee (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the reference right above you, Gleberzon 2009, JCCA. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm....I wouldn't have asked if I thought that was sufficient. Please provide the title and volume number, and preferably a URL. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
googleityoumoron.com doesn't work anymore, so try http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Gleberzon+2009+JCCA&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search instead 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the insults. I'm not trying to be difficult, but only asking for a precise source. Thanks for providing it. It is recent and looks interesting. It applies only to Canadian chiros, mostly from CMCC, where only diversified is taught. I can't find your 4% number. What page is it on? -- Fyslee (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
As a practicing physician I do not know a single M.D. who looks upon AK any differently than astrology. AK is *not* a technique of medical doctors any more than child abuse is a technique of medical doctors. That someone may find a handful of doctors who use this voodoo among hundreds of thousands of physician is hardly evidence that it enjoys any legitimacy within the profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.145.66 (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "Pseudoscience" not necessary for inclusion - right?

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

As I understand it, terms can be included in this list without a RS that explicitly says "X is a PS". If there are refs that say that X is unscientific and defies scientific principles, etc, it can be included, right?MaxPont (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the intent is clear and the source is unimpeachably reliable for making that sort of statement. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Due caution should be exercised. Mere criticism isn't enough. It should be very clear. If there is any question, then it can be discussed here. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I have stricken my too quick "I agree". Yes, I agree, but only after the subject has been sourced to citations using the word "pseudoscience". See my comments below. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(ADDED LATER) Fyslee is obviously changing his stand about principles to suit his POV in current controversies (see below). There are a number of earlier statements on this Talk page by other editors that we should have generous inclusion criterias for this list.MaxPont (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It's called confirmation bias and it is a hallmark of pseudoskepticism. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A quick search on Google Scholar for "unscientific" has the following item high on the list:

All around the world the scientific performance of individuals and research groups is being assessed using the impact factors of the journals in which they publish. Unfortunately the indisputable evidence that this method is scientifically meaningless is being ignored. Those who assess the performance of researchers seem to be bewitched by the spurious precision of a number that is available to several decimal places.

Most researchers accept that research funds should be concentrated on those who perform well. Performance must therefore be assessed which is not easy. Britain has developed a system that Gareth Williams, a professor of medicine, describes as gathering misleading data and assessing them unscientifically and unaccountably using an inefficient, expensive, and wasteful procedure (p 1079). The result is that limited resources may be misapplied and research distorted by researchers playing games to score highly in the assessment exercise.

This seems to be pseudoscience in that the impact factors assessment method uses a statistical method which is ostensibly scientific but which is clearly characterised here as "scientifically meaningless". I agree that such bogus metrics should be included. But note that an essential element of pseudoscience is that it pretends to be scientific. Being described as "unscientific" is not, by itelf, enough, as this would include topics like art and religion which do not usually pretend or claim to be science. 23:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 2009-03-20T23:44:26

