Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

Shroud of Turin

I am not quite clear why this is in this article. It is not a scientific theory or concept, it is a purported relic of Jesus. The only science relates to that used to authenticate and date it, and I am not aware that any of that is pseudoscientific. If anything it is a hoax, but hoaxes are not the same thing as pseudoscience. This article states that it is almost certainly of medieval origin, but its own Wikipedia page is much less certain on this point. This page only claims it is a hoax, but if this page is to include hoaxes, things such as Piltdown man would be a much better fit. So there are two problems (a) that it is neither scientific nor purporting to be so, any more than say a fake signed Beatles LP sold on ebay would be somehow pseudo-science, and (b) Wikipedia's own article on the shroud is much more ambiguous on whether it is medieval or not (although this is in fact immaterial, given (a)).

Hence I have removed it, pending someone offering an explanation of why they think proponents of this purported relic think that it is a scientific topic. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked the source? If not, then I suggest you self-revert until you have. aprock (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have thanks. The source actually spends its time documenting what it clearly views as sound science showing that the shroud is in fact medieval, and not a relic of Jesus. This is not pseudo-science, in fact the source documents actual scientific study of the shroud to disprove religious beliefs about it. This is the opposite of pseudoscience.

Clearly 'The Shroud of Turin' is not itself pseudo-science, it exists, nobody disputes that, the debate is basically whether it dates from the 1st century and whether it once contained a body. Any pseudo-science could only be in studies of the shroud itself. The source does not document any studies that it claims to be pseudo-scientific, in fact the scientific study it relies on to disprove the shroud was sponsored by the keepers of the shroud. If pseudo-science was used in studying the shroud, I would like to see a source that says so - none has been provided. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's listed in "The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience", volume 2 [1] (search "shroud"), and the Skeptical Inquirer ran an article called "Unshrouding a Mystery: Science, Pseudoscience, and the Cloth of Turin". I can't nail right now a good source. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes the "Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience" was what I was referencing. Nonetheless, I would characterise the entry as using science in an attempt to disprove a religious relic; one of the religious responses quoted in the book is as follows 'The Reverend David Sox commented after the definitive investigation was completed that for him "forgery" and "authenticity" are essentially meaningless terms.', which is not to say that he has his own pseudo-science to counter the real science, but that he sees it in religious (faith, unverifiable/unfalsifiable) not scientific/pseudo-scientific (true/false) terms. Rev. Sox's view rather suggests that this is not a matter of pseudo-science but of science versus faith, which is another page entirely....Sumbuddi (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a read of several sources relating to the Shroud, and it seems that the term 'pseudo-science' has been used on a number of occasions in relation to the work of those working on the Shroud. But the way I think this would be listed in this article is study of the Shroud of Turin, but I don't think it would be appropriate to list it in this manner, since 'study of the Shroud of Turin' is by no means pseudo-scientific in and of itself, in the way that studying homoepathy is. Articles such as Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin, would suggest in fact that there has been a great deal of scientific 'study of the Shroud of Turin', so again its inclusion here is inappropriate. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. There's some pseudoscientific work on things like black holes, but that doesn't mean the study of black holes is pseudoscientific. I agree that something as generic as "study of the Shroud of Turin" should not be on this list. Thanks for writing out the details of why you made the change. A13ean (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I can find stuff, like "Rogers has spoken of "the pseudoscience surrounding the shroud"."Nature News, "(...) the heightened defense of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin in response to the radiocarbon dating by the independent labs is rooted in pseudoscience fueled by faith (...)" newsletter of Skeptic Society. I just can't find good and detailed sources to support an entry. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Topics removed until citations can be found

Hi everyone,

As Yworo correctly noted, no topics should be listed on this page unless there is a good reference or two associated with the article, even if some of them seem like they trivially belong in the category. I am going through and looking at all entries for which there are no citations on this page and either adding them from the main article or moving them here until someone can dig up a reference for it. I appreciate any help people can provide with this since it's quite a few entries. Thanks A13ean (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of these should actually be relatively easy to find references for, I'll try to find some tomorrow if no one beats me to it. A13ean (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Earth Changes — refers to the belief that the world will enter a series of cataclysmic events that cause major alterations in human life on the planet, both locally as globally, including major changes in the social and political systems. In the 16th century, these apocalyptic Earth changes were among the prophecies of Nostradamus who predicted them to occur around the year 2000 and to reduce the population of the planet by two thirds. The term "Earth Changes" was coined by Edgar Cayce. In modern times the belief in Earth changes is prevalent in certain segments of the New Age movement but also among Native Americans and other tribes across the planet, some of whom call it "the Great Purification." Some believe that the Earth changes preface a "Golden Age" of spirituality and world peace.
• Materialization — supposed creation or appearance of matter from unknown sources.

• Close encounters — events where persons witness UFOs, or purportedly meet and/or communicate with alien beings.

• Theory of radial momentum — proposal by Ed Seykota, a commodities trader, which claims to clarify "problems" with the application of the Bernoulli principle.
• Turboencabulator — a hoax invention that relies on technobabble and incongruous use of jargon to give the appearance of a legitimate invention when it is, in fact, nonsense.*Isaac Asimov published two famous science fiction short stories that are parodies on pseudoscience:
  • The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline — science fiction short story by Isaac Asimov that is a spoof scientific paper first published in the December 1953 Astounding Science Fiction that describes the chemical compound thiotimoline, which is notable for the fact that when it is mixed with water, the chemical actually begins to break down before it contacts the water. This is explained by the fact that in the thiotimoline molecule, there is at least one carbon atom such that, while two of the carbon's four chemical bonds lie in normal space and time, one of the bonds projects into the future and another into the past. (restored with 2 sources --Enric Naval (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC))
  • Pâté de Foie Gras — science fiction short story by Isaac Asimov which was first published in the September 1956 issue of Astounding Science Fiction about the discovery on a farm in Texas of a mutant goose that is able to lay eggs made of gold because it has a liver capable of producing biological transmutation (nuclear transmutations via biological means).

Orphaned references in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of topics characterized as pseudoscience's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "APA":

• From Hypnosis: "Questions and Answers about Memories of Childhood Abuse". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 2007-01-22.
• From Conversion therapy: Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel (PDF), Just the Facts Coalition, 1999, retrieved 2010-05-14

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done - 2/0 (cont.) 05:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Expanding Earth

The Expanding Earth hypothesis is a largely dismissed but never disproved SCIENTIFIC hypothesis and it does not belong to this list even if it were wrong. I do not believe in Expanding Earth. However, I find outrageous the systematic suppression of the hypothesis and its supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.7.119 (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It is currently in the Idiosyncratic ideas section: The following concepts have only a very small number of proponents, yet have become notable. This seems correct based on the Expanding Earth page. Please discuss substantial changes such as blanking here on the talk page before taking action. » SkyyTrain (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What User:77.209.7.119 is missing here is that this is not a list of untrue hypotheses. It is a list of topics that are put forward by their proponents as "science" - but who do not follow "the scientific method" in exploring that topic. If the expanding earth believers were actively doing (or at the very least, seriously proposing) clear experiments to test whether what they claim is true - or to disprove the mainstream theory - then they would perhaps not be classified as a pseudo-science. However, it is very clear that they do not do that. So it doesn't matter whether their hypothesis is true or false, widely believed or not, disproved or not - what matters is whether they claim to have a scientific theory - yet do not follow the scientific method. The Expanding Eath hypothesis has never been tested experimentally (which, incidentally, is probably why it's never formally been disproved) - that's what makes it a pseudo-science. Until its proponents start actually doing experiments, publishing results in mainstream journals, etc - it is most definitely a pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Geology is not an experimental science but an observational one. There is no possible experiment to prove or disprove Plate Tectonics or Expanding Earth. There are many observations consistent with these theories (with both, indeed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.57.71 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Synonyms...

There was just an edit/revert cycle over the part of the lead section starting "Besides explicitly using the word pseudoscience, some may also have used synonyms that help to explain why they consider a topic to be pseudoscientific...".

Are there any synonyms for the word "pseudoscience"? I've checked a couple of paper dictionaries and four online dictionaries - and I don't see one listed anywhere. Thesaurus.com and Roget's don't even offer roughly similar phrases or other near alternatives. I think that what we're trying to say here is that it suffices for there to be a mere description of some topic's lack of scientific rigor in order for it to make it onto this list...which is a fine sentiment - but harder to be dogmatic about. We all agree (I hope!) that homeopathy is a pseudoscience - and would belong on this list even if we couldn't find someone out there who happens to use the word explicitly because there is ample evidence of the lack of scientific method in that field. But in borderline cases (such as the one in the thread just above this one), we might reasonably require a definite use of the word in a solid reference in order to avoid endless debate...there are no synonyms.

Anyway - this might explain why one editor wishes this to be removed while another thinks it should remain.

It's probably better to rewrite this sentence without reference to "synonyms" than to re-re-revert.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable concern. Propose some better wording we can work on so edit wars can be avoided. --Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The intent, if I recall correctly, was to say that even though a source might not use the term "pseudoscience", it might accuse the particular people or ideas of having the characteristics of pseudoscience. "Synonym", indeed, is the wrong word. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to conform to this intended meaning. Please let me know if you disagree. jps (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denialism

It's time we include this pervasive pseudoscientific belief in our list. Here are some sources I've been sifting through:

• Kennedy, D. “An Unfortunate U-turn on Carbon”, Science. 30 March 2001, p. 5513.
• Brown, R. G. E., Jr. “Environmental science under siege: Fringe science and the 104th Congress, U. S. House of Representatives.” Report, Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Science, U. S. House of Representatives. Washington, D. C. October 23, 1996. http://www.worldcat.org/title/environmental-science-under-siege-fringe-science-and-the-104th-congress/oclc/57343997
• Lahsen, Myanna. Technocracy, Democracy, and the U.S. Climate Politics: The Need for Demarcations” Science, Technology, & Human Values. Winter 2005, pp. 137-169.

I'd like to workshop the wording here on the talkpage.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Not that I'm agreeing with Climate change denialist, but I have read plenty of WP:V sources that back both the claims that Climate change is and isn't happening and (the less extreme it think) that Climate change is and isn't a natural cycle (caused or not caused by man). I'm not convinces one way or the other, but I think your asking for an edit war if you add "climate change denialism" to this list.

  First "climate change denialism" itself may not meet the definition of "pseudoscience". Those who don't believe in Climate change are doing experiments that "adhere to a valid scientific methodology", do have "supporting evidence", have claims are "plausible", thier theories can be "reliably tested", and according to some they do have "scientific status". This mean "climate change denialism" fails on all section of the definition of "pseudoscience".

   Second, I think added that to this list is just asking for trouble, in that the term is POVish in itself. Climate change denialists make the same claim that Climate change itself is "pseudoscience", so climate change denialists are going to scream POV and demand that "Climate change" itself be added to the list as "pseudoscience". Personally I think adding "climate change denialism" dose have a POV in that added "climate change denialism" must mean that "Climate changes" is a scientific fact, something I'm not convinced of ether. I think Climate change itself hasn't been proven to be caused by man and not a natural cycle. It very well be cause by us, but this means that Climate change is a very good hypothesis, but not fact. However, I will say I'm 90% for it being true, but further studies are needed.

   Personally I wouldn’t put "climate change denialism" in the list because of the definition issue and because your asking for trouble, and considering 1, 2, and 3, when it come to the pseudoscience subject, I would think you would want to avoid an edit war and POV pushing.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, ARTEST4ECHO, but I don't think your argument is valid. Let's put it another way: I have found three sources which identify specific tactics of climate change denialism which are psuedoscientific and extremely similar in type to the creationist arguments we list here on this page as pseudoscientific. Senator Inhofe, in particular, has advanced some pretty pseudoscientific canards in this regard and those arguments have been referred to as pseudoscientific in the Lahsen source explicitly. That's a pretty good set of reliable sources in that regard. You have only attested that alternative reliable sources exist, but I'm pretty sure they don't. We don't shy away from "trouble" just because pseudoscientists dislike having been so-labeled. That's not a valid argument either. I don't see any "defintion" issue and, moreover, whether you're personally convinced of the facts relating to climate change or not is irrelevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest treading carefully here, it seems that the major issue is that some people completely ignore or distort scientific results, and not that there is a separate pseudoscientific research system or something. I believe this is a important topic, but perhaps does not belong on this list. A13ean (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly distortion of scientific results coming from a variety of political and media camps. But what I'm referring to is the coordinated effort to pass-off incorrect information as "scientific fact". This seems to be coming preferentially from one particular group of ideologues. Talking points claiming scientific basis like this or this bear striking resemblance to the pseudoscientific claims made by any other of a number of advocacy groups. Denialists start from the presupposition that global warming is incorrect and work backwards picking-and-choosing spot stories that they think support their case. Inevitably, they end up toeing a pseudoscientific line as illustrated in the sources I outline above. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that we have three adequate-seeming references showing that the term "pseudoscience" has been levelled at those claims - and technically that's enough to get them into this list, which you will recall is not "List of pseudosciences" but rather "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience". Once again, I appeal to everyone to change the title of this article to fix that situation. But given that we have not made that change, we should note that all it takes to get something onto this list are reliable sources that characterize the topic as pseudoscience. If there is evidence that some topic has been characterized that way by some reliable source - then it doesn't matter a damn whether the topic is a truly a pseudoscience or not. IMHO, that's a useless standard and makes this article less useful than it could otherwise be - but that's what we've got.

Those who oppose adding this topic to this list should not be debating whether these topics are pseudoscience or not - in order to keep the topic out of the list, they need to explain why the three sources provided by ScienceApologist are deemed unacceptable by Wikipedia standards...and that's an uphill battle since they do seem pretty impeccable to me.

We really need to rename this article and rather than relying on casual use of a particular term - actually check whether the topics we list really do pass the test of (a) claiming to be scientific in nature and (b) failing to use the scientific method. But until we do rename it - I have to say that the Climate Change Denialists don't have a way to not be on this list.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time to get into a heated discussion here, with ScienceApologist, nor do I wish to. So ScienceApologist can put this on the list and I’m not going to do anything about it. I came to this list for an unrelated reason and just happened to see this discussion, so I'm going back to the subject I was working on.

However, I think ScienceApologist completely missed what I was saying. I do agree that how I view this subject is irrelevant, nor does is his. My reason for including that information was to show that I was coming from a different point of view, one that isn't so POVish in favor of that Climate Change is a fact, that is all

The problem I see with added Climate Change Denialism is that you’re going to have to include Climate Change on the list also. ScienceApologist said "You have only attested that alternative reliable sources exist, but I'm pretty sure they don't." So in a matter of 2 minutes I found three

• science daily, a peer reviewed science publication.
• The Telegraph- a daily UK newspaper
• Real Clear Politics - a political magazines.

I didn't even spend any time looking for "alternative reliable sources", yet I managed to find three that are WP:V coming from three deferent fields of study,. Scientific, News and Political, each having a viewpoint saying the Climate Change is a pseudoscience. Please don't misunderstand me, I’m not saying that they are right. I'm not sure one way or the other. However, these "alternative reliable sources" do exist. Bring me to my original point.

Both side of the climate change argument have scientifically backed research to back there claim. They both have experiments that "adhere to a valid scientific methodology" and according to each group, and many independent groups, the other side doesn’t have "scientific status". If this is true then both either pass or fail the definition of "pseudoscience".

Additionally if the criteria for inclusion on this list is simple being "characterized" as "pseudoscience", then my three references are more then enough to show that "Climate change" itself has been "Characterized as pseudoscience" by some WP:V source, even if it isn't really "pseudoscience". However, according to the "Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience" above "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." I submit that those that deny Climate change and those that do believe in Climate change meet this ruling. Meaning just being "characterized" as "pseudoscience" isn't enough for either of these two to be on this list.

You can't have it one way for "Climate change denialism" and the other for "Climate change" at the same time. Either they both are or they both aren’t. Personally I don't believe ether belongs on this list, since neither meets the definition of "pseudoscience".

As to not avoiding "trouble" just because pseudoscientists dislike having been so-labeled." You again missed my point. It had nothing to do with pseudoscientists disliking anything. If someone else put this "trouble" in this list I wouldn’t have said anything. My warning was directed to YOU, noting that YOU should be careful not to start an edit war here, which is what putting "Climate change denialism" on this list is going to do. I was simple trying to, in a nice way, reminded you that you have been cautioned not to edit war, especially when it come to Pseudoscience. Even A13ean was trying to warn you that this topic is heated when he said "I would also like to suggest treading carefully here". The fact that there is such heated discussion just on the idea of including this on this list, you can't believe that this won’t start an edit war, do you? You may find yourself in another Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and you wont be able to say "I didn’t know it would start and edit war", because you have been warned.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your "warnings" are really kinda unacceptable. It takes two to make an edit war. You are saying that if Science Apologist adds this - then you will keep on reverting it. If you're merely telling him not to edit war without that threat - then this is still a breach of WP:AGF. You are required to assume that he would not edit war but merely add the material and seek consensus should it be reverted. So - please take a step back and let's discuss this properly without threats and warnings.

The trouble (again) is that this article is badly named. Naming the article with "characterized as" in order to allow topics to be added to the list with minimal discussion simply isn't good. It allows for things that are patently obviously NOT pseudosciences to be added to the list just because a couple of newspapers with agendas chose to say that they were. We need to call it "List of pseudosciences" and accept that we're going to have to present a more nuanced NPOV in what we say about the things we place on the list. In the case of "Climate Change" - we either have to avoid giving undue weight to a few fringe articles and omit the topic from the list on that basis - or we have to include it and balance the sources that claim that it's pseudoscience against reliable sources that show that Climate Change scientists do indeed follow the scientific method. Such sources are incredibly abundant and outweigh the others by a huge margin. We have (for example) an article in the Daily Telegraph that says it's a pseudoscience - versus countless reliable sources containing peer-reviewed reports of experiments performed and repeated that clearly show that the scientific method is being followed. On that basis we have to exclude what the Telegraph said because it's patently untrue and falls foul of "undue weight". When it comes to the "Climate Change Denialists" we have to ask ourselves whether the evidence in reliable sources that these people also do proper experiments and report them in mainstream journals outweighs the sources that say otherwise. Probably that's enough to justify keeping the denialists out of the list too...but even if it doesn't rise to that standard, it should still be possible to say in our article that the question of whether the denialists are acting pseudoscientifically or not is a difficult one - and we can then offer evidence on both sides of that debate.

However, we can only take that nuanced approach if we are talking about a list of things that actually are pseudosciences rather than a list of topics that have merely been characterized as such. The way the article is now, I think we have to include both sides of the climate change debate in the list because both have been characterized as such. The trouble with that is that the average Wikipedia reader will come away with ENTIRELY the wrong view of the matter...which is unconscionable.

We desperately need to rename this article and act properly to provide a balanced view - including the demands of WP:FRINGE. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, All I am saying it that this topic is so controversial it will lead to an edit war of added by ScienceApologist. WP:AGF apples to me also. Rather then assuming what I’m saying is an attack, why not see it as what it is, someone trying to keep the calm. I was trying very very carful to avoid attacking him or treating him. I made it clear that I wasn’t going to do anything if he added it and I hadn't picked a side on this topic. What I see is two groups of people facing off with each other and ScienceApologist is about to fire the first shot. I was trying to help him avoid an edit war, something he has been warned not to do. What's the point of getting an official Requests for arbitration "Warning" if it's "really kinda unacceptable" (as you put it) to point to it and say "Hay, your going to have the same problem here if you keep this course of action". I was trying to avoid what is obvious just but the contents of this talk page, an edit war if "Climate change denialism" is added by ScienceApologist even if you don't see it that way.

Weather the page should or shouldn't have Climate change denialism or be renames is not a big deal to me. If it's added fine, if not fine, just remember that I warned everone about the war to come, which I will not be part of since I'm not for or against it.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's fair to give warning about impending problems, but that's not a justification to stop editing if reliable sources indicate a particular fact is true. The sources you try to cite that would somehow show that climate science is pseudoscience are not as reliable as the sources I used above. (I don't know why, for example, you think that sciencedaily is a peer-reviewed source. It's not!) I appreciate your input, ARTEST4ECHO, but it really isn't relevant or informed. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - indeed. Since you point it out, let's look closely at the six sources cited so far:

• Science Daily is edited by an 8th grade science teacher and a journalist. They operate mostly as a news aggregator.
• The piece in the Telegraph is an opinion piece by someone whom we assume is a science editor.
• The third "reference" is a political blog.

Not one of the three "sources" contains the word "pseudoscience" anywhere in the text. Not one of the authors has any science qualifications - except that one of the Science Daily editors is an 8th grade science teacher. These are in no way acceptable references for a claim that climate change theory is a pseudo-science - and they do not even rise to the lesser standard of "characterizing" the theory as pseudo-science. Two out of the three pieces are referring to the actions of a single scientist ("Dr Jones") and his refusal to release data on climate change. Does the action of one man damn the thousands of other climatologists?