Yup, that would be why we all hate the impact factor. Remind me to leave copies of that article lying around the department if I am ever up for tenure. And, more on topic, good example of why we need to be scrupulous with the inclusion criteria for this article. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The BMJ and a Professor of Medicine seem to be the sort of unimpeachable sources that are used to rubbish other topics. Failure to use these sources an even-handed way would be obvious bias. Now, I didn't have to go looking for this example - it was in the first page of hits in Google Scholar. It seems to demonstrate well that spreading your net wide will catch many fish. My impression is that there are hidden criteria here - that the putative pseudoscience is wacky, amateur, absurd and the like. These criteria seem rather subjective so can we articulate them please so that we may inspect them. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
We do need to avoid spreading our net too wide. The mere use of the word "unscientific" certainly isn't enough, as the word is often used loosely as a synonym for imprecision, carelessness, or slightly missing the mark. The intent needs to be quite clear, and if a topic is criticized enough by mainstream sources for being unscientific, defying scientific principles, and being fallacious, it will likely also be termed pseudoscience, and often by more than one source. If that is the case, then other sources using synonyms could ALSO be used, besides the ones using the word "pseudoscience", since descriptions of just what manner of "unscientificness" justify calling the topic "pseudoscience" are informational. If no mainstream sources call something "pseudoscience", I'd be very cautious about adding it here.
A bit of common sense should be used, not just an impact factor. That's why using a source in "an even-handed way", based merely on its impact factor, could be improper. The impact factor is only one factor to consider, since nonsense can occasionally get printed in a high impact factor journal. Even top medical journals will sometimes give pushers of pseudoscience an opportunity to voice their concerns, all in the name of furthering discussion and giving opposing POV a fair chance. Since believers in pseudosciences by nature are incapable of recognizing the unscientificness of their own beliefs (as discussed over at Talk:Pseudoscience), they are hardly the ones qualified to make judgments about the matter. The term "pseudoscience" is a pejorative judgment call used by the pro-science side of the issues. When used by believers in pseudosciences, they become pseudoskeptics by doing so. It's not really their term, and they will end up misusing it to attack their opponents. Robert Todd Carroll has discussed this misuse of the term.
Now instead of discussing a hypothetical situation governing future entries, is there currently some entry that is inappropriately added or improperly sourced? Otherwise this discussion might serve a better purpose when a specific example is brought to the table and the appropriateness of adding it here is questioned. Common sense should be used, and that needs to be done on a case by case basis. There is no single criteria that can stand alone in making such judgment calls, and impact factor alone is not sufficient. Since the common sense of believers in pseudoscience is defective (maybe only on that one point), their input is weakened and often unconvincing, and they get short shrift here. Common sense isn't quite as common as it should be. ;-) The NSF regularly does surveys, and they have shown that the public is seriously lacking in common scientific knowledge, otherwise so many of them wouldn't be so inclined to believe in paranormal and alternative medicine matters. They are gullible and don't have the common sense to discern what is true and what isn't. They become true believers and fall prey to scammers and quacks. That's why the Darwin Awards were created. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because it appears that the inclusion criteria are generous, we must be careful to not stretch it too far. IF a subject is already termed "pseudoscience", then it would be fair and allowable to add other sources which use other descriptions, but I'd be very uncomfortable about approaching a slippery slope that starts with other descriptions in the absence of any sources that actually do call a subject "pseudoscience". Just because something is "unscientific" doesn't automatically make it a pseudoscience, but a pseudoscience will be unscientific. The one doesn't necessarily follow the other, and we should let the inclusion criteria (the word "pseudoscience") lead the way. Otherwise we're going to get involved in alot of OR. We must prevent that by avoiding an improper enlargement of the inclusion criteria. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Brown's Gas

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a well known pseudoscience version of oxyhydrogen but with magical properties eg. deactivation of nuclear waste.[37]. Does it deserve inclusion here? What kind of references would be needed to meet the notability criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petecarney (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reiki and Therapeutic Touch

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

An IP has added a couple times a sentence stating that reiki is a form of therapeutic touch. Certainly they appear the same to an outside observer, but I believe that historically they derive from different traditions. Does anyone have a source indicating that the two have been compared? - Eldereft (cont.) 23:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, actually checking for sources I find numerous cases where both modalities are listed as examples of energy medicine and examples where both are subjected to the criticism that bioenergetic fields have never been shown to exist. A few do directly state that they are similar, but based on these I would not include the comparison here, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH. Interested readers can scroll up a few entries or check out {{Energy therapy}}, which is included on both articles. If we wanted to throw WP:OR to the wind, we could create a Manual energy field manipulation subheading ... but that idea does not thrill me.

Child psychiatry, meds and CSICOP

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

This article in CSICOP (like anything from CSICOP) apparently qualifies as an RS here, so we should work it in somehow. The article at times sounds like an anti-psychiatry screed. That makes it an interestingly mixed bag: on the one hand, psychiatry has some pseudoscientific aspects; OTOH, the anti-psychiatry movement does as well. Some of what he says diverges from the medical mainstream, to the best of my knowledge, e.g. his dismissal of the medical model for psychiatric disorders. Excerpts:

So, family physicians became society’s instruments: the suppliers of choice for legal mood-altering drugs. But medical practitioners required scientific authority to protect their reputations, and the public required a justification for its drug-seeking behavior. The pharmaceutical companies were quick to offer a pseudoscientific conjecture that satisfied both. They argued that neurochemical transmitters, only recently identified, were in fact the long sought after mediators of mood and activity. Psychological complaints, consequently, were a function of an imbalance of these neural chemicals that could be corrected with stimulants and sedatives (and later antidepressants and antipsychotics). While the assertion was pure fantasy without a shred of evidence, so little was known about the brain’s true actions that the artifice was tamely accepted.

and perhaps worst of all, he says that the medical model might actually relieve parental guilt (what an asshole!):

To overwhelmed parents, drugs solve a whole host of ancillary problems. ... Those whose confidence is shaken by indications that their children are “out of control” or “unruly” or “disturbed” are soothed by the seeming inevitability of an inherited disease that is shared by so many others. Rather than blaming themselves for being poor home managers, guardians with insufficient skills, or neglectful caretakers, parents can find comfort in the thought that their child, through no fault of theirs, has succumbed to a modern and widely accepted scourge.

A final observation: This stuff never would have made it through peer-review. So much for the assumption that anything in CSICOP must be an RS for sci mainstream views. (WP:MEDRS never said as much, but de facto editorial consensus here has been that it is an RS.) Thoughts? --Middle 8 (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you have any sources that refute the claims made? Unomi (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Specifically I am alluding to references that refute claims like this. Unomi (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Here are a couple. (pertinent to Weiss, not Kirsch)
(1) Weiss says [38]: "But even if the increase [in psychiatric diagnoses of chuldren] reflects an authentic epidemic of mental health problems in our children, it is not certain that medication has ever been the right way to handle it."
Rebuttal: the American Academy of Pediatrics sponsored a meta-analysis of the literature and concluded: "The evidence strongly supports the use of stimulant medications for treating the core symptoms of children with ADHD and, to a lesser degree, for improving functioning." [39]
(2) Weiss says: "An entire generation of young people has been brought up to believe that drug-seeking behavior is both rational and respectable and that most psychological problems have a pharmacological solution. With the ubiquity of psychotropics, children now have the means, opportunity, example, and encouragement to develop a lifelong habit of self-medicating."
Rebuttal: Per a meta-analysis in 2005: "Our results suggest that stimulant therapy in childhood is associated with a reduction in the risk for subsequent drug and alcohol use disorders."[40] --Middle 8 (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, wanting to obviate this sort of discussion is a great part of why I opposed the rename for so long. There are plenty of peer reviewed articles suggesting that we as a society overmedicate our children (Recent developments and current controversies in depression: "The absence of comprehensive and reliable evidence for risks, (126) perceived industrial interests of clinicians, (127,128) as well as publication bias, which is well known to any author of systematic reviews, have in some quarters eroded public faith in the drug treatment of depression and its regulation. (124,129,130)"; heck, we have a whole article on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies), but my reading of the debate is that it is part scientific controversy, part media hype, and part social response to aggressive marketing from pharmaceutical companies (direct marketing to inadequately informed parents and consumers, favor exchange with providers, seeding trials, &c.).
Well, if you would like to propose title and wording for an entry, we can discuss it. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This would have come up with or without the title change. Of course overmedication of children is a legitimate concern, but this guy goes over the top, particularly in his unwarranted dismissal of the medical model (and, irony of ironies, his apparent preference for Freud; gee, no PS there). Sure, I'll suggest wording; just soliciting ideas before I do. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that he is dismissing the medical model, merely pointing out problems with how it is applied. e.g.
And then seeking to suppress those symptoms via psychotropics. To an outsider looking in it seems akin to saying that morphine cures a broken arm.
While psychotropics may suppress cure "core symptoms" I think that studies indicate that this should be used as a window of opportunity to engender behavioral modification via coaching and training to aid in improving overall functioning.
A 2008 article summary states: "Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance use disorders are commonly observed together, particularly in clinical populations of adolescents."[41]. And I am not sure that he is referring to alcohol/substance abuse as much as a willingness to embrace the notion of 'better living thru chemistry' as a whole. Unomi (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"In contrast to the significant advantage of MedMgt+Comb over Beh+CC for ADHD symptoms at 14 and 24 months, treatment groups did not differ significantly on any measure at 36 months." [42] Unomi (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) @Unomi: you are right that there is some nuance in Weiss's article, and I don't mean to overlook that. Still, he overstates the risk of stimulants and give short shrift to their efficacy. On ADHD and substance abuse, sure these kids are more at risk for substance abuse; the point is that when they're medicated, that risk actually goes down, not up as Weiss fears. [43] My guess is that this is because they become less impulsive, more focused and confident, more comfortable inside their own skins. Of course counseling and other non-pharm therapies are good too, but stimulants are one of the best options we have today, [44] and counseling isn't a substitute. So.... perhaps we can say that overmedication of kids is a concern, but at the same time, meds have proven benefit. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys know more about this than I do, but isn't this discussion more suited for another article than here? Once a conclusion regarding a subject's "PSness" is arrived at there, it should be a relatively short discussion here. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Partly, yes; the unambiguous PS-ness comes from Weiss calling the medical model a "pseudoscientific conjecture" (full quote is the second para just under section header). That, rather than overmedication of kids, is the precise quote meeting our threshold. So I guess we could cite that quote, and include some sources saying that the medical model is actually a pretty mainstream, accepted thing. (I frankly think CSICOP ran off the mainstream sci tracks with on this one, and if I'm right, we should be able to find solid balancing views.) --Middle 8 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Economics