Now let's examine the case for Climate change denial...

• Science magazine. That's pretty prestigious. It's been around for 130 years. It is most certainly peer reviewed...and it's a secondary source - not a tertiary one such as all three of the previous entries. It is precisely the kind of reference that Wikipedia considers to be the gold standard.
• A report from the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives. A tertiary source - but a pretty damned serious one.
• Science, Technology, & Human Values. A lesser journal - but definitely peer reviewed - and again, a secondary source. Perhaps not on the level of "Science" but still gold-standard stuff.

So - we should conclude that even at the lesser standard of "characterized as" rather than "is" - Climate change theory does not belong here because we have not one single acceptable reference for it - and Climate change denial could be placed here because it does.

QED SteveBaker (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Climate change denialism — in the discussions surrounding the politics of global warming, assertions by some commentators that global warming is either not occurring or is not associated with the anthropogenic rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have been made. Such arguments are criticized for being pseudoscientific as they deny certain facts contained in the scientific consensus on climate change.

After the inclusion

I removed "Climate Change Denial" from the list of pseudoscientific topics. While it certainly is controversial topic, it is not fake science the way the Bermuda Triangle is. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a neutral reference work, the editors won't let themselves be bullied by contributors with a political agenda.

70.26.89.182 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you produce some sources that would illustrate the argument you are trying to make? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the problem is that this isn't a list of pseudosciences - it's a list of things that are "characterized" as pseudoscience. Since climate change clearly has been characterized that way (see the three impeccably solid references that say so) - it does indeed belong on this list - whether it's really pseudoscience or not. We need to rename the list and do this the right way. SteveBaker (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename it to what? The current name was a compromise between people with numerous hell-for-leather agendas - attempting to rename the page is going to open a very large can of multi-party-whoopa$$. --Ludwigs2 23:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The current name works just fine. To do otherwise would mean constant edit wars over what "actually is" a pseudoscience. Do we really want to go back to that battleground? Since Wikipedia's grand purpose is to document the sum total of human knowledge as documented in reliable sources (and we don't want to not use them when we are allowed to do so), this article documents the interesting world of what has been "characterized as pseudoscience". What "actually is" pseudoscience is another matter to be dealt with in the individual articles. So NO, don't change the title. That's a surefire way to open Pandora's box which has been closed very nicely for some time, and which has resulted in a pretty workable list. No raping of Pandora's box. The acceptance of the current title essentially restored her virginity, so let's keep her a virgin....;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the current title is the only way to maintain this page in its current state, but we do need to consider how the lead's wording is leaving much to be desired below. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so long as we all understand that this entire article is as unencyclopedic and tendentious as, say, "List of politicians who have been characterized as socialists." Th fact is one can turn anything into a spittoon if one has spitting on the mind... --Ludwigs2 03:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you see this page as having similar problems to those I see on the page List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, but I respectfully disagree. In particular, mainstream pedagogy in introductory science courses, for example, makes the demarcation between science and pseudoscience rather plainly. I understand that certain (but by no means all or even a majority!) of philosophers of science do not think this approach supportable, useful, or possible, but we've identified loads of high-quality sources for this page which make the opposite case and there don't seem to be many high-quality sources which directly dispute these characterizations. I submit that this page functions similar to a page like List of religions and spiritual traditions or List of discredited substances. jps (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggest restoring this diff

I understand that BullRangifer is concerned that this is going to open a can of worms, but the fact is that I believe this diff gets rid of really ridiculous sentences that are essentially content free. That point A doesn't necessarily imply point B is a fact that does not bear mentioning in the lead. Neither does the claim that "opposing points of view exist". There are "opposing points of view" for almost everything in this encyclopedia, but, worse than that, the wording implies that there are people who believe that the subjects listed actually haven't been characterized as pseudoscience. This is, as far as I can tell, simply false. Finally, the claim that some of the subjects may "be in question" is not worthy of inclusion as it is obvious and the claim that other subjects might "be subject to divided professional opinion" is also irrelevant to the page. We don't need this pandering. We can get rid of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree - that was a messy start to the article. SteveBaker (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed the lead slightly to conform to this. Please discuss if you disagree with my reading of WP:SILENCE. jps (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a little concerned about the phrase:

"...claims made by proponents of ideas not explicitly accepted by the mainstream community"

An idea could be accepted by the mainstream and still be pseudoscience - and an idea could not be accepted by the mainstream and still not be pseudoscience..."acceptance by the mainstream" and the term "pseudoscience" simply don't relate to each other.

Psychiatry and Economics are two that come to mind. Both wear the mantle of science - both are largely accepted by the mainstream - but neither follow "The Scientific Method" (because it's unethical or just impossible to do so). If (as I maintain) the word pseudoscience is not a pejorative but merely a descriptive term - then it's quite possible for some idea to be perfectly acceptable to the mainstream without the work underpinning that idea following the scientific method.

Conversely, we should not give the impression that anything that mainstream science doesn't agree with is a "pseudoscience" - the whole 'cold fusion' fiasco is a perfect example of that. Cold fusion is not accepted by the mainstream - but its proponents (at least in the early days) did experiments, wrote papers, had them peer-reviewed, etc - so it's not a pseudoscience even though its ideas are not widely accepted.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the precise phrasing leaves something to be desired. Why don't you take a crack at it? jps (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why not just end the sentence after the word "critiques"? The rest isn't really necessary, is it? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve, the problem is that you've given a very thin and superficial reading of 'the scientific method' - basically you're saying that psychologists aren't scientific because they don't do what (say) physicists do. But why should psychology do what physics does, and what is it that physics does, anyway? if you look a bit more deeply you'll notice that no one has any really good idea what it is exactly that physics does qua science, or even that physics is uniform enough to claim to have a singular method. You're basically using an outdated (neo-Popperian, perhaps) 'theory-of-everything-scientific' paradigm that any decent philosopher of science would dismiss out of hand.

But whatever... let me take a gander at the lead; maybe I can tweak it. --Ludwigs2 04:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure you changes to the lead was appropriate. I tweaked it using the previous version. QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

lol - QG, that wasn't a tweak, that was a revert - please don't be disingenuous. the revert is fine (I'm not that interested in this silly page), except that I think my version was better. Just for anyone interested in comparing them side by side:

comparison of versions of lead
L2's revision	QG's reversion
This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience. The characterizations listed here have been made by notable persons or groups, and may reflect beliefs held broadly by the scientific community, or by skeptical organizations, or by individual academics and researchers. Some such claims are made to educate the public about questionable scientific claims or potentially fraudulent or dangerous practices, others derive from efforts in the philosophy of science to define the nature of science, still others are indirect claims associated with humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. In general, these characterizations involve critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question. Inclusion on this list does not necessarily indicate the topic is itself a pseudoscience. Topics listed here may have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them, or may be included because certain claims derived from them are characterized as pseudoscientific, may be historically valid but refuted science that has been resurrected in pseudoscientific fashion. They may even be entirely non-scientific topics that have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each section details the particular sense and use of the term pseudoscience for that topic.	This is a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience by the scientific community, skeptical organizations, or academics and researchers. Besides explicitly using the word pseudoscience, some entries have the characteristics of pseudoscience, and therefore inclusion may not necessarily indicate that a given entry is itself pseudoscience. Such characterizations range from specific denunciations to logical, methodological, or rhetorical critiques of claims made by proponents of ideas not explicitly accepted by the mainstream community. Also included are important concepts associated with the main entries. Some such concepts are stated to educate the public about questionable scientific claims or potentially fraudulent or dangerous practices, other concepts derive from efforts in the philosophy of science to define the nature of science, still others are notable parodies of pseudoscientific concepts. Some subjects in this list may have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them. For instance, some proposed explanations for hypnosis have been criticized for being pseudoscientific, and there is still no general consensus as to whether hypnosis is a real phenomenon or only a form of suggestion and role-enacting. 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.

Quick straw poll - which do people think is better?--Ludwigs2 12:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the way you organize your lead, but I'm uncomfortable with what seems to me like bending-over-backwards to argue that there "may be" scientific reserach "ongoing" in these subjects. As far as I know, none of the subjects listed here as written are subject to anything like the amount of scientific research that is being expended on say, ctenophoras or Amalthea or zingiberene. Even the big subjects on our list like "chiropractic" support less scientific research than any of these obscure subjects. jps (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

jps, if you're talking specifically about line 2 of paragraph 2, then I do see your point. I wasn't entirely comfortable with the way that was phrased myself (it was a bit that I held over from the previous version) but I couldn't think of a better way at that time to phrase it (it was late here). I'd be happy to see it revised - maybe "Topics listed here may be actual pseudosciences, or may be questionable fields some legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them, or may be included because certain claims derived from them are characterized as pseudoscientific, or may be historically valid but refuted science that has been resurrected in pseudoscientific fashion." better? feel free to revise - my main goal was to refocus the lead to present the various contexts in which such characterizations occur. --Ludwigs2 16:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a crack:

This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience. The characterizations are made by academics and researchers and may reflect beliefs either held broadly by the scientific community or by skeptical organizations. Determinations of pseudoscience are made in the context of educating the public about questionable scientific claims or potentially fraudulent or dangerous practices, or as the result of efforts to define the nature of science, or as humorous parody of poor scientific reasoning. I

Topics listed here may have been subjected to scientific research in the past and may continue to be investigated by scientific research programs. Some of the ideas may have been at one time considered to be valid but have been later refuted and been resurrected in pseudoscientific fashion. Some ideas included are entirely non-scientific topics that have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each example includes details of the particular sense of the pseudoscientific characterization of that topic.

Help!

jps (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

well, we have to be careful not to imply that these actually are pseudosciences (since some of them clearly aren't). That basically affects lines two and three of the first paragraph, which come a bit close to implying that all of these topics are actually pseudosciences and are broadly recognized as such. can we write them instead as follows? "Characterizations are usually made by academics and researchers in the context of educating the public about questionable scientific claims or potentially fraudulent or dangerous practices, or as the result of philosophical efforts to define the nature of science, or as humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. They may reflect beliefs broadly held by the scientific community at large, or the opinions held by individual skeptics or skeptical organizations." Sorry, but we can't let this page sidle from discussing characterizations to making implied claims of facticity. --Ludwigs2 06:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good points to keep in mind. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to converge:

This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable, potentially fraudulent, or dangerous claims and practices, efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. Criticism of pseudoscience by the scientific community or skeptical organizations generally involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question.

Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others listed here were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted and resurrected in pseudoscientific fashions. Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific but have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each example includes details of the particular sense of the pseudoscientific characterization of that topic.

Let's keep going!

jps (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

well, honestly, I've read this over about 12 times looking for an objection, and there's only two things I come up with:

• The second sentence should read: "in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices" - pure grammar check.
• The third sentence should read: "Criticism of pseudoscience, generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations, involves critiques..."

the second suggestion does two things: (1) it separates the criticism from the community, so that there are no assumptions about who is doing the critique, and (2) attaches the critique form (logical, methodological, etc.) to the criticism, rather than to the group making the criticism. Basically, I don't want to say that pseudoscience is illogical because the scientific community says it's illogical; I want to say that it's illogical on its own scientific merits, and the scientific community just confirms and discusses that. Ultimately that makes the issue more scientific and less political (e.g., creation science isn't pseudoscience because scientists say so; creation science is pseudoscience because if fails on evidentiary grounds, and scientists just report the failure). see the difference I'm reaching for?

Otherwise, I think we're in agreement. feel free to edit it in (as far as I'm concerned). --Ludwigs2 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions all. I've made the final proposal below. We'll wait for further comments before going live. jps (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Final proposal

This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices, efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. Criticism of pseudoscience, generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations, involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question. Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted and resurrected in a pseudoscientific fashion. Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific but have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each example includes details of the particular sense of the pseudoscientific characterization of that topic.

Ball Lightning

I'm not sure ball lightning is "no longer doubted by modern science". We have no reliable direct evidence, such as photos or video, that is not otherwise explainable. There's no real agreement on the physical characteristics of it. (Some reports describe slowly "rolling" balls of light that may pass through other objects or vanish like a popped bubble upon being touched, while others describe violent dancing or ricocheting behavior the ends with an explosive bang; they have no generally agreed-upon color, shape, or duration; there are no consistent conditions under which it appears; and so on.) While it seems there is a general acceptance that there's some actual phenomenon at work, there is no one generally accepted theory (or even two or three competing theories) that can adequately explain and predict its behavior; and the possible explanations that we do have are all over the place, ranging from vaporized silicon to microscopic black holes to visual hallucinations caused by lightning's magnetic pulse.

There does seem to be widespread acceptance that some phenomenon is at work, but it seems strange to say that scientists "no longer doubt" its existence when we can't even adequately define what we're talking about!

This entry should either be removed (as it's neither clearly true, nor considered obvious pseudoscience), or moved to a different section to reflect the fact that it has not been significantly explained. Ball lightning certainly doesn't fall into the same category with continental drift and meteors, both of which have vast quantities of observable evidence and experimental data backing them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.192.236.140 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's a good example of a "no longer doubted" idea. There is no single scientific consensus that say "The phenomenon of ball lighting is..." and goes on to explain the entire thing. There are a bunch of fairly small claims - many of which contradict each other - or only cover a small section of the range of phenomena that have been claimed to exist. It's not exactly pseudo-science, because people are seriously considering the problem - but it's definitely not a done-deal yet. It certainly doesn't belong on the same scale of certainty as the other things we use as examples. SteveBaker (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree- this entry seems rather out of place here. A13ean (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denialism (2)

I am concerned the sources provided do not really support the inclusion of climate change denial as a topic characterized as pseudoscience. The first reference is an editorial in the journal Science. It laments an early Bush administration environmental policy decision and talks about the growing scientific consensus. However, it never really addresses 'climate change denial', it only addresses legitimate skeptics and very briefly at that. Naturally it never uses the term 'pseudoscience'. The second source is a report put out by Democrats on a congressional committee that does not seem to be available online. In any case, I assume such a partisan account would not be a reliable source. The third source is a lengthy journal editorial, which again doesn't appear to address 'climate change denial' or label it as pseudoscientific. In fact, in the last paragraph the author actually states, "As shown by countless social studies of science, science is intimately and inextricably interlinked with politics, and no transcendent definitions exist by which to distinguish true science from 'pseudoscience.'" I am open to the idea that climate change denialism might be characterized by reliable sources as pseudoscience, but I don't see it yet. –CWenger (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. Biophys (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine

I don't understand why it is listed here. The entry on the topic makes a poor description of it (which could even be described as misrepresentation) and does not clearly states why it should be consider pseudoscience (appart of using quotes to denote words being used with irony, I guess). Furthermore, anthroposophical medicine can only be practiced by physicians who have a conventional medical education, including a degree from an established and certified medical school. In fact, there is plenty of research published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic and it is recognized by governments in Central Europe (such as Germany and Switzerland) where there are several hospitals completely ran by anthroposophic doctors. For reference look for the Health Technology Assessment Report on Anthroposophic Medicine that was comissioned by the Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office, which was published in English as the book "Anthroposophic Medicine" by Kienle, Kiene and Albornico edited by Schattauer GmbH. In addition, several universities in Germany and Switzerland have departments in their medicine faculties which are devoted to Anthroposophical Medicine (for example at Witten/Herdecke University and the University of Bern). How can this be considered pseudoscience? I think this is a case of bias because most information is published in a language different from English. Please also note that in the wikipedia page for Anthroposophical medicine there is mention of the criticism to this branch of medicine but it's not stated that it should be considered pseudoscience.Asinthior (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a mixture of religious beliefs and scientific medicine. That mixture makes it pseudoscientific because the religious philosophy is the driving force which interprets everything. That those who practice it are licensed medical physicians is irrelevant. Many, if not most, practitioners of quackery are licensed MDs. If the main article lacks a description of it as being considered pseudoscientific by someone (with references), then it should include that information. THAT is the proper solution to your dilemma.

As far as this list is concerned, that content is very well sourced. Note that it is not listed "as" a pseudoscience, but as a topic "characterized" as pseudoscience. There is a difference. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I will grant you that there is a spiritual philosophy at the root of Anthoposophic Medicine (AM), after all it was created based in Anthroposophy. Although it probably doesn't really matter for the point you're trying to make, I'd like to distinguish between religious beliefs (i.e. religion) and spiritual philosophy. Quoting from Wikipedia itself:

"The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures..."

While Anthroposophy can be arguably characterized as a belief system (although I think it is actually a school of thought or philosophy) it is most definitely not a religion. In fact, there is a christian religious movement whose creation was inspired by Anthroposophy.

But going back to your answer, the fact that the interpretation of data is arguably driven by a philosophy, does not constitute a characteristic of pseudoscience. I am not conceding that is the case for AM, I'm just saying that your argument does not justify classifying AM as pseudoscience. The article on pseudoscience in wikipedia emphasizes falsifiability and scientific methodology as criteria to identify pseudoscience. I will get back to this point later, but I would also like to discuss the other identifying characteristics of pseudoscience (also from the wikipedia article):

1 Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

2 Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

3 Lack of openness to testing by other experts

4 Absence of progress

5 Personalization of issues

6 Use of misleading language

I believe a topic that gets published in peer-reviewed international journals fails to meet the criteria above. I have no idea how to insert a list of publications here, so I'll just copy and paste it below:

1. Stenius F, Swartz J, Lindblad F, Pershagen G, Scheynius A, Alm J, Theorell T. Low salivary cortisol levels in infants of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2010 Nov;35(10):1431-7. Epub 2010 Jul 2. PMID 20580492.
2. Rosenlund H, Bergström A, Alm JS, Swartz J, Scheynius A, van Hage M, Johansen K, Brunekreef B, von Mutius E, Ege MJ, Riedler J, Braun-Fahrländer C, Waser M, Pershagen G; PARSIFAL Study Group. Allergic disease and atopic sensitization in children in relation to measles vaccination and measles infection. Pediatrics. 2009 Mar;123(3):771-8. PMID 19255001.
3. Büssing A, Ostermann T, Majorek M, Matthiessen PF. Eurythmy Therapy in clinical studies: a systematic literature review. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008 Mar 31;8:8. Review. PMID 18377647; PMC 2322948.
4. Bar-Sela G, Atid L, Danos S, Gabay N, Epelbaum R. Art therapy improved depression and influenced fatigue levels in cancer patients on chemotherapy. Psychooncology. 2007 Nov;16(11):980-4. PMID 17351987.
5. Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Wegscheider K, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Anthroposophic vs. conventional therapy for chronic low back pain: a prospective comparative study. Eur J Med Res. 2007 Jul 26;12(7):302-10. PMID 17933703.
6. Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Anthroposophic medical therapy in chronic disease: a four-year prospective cohort study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2007 Apr 23;7:10. PMID 17451595; PMC 1876246.
7. Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Eurythmy therapy in chronic disease: a four-year prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2007 Apr 23;7:61. PMID 17451596; PMC 1868723.
8. Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Health costs in anthroposophic therapy users: a two-year prospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Jun 2;6:65. PMID 16749921; PMC 1513220.
9. Alfvén T, Braun-Fahrländer C, Brunekreef B, von Mutius E, Riedler J, Scheynius A, van Hage M, Wickman M, Benz MR, Budde J, Michels KB, Schram D, Ublagger E, Waser M, Pershagen G; PARSIFAL study group. Allergic diseases and atopic sensitization in children related to farming and anthroposophic lifestyle--the PARSIFAL study. Allergy. 2006 Apr;61(4):414-21. PMID 16512802.
10. Alm JS, Swartz J, Björkstén B, Engstrand L, Engström J, Kühn I, Lilja G, Möllby R, Norin E, Pershagen G, Reinders C, Wreiber K, Scheynius A. An anthroposophic lifestyle and intestinal microflora in infancy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2002 Dec;13(6):402-11. PMID 12485315.
11. Bettermann H, von Bonin D, Frühwirth M, Cysarz D, Moser M. Effects of speech therapy with poetry on heart rate rhythmicity and cardiorespiratory coordination. Int J Cardiol. 2002 Jul;84(1):77-88. PMID 12104068.
12. Matricardi PM, Rosmini F, Rapicetta M, Gasbarrini G, Stroffolini T. Atopy, hygiene, and anthroposophic lifestyle. San Marino Study Group. Lancet. 1999 Jul 31;354(9176):430. PMID 10437907.
13. Alm JS, Swartz J, Lilja G, Scheynius A, Pershagen G. Atopy in children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle. Lancet. 1999 May 1;353(9163):1485-8. PMID 10232315.