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Is there any source that calls stock market prediction a pseudoscience, rather than simply ineffective? 12:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, according to the entry. Apophenia and the Law of small numbers, arguably. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It isn't exactly a psuedoscience because in theory it's possible. It's just very hard, though it is often right.--Pattont/c 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where the entry refers to the Skeptic Encyclopedia; the only citation is to the book "A Random Walk Down Wall Street". It's not clear that this book considers the subject a pseudoscience - according to the book's Wikipedia entry, this seems unlikely. hgilbert (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The inlcusion criterias in this article are quite generous, see above[45] MaxPont (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't stretch it too far. IF a subject is already termed "pseudoscience", then it would be fair and allowable to add other sources which use other descriptions, but I'd be very uncomfortable about approaching a slippery slope that starts with other descriptions in the absence of any sources that actually do call a subject "pseudoscience". Just because something is "unscientific" doesn't automatically make it a pseudoscience, but a pseudoscience will be unscientific. The one doesn't necessarily follow the other, and we should let the inclusion criteria (the word "pseudoscience") lead the way. Otherwise we're going to get involved in alot of OR. We must prevent that by avoiding an improper enlargement of the inclusion criteria. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Current reference number eight? At the end of the first sentence? - Eldereft (cont.) 15:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If this is the basis, I'm removing the section; there is nothing specifically about stock market prediction in the SEP. The closest it comes seems to be in the article on "regressive fallacy", and this merely says that the stock market fluctuates, not that attempts to predict these fluctuations are in any way pseudoscientific. Making the connection is clearly original research. hgilbert (talk) 23:32, March 25, 2009 (UTC)

Skeptic's Encyclopedia

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We've consistently had problems like the above with references to the Skeptic's Encyclopedia. I would like to ask that any references to this include the particular article referenced (this is normal when citing an encyclopedia!!!) hgilbert (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. Including the specific article;s title or a page number should do it. Sometimes actually including the applicable phrase or sentence in the ref is also good. Just citing a book or website isn't good enough. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There have certainly been accusations of bias against a scientist arguing against the accepted radiocarbon dating but that surely not enough to label the whole topic as characterised as pseudoscience. Petecarney (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Nature News source writes of "the pseudoscience surrounding the shroud" (quoting Raymond Rogers, who made some of the measurements), and of various "flaky" theories such as a photographic print by da Vinci or "some kind of release of nuclear energy from [Christ's] body." The arguments for misdating are described as "[leaving] no stone unturned in casting doubt on 'evidence' that the relic was faked, while embracing with blind rapture every argument for its authenticity." If you can think of some way to phrase the entry to emphasize that it refers solely to the bogusly scientific claims relating to the shroud, feel free to make a proposal here. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I note that Joe Nickell had accused Ray Rogers of "tortuous logic and selective evidence", and in PBS "Secrets of the Dead" Buries the Truth About Turin Shroud, he says "Defenders of the shroud's authenticity ... work backward to the evidence, picking and choosing and-all too often-engaging in pseudoscience." My point is that the shroud of Turin is not a pseudoscience topic itself and the "pseudoscience surrounding the shroud" is not coherent or notable enough to be packaged up a topic in it's own right hence doesn't it belong in this list. Petecarney (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this is one of those cases that is covered by this part of our inclusion criteria:
  • "Some subjects in this list may be questioned aspects of otherwise legitimate fields of research, or have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them. For instance, while some proposed explanations for hypnosis have been criticized for being pseudoscientific, the phenomenon is generally accepted as real and scientific explanations exist. Some subjects and methods are included because certain claims regarding them are pseudoscientific, even though the subjects themselves may be legitimate, or the methods themselves may have some efficacy, thus indicating it is the claims that are pseudoscientific, and not necessarily the subjects or methods." (bold emphasis added)
While it appears that the Shroud qualifies for inclusion here, the entry should be worded so as to make it clear that it is not the Shroud itself that is pseudoscientific, but the arguments and methodologies of those who support its authenticity. As for the Shroud itself, it can be termed a fraud using V & RS. Fraud and pseudoscience often go hand in hand, so that would be relevant information to include, and it can (or should) be found in the article itself and copied here in a shorter version. As with my reply in a previous section, "pseudoscience" should lead the way before inclusion of other sources mentioning other aspects (fraud) that are part of why it's considered, or associated with, pseudoscience. The one doesn't necessarily follow the other. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have just made a tweak to that part of the lead to make it more clear. Not everything here is a "method" ;-)

Unclear sentence in LEAD

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

The following sentence is unclear to me, and I suspect also to some others:

  • "Commentators may have explicitly described a field or concept as "pseudoscience" or used synonyms, some of which are identified in the references section below."

It suffers from at least two faults:

1. The unclear way in which "synonyms" is used, and now being interpreted to enlarge our inclusion criteria.

2. In the second half, what is meant by "some of which are identified in the references section below" ?

I'd like to tighten up the wording in the first half ("synonyms") and develop the second half so it's clear. We can do it in two subsections below.

-- Fyslee (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding misuse of "synonyms"

Just because it appears that the inclusion criteria are generous, we must be careful to not stretch it too far. IF a subject is already termed "pseudoscience", then it would be fair and allowable to add other sources which use other descriptions and synonyms, but I'd be very uncomfortable about approaching a slippery slope that starts with other descriptions in the absence of any sources that actually do call a subject "pseudoscience". Just because something is "unscientific" doesn't automatically make it a pseudoscience, but a pseudoscience will be unscientific. The one doesn't necessarily follow the other, and we should let the inclusion criteria (the word "pseudoscience") lead the way. Otherwise we're going to get involved in alot of OR. We must prevent that by avoiding an improper enlargement of the inclusion criteria.

The misuse of synonyms can occur if one interprets the sentence independently of the first paragraph, where there is NO softening at all. The word "pseudoscience" is still upheld as the inclusion criteria there.

I therefore suggest a tweak to ensure that we don't end up misusing synonyms:

Original:

  • "Commentators may have explicitly described a field or concept as "pseudoscience" or used synonyms, some of which are identified in the references section below."

New version:

  • "Commentators may have explicitly described a field or concept as "pseudoscience", as well as used synonyms, some of which are identified in the references section below." (new part underlined)

-- Fyslee (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unclear second half

Original:

  • "Commentators may have explicitly described a field or concept as "pseudoscience" or used synonyms, some of which are identified in the references section below."

???? What is meant by that second half? When we have parsed it and understood it, we need to develop it into a clearer version.

-- Fyslee (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How about just deleting that clause? I agree it doesn't add anything. I semi-boldly did so. [46] Agree with your rewording above for the first half of the sentence. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. That was a simple solution! Now I have taken a second look at my version above and tweaked it a bit more:

Steps toward a revamp of first sentence

Now prepare yourself for a rollercoaster ride of changing versions (this is written after what comes now).

  • "Commentators may have explicitly described a field or concept as "pseudoscience", and some may have used synonyms that help to explain why they consider it to be pseudoscientific."