These are a few selected published papers I thought would serve to make the point. As you can see they have been published in prestigious peer-reviewed international medical journals (by the was there is a LOT more published in German, hence my original point that the scientific community is overlooking information published in a language other than English, which I understand as German is not the easiest language to learn as a foreign language). So if studies are being publishes in journals such as the Lancet, I don't think you can argue AM is making untestable claims or that it lacks openness to testing by other experts. In fact, this list itself proves there is no absence of progress, as there is research going on. I believe AM also doesn't meet any of the other criteria from the list.

I would like to go back to falsifiability and the scientific method. AM is falsifiable, you just need to treat patients and see how they react to the treatment. I am aware, however, that it does not abide to the gold standard of double-blind randomized clinical trials. This is because the treatment is highly individualized, however, there are other standards that could be used such as metaanalysis of published single cases. Double-blind randomized clinical trials are not the only methodology available to clinical research these days. I am not an expert, but I'm sure that if we would argue that double-blind randomized clinical trials were a requisite to be considered science (as opposed to pseudoscience) medicine itself would not hold to this standard.

One final comment, about your remark on quackery. Yes, quackery is mostly promoted by MDs, but I would argue most of them do not really hold the credentials required by most governments to exercise medical practice. But even if that were not the case, quackery and pseudoscience are two conceptually different things. I would say quackery is based on pseudoscience, it uses pseudoscientific claims to sell a product or service. It is my impression that quackery fools people intentionally to profit from them. Pseudoscience does not necessarily do that, in fact it is often promoted by people who honestly believe it to be true. In any case, the fact that organizations that teach AM require that students hold a MD degree before they start learning AM show a commitment to ensure that physicians are adequately trained to treat their patients. Also, the fact that they are organized in an international federation that oversees their members shows accountability on their part, something I'm sure is not present in quackery. So, I do think that just as a university requires a researcher to hold a university degree to ensure the applicant is qualified to perform scientific research (although this does not prevent some researcher from falsifying results) and this is why universities mostly produce science and not pseudoscience, the fact that AM requires a regular medical license from its students, supports the idea that they strive for scientific standards. Asinthior (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Please send me an email message through my user page if you reply to this, as I only seldom log on to wikipedia.

There was a comment here that is there no more that said something like the list was well sourced, in case you wonder what I was replying to. Asinthior (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back to where it belonged. Don't split my comment. The comment is above where it belongs. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I fail to see the connection of your post to the point I raise. I'm not referring to the whole list, only to Anthroposophic Medicine (AM). I'd like to know what do you mean by "very well sourced" when referring to AM. Additionally, in the particular case of AM, and the way it's characterized in the paragraph describing it, it is my impression AM is being portrayed as pseudoscience and not as being "characterized as" pseudoscience. While I appreciate your raising the point that there's a difference, I'm not sure this contributes to the question I'm asking as to why AM should be considered pseudoscience. Asinthior (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Those who "characterize" AM as pseudoscience are in fact stating that it "is" pseudoscience, but we at Wikipedia do not take sides. We provide the sources that "characterize" AM as pseudoscience. We at Wikipedia don't state that AM "is" pseudoscience. We let the sources do it. That's basically the job of Wikipedia,... to document what RS say. There are some forms of pseudoscience which are so clearly pseudoscientific that even the PSI ArbCom decision (see the top of this page) allows us to categorize them "as" (= "is") pseudoscience, and we then can use such language, but still only after providing RS that do so before we do so. In many other cases there are RS in the real world (and we're supposed to document facts and opinions in the real world) which call some things "pseudoscientific", but there may be some question about the matter, so we can only allow them to be mentioned here if we are very circumspect in our approach, hence the "characterized" part of the title. They get mentioned, but aren't characterized by Wikipedia "as" pseudoscience, but sources that do so are used. Is that clear as mud? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Clear as mud alright. But I get what you mean, sort of. Still, if Wikipedia is trying to offer a balanced portray, shouldn't the article include references to publications that consider Anthroposophic Medicine (AM) legitimate. I don't have the references with me right now, but I know the Swiss government commissioned an assessment on cost and effectivity of AM. It was published as a book in English. And there's also several replies to the paper by Ernst, of course by AM physicians. Shouldn't they be referenced?

Also, I would like to change the structure of the paragraph. Start by what Carroll and Ernst say, and then give a more neutral definition of what AM is (which I think is what the previous part of the paragraph does). That way it would be clearer that only some people characterizes AM as pseudoscience.Asinthior (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This list isn't the place for a long portrayal or defense of AM. That would be off-topic and bloat the section. The AM article is the place to do that. It is the pseudoscientific aspects that are on-topic here. Likewise the aspects that aren't pseudoscientific aren't relevant here, and in no place on earth would they have any bearing on a defense of the pseudoscientific aspects. No one denies that there are mainstream, scientifically defensible aspects. That's good, but it doesn't excuse the other.

The whole idea with this list is to give a very brief statement that contains two elements: (1) RS which characterize an idea or practice as pseudoscientific, and (2) which aspects are so described. The aspects that aren't so described are irrelevant here. Those are discussed in full detail in their respective main articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how having a department gives it more credibility, homeopathy has departments in some universties also. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, but I would argue that universities are the place where most scientific research takes place. Aren't they supposed to only have scientific departments in their faculties of science? Asinthior (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point you are making is. Other universities exist with homeopathic schools/departments in a handful of universities, this doesn't mean it isn't characterized as pseudoscience, same with anthrosophical medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is: shouldn't universities stay away from pseudoscience and shouldn't having a department at a science faculty in a credited university be taken as evidence of scientific research?

I see however, that to the editors of this list it that is not the case. I can't change my POV but I do admit there is no law or regulation of any kind that says something studied at a university can't be pseudoscience. I guess it's just a generalized assumption that universities do science and not pseudoscience. Still, though I won't argue again that AM be retired from the list solely on the grounds of there being departments studying it at universities, I think having a department at a university does give credibility to anything, regardless of its status as science or pseudoscience....

That means I'm conceding this particular point. Asinthior (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For balance, if you can find reliable sources (such as the universities' websites), you could include in this article a statement of which universities have departments of anthroposophic medicine - and, if it's not already included, in the AM article. hgilbert (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Per my comment above, that would be off-topic and bloat the section. Do that in the main AM article. It would be very welcome there. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that's a good idea. I'll see what I can do.Asinthior (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the information I could gather:

Universität Witten/Herdecke

Lehrstuhl für Medizintheorie, Integrative und Anthroposophische Medizin

[Department for Medicine theory, and Integrative and Anthroposophical Medicine]

http://www.uni-wh.de/gesundheit/lehrstuhl-medizintheorie/

Research Fields:

Theoretische und physiologischen Grundlagen der Komplementärmedizin

[Theoretical and physiological principles of complementary medicine]

Psychophysiologische Grundlagen der Komplementärmedizin

[Psycho-physiological principles of complementary medicine]

Komplementär- und Integrativmedizinische Systeme

[Complementary and integrative medical systems]

Ausbildungsforschung Integrative und Anthroposophische Medizin

[Research on the training for integrative and anthroposophical medicine]

Forschungsmethoden und Informationssysteme in der Komplementärmedizin

[Research methods and information systems in complementary medicine]

University of Bern

Kollegiale Instanz für Komplementärmedizin (KIKOM)

Institute of Complementary Medicine

http://www.kikom.unibe.ch/content/index_eng.html

Research topics:

1) optimisation of homeopathic pharmaceutical procedures

2) elucidation of the mode of action of homeopathic remedies.

Any suggestions on where or how I should insert them?Asinthior (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In the main AM article, not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops - I've already added some of this here. Surely anything that has bearing on the question of whether or not the label pseudoscientific applies is relevant here, however. hgilbert (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The appropriateness of the label isn't really relevant here. That would involve a long discussion of the nature of pseudoscience and defense of AM. That would be more appropriate in the main AM article. Likewise, the subject of pseudoscience is dealt with in its own article. This list is for briefly documenting that some aspects of a topic have been "characterized as pseudoscience". That's all. We're documenting what RS in the real world have said. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expert of wikipedia standards but a more experienced user told me this: "in this particular article references must be given that show that the subject has been characterized as pseudoscience and, by WP:NPOV, counter evidence should also be allowed". And I think that makes sense.Asinthior (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well - we have to be careful not to create a POV fork by presenting (or allowing to be presented) only one side of the question. That would be a rather clear violation of Wikipedia standards (and general ethics, as well). hgilbert (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Talk:Vedic science contains some interesting discussions about Ayurveda and at the end even mentions astrology. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Import of article

BullRangifer suggests that this list only documents that aspects of a topic have been characterized as pseudoscience. If we do intend this to be true, we would have to eliminate the editorializing, such as:Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted but resurrected in a pseudoscientific fashion. Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific but have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. This clearly suggests that at least many of the topics here are actually pseudoscientific. This is surely true, of course, but if we include it here then the article is clearly claiming much more than mere incidents of characterization. Should we rewrite the intro to ensure that we are strictly keeping to a documentation of incidences of labeling? Or should we accept that there is a further implication both implied and directly stated and take the consequences? (This is really a continuation of the on-going discussion about the tenor and intent of this article, a discussion that will probably never be settled unequivocally.) hgilbert (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science, or medical conclusions

A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for science, physics, or medical concusions is happening here[2]. PPdd (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical pseudoscience.

This article lack any theory that have previously been considered pseudoscience but is now considered fact. I added Copernican heliocentrism as it is one of the most notorious example of when the scientific consensus have been proven in their classification of something as pseudoscience. Another well known example is evolution that was branded as pseudoscience. If it is wrong to add these theories then "at one point or another in their history" should be removed from the initial description off the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.91.246 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an important distinction between ideas that are eventually proven to be wrong - and pseudoscience. The critical distinction is that:

1. Pseudoscience claims the trappings of science without following the usual precepts of the scientific method.
2. Pseudoscience may or may not ultimately turn out to be correct - that doesn't matter either way.

I don't think that Copernican heliocentricism is now - or ever was - a "pseudoscience". Copernicus measured planetary motions in a scientific manner - doing proper scientific observations (his observation of Aldeberan and the motion of the moon, are certainly notable new data - properly recorded and analyzed) and he came up with a solid mathematical model based on those measurements. He published his works in a manner consistent with scientific practices of his day. The fact that he made some mistakes is inevitable given the lack of knowledge on which to build and the nature of the instruments available for collecting data. But making mistakes doesn't make it pseudoscience. We don't call Newtonian mechanics "pseudoscience" even though they are known to be wildly incorrect at high velocities and were put together by a guy who was a notorious alchemist.

Hence I fully support the reversion of your addition to the article. It doesn't belong there.

However, I strongly disagree with Czolgolz's reason for reverting.

We absolutely can and should list "historical" pseudosciences...even if they ultimately happened to be true. "truth" is absolutely not the issue here - making scientific claims and yet failing to use the scientific method is what constitutes a pseudoscience. The alchemists believed you could turn lead into gold without any scientific basis for making that claim...and indeed, we now know that by irradiating lead atoms with just the right kind of radiation, you can cause some of them to be transmuted into gold atoms. Alchemy is still a pseudoscience.

This is not "List of failed scientific theories".

SteveBaker (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh - and the reason that "This article lack any theory that have previously been considered pseudoscience but is now considered fact." is because if you follow the scientific principles - you generally end up with something that's at least close to the truth - but if you do things pseudoscientifically - then the odds of you happening to guess the way that universe works are rather small. Hence few pseudoscientific endeavors actually turn out to correctly produce fact...that's the reason that pseudoscience is so very rarely the way that modern technology improves. My (somewhat contrived) example of how the alchemists turned out to be correct about the possibility of turning lead into gold is a matter of purest luck on their behalf. SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to include 'historical' pseudoscience here, that list will be longer than the article. The existence of meteorites, continental drift, germs, rocketry, etc, were all considered purest fantasy by many of the greatest scientists of the time, and yet were ultimately proven correct. I think we'd be opening a can of worms to include every scientific theory that was originally met with skepticism. Czolgolz (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, NO!! You didn't read a word of what I wrote!!

A failed, misunderstood, disbelieved or otherwise contested scientific idea isn't necessarily pseudoscience. Please look up the definition of the word. Here is the acid test:

We only call something "pseudoscience" if the proponents of the idea were making statements of a scientific nature without following the scientific method.

No in fact we don't. People often call something pseudoscience because of their own bias and believes. The consensus on Copernicus and Darwin did not consider their works to follow the scientific method. If it actually do follow the scientific method or not is irrelevant, it is the scientific consensus that is relevant. If this topic is to be about things that are in fact pseudoscience then we have another problem, as this article is based on current scientific consensus and not absolute truth.

The scientists who decried (let's say) continental drift didn't do that because the proponents of continental drift failed to follow the scientific method. So they didn't call the theory 'pseudoscience' - they simply said it was incorrect. So even at the time, it wouldn't have passed the acid test. We don't call "Cold Fusion" 'pseudoscience' either - the proper methods were basically followed - even though the hypothesis turned out to be incorrect due to experimental error.

But in any case, before we could conceivably add meteorites, continental drift, germs or rocketry to this list, we'd have to find a reliable source that says that these areas of study were considered pseudosciences. I very much doubt that you'll find such a thing...and this discussion ends right there. It doesn't matter a damn what you or I think. If you don't have at least one reliable source that says something like "X is pseudoscience" - then X doesn't go into the article - period.

The subjects i chosen clearly have those requirements in their article. Both Copernicus and and Darwin was not considered to have followed valid scientific method by the scientists at their time. Both articles have plenty of evidence of that. The word pseudoscience did not exist at their time, but all the criteria for pseudoscience was applied to these theories by the scientific community.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspect you're wrong about Copernicus, who predates modern science, and Darwin's science was considered valid by many scientists and philosophers such as Mill, though disputed by others, notably Sedgwick. The definitions and requirements of science were still emerging at that time, but the term pseudo-science apparently existed as it was applied to phrenology in 1843 according to our article: I've not read the source for that. . . . dave souza, talk 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We've got one, at least in part.... see phrenology and this analysis by John van Wyhe . . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Should historical examples not be left for pseudoscience? there doesn't appear to be many examples which were labelled as pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Phrenology was, and is. . . dave souza, talk 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible move?

I wonder how people would feel about a potential move to List of pseudoscientific topics or simply List of pseudosciences. I think the current title is overly cautious and redundant. Obviously anything in this article has been characterized as pseudoscientific by reliable sources or it wouldn't be listed here, so the "characterized as" phrase is unnecessary. And if something is characterized as pseudoscience by a reliable source, we should simply report that it is pseudoscience according to "verifiability, not truth". –CWenger (^ • @) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this because I don't feel like another epic discussion like this one, which ended in List of pseudosciences being renamed to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Some characterisations as pseudoscience are obvious, some are borderline (e.g. psychoanalysis), and some are mere rhetorics (Scientology organisations calling psychiatry pseudoscience would be an obvious example). We try to keep the latter category out, but of course there is no consensus where that starts. The present title helps to keep peace here. This was once one of Wikipedia's most contentious articles, and the fact that at the moment it isn't proves that the title is good. Hans Adler 18:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this issue comes up periodically - best to look over the talk page archives. really it comes down to a balance around not implying some thing actually is a pseudoscience while accommodating the verifiable fact that it was called a pseudoscience by someone reputable. difficult issue in the best of times. --Ludwigs2 19:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize there was an extensive discussion history here—I tend to jump the gun a lot. But even after skimming through those, I don't see the issue with just calling it List of pseudosciences. Again, if reliable sources call something a pseudoscience, we include it, and if somebody disagrees we just point to WP:V. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the talk page archives if you can't imagine where that approach would lead. Hans Adler 19:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources have said that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, too, and that the Pope is the Antichrist. Shall we fly with these? And if you look at some of the things Linus Pauling has said, we could really have a field day. One swallow does not a summer make, nor one cranky skeptic's comments a pseudoscience. hgilbert (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you would have a hard time finding a reliable source saying that about Obama or the Pope. They might report on the controversy but either not take a side or conclude against the allegations. (This is ironic because I was involved in an extended discussion on this at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.) Even a notable person (e.g. Linus Pauling) saying something doesn't mean it's said by a reliable source. These are important distinctions. In any case these points are more relevant to article content rather than title in my mind. List of pseudosciences would actually have a higher threshold for inclusion. But if nobody agrees with me on this I won't pursue it further. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I too oppose a title change per Hans Adler's and Ludwigs2's arguments. They are correct. The current title avoids lots of conflict and allows us to document what's happening in the real world without taking sides. That's our job here anyway. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is a home for all sorts of scientifically testable claims that are herein dismissed as 'pseudoscience'

For instance, what is "pseudoscientific" about cattle mutilations? Either they happen or they don't, and if they do happen, they are naturally susceptible to the claims and rigors of scientific investigation. Ditto for 'parapsychology,' which has achieved a level of replicability that is almost impossible to dissent from if one invokes a dispassionate assessment of the evidence, which is really the essence of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.38.82 (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic Programming

I think Neuro-linguistic Programming should be on this list. It is considered to be pseudoscience by scientists (see Neuro-linguistic_programming). Any arguments against putting NLP in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.187.19.61 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of creation science related studies from list

Recognizing that statements by an organization of scientists (i.e. "xyz scientific academy", etc) does not make something pseudoscience, I propose that the following sections be deleted, considering there are numerous legitimate scientific books, based on the scientific method, published on topics in these areas, which seem to contradict the "reliable" source of a statement made by a group of scientists that appear to have an agenda:

All text for each section is direct from the Wikipedia page that was restored by Bogdangiusca. My comments are below each section, indented:

Creation Science - belief that the origin of everything in the universe is the result of a first cause, brought about by a creator deity, and that this thesis is supported by geological, biological, and other scientific evidence.

This is the "parent" to many others below

Creation Biology - subset of creation science that tries to explain biology without macroevolution

The study of creation without macroevolution classifies something as pseudoscience? Last I checked macroevolution was a theory.

Creationist cosmologies – cosmologies which, among other things, allow for a universe that is only thousands of years old.

Again, the study of the universe based on an age of thousands of years, makes something pseudoscience? Does that mean that people who believe it's 5 billion years old, also think that those who believe it's 9 billion years old are studying it based on pseudoscience?

Flood geology – creationist form of geology that advocates most of the geologic features on Earth are explainable by a global flood

Another, multiple published books that look at scientific evidence in existence today, perform real experiments on scale models, and match them up to characteristics of the earth. How this classifies as pseudoscience (besides the fact that it's written about in the Bible) I hardly know. Perhaps archaeology of the city of Tyre, Jericho, and ancient Jersualem is also "pseudoscience" because the Bible talks about it.

Intelligent design – maintains that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Same as above. ID publications & books look at evidence & conclude that some form of intelligence is behind what is seen in that instance. Whereas evolutionists presume there MUST be no intelligence, ID proponents conclude there appears to be intelligence. One presumes, the other concludes, and yet those who conclude based on evidence are labeled as pseudoscience.

Specified Complexity

See ID above

I rarely edit on wikipedia, I just don't have time, so I'm not sure the entire process for making these changes on the main article itself. Personally, I think the case I've made is clear and concise, and now I believe it is on Bogdangiusca to rebut my points if he believes that these should still in fact be declared pseudoscience. Barwick (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is about topics that are characterized as pseudoscience by scientists. All of the above are since they ignore and are contrary to the evidence, whatever you may claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're trying a proof by hand-waving (much like those who claim these are "pseudoscience"). Barwick (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

FIRSTLY: The problem with all of those topics is that the proponents do indeed claim that what they do is science - yet they do not do proper experiments or write up their findings in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. That is what makes them pseudosciences. A pseudoscience is a field that claims to be science - but which doed not follow the scientific method in making its' pronouncements. Let's take one of these topics more or less at random: Flood geology.

Whitcomb and Morris (proponents of Flood geology) claim that the reason dinosaur fossils are buried deeper in the ground than (say) monkeys is because the dinosaurs were denser and therefore sank to the bottom of the floodwaters first. Well, OK, we can be open-minded about this. That's a somewhat interesting new hypothesis. But a new hypothesis has to explain all of the facts that are adequately explained by the existing hypothesis or it cannot be considered valid. This hypothesis fails on many counts. For example, we see delicate fossil proto-birds that are buried in layers deeper than monsterous things like T-Rex. T-Rex's have massively solid, dense bones - proto-birds have light, hollow bones. We know the proto-birds had to have a very low density because they could fly. You might argue that the T-Rex also had a low density, but then how do you explain that they are always found in deeper layers than (say) mammoths? T-rex cannot simultaneously be denser than a mammoth and less dense than a proto-bird - so why does it exist in a layer between the two? How do they explain fossils of animals like crocodiles and sharks that have existed from the time of the dinosaurs until the present - whose fossils are found at many different depths? Were there crocs with many different body densities around in the pre-flood oceans? If so, how the heck did the densest ones swim without sinking and the lightest ones avoid bobbing up the surface? Surely all ancient crocodiles had to be more or less identical in density in order to bask on the surface of the water for weeks at a time without consuming too much energy?