How's that? Notice that I have stricken the word "may" to emphasize that the word "pseudoscience" must be used. Now I'm writing this on the fly, so to speak, and am getting more ideas when I look at the actual placement and setting for that sentence. I'm not really content with its placement. It seems out of place and I think it would be better in the first sentence, which involves a slight tweak again. Here's the current first sentence:

  • "This is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts regarded or characterized as pseudoscientific by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or by notable academics or researchers."

Here's a version with the new sentence included:

  • "This is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts regarded or characterized as pseudoscientific by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or by notable academics or researchers who have explicitly described them as "pseudoscience". Some may also have used synonyms that help to explain why they consider a topic to be pseudoscientific."

While we're at it, let's fix our deviation from the norm, which requires that the title appear in bold at the beginning:

  • "This is a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or by notable academics or researchers who have explicitly described them as "pseudoscience". Some may also have used synonyms that help to explain why they consider a topic to be pseudoscientific."

But looking at that I discover a needless repetition. We can actually delete the last part of the first sentence, since the first part already makes it clear what the inclusion criteria is, but some will still no doubt misunderstand, so I'm moving it to the second sentence:

  • "This is a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or by notable academics or researchers. Besides explicitly using the word "pseudoscience", some may also have used synonyms that help to explain why they consider a topic to be pseudoscientific."

How's THAT one? Be brutally honest. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless I get some discussion about this, I'll install it and then we can see how it looks. Sometimes that's the best way to know if something works. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You're on a roll. Go for it! --Middle 8 (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I do for you; it is here. Seems like a pretty uncontroversial edit; no change to the gist, just much improved clarity. Thanking you I am. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I think it looks good and flows nicely, and we got rid of some redundancy in the process. Let's see if it floats. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms

At the risk of making only a poor comment to a productive discussion - surely quackery is a sufficient synonym? Or violates the second law of thermodynamics? Others are more explicit, but one of the links for Quantum mysticism states "We should not underestimate how persuasively physics can be invoked to buttress mystical notions. We physicists bear some responsibility for the way our discipline is exploited." It is, of course, possible that all examples notable enough to be included have been described explicitly as pseudoscience, so we might opt for the stronger version until such a time as a reasonable counterexample is mooted. Certainly nothing jumps out at me as a good bet for a counterexample, nor do I remember any from my reference spree the other month. Certainly relying on common sense and endless productive discussion over whether particular sources are reliable for the statements made have served this article poorly in the past, so perhaps it is time to try stringent and explicitly detailed inclusion criteria. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quackery may, and often is, an element in medical pseudoscience, but not always. If a topic is described as pseudoscience, then it may also be described as quackery if it is being hawked and marketed in an inappropriate manner, in which case such references could be listed, as well as the primary PS one(s). The one doesn't always follow the other. I think the same applies to your other example. I suspect we could find a situation where common sense will allow us to make an exception without committing a SYNTH or OR violation. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now the tweaking you see above is in response to an unforeseen slippery slope that was causing some problems that could potentially be exploited to destroy the credibility of this list and lead to it becoming embroiled in edit wars and AfDs. Rather a tighter ship, than a leaky one. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Reference