The list of problems with the hypothesis goes on and on - but being merely coming up with hypotheses that are obviously wrong isn't enough to get your field labelled "pseudoscience". To get that label, you also have to fail to apply the scientific method.

If this were real science, they'd have measured the density of various fossils as a function of burial depth. Where is the list of fossils that they measured? Where did they publish the detailed description of the methods used to obtain this data? Where is the data they obtained? Where did they publish the graph of depth versus body density? Where did other scientists independently repeat their results? In what peer-reviewed journal was all of this information published?

Without the proponents even attempting to answer these questions (which standard geology and evolutionary biology explains beautifully) - they aren't just talking incorrect or bad science. The critical fact is that they aren't doing science at all. Hence we give them the label "pseudoscience".

SECONDLY: Rightly or wrongly, this page is not "List of pseudosciences" it is "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience". That said, note that we have referenced between one and four reliable sources for each one of those topics. Each of those little blue numbers links to a document someplace where someone with some reasonable degree of scientific standing said "Topic XYZ is a pseudoscience". That constitutes a "characterization" of that topic - so what we're claiming here is undeniably true. You may argue (as I have) that this is a poor choice for a list, and we really ought to be writing "List of pseudosciences" (which would change or eliminate some of the entries) - but consensus has been to not head out in that direction.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between a poor scientist, and a pseudoscientist. Without digging into your example too much, and not trying to defend them, you've just performed scientific debate on their theory. Whether you disproved it or not doesn't make it pseudoscience. It may make it "not the right theory", but it's hardly pseudoscience.

There are plenty of creation scientists out there who *have* done those same experiments, and have plausible theories out there. Even if they're disproven, that doesn't make them pseudoscience. Do you know how many scientific theories have been disproven in history? None of them were pseudoscience.

Heck, the current theory, about sedimentary layers being the source for the fossils we see today, is riddled with holes, but I'm not calling it pseudoscience, just "not the right theory".

In short, if you want to disprove the theory, all power to you, but you can't call it pseudoscience just because it's been disproven. As a matter of fact, the fact that it can be falsified puts another check in the "is it science?" box on the "yes" side Barwick (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to logically argue that Creation science is not widely characterized as non-scientific and pseudo-science? If so, it might help to remember that it's not our job to make the arguments. Please stick to discussing specific sources and article issues. aprock (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I already did that, I pointed out that a "statement by a group of scientists" does not make something pseudoscience. You can equally find a group of Creation Scientists who, if they weren't intellectually honest (as I believe these "groups of scientists" are being intellectually dishonest), could also put together a statement saying "The study of Macroevolution is pseudoscience". That doesn't necessarily make it so.

Barwick (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed " a difference between a poor scientist, and a pseudoscientist" - that is precisely what I tried to explain in my previous post. The arguments against (to choose that one example) flood geology easily demonstrate that it is poorly reasoned - it is indeed 'poor science'. But (as I went to some pains to point out) that's absolutely not what makes it pseudoscience. It's pseudoscience because they didn't measure anything, they didn't document what they measured and how, they didn't give other scientists the opportunity to repeat their experiments or examine their data. In short, they didn't actually do any science - they thought up some idea and wrote books about what they thought up. That's not real science - that's (as Richard Dawkins calls it) "Cargo Cult Science". It's what you get when you've seen scientists in movies coming up with some idea without understanding the actual scientific process that real science requires one to undertake.

A good example of poor science that isn't pseudoscience is cold fusion. It turned out to be false - and a lot of people deluded themselves into thinking it was true - but because they used the scientific method, it was possible for others to attempt to duplicate their experiments and thereby deduce where the error happened. That was a resounding success for the scientific method. Doing all of that formal writing down of methods, data, math, etc paid off in the ability for the general scientific community to figure out why this experiment produces the anomalous-seeming results that it does. Hence NOT pseudo-science, just bad science. SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing, and I think you're backing up what I'm saying. Finding an example of a poor scientist who as you claim "didn't measure anything, didn't document..." does not make the whole study pseudoscience, that's my point. As I've said before, there's an absurd number of creation scientists out there who've done real science, but they're ignored by men like Richard Dawkins because they don't make good fodder for the media to portray as quacks.

As an example, look at some of Dr. Walt Brown's work. Here's some links to his technical reference section:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes23.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes4.html

Just browse through a few of those pages (you can click "next" or "previous" to go to the next/previous page respectively, or browse through the TOC for other sections, etc.

Barwick (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So let's just pick one of these documents - the easiest one to discuss is the second one:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html

...which basically says that on the basis of some simple tidal force calculations, the moon cannot be more than 1.2 billion years old - and concludes that mainstream claims for there being fossils that are as much as 3.4 billion old must be false.

The trouble is that Brown evidently didn't read any of the existing science - he picked up a couple of random factoids and mis-applied some basic formulae. If he'd stopped for a moment and read some of the basic science material about the orbit of the moon, he'd perhaps have read the Wikipedia article: Orbit of the Moon - and come across the statement about tidal friction that says that the numbers he's plugging into his equations are only appropriate for the current configuration of continents and that the numbers for tidal friction were about half that for most of earth's history when the continents were in one convenient lump (See: Pangea). It then refers you to a more detailed article: Tidal acceleration which completely explains (with copious references) why what he is saying is a pile of total steaming bull crap wrong - and that the estimated age of the moon (4.5 billion years) is about right.

All of this took me (a non-expert in lunar history) about 10 minutes to track down. It completely destroys Browns' hypothesis and restores our confidence in the conventional age of the moon at around 4.5 billion years.

Thus far, what Brown did is merely bad science (VERY bad science) - but what makes it pseudoscience is his failure to follow the scientific method. Having (seemingly) found some horrible anomaly in the current estimates for the age of the moon, he should have questioned his findings. Conventionally, he should have read books and articles that explain the current age of the moon (and even just checking on Wikipedia, you can find the answer inside 10 minutes!). If he didn't get a satisfactory answer that way, he'd have asked an actual moon-science expert why this is (and then he'd have been corrected) - or at the very least, he should have attempted to publish these findings in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. At which point, the peer reviewers would have caught his rather childish error and (a) told him his research is bunkum and (b) refused to publish the paper. In the VERY unlikely event that his paper would get published someplace significant, then other scientists would attempt to reproduce his results - discover the error and publish a scathing debunking. Either way, the B.S that Brown is peddling here would not make it from "hypothesis" to "theory" - and would be swiftly dismissed.

The total failure of Brown to question his anomalous results rather than just gleefully assuming that he is right and 100% of the experts who have spent a lifetime in the field wrong - is a clear mark of a pseudoscientist. He has an agenda to find "facts" to back up his hokey hypothesis - and once he finds something that kinda-sorta fits, he's happy to run with it rather than question how he, with zero training in astronomy or lunar science, can have discovered something that all of the hundreds of experts have failed to notice.

A swift glance at the other two pieces you reference suggests similar problems there also - but this is not the place to discuss this kind of thing in detail. Suffice to say that these links you have provided go a long way to confirm the label "pseudoscience" and nowhere towards denying it.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Now we're talking about Pangea? This isn't a science debate here, there's plenty of forums we can do that on, so I've refrained. But if I may simply make a point, the 4.5 billion year age is based on a number of presuppositions, namely, Pangea's existence, the timeframe for its existence, etc. Besides, the 1.2 billion year upper maximum limit is one small part of his problem with the age (and existence) of the moon as we know it today, with its orbit as exists.

On top of that, his entire theory is based on the existence of a massive continent similar to Pangea, just his theory is that it didn't exist billions of years ago, but rather thousands, and his claims are backed by scientific study.

Now, if you'd like to debate the points Dr. Brown brings forth in a debate, by all means, let's do so (eMail works fine for that), though I'll likely have time to spend doing so in about ten years from now at this rate.

The entire point is, these guys are doing *science*. They are just as much doing science as any other scientist out there. I mean, for heaven sake, we have an entire 83kb page here on Wikipedia about *string theory* of all things. You want something that's freaking wacked out and seemingly pseudoscience, look no further than string theory. Science? Try falsifying that one, let me know how you do. But I don't see it on this list, nor do I think it should be put on this list. Barwick (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have some sympathy for placing string theory on this list, and we have debated that possibility here before. However, this list remains "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and not "List of pseudosciences" and until we find reliable sources stating that string theory is a pseudoscience, we can't add it.

As for Browns' arguments about Pangea - you're just adding to his pseudoscience credentials. If he has evidence that the earth's continents were united much more recently than conventional science says - then he should have taken that into account when considering the frictional drag of the tides on the orbit of the moon. He did not. So even if he has unconventional views about when Pangea was around - he should have included that into his calculation for the moons' orbit. Had he followed the scientific method, he would not have made that error. This goes beyond being merely being a "bad scientist" - a key part of good science is to fit your ideas into the rest of mainstream science - and to get your work published in established peer-reviewed journals - he has not done that.

At any rate, all of this debate is pointless. We have reliable sources that state that flood geology is a pseudoscience - and that's all we need here.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* yes, because we all know peer-reviewed journals are the best way to further scientific knowledge (*as I roll my eyes*)

These agencies are rife with corruption and bias. Remember Hal Lewis resigning from the APS? How about Ivar Giaever who just recently resigned from the same organization for similar reasons? You honestly think APS publications & peer review isn't influenced by those same factors that both Lewis and Giaever speak of? And don't tell me you believe that bias like this exists for AGW, but not for creation-related studies. And *these* are the organizations respected as "Reliable" sources, while those who dissent from those positions are "not reliable".

Barwick (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant.

Wikipedia rules apply here. If you wish to debate that, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources - and you know as well as I do that you'll be shot down in flames. Wikipedia content is grounded on the reliable sources rule and the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE rules that tag along with it. If you disagree with this rule, you might as well go find another encyclopedia to work on. SteveBaker (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Aside: Actually, now that I come to think of it - if Brown truly believes that Pangea is more recent than conventional science claims - then the earth has had a lower tidal drag over more of history than conventional science says - which in turn would mean that in his version of the story, the moon had been losing energy more slowly at around the 1.2 billion year mark than mainstream science now believes. That would mean that the lunar orbit had been increasing at that slower pace for much longer than conventional science says - which in turn (if Brown had done the math right) would have resulted in him concluding that the moon was actually even older than 4.5 billion years. Hahahaha! SteveBaker (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't expect you to agree with my point, so I don't expect anything in this place to change (how rare is it that an occasional editor on here actually has his point well-received by the "elite" who regularly frequent wikipedia?) I've shown that these guys do science, and that shows that these "reliable sources" who "issue a statement" are not reliable in this case in their claiming something is pseudoscience (because that's the easiest way to get a dissenter off your back, make fun of them).

Barwick (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do is get robust sourcing that these fields are widely considered science by mainstream secondary/tertiary sources. Once you do that, it doesn't matter what the "elite" say. On the other hand, arguing the point yourself isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. aprock (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

User:Barwick has instituted: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/23 September 2011/List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, as a mediator I would not normally concern myself with content issues and instead focus on helping the involved parties reach a mutual agreement. In this case, however, it is clear that all of the items listed above by User:Barwick are characterized as pseudoscience because they purport to be science but do not adhere to the scientific method. Unless (as noted by User:Aprock) a preponderance of reliable sources reclassifies any of these pseudosciences as something else (mainstream science, protoscience, fringe science or superstition), it would seem to me that informal mediation is basically unnecessary (and perhaps even inappropriate). If User:Barwick objects, I intend to close the related MedCab case and refer the matter to WP:DRN. Otherwise, I will simply close the case as resolved. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've closed this case on the basis that this is really an ideological debate unsuitable for informal mediation. If the filing party wishes to continue to pursue this, I recommend moving to WP:MEDCOM. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic_programming

Looks like Neuro-linguistic_programming#Scientific_criticism has enough sources to add it here. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep - I agree. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Retitle discussion

As mentioned elsewhere, I'd like to recommend that this article be moved to List of pseudosciences (which currently redirects to this article). "Characterized" is unnecessarily ambiguous and misleading to some Wikipedians. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• KEEP Having "Characterized" in the name allows us to include things without setting some standard as to what is and isn't a pseudoscience. We shouldn't set Wikipedia as an arbitrator of what is what. We simply collect information about what others have said what is what. Having it keeps this page from violating several points of WP:NOT (ie. soapbox, crystal ball, battleground) and presents the prefer non-judgmental language of NPOV. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  Surely reliable sources are the arbiter of what is what? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• weakest of all keeps: unfortunately, the "characterized as" is ugly weasel wording. I suspect that this is used exactly because of the problem of POV pushing and endless debates pursued by various pseudo-science advocates. One need look no further than two sections above: [3] for a classic example of this, where one proponent of creationism attempt to bring the discussion to mediation over his own original research. *sigh* aprock (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would be better to have List of topics classified as pseudoscience, because "characterized" implies an opinion where "classified" does not. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be an interesting compromise. SteveBaker (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• weak rename: I think we should be a little more up-front about stating that it is a fact that these topics are pseudosciences. Sadly, this means more than just a rename - it entails actually checking for each topic that we're correctly representing the consensus, current, mainstream view. That's more hard work than this article currently is - but I think it's a more powerful message that stuff like creation science truly is a pseudoscience rather than just that we found some RS that say that it is. SteveBaker (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• KEEP Been there, done that. There is no way to put forward any sort of "proof" that something is a pseudoscience that would not itself be Original research. In addition, Wikipedia standards expressly caution against classifying articles in controversial ways. Clearly, the best place to present the full debate for each topic is on the article on that topic; imagine this being played out here -- on both talk page and in the article space -- for 30 different topics! As the discussion above shows, it's unsustainable. Like it or not (and I had to overcome considerable distaste for the compromise in an earlier, similar discussion), the only clear standard is what fields have been widely classified as pseudosciences. Are they pseudosciences? We report, you decide. hgilbert (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  What do you think about using "classified" instead of "characterized"? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As you say, the former gives the impression of an objective systematization. Since that doesn't exist, I prefer characterized. hgilbert (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI: This is the previous discussion on renaming from early 2009 where several other possible renamings were considered. There were some interesting arguments made on both sides of the debate. All were ultimately rejected in favor of retaining the current title. SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Tunguska event

The description here needs to be fundamentally rewritten. That the event actually occurred isn't psuedoscience (and the current listing implies that). At issue is what caused said event, which has been subject to considerable debate.

Analogously: That President Kennedy was assassinated isn't up for debate. Whether or not the mafia, Fidel Castro, et al. were responsible is debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hollow Earth and Hollow Moon

I expected to see the Time Cube under "Idiosyncratic ideas", but I see that the Cube is apparently off limits as its crankiness is so humungous that no reliable source can be bothered to state the obvious, or rather the whole logic (?) of the idea is so idiosyncratic and amusing that characterising it as pseudoscience would be equivalent to an entirely undeserved accolade and suggests that it deserves more than a quick laugh. But how about Hollow Earth, and its offshoot, the Hollow Moon? Is there any particular reason (other than a giant conspiracy consisting of Wikipedia rouge admins suppressing The Truth, of course) that this idea is missing from the list? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. How about providing some good wording backed up by several RS, and do that here on the talk page for us to evaluate? -- 01:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. --Seduisant (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"millenarianism?"

Is that actually a word? or how the group identifies itself? When I try to type it in it gets the red squiggly line. It just seems like someone stuck a few too many suffixes on. If I'm wrong, my apologies. It just looks like the sort of vandalism that can go unnoticed due to subtleties. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse, it's a word now. a13ean (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Check for yourself via Google or Bing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Broken link

There is a ref named "scientificamerican" that is currently a dead link. The ref was to this bare URL: Scientific American. It is a link to a search engine. Searching google for ED460829 (part of the URL) yielded this web page which is apparently in regards to this document: Scientific American Frontiers Teaching Guides for Shows 801-805. One supposes the original intent was to reference this show. The ref is used several time in the article for the following topics: "Dowsing" "Ufology" "Therapeutic touch" "Perpetual motion" "Free energy".

Scientific American Frontiers does have episodes addressing fringe science and the transcripts are on line. If I find time I'll replace these links to the shows. Here's one for "Free energy" and on the same page "Therapeutic touch".

I would suppose this show as a citation is reliable enough for this article to show that these subjects are pseudoscience. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarity needed

I feel that "characterized" is a poor choice of words. Perhaps "labeled" would be better. The naive reader would likely miss the nuances discussed in the lede.

Also, some of the "pseudoscience" does not quite fit the generally accepted definition. I'd rather not see any modern controversial topic listed here, if its proponents have indicated a significant willingness to subject their findings or claims to independent review.

Therefore, I recommend a page move, e.g., to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. This would clarify that someone has labeled each of the various ideas as pseudoscience.

Another thing that would help is to separate the ones that are generally regarded as pseudoscience, from the ones which are mere controversial, such as:

• Topics where there is a political or economic stake:
  1. Climate change denial
  2. Conversion therapy
• Topics related to the supernatural]]
  1. Extrasensory perception
  2. Ghost hunting
  3. Seance

Perhaps, like the section on parodies, there can be a section on modern controversies. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no scientific controversy, separating them out would be POV. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Cognitive Bias regarding Creationism

• One need not create fiction about "Creationism" to object to it. Singling out sources that naturally contradict supernatural phenomena for stating the case of "Creationism" is biased and irrational strawman arguments. I suggest a wider use of sources. Start with ones similar to:

http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/creation_timeline_chart_color_201107.pdf)

• Obviously statements like this are a bandwagon argument:

"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."

If you include "Creationism " because it is scientifically unproven, then you must include "Psychoanalysis."

If you exclude "Psychoanalysis" because it has a "substantial following," then you must exclude "Creationism," from your list of pseudoscience as well.

John Lloyd Scharf 01:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The above seems like a general purpose complaint and is not suitable to justify a tag. When adding a tag saying "factual accuracy is disputed" and "neutrality is disputed", it is necessary to point out some text in the tagged section whose factual accuracy and/or neutrality is disputed. Do any sources used in the article fail WP:RS? Rather than suggest that editors read some generic pdf, what text in that pdf is recommended for use in this article? Does reasons.org satisfy WP:RS? Please fix your signature; it must have a link. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, John, he's got a right to place the tag. Give him a chance to spell out what he means. If he's trying to suggest that creationism (in particular) has not been characterized as pseudoscience then he's not going to get very far with it (too much sourcing to the contrary), but maybe he has something else in mind.

I mean seriously - this article reeks of bias to begin with. If we ever want to smooth it out and get a neutral article we have to take challenges like this seriously and evaluate them on the merits. --Ludwigs2 04:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We include what is characterized as pseudoscience in reliable sources, that is all. IRWolfie- (talk)

I've removed the tag based upon the information provided by John Lloyd Scharf. Wikipedia is not a forum for ideological battles. If someone wants to come up with better information, perhaps addressing Johnuniq's concerns, demonstrating problems with that or other sections of the article, then the tags can be easily restored. --Ronz (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ludwig does have a point regarding the bias of this article. At the moment it is more of a 'List of topics Wikipedia characterizes as pseudoscience'. Wekn reven ^Confer 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wekn reven you're joking, right? (Note the comment by IRWolfie above: "We include what is characterized as pseudoscience in reliable sources, that is all.") -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

But if the characterization is disputed by reliable sources, what then? Suppose a topic such as a theory has been labeled 'pseudoscience' by one group, while another group have actually listed criteria for the theory's falsifiablity?

To give a vivid if zany example, consider the idea that the Moon is made of green cheese. Now suppose this has been characterized as pseudoscience. Yet the idea's proponents say that they'll withdraw their claim if astronmers can show that the Moon's refractive index (the band of lines you see in a spectroscope) are inconsistent with green cheese. Then by definition it's not pseudoscience: it's disputed science, i.e., a scientific controversy. It can be settled whenever astronomers are able to make that measurement.

A more serious example would be the claim that the far side of the Moon is smooth (has no craters). Before the 1960s, this would be an open question, not "pseudoscience". After photos were taken by spacecraft orbiting the Moon, the question was settled.

Let's not dive into WP:OR, of course, but let's also be aware of disputes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier to answer if we had a real example, but basically there shouldn't be too much of a leap from "characterized" to "actual" pseudoscience (as defined by mainstream science). The characterization should be accurate enough that most physicians and scientists would agree that it was a true characterization. Since we're dealing with "verifiability, not truth", there's a slight bit of wiggle room, but we shouldn't list characterizations made by fringe groups who label proven facts as pseudoscience,... and they actually do it! We've even had editors here who are promoters of fringe ideas who have provokingly posted such things on this list. That's just plain stupid and disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A distinction between "characterized" and "actual" pseudoscience is always necessary. Likewise those characterized by a majority expert consensus against and virtually no expert support and a majority expert consensus against and significant (except when expressed as a fraction) expert support. The current classification system by fields is somewhat confusing, especially when you have as diverse topics as:

Creation science

Flat Earthism

Laundry balls

Wekn reven ^Confer 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I really dislike that this list uses the phrase "characterized as" in the title. It allows us to list fields that only a tiny minority of people believe are pseudoscience - even if a huge majority say that it's not. I would (by far) prefer to make this be just "List of pseudosciences" and do due-diligence to look at the number of WP:RS's that say "it's a pseudoscience" and the number that indicate that the field is uncertain science or indeed actual science. Right now, the acid test is that if even one WP:RS says "pseudoscience" then it's on the list without any regard for WP:UNDUE. Under that revised title, we would write a decent WP:NPOV article with proper regard to WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and so forth. Things like String theory that have indeed been characterized by a small minority of WP:RS as pseudoscience would have proper discussion of their mainstream status - where things like laundry balls, creationism and homeopathy could be adequately decried as the complete BS that they undoubtedly are by pointing out the total lack of WP:RS that back them up with the credentials of a true science. Using "characterized as" allows all of those topics to be treated equally...which is a cop-out that directly results in this kind of dispute. However, we've already had that debate and the consensus was that "characterized as" has to stay. Consensus can change though. SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin

Is it relevant that Zecharia Sitchin has no degree in Semitic Languages? Strictly speaking, Sumerian is not related to any known language. However, I'm not familiar with the academic subject of "Semetic Languages", which may include the study of Sumerian as well, because the latter was very important to the first ones. Could anyone verify this? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed major editing.

The file size of this page is HUGE! I suggest cutting it way down by doing the following. Since all the topics have WP pages that already explain why they are pseudoscience I recommend that all of the topics on this page be reduced to just one line with no references. They are already linked to where the topic is discussed in full. It is duplication to have the same references here and on the topic pages. A note can be made at the top of the page explaining where to go to find the details for the different topics. And a comment can be added at the top warn editors not to add details to this page but to go to the topic pages. SmittysmithIII (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it is a hassle to try to edit around the tons of references here, although it is nice to have them together here in case they get lost in the parent article. Dunno. a13ean (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It used to be that way until someone started adding citation tags. See [4]. As AL3ean says, sources in the parent article can get lost. We need source explicitly calling these pseudoscience, etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that instead of just having sources which "call" these pseudoscience, the main articles need to be written in such a way that 'show' that they are pseudoscience. Anybody can "call" something pseudoscience. That doesn't really mean a whole lot. And displaying credentials don't mean much either, that just seems like bragging. Showing it and making it obvious takes more time and effort, but is more likely to be effective than just "name calling" as some might see this page. This page should be like a disambiguation page pointing to where to find the evidence presented in the articles. As it is, it is too unwieldy and few are likely to read or search through it to find what they are looking for. The search engine is not going to bring up this page when looking for, say, acupuncture. Instead, it will go directly to the acupuncture page, and unless that page says that it is pseudoscience, no one will know. They certainly are unlikely to try to find this list to see acupuncture called pseudoscience. It is the responsibility of those who edit the main articles listed here to make sure that claims of pseudoscience are clearly made on them. If not, someone's not doing their job. If it is important to the editors of this page that an article be on this list, then it ought to be important to them too that the main articles clearly state pseudoscience. If not, does the article need to be listed here? I'm still all for heavily reduction of this page. With a note to editors who call for citation tags that if they want to see proof they need to go to the main articles. Unless an article clearly states it is pseudoscience, it does not belong on this list. SmittysmithIII (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Smittysmith, there is a problem with showing that something "is" a pseudoscience. Wikipedia can't do this. It can only document that there are people (and groups) who have stated that something is a pseudoscience. That's what this list does. The length is no problem because much of the seeming length is the references, and each item can be read independently of the rest. It's a valuable reference page, as are many lists at Wikipedia. I see no need for changing it, and definitely not for abbreviating it. That would reduce its usefulness. We've seen such attempts before, and they were a slippery slope designed to eventually delete the list entirely. If you don't see its value, you don't need to read it, edit it, or concern yourself with it. Leave it for those who do find it of value. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If something is pseudoscience it should be easy to document with reliable sources why it is pseudoscience, without violating OR. That would be far more valuable and useful that just someone saying, "Yep its pseudoscience, trust me." I have no trouble with things being pseudoscience, but I like being treated like I have brains. No need to get defensive. I've been cleaning up citations and references to make everything easier to read and edit. I have no problem with lists, but it seems like there is a lot of duplication, much the same information can be found on the topic pages. I'm not trying to removing any topic from the list, just trying to find a better way for the list to exist. SmittysmithIII (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue of having "characterized as" in the title is one that I've complained about frequently in the past. The problem with the present formulation is that the name of the article is there just to make it easier for us to maintain it...not for general usefulness to the readership - which is a terrible reason to stick with the current name. My big concern is that people come to this list, pick an entry and go "Wow! XYZ is a pseudoscience!"...which would be an interesting and useful piece of information...were it not for the fact that this is not at all what this article claims! The correct response is "Huh! Someone out there (possibly with no qualifications, possibly with humorous or ironic intent, possibly mistakenly) once claimed that XYZ is a pseudoscience!"...which is a really useless and unsurprising piece of information! So read strictly, this list is at best utterly useless - and at worst, horribly misleading.

For this list to be useful to people, it really does need to be "List of pseudosciences" - even if that's harder for us to maintain/source.

To be perfectly clear: I am not a follower of some pseudo-science who would simply prefer to gloss over the fact that my belief system is a pseudo-science by taking this article down. I'm concerned that we're misleading the public for our own editorial convenience. If these topics have been characterized as pseudoscience in reliable sources per WP:RS - then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they are pseudosciences. If the characterization is not in a 100% reliable source (like a peer-reviewed scientific journal) then perhaps we shouldn't list them here anyway...right now, we can because we may have something like (say) a self-published book, which cannot serve as a reference to say that XYZ is a pseudoscience - but can serve as a reference to say that the author of that book definitely did characterize XYZ as a pseudoscience. Fixing that (and changing the title of the list) may result in an incomplete list - but at least it won't be a misleading one, and the resulting message will be much stronger.

That said, we have never had consensus for my point of view - so unless a good number of editors have changed their minds recently - it's fairly pointless to try to change that.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations can come and go on articles, which is one reason we don't use other articles as sources. This article needs its own sources. That's the way Wikipedia works. If there are articles listed here which don't have sources saying they are pseudoscience, that's a problem with that article but not a reason to keep the subject off the list. This is not a list of articles but of subjects. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The medical section is over half of the artical by volume (number of characters). Could it be possible to put it on a sub page with a link to it? Like: List of ...../Medical SmittysmithIII (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WP has an existing policy (actually a "content guideline") about this... it's worth consulting in the context of this discussion. --Seduisant (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with this, and I haven't a clue why you bring it up now.  ?? SmittysmithIII (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The actual volume of the article text itself is quite small though; it's not that long to read. Splitting the article would mean taking a small article and making some even smaller ones. The citations may seem overly long but then it is one of the most controversial and contentious subjects on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppets

SmittysmithIII (talk · contribs), who has made 357 edits to this article, and Sacramentosam (talk · contribs) are blocked as sockpuppets. As they were evading a block, their edits may be reverted. I'd be in favor of reverting all the way back[5] and then making any useful fixes. This is a prolific puppetmaster and success only encourages him. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This messing with the citations and making other changes inbetween was very subtle -- I saw all the edits happening and didn't think anything of it until Machine Elf brought it up [here]. That sounds like a reasonable start. a13ean (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Masaru Emoto

The ideas of Masaru Emoto need mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

BDORT

The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT) needs mentioning. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Applied Kinesiology

This list should have Applied Kinesiology as its own category under Health and Medicine rather than a subset of Chiropractics. BDORT would be a good example of a topic which could be a subset of Applied Kinesiology. Another example would be NAET which uses Applied Kinesiology for allergy diagnoses. 68.120.89.89 (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... It was placed there because AK is a chiropractic technique. Nambudripad is a chiropractor who uses AK as part of her method. BDORT seems to be different application of it, unrelated to chiropractic. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand but I am not sure that it is accurate to call AK a "chiropractic technique". It's a technique used by chiropractors (and others). It isn't any more of a chiropractic technique than X-rays or nutrition counseling. And the statistics on how many chiropractors actually still use this technique versus other professions is sorely outdated on the AK article, suffering – as I have observed - from link rot. It's unclear, at best. Given all of the subsets of AK (BDORT, NAET, Contact Reflex Analysis, Jaffe-Mellor Technique, Thought Field Therapy (the list goes on... read about it on a site called Quackwatch), this article would benefit from breaking AK out into its own listing. 68.120.89.89 (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's break this into two issues:

1. There is no question it's a chiropractic technique. It was created by a chiropractor, marketed to chiropractors, and used nearly exclusively by them for some time before others began to also use it.
2. Whether it would be best to break it out into its own section is another matter. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be mentioned in its current location, but also mentioned in a separate section which could then list its offshoots. Would that work? I've never considered that possibility before, but why not?

Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

1. There's a lot of past-tense involved in your statements. The fact is that for a good ten years, the amount of chiropractors using AK versus other professions has largely declined. I am currently searching for sources to back this up of course. The sources used to support that it is a "chiropractic technique" on the AK article are dead links. Do you have any current reliable sources which describe AK as definitely a "chiropractic technique". I do see them as closely related in terms of history. But in the modern sense, they are distinct. AK is unto its own.
2. Breaking it out into its own section makes sense. Certainly the historical relationship to chiropractics should be noted in the AK entry though.

68.120.89.89 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Memetics

The view of memetics as a pseudoscience seems to be a minority view. First, "memetics pseudoscience" gives 24,000 hits in Google, vs 20 times that many hits for "memetics." Also try examining the first couple of pages for "memetics pseudoscience." No more than ten percent of the links under these search terms supports that view. The statements are either supportive of memetics as a useful model or mixed with pro and con voices. "Protoscience is mentioned frequently.

The number of books many by PhD's supporting memetics is certainly larger than those denouncing it.

One of the arguments against memetics is that we can't observe one. That's not a good argument or electronics would be a pseudoscience since you can't see electrons either.

There was 11 years of discussion on such subjects on the Memetics discussion list. One of mine:

At 12:49 PM 14/05/03 -0400, Scott wrote:

(re Richard Brodie's comments)

>Is there sufficient reason to assume that ideas are isomorphic between >individuals? If so, provide some here:

I would say so, where I take "isomorphic" to mean similar.

In a short form, one definition of memes (that does not conflict with the definition of a meme as pure information) is "an element of culture" where culture is the sum total of information available to humans.

Does anyone have serious disagreement with this so far?

Baseball (or cricket for the limies) is an element of culture.

Are there objections to this?

Now consider this variation in a thought experiment I have used here before where a person can be tested for having the information in their brain about baseball by teaching an isolated group of children (who have never played ball and stick games) a recognizable game of baseball. You dump kids, teacher and equipment on an island and come back in two months.

The variation is that the teacher on this assignment doesn't know a thing about baseball, but is given books on baseball rules and how to play the game before being dumped on the island.

If the kids are playing a recognizable game of baseball when the experimenter returns, then the only information source for what they are doing is the books. I.e., the books contain the baseball meme (information).

I don't think you could get funding for this experiment because the outcome is too obvious.

Now information has to be "contained" in matter of some kind (photons included). I am not picky about what form it takes, human minds, ink on paper, magnetic tape or chipped into stone. Memes can sometimes be loaded into minds from what a person can get out of made objects, a shoe, a pot, a chipped rock. (I have spent a lot of my professional life "reverse engineering.")

Memes are often learned from watching others (though not exclusively as a certain person claims). Chimps learn to collect termites with sticks by watching adult chimps. You could almost certainly transfer this meme by showing video tape of collecting termites to naive chimps. You *might* be able to convey the "termiting meme" to a chimp that knew sign language without demonstrating what to do. (You could certainly do it with humans.)

On the subject of how accurately information replicates from mind to mind, that depends largely on how much effort is put into transmitting it. In the days before pocket calculators, most children learned multiplication tables with a very high degree of fidelity. The process is much like communication between computers. Computers test the data they get from other computers and will retry if the data is corrupted (which it frequently is).

Human children are likewise taught, tested, and corrected on spelling and math till most of them "get it right." Game rules (three strikes, four balls) tend to be very accurately replicated. This is not true of all memes, look up "Play it Sam" and "Play it again Sam" in Google.

But some amount of mutation/sloppy copying/random recombination/outright invention is as essential to memetics as it is to genetics. Without variation, there is nothing to be selected. The differential survival of memes (and why) is what memetics is about.

Keith Henson

PS. The meme that fruits, particularly citrus, prevent scurvy was a significant element in the power of the British Navy at one time.

http://cfpm.org/~majordom/memetics/2000/14883.html

Since I am a knowledgeable person about this topic, I am reluctant to just delete this section. I suppose I could add to it because there are plenty of cites from books and articles stating that memetics is a good scientific model or considered the study a protoscience. Keith Henson (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed one reference related to Intelligent Design which had nothing to do with memetics. There is now only one reference, James W. Polichak, "Memes as Pseudoscience", in Michael Shermer, Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. P. 664f.

Not mentioned is that in the same book is Susan Blackmore's "Memes as Good Science."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gr4snwg7iaEC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=%22The+Skeptic+Encyclopedia+of+Pseudoscience%22+%22Memes+as+Good+Science.%22&source=bl&ots=bDwCaQIBYk&sig=deLzsrHu3ll0c_U080L3oICzLQ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EqFYUK3vJ-rWiwK2wYGgBA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Skeptic%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Pseudoscience%22%20%22Memes%20as%20Good%20Science.%22&f=false

Given that Polichak is the only one cited, I think this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undue#Due_and_undue_weight

Though if you can find a substantial number of people to offset the likes of EO Willson, Dawkins, Hofstadter and Dennet, I will agree that memetics is properly classed as pseudoscience. Keith Henson (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(The above pulled in from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller to give context.)

This article is about topics characterized as pseudoscience. Memetics is characterized as pseudoscience by reliable sources. See [6]. Hallpike's book is self-published, but see [7] for instance. And [8]. And I only checked a few. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am impressed that there are so many people who hate Richard Dawkins. That seems to be the main point to the attacks on memetics, since every one of the attacks is about aspects of the subject that have been widely discussed as above. See the preface on 2 http://www.amazon.com/The-Selfless-Gene-Living-Darwin/dp/0849946549#reader_0849946549 and "Dawkins’ proposal that memes explain the evolutionary development of human culture is more illogical and unscientific than a clearly articulated defence of Christianity;" by McGarth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins%27_God:_Genes,_Memes,_and_the_Meaning_of_Life

However, it seems to me that I should be able to find people who make the same arguments they do about electrons, i.e., we have never seen one. If I find such, can I add "electronics" to this article as "characterized as pseudoscience"? Keith Henson (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem with this horrible, useless list! A subject only has to be characterized as pseudoscience for it to make it onto this list. There is actual science behind memetics and a sizeable chunk of mainstream scientists seems to believe in it. But, yes, it undeniably has been characterized as pseudoscience by several people who probably don't understand it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There's as much actual science behind memetics as there is in anti-aging facial creams. I do agrtee the list is useless though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a Dawkins supprter, and don't want to get into a discussion about what memetics is or isn't, just about whether it's appropriate to include it here. If we have sufficient reliable sources to meet NPOV, then it should be briefly included - without trying to argue the case - and with a mention that this is disputed, again with sources. Whatever the merits of this article, its entries should be brief and not argumentative. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to enter something on this page with a NPOV. To be here means it's characterized (damned) as pseudoscience. Part of the question is are people are making an honest argument for memetics being bunkum. There are an awful lot of respected scientists who feel it is real (if kind of trivial) science. Then there are people who have a thing about Dawkins. The last two you included are very upfront about hating Dawkins. Given that he named the study, it's expected they would call memetics a pseudoscience. It would be unlike any other entry on this page, but I suppose we could include a list of well known scientists who say good things about memes or memetics. Keith Henson (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In part, the problem with the concept of "memes" is that what they are, and what they do is rather obvious - but the idea of attaching Darwinian evolutionary language by treating them as analogous to "genes" is controversial. A "meme" is just an idea. Someone has an idea (a story, a joke, something they saw on the Internet), and they tell it to someone else, who tells it to someone else. The meme "reproduces" by spreading from one brain to the next. "Good" memes spread widely, bad ones die after just one or two retellings. As the idea is retold, unimportant bits get left out, new bits get added in by the re-tellers (this is especially noticeable with jokes and urban legends). Variations of the meme that get better will obviously spread to more people - everyone likes to re-tell a funny story that they heard. Versions that lose something of importance/interest to the brains it affects spread less fast or die out altogether - you don't often re-tell lame jokes. The meme "evolves" - the joke gets cleverer and funnier - the urban legend gets more amazing and yet more believable. You can see this all over the place - but check out Snopes.com which tracks the evolutionary changes in memes over time. We call these ideas "viral" for a reason - they behave like a virus. A kid films himself playing with a toy light sabre in his garage - and before you know it there are hundreds of doctored, re-edited, re-imagined versions of that meme spiraling off through the network. Jokes, Urban legends...their existence, reproduction and evolution over time is self-evident. Memes have even evolved to be a better fit for their environment...a joke that can shrink to the size of a text message or tweet will spread faster and wider than one that covers three paragraphs.

However, memes don't seem to be well studied and reported in the great scientific journals of our age...which is what results in some people calling the concept "pseudoscience". In truth, I suspect that a lot of marketing companies are studying this very thing with great intensity because if they could reliably harness it, they could make a fortune. Pushing "Eat at Joes" to half a billion people is a tough and expensive proposition - but if you can make the "Eat at Joes" meme be a powerful one, you only have to tell it to a few people and it'll spread by itself and evolve into a better advert...you hope!

But this list doesn't cover the truth of whether something (a) makes scientific claims and (b) is studied scientifically and therefore whether it is or is not a pseudoscience. It only asks "Did someone, somewhere, hate the idea enough to call it a pseudoscience?". The proponents of maintaining this list have said that they do that because it's much easier than establishing whether something truly is a pseudoscience in an NPOV/RS manner. IMHO, that's a bad way to run an encyclopedia.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Section break

Tossing a stone in water causes ripples, so when a central effect causes outward effects it is called a ripple effect. It is an analogy like the domino effect, the butterfly effect, the snowball effect and the bandwagon effect. There is a tendecy of ideas to evolve analogous to how life evolve; an evolutionary effect.

But analogous thinking is inductive thinking and is frowned on in some scientific circles. Giving theorys snazzy names and writing popular books about them is unpopular as well. Any theory on human behavior offends somebody. (I personally hate it when somebody pretends to know how I think. It implys I'm predicable.) Any theory of the mind is problematic to prove. How could memetics not get characterized as pseudoscience? You should be happy it is on the list. Most theories of human behavior just get ignored until they die of obscurity. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I did as suggested above in an attempt for NPOV even though I think it is impossible in an article with this title.

But there are respected scientists such as Dr. Marvin Minsky who think highly of analogy and inductive thinking. As for you being predicable, I would bet money at fair odds that you would run out of a burning building. Might not always happen, but it's a good bet.

Anyway, memetics is not a theory on human behavior. It is about memes and not directly about human behavior except as humans are the usual hosts for memes. See above for the example of the baseball meme and the accurate replication of the memes for 3 strikes and 4 balls.

A lot of memes prosper or fail on the basis of usefulness or novelty. But there is a whole class of memes that spread among groups of humans in particular circumstances, particularly when humans are faced with a bleak future. I went into this in detail in "Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War." [9] or (long form) [10] Keith Henson (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A publication in Mankind Quarterly certainly doesn't strengthen the claim that memetics is not pseudoscience.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If we have to look at the evidence for and against memetics-as-pseudoscience (which is not the same thing as memetics-as-truth), we need to look at the definition of "pseudoscience". From Wiktionary:

"Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method."

Assuming that we grant that field of memetics "purports to be scientific" - the only question that remains is whether there are researchers in the field that comply with the scientific method. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as:

"a method or procedure (...) consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

So does the field of memetics do those things? Well, it's hard to say definitively. The "Journal of Memetics"[11] ran as a peer-reviewed academic journal for close to ten years. Some of the papers it published seem to only be asking questions - not doing actual measurements, experiments and observations - but others do exactly what scientists usually do. Take, for example, the 2004 paper "Birth of a Meme: the Origin and Evolution of Collusive Voting Patterns in the Eurovision Song Contest" [12]...the conclusion of which contains phrases like:

"At first glance, this appears to be potentially an imitative phenomenon. A person, having observed a contest, and having seen what voting patterns occur, may resolve to cast a vote in the next contest in the same way. However, if this is the case, we ought to see the gradual increase of collusive voting as the pattern spreads through the voting pools of the two countries concerned."