  1. ^ "It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. There cannot be two kinds of medicine -- conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence. Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional treatments."
    Angell M, Kassirer JP (1998). "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies" (PDF). N. Engl. J. Med. 339 (12): 839–41. doi:10.1056/NEJM199809173391210. PMID 9738094. Retrieved 2007-12-28.
  2. ^ "More than half of the physicians (59%) believed that acupuncture can be effective to some extent." Physicians Divided on Impact of CAM on U.S. Health Care; Aromatherapy Fares Poorly; Acupuncture Touted. HCD Research, 9 Sept. 2005. convenience links: Business Wire, 2005; AAMA, 2005. Link to internet archive version: Cumulative Report
  3. ^ Alexandra Frean, Education Editor. Universities drop degree courses in alternative medicine The Times, January 30, 2009
  4. ^ a b c d NIH Consensus Development Program (November 3–5, 1997). "Acupuncture --Consensus Development Conference Statement". National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 2007-07-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  5. ^ includes funny funnel plot
  6. ^ Unschuld, Paul Ulrich (1985). Medicine in China: A History of Ideas. University of California Press. ISBN 0520062167.
  7. ^ a b c d "Traditional Chinese Medicine: Principles of Diagnosis and Treatment". Complementary/Integrative Medicine Therapies. The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
  8. ^ "The Roots of Qi". CSICOP. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
  9. ^ Barrett, Stephen (December 30, 2007). "Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  10. ^ a b "NCAHF Position Paper on Acupuncture (1990)". National Council Against Health Fraud. 1990-09-16. Retrieved 2007-12-30.
  11. ^ Maciocia, Giovanni (1989). The Foundations of Chinese Medicine. Churchill Livingstone.
  12. ^ Barrett, Stephen (2008-03-28). "Why TCM Diagnosis Is Worthless". Acupuncture Watch. Retrieved 2009-02-16.
  13. ^ a b "Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China: A Report of the Second CSICOP Delegation (Part 1)". CSICOP. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
  14. ^ Felix Mann: "...acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots that a drunkard sees in front of his eyes." (Mann F. Reinventing Acupuncture: A New Concept of Ancient Medicine. Butterworth Heinemann, London, 1996,14.) Quoted by Matthew Bauer in Chinese Medicine Times, Vol 1 Issue 4 - Aug 2006, "The Final Days of Traditional Beliefs? - Part One"
  15. ^ Kaptchuk, 1983, pp. 34-35
  16. ^ E (2004), "A brief history of acupuncture", Rheumatology, 43 (5): 662–663, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keg005, PMID 15103027
  17. ^ Ernst E, Pittler MH, Wider B, Boddy K. (2007). "Acupuncture: its evidence-base is changing". Am J Chin Med. 35 (1): 21–5. doi:10.1142/S0192415X07004588. PMID 17265547.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ Carroll, Robert. "Acupuncture". Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
  19. ^ Haake, Michael; Muller, Hans-Helge; Schade-brittinger, Carmen; Basler, Heinz D.; Schafer, Helmut; Maier, Christoph; Endres, Heinz G.; Trampisch, Hans J.; Molsberger, Albrecht (2007), "German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC) for Chronic Low Back Pain: Randomized, Multicenter, Blinded, Parallel-Group Trial with 3 Groups", Archives of Internal Medicine, 167 (17): 1892, doi:10.1001/archinte.167.17.1892, PMID 17893311
  20. ^ a b Shermer, Michael (2005-07). "Full of Holes: the curious case of acupuncture". Scientific American. 293 (2): 30. Retrieved 2009-02-16. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  21. ^ "Definition of Chinese meridian theory". National Cancer Institute. Retrieved 2009-02-16.
  22. ^ Stenger, Victor J. (1998-06). "Reality Check: the energy fields of life". Skeptical Briefs. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved 2007-12-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) "Despite complete scientific rejection, the concept of a special biological fields within living things remains deeply engraved in human thinking. It is now working its way into modern health care systems, as non-scientific alternative therapies become increasingly popular. From acupuncture to homeopathy and therapeutic touch, the claim is made that healing can be brought about by the proper adjustment of a person's or animal's "bioenergetic fields.""
  23. ^ "Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China: A Report of the Second CSICOP Delegation (Part 2)". CSICOP. Retrieved 2009-02-15.
  24. ^ "Traditional Chinese Medicine: Overview of Herbal Medicines". Complementary/Integrative Medicine Therapies. The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
  25. ^ Yuehua, N (2004), Chinese medicinal herbs for sore throat (Review), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004877
  26. ^ Praities, Nigel (2008-08-07). "GPs warned over Chinese medicine". Pulse. Retrieved 2009-02-16. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  27. ^ Normile, Dennis (2003), "ASIAN MEDICINE: the New Face of Traditional Chinese Medicine", Science, 299 (5604): 188–190, doi:10.1126/science.299.5604.188, PMID 12522228
  28. ^ Profile of Goodheart
  29. ^ International College of Applied Kinesiology
  30. ^ Chiropractic Techniques. American Chiropractic Association.
  31. ^ Job Analysis of Chiropractic (PDF), National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 2005, p. 135
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience/Archive_12&oldid=1142441767"