This would appear to be a "hypothesis" for how the voting patterns spread between countries in a memetic fashion. Then, we have a report of an experiment - data from the voting patterns of Greece and Cyprus are analysed using appropriate statistical techniques - and a conclusion is reached.

That seems to me to meet the criterion for a scientific study. Now, don't get me wrong - this study might have flaws, it might be outright incorrect and it might misinterpret the results...but we're not asking whether memetics is true - or even whether everyone in the field is doing good science and getting solid results. But that's missing the point. The criteria for "not being a pseudoscience" is that you follow The Scientific Method - and I think it's clear that at least some of the researchers in the field do exactly that.

Hence, my opinion is that memetics is not a pseudoscience - and that feeling was evidently also held by the people who published that peer-reviewed scientific journal for ten years. However, that has absolutely no bearing on this stupid "List of..." article because the threshold for inclusion is solely whether someone, somewhere, possibly far in the past, rightly or wrongly, accused memetics of being a pseudoscience...which they evidently have.

So yes, memetics certainly belongs on this list (as currently described) - and so do a bunch of other perfectly valid, useful, scientific, non-pseudosciences that some random commentator "characterized" as pseudoscience...rightly or wrongly! The problem is that this is a ridiculous and useless list - and it misleads regular readers into thinking that some very solid sciences are on a par with (say) astrology! That's doing a disservice to our readers - and it should cease! It also circumvents WP:UNDUE - which ought to say that the balance of mainstream opinion is that such-and-such is valid science and (just in passing) one or two people think it's pseudoscience. Instead, the title of the list ensures that one lone writer can condemn an entire field of study, regardless of tens of thousands of writers who say otherwise.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you on the problematic nature of this list. I did notice this bizarre problem with people trying to label memetics as pseudoscience, at one point the Memetics category was categorized under pseudoscience. Perhaps we could split this list in two parts to have this list focus on those subjects where the description of pseudoscience is widely or universally accepted in academia and have another list for science that is merely controversial among academics in the relevant field.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Relevant field" is going to be a problem for memetics. The people who have contributed to it have come from several fields. Such as geneticist L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, anthropologist F. T. Cloak [11]. ethologist J. M. Cullen, EO Wilson biologist. Aaron Lynch and Richard Brodie had engineering backgrounds, as I do.

I think memetics should actually be a branch of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology set up the substrate (humans) on which memes as elements of culture propagate. But the reality is that no academic discipline seems eager to get involved. "But perhaps the biggest difference is a difference in academic lineage. Memetics as a label is more influential in popular culture than in academia. Critics of memetics argue that it is lacking in empirical support or is conceptually ill-founded, and question whether there is hope for the memetic research program succeeding. Proponents point out that many cultural traits are discrete, and that many existing models of cultural inheritance assume discrete cultural units, and hence involve memes." [13] Perhaps if grants were offered . . . Some years ago the US military put out a request to study memes. I don't know how that came out. Keith Henson (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that DARPA has very recently put research money into things like the way that social networking influenced the Arab spring and the general topic of "Strategic communications". How did the idea to overthrow these governments start? How did it spread? How does the existence of social media change that? How did shutting off Internet access alter the way the idea spread? How did those ideas develop over time? That's a study in memetics. That word isn't always mentioned in their project descriptions - but it's a neologism, so that's unsurprising. (For example: [14], [15]). Google it...it's everywhere.

But again, that's not the point. Yes, DARPA (and others) are doing solid scientific studies in the fields of memetics. That application of scientific methods means that Memetics is not a pseudoscience - definitely not...not by any measure of the meaning of that word. Yes, there is a possibility that memetics is a false hypothesis - yes, its' possible that the science doesn't back up the hypothesis. But "pseudoscience" doesn't mean "bad science" or "incorrect hypothesis" - it means "makes scientific claims but doesn't use the scientific method to test them"....and that's 100% certainly not the case here. So we know that memetics isn't pseudoscience - it's demonstrably provable that this is the case.

The point is that memetics belongs on this list because the stupid list title is "...characterized as pseudoscience" and not "...that are actually pseudoscience". It only takes one misinformed/biassed/incorrect source to say that it's pseudoscience to open the gate to placing the topic on this list.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is that it's hard/impossible to falsify the core concept of discretised units of culture. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Naturopathy

I was surprised to see it's not listed here, given some of the sourced statements near the bottom of that article. I'll put together a typical 1-liner here in a bit and add it to the page later if there's no objections. a13ean (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Naturopathy, or Naturopathic Medicine, is a type of alternative medicine based on a belief in vitalism, which posits that a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as metabolism, reproduction, growth, and adaptation. Naturopathy has been characterized a pseudoscientific It has particularly been criticized for its unproven, disproven, or dangerous treatments. Natural methods and chemicals are not necessarily safer or more effective than artificial or synthetic ones; any treatment capable of eliciting an effect may also have deleterious side effects.

Thoughts? a13ean (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense a13ean if you want to add it. Lukekfreeman (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Related thread at ANI

I forgot to mention it here the first time, but there is a thread at ANI which refers to this page. a13ean (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

Should that be here? It's a new term to me, but after reading this I was sort of expecting to find it here already ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove Hypnosis from the Pseudoscience List Please

Hypnosis is based on science. Research into hypnosis is carried out in recognized laboratories and published in peer reviewed journals. That fact that it can be misused does not detract from its core basis in observable fact.

List of research which is irrelevant for this list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is a brief review of some of the peer reviewed research evidence on the effectiveness of hypnosis: 90.6% Success Rate for Smoking Cessation Using Hypnosis Of 43 consecutive patients undergoing this treatment protocol, 39 reported remaining abstinent from tobacco use at follow-up (6 months to 3 years post-treatment). This represents a 90.6% success rate using hypnosis. University of Washington School of Medicine, Depts. of Anesthesiology and Rehabilitation Medicine, Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2001 Jul;49(3):257-66. Barber J. 87% Reported Abstinence From Tobacco Use With Hypnosis A field study of 93 male and 93 female CMHC outpatients examined the facilitation of smoking cessation by using hypnosis. At 3-month follow-up, 86% of the men and 87% of the women reported continued abstinence from the use of tobacco using hypnosis. Performance by gender in a stop-smoking program combining hypnosis and aversion. Johnson DL, Karkut RT. Adkar Associates, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana. Psychol Rep. 1994 Oct;75(2):851-7. PMID 7862796 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 81% Reported They Had Stopped Smoking After Hypnosis Thirty smokers enrolled in an HMO were referred by their primary physician for treatment. Twenty-one patients returned after an initial consultation and received hypnosis for smoking cessation. At the end of treatment, 81% of those patients reported that they had stopped smoking, and 48% reported abstinence at 12 months post-treatment. Texas A&M University, System Health Science Center, College of Medicine, College Station, TX USA. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2004 Jan;52(1):73-81. Clinical hypnosis for smoking cessation: preliminary results of a three-session intervention. Elkins GR, Rajab MH. Hypnosis Patients Twice As Likely To Remain Smoke-Free After Two Years Study of 71 smokers showed that after a two-year follow up, patients that quit with hypnosis were twice as likely to remain smoke-free than those who quit on their own. Guided health imagery for smoking cessation and long-term abstinence. Wynd, CA. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2005; 37:3, pages 245-250. Hypnosis More Effective Than Drug Interventions For Smoking Cessation Group hypnosis sessions, evaluated at a less effective success rate (22% success) than individualized hypnosis sessions. However, group hypnosis sessions were still demonstrated here as being more effective than drug interventions. Ohio State University, College of Nursing, Columbus, OH 43210, USA Descriptive outcomes of the American Lung Association of Ohio hypnotherapy smoking cessation program. Ahijevych K, Yerardi R, Nedilsky N. Hypnosis Most Effective Says Largest Study Ever: 3 Times as Effective as Patch and 15 Times as Effective as Willpower. Hypnosis is the most effective way of giving up smoking, according to the largest ever scientific comparison of ways of breaking the habit. A meta-analysis, statistically combining results of more than 600 studies of 72,000 people from America and Europe to compare various methods of quitting. On average, hypnosis was over three times as effective as nicotine replacement methods and 15 times as effective as trying to quit alone. University of Iowa, Journal of Applied Psychology, How One in Five Give Up Smoking. October 1992. (Also New Scientist, October 10, 1992.) Hypnosis Over 30 Times as Effective for Weight Loss Investigated the effects of hypnosis in weight loss for 60 females, at least 20% overweight. Treatment included group hypnosis with metaphors for ego-strengthening, decision making and motivation, ideomotor exploration in individual hypnosis, and group hypnosis with maintenance suggestions. Hypnosis was more effective than a control group: an average of 17 lbs lost by the hypnosis group vs. an average of 0.5 lbs lost by the control group, on follow-up. Cochrane, Gordon; Friesen, J. (1986). Hypnotherapy in weight loss treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 489-492. Two Years Later: Hypnosis Subjects Continued To Lose Significant Weight 109 people completed a behavioral treatment for weight management either with or without the addition of hypnosis. At the end of the 9-week program, both interventions resulted in significant weight reduction. At 8-month and 2-year follow-ups, the hypnosis subjects were found to have continued to lose significant weight, while those in the behavioral-treatment-only group showed little further change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1985) Hypnosis Subjects Lost More Weight Than 90% of Others and Kept it Off Researchers analyzed 18 studies comparing a cognitive behavioral therapy such as relaxation training, guided imagery, self monitoring, or goal setting with the same therapy supplemented by hypnosis. Those who received the hypnosis lost more weight than 90 percent of those not receiving hypnosis and maintained the weight loss two years after treatment ended. University of Connecticut, Storrs Allison DB, Faith MS. Hypnosis as an adjunct to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy for obesity: a meta-analytic reappraisal. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64(3):513-516. Hypnosis More Than Doubled Average Weight Loss Study of the effect of adding hypnosis to cognitive-behavioral treatments for weight reduction, additional data were obtained from authors of two studies. Analyses indicated that the benefits of hypnosis increased substantially over time. Kirsch, Irving (1996). Hypnotic enhancement of cognitive-behavioral weight loss treatments–Another meta-reanalysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64 (3), 517-519. Hypnosis Showed Significantly Lower Post-Treatment Weights Two studies compared overweight smoking and non-smoking adult women in an hypnosis-based, weight-loss program. Both achieved significant weight losses and decreases in Body Mass Index. Follow-up study replicated significant weight losses and declines in Body Mass Index. The overt aversion and hypnosis program yielded significantly lower post-treatment weights and a greater average number of pounds lost. Weight loss for women: studies of smokers and nonsmokers using hypnosis and multi-component treatments with and without overt aversion. Johnson DL, Psychology Reprints. 1997 Jun;80(3 Pt 1):931-3. Hypnotherapy group with stress reduction achieved significantly more weight loss than the other two treatments. Randomised, controlled, parallel study of two forms of hypnotherapy (directed at stress reduction or energy intake reduction), vsdietary advice alone in 60 obese patients with obstructive sleep apnoea on nasal continuous positive airway pressure treatment. J Stradling, D Roberts, A Wilson and F Lovelock, Chest Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK Hypnosis can more than double the effects of traditional weight loss approaches An analysis of five weight loss studies reported in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in 1996 showed that the “… weight loss reported in the five studies indicates that hypnosis can more than double the effects” of traditional weight loss approaches. University of Connecticut, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in 1996 (Vol. 64, No. 3, pgs 517-519). Weight loss is greater where hypnosis is utilized Research into cognitive-behavioral weight loss treatments established that weight loss is greater where hypnosis is utilized. It was also established that the benefits of hypnosis increase over time. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1996) Showed Hypnosis As “An Effective Way To Lose Weight” A study of 60 females who were at least 20% overweight and not involved in other treatment showed hypnosis is an effective way to lose weight. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1986) Reference Hypnosis Reduces Frequency and Intensity of Migraines Compared the treatment of migraine by hypnosis and autohypnosis with the treatment of migraine by the drug prochlorperazine (Stemetil). Results show that the number of attacks and the number of people who suffered blinding attacks were significantly lower for the group receiving hypnotherapy than for the group receiving prochlorperazine. For the group on hypnotherapy, these two measures were significantly lower when on hypnotherapy than when on the previous treatment. It is concluded that further trials of hypnotherapy are justified against some other treatment not solely associated with the ingestion of tablets. Anderson JA, Basker MA, Dalton R, Migraine and hypnotherapy, International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis 1975; 23(1): 48-58. Hypnosis Reduces Pain and Speeds up Recovery from Surgery Since 1992, we have used hypnosis routinely in more than 1400 patients undergoing surgery. We found that hypnosis used with patients as an adjunct to conscious sedation and local anesthesia was associated with improved intraoperative patient comfort, and with reduced anxiety, pain, intraoperative requirements for anxiolytic and analgesic drugs, optimal surgical conditions and a faster recovery of the patient. We reported our clinical experience and our fundamental research. [Hypnosis and its application in surgery] Faymonville ME, Defechereux T, Joris J, Adant JP, Hamoir E, Meurisse M, Service d’Anesthesie-Reanimation, Universite de Liege, Rev Med Liege. 1998 Jul;53(7):414-8. Hypnosis Reduces Pain Intensity Analysis of the simple-simple main effects, holding both group and condition constant, revealed that application of hypnotic analgesia reduced report of pain intensity significantly more than report of pain unpleasantness. Dahlgren LA, Kurtz RM, Strube MJ, Malone MD, Differential effects of hypnotic suggestion on multiple dimensions of pain.Journal of Pain & Symptom Management. 1995; 10(6): 464-70. Hypnosis Reduces Pain of Headaches and Anxiety The improvement was confirmed by the subjective evaluation data gathered with the use of a questionnaire and by a significant reduction in anxiety scores. Melis PM, Rooimans W, Spierings EL, Hoogduin CA, Treatment of chronic tension-type headache with hypnotherapy: a single-blind time controlled study. Headache 1991; 31(10): 686-9. Hypnosis Lowered Post-treatment Pain in Burn Injuries Patients in the hypnosis group reported less post treatment pain than did patients in the control group. The findings are used to replicate earlier studies of burn pain hypnoanalgesia, explain discrepancies in the literature, and highlight the potential importance of motivation with this population. Patterson DR, Ptacek JT, Baseline pain as a moderator of hypnotic analgesia for burn injury treatment. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 1997; 65(1): 60-7. Hypnosis Lowered Phantom Limb Pain Hypnotic procedures appear to be a useful adjunct to established strategies for the treatment of phantom limb pain and would repay further, more systematic, investigation. Suggestions are provided as to the factors which should be considered for a more systematic research program. Treatment of phantom limb pain using hypnotic imagery. Oakley DA, Whitman LG, Halligan PW, Department of Psychology, University College, London, UK. Hypnosis Has a Reliable and Significant Impact on Acute and Chronic Pain Hypnosis has been demonstrated to reduce analogue pain, and studies on the mechanisms of laboratory pain reduction have provided useful applications to clinical populations. Studies showing central nervous system activity during hypnotic procedures offer preliminary information concerning possible physiological mechanisms of hypnotic analgesia. Randomized controlled studies with clinical populations indicate that hypnosis has a reliable and significant impact on acute procedural pain and chronic pain conditions. Methodological issues of this body of research are discussed, as are methods to better integrate hypnosis into comprehensive pain treatment. Hypnosis and clinical pain. Patterson DR, Jensen MP, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA USA 98104 Psychol Bull. 2003 Jul;129(4):495-521. Hypnosis is a Powerful Tool in Pain Therapy and is Biological in Addiction to Psychological Attempting to elucidate cerebral mechanisms behind hypnotic analgesia, we measured regional cerebral blood flow with positron emission tomography in patients with fibromyalgia, during hypnotically-induced analgesia and resting wakefulness. The patients experienced less pain during hypnosis than at rest. The cerebral blood-flow was bilaterally increased in the orbitofrontal and subcallosial cingulate cortices, the right thalamus, and the left inferior parietal cortex, and was decreased bilaterally in the cingulate cortex. The observed blood-flow pattern supports notions of a multifactorial nature of hypnotic analgesia, with an interplay between cortical and subcortical brain dynamics. Copyright 1999 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Functional anatomy of hypnotic analgesia: a PET study of patients with fibromyalgia. Wik G, Fischer H, Bragee B, Finer B, Fredrikson M, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Karolinska Institute and Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden Eur J Pain. 1999 Mar;3(1):7-12. Hypnosis Useful in Hospital Emergency Rooms Hypnosis can be a useful adjunct in the emergency department setting. Its efficacy in various clinical applications has been replicated in controlled studies. Application to burns, pain, pediatric procedures, surgery, psychiatric presentations (e.g., coma, somatoform disorder, anxiety, and post traumatic stress), and obstetric situations (e.g., hyperemesis, labor, and delivery) are described. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2000 May;18(2):327-38, x. The use of hypnosis in emergency medicine. Peebles-Kleiger MJ, Menninger School of Psychiatry and Mental Health Sciences, Menninger Clinic, Topeka, KS, USA. peeblemj@menninger.edu Significantly More Methadone Addicts Quit with Hypnosis. 94% Remained Narcotic Free Significant differences were found on all measures. The experimental group had significantly less discomfort and illicit drug use, and a significantly greater amount of cessation. At six month follow up, 94% of the subjects in the experimental group who had achieved cessation remained narcotic free. A comparative study of hypnotherapy and psychotherapy in the treatment of methadone addicts. Manganiello AJ, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1984; 26(4): 273-9. Hypnosis Shows 77 Percent Success Rate for Drug Addiction Treatment has been used with 18 clients over the last 7 years and has shown a 77 percent success rate for at least a 1-year follow-up. 15 were being seen for alcoholism or alcohol abuse, 2 clients were being seen for cocaine addiction, and 1 client had a marijuana addiction Intensive Therapy: Utilizing Hypnosis in the Treatment of Substance Abuse Disorders. Potter, Greg, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, Jul 2004. Raised Self-esteem & Serenity. Lowered Impulsivity and Anger In a research study on self-hypnosis for relapse prevention training with chronic drug/alcohol users. Participants were 261 veterans admitted to Substance Abuse Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (SARRTPs). individuals who used repeated self-hypnosis “at least 3 to 5 times a week,” at 7-week follow-up, reported the highest levels of self-esteem and serenity, and the least anger/impulsivity, in comparison to the minimal-practice and control groups. American Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy (a publication of the American Psychological Association) 2004 Apr;46(4):281-97) Hypnosis For Cocaine Addiction Documented Case Study Hypnosis was successfully used to overcome a $500 (five grams) per day cocaine addiction. The subject was a female in her twenties. After approximately 8 months of addiction, she decided to use hypnosis in an attempt to overcome the addiction itself. Over the next 4 months, she used hypnosis three times a day and at the end of this period, her addiction was broken, and she has been drug free for the past 9 years. Hypnosis was the only intervention, and no support network of any kind was available. The use of hypnosis in cocaine addiction. Page RA, Handley GW, Ohio State University, Lima, OH USA 45804. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1993 Oct;36(2):120-3. Healed 41% faster from fracture Healed significantly faster from surgery Two studies from Harvard Medical School show hypnosis significantly reduces the time it takes to heal. Study One: Six weeks after an ankle fracture, those in the hypnosis group showed the equivalent of eight and a half weeks of healing. Study Two: Three groups of people studied after breast reduction surgery. Hypnosis group healed “significantly faster” than supportive attention group and control group. Harvard Medical School, Carol Ginandes and Union Institute in Cincinnati, Patricia Brooks, Harvard University Gazette

NRGized (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

NRGized, how about you propose a rewrite here in the talk page to differentiate between what is considered pseudoscientific about it and what is accepted by the psychological scientific community? Lukekfreeman (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

NRGized, I fear you have misunderstood the purpose of this list. Whether something on the list IS or IS NOT a pseudoscience is totally irrelevant. If reliable sources have "characterized" the subject as pseudoscience, it gets listed. Since there have been many such accusations against hypnosis throughout the years, we can find such sources and hence it is listed. So, my point is that you're wasting your time because you've misunderstood the nature of this list. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lukekfreeman, per my comment above, even if NRGized were to follow your suggestion, it would have no influence on the inclusion status of the topic. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please remove hypnosis from the list of "Pseudoscience" as quickly as you can!

The NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine cleary shows hypnosis is evidence based for a wide range of conditions and behaviors http://nccam.nih.gov/health/hypnosis

Please remove hypnosis from the list of "Pseudoscience" as quickly as you can!

Thank You Michael Ellner Diplomat - International Medical and Dental Hypnotherapy Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ellner (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, as mentioned in the section above, this list doesn't not say if a topic is or is not pseudo science, it only lists what has been " characterized" as such. Hypnosis fits that definition and this is why it will stay on that list. The fact that it may actually work for some conditions is not relevant for inclusion or exclusion from this list.--McSly (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that these two requests come from false allegations made here:

• http://www.hypnothoughts.com/forum/topics/hypnosis-nlp-listed-as-pseudoscience

Rather than saying that these are lies, it is more likely that they are based on a misunderstanding and are thus relatively innocent misrepresentations of fact. Both comments use the similar phrases "pseudoscience list" and "list of pseudoscience". They mean the same thing, but that's not what this list is about, as explained above. If anyone wants to comment on that forum to prevent others from being confused/deceived, please do so. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Pyramid power

Please add Pyramid power. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Lacking a specific ref that it is a pseudoscience, I added Pyramidology to the see also section. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make the change, but the delta on the diff button looked too much like a pyramid... a13ean (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

POV-March 2013

I'm horrified. This article is pure sceptics-organisation-POV an not approximately a enzycolpedic article. The sources are sceptic websites and typical publications. --WSC ^® 16:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, what you say may or may not be true for some of the items on the list. This is certainly not true for the list as a whole. If you have specific issues with the sourcing of some of the disciplines listed in the article, please bring them here. In the meantime, I'm removing the tag since it clearly doesn't apply.--McSly (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The list itself is pseudoscience. Because it pretend to be science but it is just the wild conglomerate of therorys. Someone thougth: "it could be pseudoscience". Thats not an encyclopedical article. It should be delated. --WSC ^® 16:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deleted, just follow the procedure at Articles for deletion.--McSly (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone? If you think any of the sources don't meet our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, let us know. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know the wikipedia well. Well engough to say that a lot of wikipedians overstate their own role. That is in german wp so and here not a lot differnt. You just have to take a look at this "list". To establish a list of pseudoscience you need more than a wrong understanding of wikipedia. You need a wrong understandig of philosophy of science and a wrong understanding of what a encyclopedia is. A example: Tell me where I can find a list of pseudosciences in scientiffic literature how include all philosophical meanings and no disagree and estimates of this term you can take as fundation of this "list"? You couldn't find one! It's a POV-list who destrois the meaning of this encyclopedia. A bias of privat scepitc organisations in the science hers tout as "generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations." What is this? Are scepitcal organisations a indicator for a pseudoscience? These organisations are not scientific at all. Or isn't the "scientific community" be at loggerheads? No, this list is POV as POV can. It's out of question to throw all this together by refering on "sceptical organisations" or a vague "scientiffic community." It might be a paradigmatic contest to estimate the other theory as pseudoscience, like the string theory. You can't establish such a list here, because theres no foundation in science. --WSC ^® 18:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You may know the German Wikipedia well, but the English Wikipedia its own policies and guidelines and in some aspects they are quite different - probably this article is an example. And as you've been told, you can take this article for deletion through the AfD process but I don't think you will get it deleted. Here, if reliable sources by our criteria say something is pseudoscience we can use that. There's no point in your debating here whether or not the article should exist. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know that en:wp uses unreliable sources an OR-Lists! Thats news to me. --WSC ^® 19:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are just being rude. Our policy on acceptable sources is not the same as the German policy, have you compared them? Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

They are similar but nearly identical in scholarship. I don't want to be rude but distinct. The list is a violation of our rules in de and en wikipedia. --WSC ^® 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First, read the title and lede VERY carefully. THEN come back here and name specifically which WP policies are violated, and mention specific examples of inclusions, content, or wordings that violate which policies. Please be VERY specific and maybe we can help you. Without such help we can't help you. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've read the title and I'm very carfull when I say it's WP:Weasel words. What means "characterized" as pseudoscience? By whom? What are the including criterias? The only including criteria is that anybody sayed it's pseudoscience. No consideration if there are opposit opinions or who is the one who wrote that. Are there any criterias in philosophy of science in generally? For example: Why don't we start a article: List of topics characterized as wrong or List of people characterized as evel or List of theories characterized as untenable? This list is naiv and got nothing to do with encyclopedia or science. It showes a wrong understanding of science and philosopy. --WSC ^® 08:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Try to find some other policies, since WEASEL is a rather subjective one. Wikipedia is not like any other encyclopedia. It is an unusual encyclopedia, not science. It is pioneering new territory. Its goal is to document the sum total of human knowledge. That's a huge area and no one has ever attempted to do that before. As far as the word "characterized" goes, your problem is likely because English is not your mother tongue. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not wise to criticize other languages when they are not your own. If English was your mother tongue, you would understand this use of the word. The lede happens to describe the inclusion criteria, and RS are a fundamental part of the criteria. Unless you can do as I asked above - to name specifically which WP policies are violated, and mention specific examples of inclusions, content, or wordings that violate which policies - we can't really help you. Yes, you don't like this list. That's your opinion. You have expressed it. Fine. Now drop the stick and walk away. You are Flogging a dead horse. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen is generally correct. List articles like this often rest solidly on the foundations of WP:OR. Unless there are reliably sourced lists which support item inclusion, adding it to the list is pure sysnthesis. Unfortunately, lists (and categories) are one of the edge cases that wikipedia does not handle well, so there is little hope in reigning in this general style of article. Other good examples of this include List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎ and List of scandals with "-gate" suffix‎ aprock (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as the content does not misuse or misrepresent what the RS say, there is no OR or synthesis. The common theme is "pseudoscience", and we have collected evidence of how various RS describe notable topics in this connection. There are actually many lists out there in RS books and websites which contain many of the items listed here. Otherwise you are somewhat right about lists being in a sort of grey area. No other encyclopedia has a list like this, although they do have lists of various kinds. What this list does is to fulfill the main goal of Wikipedia, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and there are lots of RS which characterize notable subjects as pseudoscience. (Note that we are not calling them pseudoscience. Whether they really are or not is irrelevant.) Without this list, Wikipedia would have a hole on this topic. It would fail to live up to its goal.

Wikipedia is not like any other encyclopedia, which is a good thing. Until our policies change, we will just follow the ones we have, and thus this list stays. Other attempts to sabotage and delete it have failed. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

One relevant policy is WP:LISTN. I rarely see it applied properly, this article being no exception. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I have better things to work on, on and off of wikipedia. aprock (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sry you have to wait for an aswer, but I'm busy right now. From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is not (...) an indiscriminate collection of information (...)." So this list violates one of the five pillars, at least. I think, this point ist cleare but you can also go back to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Futher it violates the pillar "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." Here you should have a look at balance. It also violates WP:RS. The lemma is described as: "Criticism of pseudoscience, generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations, involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question." (This paragraph is sourced from a website of a govermantel organisation [16]. I couldn't find the term "skeptical organisation".) So called skeptical organizations are no RS. They are no scientiffic sources but private societys. The most publications are club magazines or websites. That violates RS. Futher it's dubious if a single or few reliable source represents the meaning of "scientific community".

I hope I can help you understand that issue. --WSC ^® 07:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

WSC, I'm trying to figure out what you're saying, in spite of all the spelling and grammatical errors and insertions of foreign words. One thing seems clear, and that is that your understanding of RS differs radically from Wikipedia's, and I doubt that the German Wikipedia differs so much that it only allows scientific sources, and forbids the use of websites, magazines, newspapers, etc.. We allow their use, but they must still be reliable for the use intended here. Context means a lot.

As far as the reference in the lede (the NSF is a VERY RS), technically a lede doesn't need any references because it is summarizing reliably sourced content in the body of the article. Each part of what you quoted shows where the information is found, and you'll find references from those sources throughout the article.

There is another guideline which applies here, and which you don't seem to know about. It's this one: WP:FRINGE. Fringe subjects (and that includes pseudoscience) have slightly different sourcing guidelines, and that's because fringe subjects are rarely discussed in scientific or scholarly sources. Since the subjects are still part of "the sum total of human knowledge," we are obliged to still seek to cover them at Wikipedia. Therefore we must find other types of RS which discuss them, and these are usually skeptical sources. Since scientific skeptics have the same POV as mainstream science, and Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, we do use those sources in some cases. Again, context is important, and some of them would be RS for some purposes, and not for others. Here they are exactly on target and useful.

Since you are not bringing up anything new, but just repeating your opinions and dissatisfactions, you really do need to move on before you get blocked. This article is covered by an Arbitration Committee decision, and there are "discretionary sanctions" which can be applied to editors who are obstructive or disruptive. Your continued objections without constructive comments are just that. You're wasting our time. At the top of this page, you'll see these sanctions described. Here they are:

• "In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."

I suggest you do more editing at the German Wikipedia where you likely have more edits and experience. Here you're considered a newbie, and your comments indicate you don't understand how we work. So far there is no indication that you are learning from the comments of far more experienced editors. When you are a guest in someone else's home, it is sensible and polite to learn the rules that govern their home and be a good guest. It's unfortunate that you don't seem to be learning, but instead are offending people here and trying to teach them. You're not in a position to be teaching at this point.

For the record, consider this a formal warning. If an admin determines that your behavior is disruptive, they can see that you have been warned. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please be more careful with guidelines. WP:LEADCITE does not say that references are technically not required. That's only true for non-controversial topics, and even then citations are not precluded. aprock (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. While not always necessary, in practice we still include a few references in the lede for the sake of editors who don't read the rest of the article. If there are any truly controversial places in the lede which really need references, they can be copied from the body to the lede. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, many of the topics listed step outside the guidelines discussed in WP:LISTN. aprock (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I don't recall this issue coming up before, but I could be mistaken. We have always limited content to subjects discussed in RS, and that's usually what's necessary for articles and lists.

While notability is not required for every item in a list, we have still limited content to subjects that are notable enough to have their own articles here, and those articles contain even more information. Doing this has limited edit warring and attempts to sabotage the list or fill it with trivia.

Note that "Appropriate topics for lists" states: "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." -- Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, excuse my lousy english. But your answer indicates that you understand me right. See, the WP:RS is unambiguous. Some citations WP:RS

• "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
• "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible."
• "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."

These sentence are unmistakable. It may be, that some english autors in wikipedia neglect the five pillars and guidelines like RS. I won't!

There are many excelent publications in philosophy of science about that issue. But non of them indicates such a naiv perception as this list serve. Theres no need to use single secondary passages of textbooks or sceptical websites. The problem for your list is, the scientific publications don't support such a list. --WSC ^® 19:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with your citations from the RS policy. Very correct. That's not all though. If you dispute specific sources or subjects, please name them and what problems you see with them, and mention which policies they violate. If someone has slipped in some content and/or sources that violate relevant policies, we can certainly discuss them. We don't want that happening, and we know it does happen at times.

You write that "the scientific publications don't support such a list." I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. You'll have to mention which parts of the list aren't mentioned in scientific sources. If they are not mentioned, then they are covered by the FRINGE guideline. That guideline covers such content because scientific sources often fail to deal with fringe subjects. That's the "nature of the beast." Non-scientific/nonsense fringe subjects are not subjects for scientific endeavor, yet they are part of "the sum total of human knowledge," and therefore Wikipedia's main goal requires we document this knowledge. Since those subjects are dealt with in many other reliable sources than specifically scientific ones, we still have articles about them using those sources, and they are also mentioned very briefly here, with links to those articles.

Note that there have been three previous attempts to delete this list (you can read about them at the top), nearly always by believers in certain items which are listed, and they have always failed in their attempts. It would take some totally new arguments to justify such a renewed attempt.

Just for your information, here is some information about those who have commented in this thread:

• User:Widescreen, 896 edits since: 2008-01-17
• User:McSly, rollbacker, 19659 edits since: 2006-10-25
• User:Dougweller, sysop, 97979 edits since: 2006-04-23
• User:BullRangifer, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 37225 edits since: 2005-12-18
• User:Aprock, 8456 edits since: 2007-11-26

Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have to excuse my english again. Seems like you don't understand my point. I don't criticize single sources. I criticize the list as a whole. It violates fundamental policys of wikipedia. The first policy is "Wikipedia is not (...) an indiscriminate collection of information (...)." There is no arrangement in science which theory or method is pseudocience or not. Futher theres no arrangement if the term pseudoscience is a valid term to describe science or dicriminate science from pseudoscience. In philosophy of science there are more theories than this one. And the term pseudoscience is vage formulated. There are different oppinions what pseudoscience means. E.g. Imre Lakatos has a different meaning of pseudoscience than Popper. Futher it violates "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." Because among the problems of the term, it's a very unilateral construct. Other philosophers have other theoriey of how science works. E.g. Samuel Kuhn and his pattern of paradigma. And of course it violates RS. --WSC ^® 07:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is applied very narrowly on en.wiki. There are not a lot of policies or guidelines that give guidance on dealing with the issue. Most guidelines and policies of en.wiki have generally been written to give guidance on how to include content, not on how to exclude content. Policy and guidelines are broadly interpreted to support the existence of this sort of article. Raising the editorial standards of the community would be a massive undertaking and one that would probably take several years to propagate to the community as a whole. aprock (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you would, preferably in one sentence, state what you think should be done about this article. And do you understand that we can use opinions in en.wiki? Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@Aprock: I think this point is absolute clear: "Wikipedia is not (...) an indiscriminate collection of information (...)." You can't arbitrarily put together informations. E.g. The definition of this list, which contains what topics are included is self made. The heading contains only one source (as if the term pseudoscience and such a list don't need any scientific sources) of an website (which violates RS). So I assume that this definition of the list is fictional. The autor or the autors thougth, that this term and such a list needs no explanations? That skeptical organisations are able to assass a method as pseudoscience is quite daring. The term itself isn't defined. What kind of "pseudocience" do we have here? Popper-pseudoscience or Lakatos-pseudoscience? Or rather pseudoscience some wikipedians thought: "that is one!" Thats why the list goes to weasel when it says topics "characterized as..." Characterizede by whom? My neighbour or so called skeptics? Scientific sources or philiosopy of science-sources? Or maybe Karl Popper or Imre Lakatos? Thats what this fundamental policy means: indiscriminate collection of information. Theres no source you can find such a definition or such a list in. Thats why this list violates NPOV also.

@Dougwller: You accused me of being inexperienced in en:wp. [17] [18] So you should tell me, what to do with an article, who violates two pillars of wikipedia and additional other policys like RS. --WSC ^® 04:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't tell me what you want done with this article. Two choices seem obvious, discuss it at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard or take it to WP:AFD. I don't think you understand our policy on reliable sources - that's probably a difference between the two wikipedias, as is the way we allow the use of opinion. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the amount of encyclopaedias of pseudoscience and lists out there etc, I would enjoy that AfD. I see Enric Naval has already done the heavy lifting in previous AfDs. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I cited some relevant passages from WP:RS. Wat is mistakable on this citatatiations of our policys? What makes you belief, I can't understand what is dubious in "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." In this article also sources from so called skeptical organisations are figured as reliable. That is a violation of this policy.

@IRWolfie: You would enjoy that AfD? I think this article is a sadly reality in this so called encyclopedia. It showes you can't take wikipedia seriously. The fact, there are "encyclopaedias of pseudoscience" published by some skeptics doesn't make such a list an encyclopedic article. Because this skeptical thinking is only one kind of thinking about that issue. We figure it as the only relevant manner. Thats disinformation of our readers. I think thats not funny. --WSC ^® 17:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"When available" is a key phrase. There are many subjects which Wikipedia is required to cover (nearly all subjects in existence) which are not mentioned in "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks," and yet they are covered in many other reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, websites, skeptical publications, etc.. Each type of source is reliable for certain purposes and not for other purposes. Some are RS for scientific fact, and others are RS for opinions. You seem to fail to realize the difference and want to exclude skeptical sources for any purpose at all. Why? They document the opinions of skeptics. Those opinions are notable and part of the "sum total of human knowledge."

Does the German Wikipedia exclude the documentation of any opinions at all? I have a hard time imagining that would be the case, for that would make it a very boring encyclopedia, with huge gaps in the information it is supposed to provide. For example, the lives of celebrities get NO mention in "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks," and yet the German Wikipedia probably covers them. Isn't that true? One could even imagine an article about a celebrity in which the RS policy is applied very differently to different parts of the article, depending on the subject: For their birth information, some sources are allowed and others are not; for their filming schedule, scientific sources are irrelevant and not RS for that purpose; and for some medical/scientific information in the same article, only WP:MEDRS will do the job.

This is why a good understanding of the wide variety of applications for the RS policy is important. My watchlist right now says this at the top: "You have 7,616 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I have edited more articles, but that's the current status of my watchlist, and those articles cover every conceivable subject. I have to know the RS policy pretty well to deal with such a variety of subjects.

You can't just cite "RS" as if it's a single-word policy that can only be applied in one manner. It has a huge variety of applications. If you ever expect to be a good editor and taken seriously, you will have to learn to try to imagine EVERY type of human knowledge, whether it be proven fact, history, event, belief, imagination, hallucination, rumor, lie, conspiracy theory, ..... literally imagine EVERY possible type. THEN, no matter how ridiculous you feel it is, you will defend its inclusion here, provided that inclusion and documentation is done properly. That's why we have articles on chiropractic, homeopathy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God, and the Higgs boson. (We have more evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson, the "God particle," than we do for the existence of God, yet we have an article about God! Imagine that!) We are supposed to document ALL of those bits of knowledge IF they are notable enough to be mentioned in RS, and then we use those sources.

Sometimes that means using sources from deluded true believers that are ONLY reliable for documenting the existence of false ideas, and are good for NOTHING else. They are actually lies, yet we use them. Those are fringe ideas and fringe sources, and no scientific source will ever touch them, but scientific skeptics will deal with them because they are debunking nonsense and defending the public from deception.

The WP:FRINGE guideline covers such uses of fringe sources, and the skeptical sources which cover fringe subjects. We are REQUIRED to use them, not ignore the subject. Ignoring the subject would violate the main goal of Wikipedia, which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge." We don't want knowledge gaps here. We don't want anyone coming here to find information about something they have heard or read elsewhere, and leaving empty handed. Wikipedia is often the only place they will discover "the other side of the story" because they never read skeptical sources. That's a good thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutly right! "When available" is the key phrase. In this case outstanding scientific sources are available. Soures of very famous and accept philosophers. In this scientific field, about the term "pseudoscience", theres no need to go back to secondary sources. To the contrary! It's a sin to collate those sources with sources like privat skeptic organisations, or websites with poor quality. And it's a violation of our policys.

It's courious that in this field of pseudoscience, user belief that they don't have to use scientific sources? Especially in this field. Ain't it a contradiction of the poupose to esthablish scientific working and "tutor" the reader what science is by using "unscientific" sources and make no scientific work?

Futher you ask if it's not right to include opinions in our articles. Of course, you can include relavant opinions in articles. Every philosopher of science has an opinion. And there are a lot of opinions on the term pseudoscience. Some say it's demarcation to distinguish sciencen form non-science or from pseudoscience. Others criticize the term or the demarcation. I gave some examples of the debate above. What skeptical organisations can conduce in this philosophical debate, is really doubious. They follow there own opinion what science is. Mostly a naiv positivism or somthing like a mix of Popper and Vienna Circle or a Mix of Popper and there own scientific discipline. Or somthing like that. And claim for themself a educational mandate. Be a so called skeptic, is a hobby.

Now lets talk about the pragmatical dimension. If you see a article like e.g. Moon landing conspiracy theories you want to write a paragraph, that this theory is a pseudoscience. This theories are called conspiracy theories? Why they are additional an pseudoscience? The quality of sources are really poor. It's a website of an disused webpage. I couldn't find better sources whithin 5 Min. Who would do such a wast of time and estimate such a nonsense like 'moon landing cospiracy' as a science? And is such a estimate really a scientific one? Or is it just the opinion of some skeptics who haven't really understand how complicate the issue about pseudoscience is? It's doubius if such a oppinion of skeptic organisations is relevant enough to have an own list. Well, I don't know. It's not as easy as it seems. Futher theres still the problem, skeptical organisation have an other understandig of what pseudoscience is than most philosophers of science. Is it tantamount when Karl Poppers estimate a theory is pseudoscience or a skepic autor in a club magazin? You can't treat those opinions equally.

But the main argument against such a list is, that's a SCIENTIFIC issue! A list about pseudoscience is a scientific issue. It's a question of philosophy of science. That's why we have to use scientific sources. Above all because the philosophy of science sources have an other opinion than so called sceptical organisations have. You try to compare high quality philosophy of science-sources with skeptical ones. Thats undifferentiated an non-encyclopediacal.--WSC ^® 06:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.". In the the latest deletion discussion I posted a list of sources that fit this criteria.

I vaguely remember from other discussions that the sourcing requirements for lists are way stricter in the German wikipedia. Every wikipedia has its own rules, and they apply only on that wikipedia. We don't apply, for example, the rules of the Spanish wikipedia. Why should we? They reflect a different cultural background and circumstances. If you think that a certain rule on the German wikipedia is better than the local equivalent, then you should ask for local adoption in the talk page of the relevant guideline. There is no point in arguing that we are not following the rules of the German wikipedia, we were never supposed to follow them in the first place. We are already following the relevant guidelines: the local guidelines in the English wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Enric makes some good points, so please stop complaining about the rules we have here. This is not the place to seek to change our rules.

Widescreen, you make some rather odd accusations above. We DO want to also include scientific opinions and sources. Why would you think we don't? If you have some good sources on any particular entry here, please propose them. If they are good, they can be used in the relevant article (so discuss it there, not here) and possibly also here (then discuss it here). Please show us what you have. Article improvement, not destruction, is what we do here.

I do find it very disturbing that you would consider nasa.gov a poor source. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a very reliable source on the subject of moon landings and their associated conspiracy theories. It makes no difference that it's an archived version, unless they had changed their opinion, which they haven't. It's still a good source for the subject.

Your objections to some good sources really make me wonder about your real concerns. They are obviously more than just about the sources. You apparently don't like them (which makes no difference to Wikipedia), but you also seem to not like the existence of the term "pseudoscience" at all. Whether you like it or not, it's here to stay, and we must document its uses, good and bad. Since it's a controversial subject, that means we document it from all angles, using all types of sources, including notable opinions.

Finally, much of what you say is not relevant here, but is more relevant at the Pseudoscience article and the Moon landing conspiracy theories article. Please go there and seek to improve them. This is not the place. BTW, NASA does have some current content about the hoax conspiracy theories: [19], [20]. It appears NASA has a newer article located here. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't everybody speak up at once! Please respect that I have limited time to teach you fundamentals in philosophy of science and scientific work, you call that "odd accusations". I will answer all of you but it takes time. Why don't you read my last contribs. --WSC ^® 20:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not interested and it would be a violation of WP:TALK for you to do so here. Go teach somewhere else, although, with the length of your enormous block log at the German Wikipedia, you may not have any other place to go than here. Your assumption that you can or should teach us anything....maybe, maybe not....is neither appreciated nor relevant. We all know something the other one doesn't know. Big deal. We all have experience to varying degrees in medicine and science, and may even have taught(!). Big deal. What is relevant here is following the policies of the "English" Wikipedia and improving its content. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note my requests for community ban ([21][22][23][24][25][26][27]) also. --WSC ^® 22:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I am impressed. Most users with so much bad baggage would have been indefinitely banned long ago. Have you been exiled and are here now? Please don't repeat those behaviors here. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No! Its because my personal fight with some german admins. I wasn't been banned because I've wrote 3 featured articles. And reveal some scandals I think. --WSC ^® 06:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: You say this list is reliable because of WP Policy Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. You cited that Lists are "considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" There are independent reliable sources. But this sources doesn't prove such a list. Seems like we have different opinons of what a "independent and reliable" source is. For example: The source at the topic "moon conspiracy" [28] is a govermental source. Not a scientific source. That's far away of being independent. At the hole source you couldn't find the term "pseudoscience". The NASA-page calles the conspiracy theory a hoax. A hoax! Not a pseudoscience. That's no source! It's not indipendent, it's not scientific and it doesn't prove the entry as pseudoscience at all. Even the NASA calles that theory a hoax. They call it nonsense! And skepical souces like skeptical inquirer are the opposite of a "independent and reliable" source. Skeptical organisations are ideological associations just as some topics in this list. Just because you are more familiar whith the skeptical ideology you can't decide which ideology is more relevant for such a list. Futher you say that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." As I said before, there are too much oppinions in philosophy of science to esthablish such a list. Or you have to call the list List of topics who would characterized as pseudoscience in the philosophy of Karl Popper or List of topics who would characterized as pseudoscience in the philosophy of Imre Lakatos (I hope that is right english). As I said before: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PSEUDOSCIENCE! There are many different oppionons of what pseudoscience is! Such a list is misleading and a overgeneralization. You claim there's one definition of pseudoscience which means the same thing. But that's a great mistake. --WSC ^® 07:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears this section is Flogging a dead horse. http://i.imgur.com/XxFzM.jpg • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm? Is that a argument or just a unassuming personel view? --WSC ^® 11:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right in that the theory itself is not pseudoscience. But it relies on bad science, on pseudoscience and on pseudoscientific explanations. Try page 154 of Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy[29] (too long to quote here, search for the word "pseudoscience" if you can't find it).

There are more entries that are not pseudoscience per se. But they are included because people pull all sorts of pseudoscience to justify them. Those entries should be written carefully to explain what parts are pseudoscience and what parts aren't. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, now we're finally getting to the crux of Widescreen's motivations:

• "As I said before: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PSEUDOSCIENCE! There are many different oppionons of what pseudoscience is! Such a list is misleading a overgeneralization. You claim there's one definition of pseudoscience which means the same thing. But that's a great mistake."

1. There definitely IS "such a thing as pseudoscience." You may doubt that, but try taking up the issue at the pseudoscience article, not here. You're wasting our time and indeed are kicking a dead horse.

2. No one has claimed there is only "one definition of pseudoscience." There are several variations, so we follow what RS say and use their definitions. Again, that's an issue for the pseudoscience article, not here.

3. You still fail to understand Wikipedia. Articles cover the subject from EVERY angle. Even scientific subjects are covered from all angles. That includes popular controversies, media coverage, erroneous views and misunderstandings, etc.. The basic scientific facts of the matter are still presented using scientific sources, but the other angles often use other sources, some of them far from scientific. As long as they are RS "for the purpose" we use them.

4. Since pseudoscience is in the borderland between science and nonsense, and scientific skeptics are active in that area because of their interest in defending the public from deception and "unscientific ideas masquerading as science" (a simple definition of pseudoscience), the skeptics are the de facto experts in the area of pseudoscience, so you're not gong to have any success in excluding their views from these articles. Their views are RS for this subject.

5. Your continual IDHT attitude is really tiresome. You have been told many times that you're wasting our time, and you are still doing it. Please find something else to do, or at least take up the issues at the appropriate places. This is not the place. Until the policies of the English Wikipedia are changed to be in line with the German Wikipedia, you're not going to make any progress here, and you're causing disruption here, just like you've done at the German Wikipedia. There you have one of the longest block logs I've seen in a long time. There you've been banned/blocked for wasting time and disruption, and you're about to have that happen here if you don't stop.

6. You seem to have an issue with the Moon landing conspiracy theories matter. Take it up at that article, not here. If they use sources we don't use, or we use sources they don't use, then the matter can be harmonized. There are sources regarding the pseudoscientific arguments used to keep the hoaxes and theories alive. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

@Brangifer: Seems to me, the phase of personal attacks has begun. I'm kicking a dead horse and all this talk about famous philosophers is just a waste of time. And the term pseudoscience is so clear defined we can bring him to our readers that way. --WSC ^® 07:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: Let me put it to you this way: I think, we are agree the term pseudoscience is a term of philosophy of science. But PC Plait ain't a philosopher. He's a skeptic. The term is used in a popular science-context. He don't even try to define the term in a philosophical context: [30] [31] Do you think it is our job to mix up philosophy and some ideology in this encyklopedia? Skeptics instrumental the term pseudoscience as way to fight against esoteric, conspiracy theory and alternativ medicine. In philosophy of science the term and the demarcation between science and non-science is a embettled field. You can't claim theres a definition of pseudocience justifying such a list. We are no skeptics we write a encyclopedia. It's not our job to teach people what skeptic thinking means.

You said somthing absolute accurate: "There are more entries that are not pseudoscience per se. But they are included because people pull all sorts of pseudoscience to justify them." This means that we, as a neutral encyclopedia, claim ther's a coherent term named pseudoscience and all the following topics are pseudocience. The coherence rises only by using weasle words like "characterized as". That's not correct. The (so called) skeptica movement is a popular offshoot of the philosopy of Paul Kurtz. It's a popular and ideologic movement. The most popular Hero is a stage magician. That's a rape of the pillars and independence of wikipeida. We are not a branch of CSI.

The only benefit is that you can claim esoteric, conspiracy theory and alternativ medicine lemmas are pseudocience. You can call nonsense as a pseudoscience. But we adopt the ideology of private skeptic societies. Thats POV as POV can. --WSC ^® 07:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. In the English wikipedia, skeptical organizations are considered reliable sources for pseudoscience, fringe science, paranormal, ufology, etc.

"Boundary work" is not an exclusive prerogative of scientists. All of society helps to define the cultural maps of science. I would recommend "Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line", by Thomas F. Gieryn (I suggest that you read his article before replying to this comment) It's more complicated than this, of course. You can't just go and exclude every "skeptic" organization. If you want to exclude James Randi and CSICOP as reliable sources, then I'll tell you that it's been tried before and that it's just not going to work.

Basically, your arguments are not getting any traction and they are unlikely to get any traction. It's not that "the phase of personal attacks has begun", it's that most editors genuinely think you are actually kicking an actual dead horse. Thus, they are getting irritated, because in their eyes they are seeing how you are kicking a dead horse.

This is not likely to result in changes to the article, and I might stop responding to this thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: I'm bound to say the explanation for violating the five pillars and RS is adventurous.

1. "'Boundary work' is not an exclusive prerogative of scientists." Seems to be the exclusiv opinion of Thomas F. Gieryn. Futher, what you call "all of society" doesn't mean "all of skeptics". I hope you doesn't expect from me, to read the hole book. But I find a interesting passage in it: "One might challenge such efforts on empirical grounds, mustering evidence to show that scientists are neither falsifiers, skeptics, nor puzzle sovers. My tack is different, in effect, a shift of the dependent variable: those who seek essentianlist demarcation criteria should not assume that these explain the epistiemic authority of science." You are right is not as easy as you try to make belief. Maybe you can't exclude any sceptic organisation, but that doesen't mean you have to take them as primary source here in wikipedia. Skeptics are relevant when their meaning is reflected by scientific sources, such as TF Gieryn.
2. You said it's been tried before to exclude CSICOP, but it doesn't work. But that doesn't answers the question: Is it right to exclude them?
3. You said my arguments are not getting any traction. That may accounted for by a missunderstanding of some users who belief they have to fight against pseudoscience (or what they personally belief what pseudoscience is) in this encyclopedia. That doesn't clears up the question if it's right that my arguments be turned down (sometimes by dreadful reply).
4. Most authors may belief I'm kicking an actual dead horse. But thats what Hans Albert calles "immunity against criticism".
5. The topic of this thread is 'POV-March 2013'. It about a POV-box in the article. If you haven't any arguments anymore, I assume that you are consent. --WSC ^® 06:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand how en.Wiki works. Silence from an editor who clearly disagrees with you and who has said they might stop responding is clearly not consent. If you think there are sourcing issues, go to WP:RSN. If you see a specific POV problem, got to WP:NPOVN. So far you still seem to be arguing that this article has no place here but you won't take it to AfD. So, all I can conclude is that you are using this talk page as a WP:FORUM if you don't take your concerns elsewhere. That's not an appropriate use of a talk page and could lead to your being banned from it. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you don't understand how wikipedia works. Belief it or not, in de.wiki some users try to abort an debatte, they can't win, while they say: "I'm against it, but I'm not willing to discuss anymore" too. I think in en.wiki you haven't any atmosphere of constructive debate. You can't wipe away philosophical arguments with arguments like 'that it's just not going to work' or 'you are kicking a dead horse' or 'en.wiki ignores modern philosophy, they rather follow popular and ideologic "movements" like popular skepticism'. Do you really think this kinds of arguments are able to argue excellent philosophical sources away? I mean, of course, you and 30 other skeptics can assert such nonsense, but that ain't serious arguments against philosophy of science. --WSC ^® 08:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion based upon generalities is pretty obviously getting nowhere. Instead of claiming the entire article has pov problems, I suggest identifying the very worst case within the article and working from there. If others agree there is one problem, then we can look if similar problems exist across the entire article. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a weekly markt and no democracy! If some users didn't agree with a POV-box they have to refute my doubts. But thats not possible because my reasoning based upon that philosophy of science doesn't have one definition of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience ain't a term you can use as topic of a list of anything. If you ask me which is the worst case, you doesn't understand the problem of the list. The article is nonsense. It don't matter if some users of en.wikipedia doesen't realize that. The only arguments are a ambiguous secondary policy and the assertion, en.wikipedia doesn't work like that. "Like that" means they don't care about basic sources about the demarcation of pseudoscience. You also doesn't have arguments but WARring a POV-Box out of the article. Do you think this kind of behavior destroys coherent arguments? --WSC ^® 20:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If no one can come up with a single example that we can agree upon, then I don't think this discussion is going to change consensus in any way. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I've written? What kind of example do you mean? A example of what? A example what Hilary Putnam writes about religion and pseudoscience? Or Rudolf Carnap? --WSC ^® 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to have bothered you. I see no way for you to change consensus if you just continue as you have. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I'm not right, I'm not wrong, I just can't get a consensus. But a POV-box is especially made for such situations. Isn't it? A POV-box was made for articles the neutrality is disputed. I can't get a consensus (because some users are not interested in such things like "reliable sources" or "philosophical debats" or "the five pillars" they just want to assess some articles as pseudoscience). But that doesen't mean the issue is not disputed. Right? --WSC ^® 06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It isn't. Unless you give a concrete proposal for changing the text backed up by WP policies and reliable sources, you are simply wasting your time, and ours. Tags are not for editors who don't get their way to demonstrate their disatisfaction. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, others have told you to read out policies, especially WP:FRINGE. Please do so again and pay close attention to the section called WP:PARITY, which is what you most have trouble with. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering, every person in this thread has disagreed with you; no we don't spuriously add POV tags. We only add tags to indicate existing problems that need to be discussed. We have discussed your concern, and consensus is that it's not legitimate. Therefore we should have no tag. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: I've read WP:FRINGE. And I've never read such nonsense before. If the wikipedians who write that had observe their own policys, like WP:RS, they wouldn't write such a rubbish. In this so called Policy, wikipedians claim that there is a consistant definition of the term pseudoscience. But as I show abouve, philosophers of science are not even agree if religions are pseudoscience. Or if empirical verifiability is a demarcation criterium? But wikipedians like you nows better than those philosophers of science? Sorry, I couldn't find any hint that are legitimizes such a list.

Why you give the advice, I should read WP:PARITY is enigmatic to me. This paragraph is about fantasies of wikipedians who claim, that a peer-review of so called pseudoscience should not take serious, because it's only peer-reviewed by sympathizers. Thats the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Can you please give me a scientific source for that nonsens? Don't you think, specialised peer-reviewed journals (not genearl jounals) are always rewiewed by sympathizers? For example, the journal Biological Psychiatry ain't rewiewed by an expert of Systems psychology. So you have always sympathizes for an paradigma as referees. But why are you asking me this? Were did I claim anything what touches this policy?

@IRWolfie: Please have a look at WP:DEM. Please note: "(...) decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting." It's not my false, that some editors here aren't able or willing to understand the problems of this list and the terms they use naivly whithout having a insight of philosophical debatte or the different opinions are related to this "topic". I just follow the excellent sources of the leading philosophers in this field of philosophy. It's a pity that editos who claim to be defenders against so called pseudoscience are not able or willig to accept scientific methods or refuse the opinion of leading philosophers. That makes me belief the editors in this thread are as ideologic as the theories they call pseudoscientific. You have to learn, that things are often not as easy as you belief. You can't whipe away reliable sources by claiming you know better. --WSC ^® 08:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:DEADHORSE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, you have lost the debatte. But you didn't realize it. ;o) --WSC ^® 08:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no polite way of saying this; if you want to rant about WP:FRINGE this is not the place. Policy and guidelines support the existence of the article, and it easily survived AfD for that reason. The article exists, ranting about it's existence here does not help you. You aren't convincing anyone, so please stop. If you continue to flog a dead horse on the talk page I will request at Arbitration enforcement that you be given a warning about discretionary sanctions in this topic area, because you are wasting everyone's time and you aren't particularly civil about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats the problem! You take about some "fringe" wikipedia policys, I talk about the five pillars and scientific sources and philosophical issues. If these odd WP:FRINGE-policy doesn't exist, you would have no argument. It's like a circular argument. The claim, I would flog a dead horse is nothing but a assertion and it's uncivil as well. I don't waste anyones time while I'm try to give you an realistic assessment of the article. But now, we are far away of any contentual discussion about pseudoscience. Thats not supprising, because you have no chance to justify the list, as it existed, by using scientific sources. Thats why I have to hear this stuff about odd policys don't correspondet with the five pillars, and personal attacs on me and threats about blocks and banns. If you have no other arguments on this debate... --WSC ^® 10:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Thats not supprising, because you have no chance to justify the list, as it existed, by using scientific sources." But it would violate our policies and guidelines to do so. Continuing to press this point after it has been discussed and refused is disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It would violate our guideline to use scientific sources? When I be adamant that wikipedia should use scientific sources, my behaviour is disruptive? Don't you think you have lost yourself in this online community thing? --WSC ^® 05:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We use reliable sources, there is no specific requirement that they be peer reviewed in this instance. That is an arbitrary requirement, considering some fringe theories are so fringe they don't appear in the peer reviewed literature. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on! What sources do you use to justify this list? You exclude about 1000 excelent soures who disagree. But thats no problem? There are hundred of textbooks and thousend of articles. I call this POV! You push POV. But thats no problem, because you have such a nerdy policy. --WSC ^® 12:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Linking to a google search of "Philosophy of science" and pretending that it is an argument is nonsensical. This isn't the place to complain about existing policy and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Note, I have made a request at WP:AE about Widescreen, due to the continual IDHT attitude. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It is time for discretionary sanctions to be used. Either a full block or a topic ban. Widescreen seems to be indulging the same types of behavior as caused his HUGE block log on the German Wikipedia. He provides no constructive suggestions and does nothing but complains. He also shows a great deal of ignorance of our policies. This constant disruption has to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to simply not respond to any of his posts anymore (unless, perhaps, they do contain constructive comments). It's pretty clear he's the type who has to get the last word in, so let him. He's a hopeless case of IDHT anyway, so truing to reason with him is futile at this point. Just let the thread die a natural death. He should be warned about arbcom sanctions, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep will do. (He got warned about DS at AE). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie has filed a complaint and Widescreen has received a warning. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis debate

There is currently a dispute over whether psychoanalysis can be considered a pseudoscience or not. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In a rather important sense, whether it is "considered" a pseudoscience is irrelevant to this article. It's a matter of whether it has been "characterized" as PS (IOW described as, using any of various terms that serve that purpose) that matters. If several notable and non-fringe RS have described it as a pseudoscience, it might well qualify for inclusion. I suggest you check the archives for this, since it's come up many times. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I should have checked before I wrote. It IS a part of the list. See at the end of this section: Psychology. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of "some" in the lede

Rather than edit-war, let's discuss.

The first sentence of the lede currently reads, "This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by some academics or researchers." I have issues with the word "some." Nearly every item on the list is recognized by most, if not all, academics and researchers as pseudoscience. The very few items that are not are sufficiently covered by the "at one point or another in their history."

I would assert that giving the impression that astrology, moon landing conspiracy theories, the Bermuda Triangle, channeling, psychic surgeries, graphology, phrenology, biorhythms, colon cleansing, faith healing, magnet therapy, naturopathy, Holocaust denialism, creation science, feng shui, quantum mysticism, perpetual motion or scientific racism -- just to name a few that caught my eye as I went down the list -- have ever been considered to be actual science by academics and researchers makes is far less neutral than simply leaving out the word "some." TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And just to be clear: the word "some" was added very recently. My reversion for the reasons stated above was itself reverted. Thus, the discussion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The recent undiscussed addition of the word serves no good purpose. It disrupts the logic of this list. These are fringe topics. "Some" implies that most scientists think these are scientific subjects, which is BS. "Some" would apply to an extremely small minority of fringe "scientists." They would be the equivalent of those on this list: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It's an extremely!!! small group. The addition of "some" totally recasts this and implies that these subjects are not generally considered pseudoscientific subjects by the vast majority of scientists. That's false, so the word should stay out. We should keep the long-standing status quo version. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the additioan of "some" disrupts logic. FlatOut 01:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

But the inclusion criteria in this list is not fields generally or widely considered pseudoscience, but fields that have been characterized as such by anyone at all in a reliable source. In fact we should change "some" for "any". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first time that someone has tried to sabotage this list by including fringe POV as if they were mainstream POV, or including subjects that are overwhelmingly not pseudoscience, but have been characterized as such by some fringe wingnut. These attempts rarely succeed because their views are not published in RS, but if you can find them, we could discuss the creation of a section for wingnut accusations that include things like: "belief in a round earth has been characterized as pseudoscience by The National Society for the Promotion of Fringe Conspiracy Theories." Seriously, is this where you're headed? If so, we've been there before. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think people generally throw in a good dose of common sense as well. Basically what is being looked for is that the level of characterisation is such that the parent article for an entry could reasonably include information on that characterisation without being undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Like say with topics such as Psychoanalysis or Hypnosis... huh? 162.197.89.79 (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)