Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Historically considered

Given the scope of the current lead, it seems appropriate to include items in this list that are now generally accepted as science but in its history had been regarded as pseudoscience in some significant way. Plate tectonics comes to mind. Thoughts? 162.197.89.79 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Face on Mars

I've removed Face on Mars.[1] The cited link is broken.[2] I tried to find other reliable sources characterizing this as pseudoscience, but couldn't find any. What's more, I sincerely doubt that anyone actually believes that this is a real face. This is just one of those things people on the Internet find interesting/funny. I don't think anyone actually believes that this is a real face. Anyway, without solid sourcing, it doesn't belong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Prepared to be surprised. You are under the bad assumption that people are rational. A very cursory google will tell you Hoagland still believes this, as do a number of other proponents [3]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have done the impossible, and fixed the broken link automagically, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I stand corrected. But I don't think that this list should feature every single theory that some nutcase on the Internet believes in. What exactly is the inclusion criteria for this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Effectively; that there is a sufficient characterisation that noting the characterisation with attribution would not be undue. Psychoanalysis is a classic example of a topic often characterised as pseudoscience, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Knock if off. You should know better.[4] The very instructions on this page say not to include this item. And you should be smart enough to know the difference between pseudoscience and the supernatural. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood that standard template. Firstly, we are not characterising psychoanalysis as pseudoscience, we are describing that it has been so characterised by others, precisely the criteria of this page. If we were characterising it as pseudoscience in the wikipedia tone, we would be stating it unequivocally, which we are not. Even the psychoanalysis page mentions this characterisation. Secondly, ARBCOM does not decide content Wikipedia:Arbitration: "The Committee has significant autonomy to address unresolvable issues among the community, but at the same time does not exist to subvert community consensus, adjudicate matters of article content (Wikipedia has no "content committee"), or to decide matters of editorial or site policy." IRWolfie- (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for this article was set about 4 years ago to be that a reliable source had to characterize the topic or concept as a pseudoscience either directly or by means of obvious description (e.g. if they used a synonym like "anti-science" or they listed the attributes of the idea as being the same attributes as are listed at pseudoscience). I was rather skeptical at the time that this was the best inclusion criteria, but it was the thing that offended the sensibilities of the least number of people, I guess. The reason the title of the article contains "characterized as" is on this basis. However, the fact that the arbitration committee ruled (rather specially) that certain content is or is not pseudoscience is a little odd. I'm of the opinion that we ought to ignore this attempt at making a content-based ruling. Better to go with what the sources say and not with what the arbitration committee of 2006 said. jps (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Scroll to the top of this talk page. The instructions specifically state not to include this item. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That "instruction" is a generic template used in many articles. It does not refer specifically to this page. You also ignored the "... but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, ...". If you insist on continuing the "ARBCOM made a content decision and they said X", go to arbcom, ask for a clarification so they can reject your reasoning and we can wrap this discussion up. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This particular template was created on the basis of the arbitration ruling. I'm not particularly fond of it and would not object to someone rewording it in spite of an observed tendency at this website to treat arbitration rulings as God's One True Law. In fact, I note that the specific demarcation list has in the meantime been removed from WP:PSCI, so at the very least someone should reword the template so that it doesn't lie about where the "four groupings" are actually found. jps (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I updated with text from WT:FRINGE. It highlights how arbcom created rulings on 2006 guidelines. They can not create the content guidelines themselves (as they are first to admit, it's outside their remit), they just summarise them. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

AQFK (and others), there seems to be some confusion. The ArbCom decision (and template above) do NOT refer to "characterizing", but to "categorizing", as in adding the subject to Category:Pseudoscience. We must be careful about that, but we, according to the purpose of Wikipedia, can document what RS say, and in this case there are RS which "characterize" some subjects as pseudoscience. Also, this has nothing to do with whether a subject is or is not pseudoscience, but simply if someone, in a RS, as characterized it as such. At Wikipedia there is a huge difference between "characterizing" and "categorizing" something as psi. There must be strong agreement in the scientific community and RS for us to add something to the category. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think "Face on Mars" should stay. There is a continued effort from the Cydonia Institute to promote it, now as a Mesoamerican figure. See pages 5-10 in this book, printed by the same publisher as Hoagland's book (North Atlantic Books). Also this book (by academic publisher BRILL) describes the Face on Mars as part of "fringe astronomy". Labeled as pseudoscience in this book by MIT Press, when discussing its inclusion in the movie Mission to Mars. Given as a "classic example in the pseudoscientific literature" in this conference paper. James Trefil in an 1997 popsci book described it as "one of those stories that lead a shadowy existence on the fringes between science and pseudo-science" [5], and this was before most of the hi-res imaging became available. I have no comment on psychoanalysis, other than ask it to be discussed in a separate thread. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cosmic ancestry

Suggesting a new entry: Cosmic ancestry. There is quite a bit of faith/belief involved so it may belong to the religious section. Also, it was used by the defense (Creationists) in the Evolution-Creation law suit proceedings: Chandra_Wickramasinghe#Participation_in_the_creation-evolution_debate. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the sources where it is characterised as pseudoscience? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Splitting article: science & non-science topics

FYI

 – This discussion is about a possible split. It does not encompass what is or what is not pseudoscience.

199k -- is this article a bit looooonnnng? I've done a layout of topics in line with {{science}} and have a non-science section set up. The non-science portion is 39k. With this in mind, I propose splitting the article. Rename this one as "List of science topics characterized as pseudoscience" and name the new article "List of general topics characterized by pseudoscience". Please note the distinction between "as" and "by" in the two. The "as" is appropriate because of the clear word connection between science and pseudoscience. The "by" works better because it shows pseudoscience is being used to booster the topic (like in history, which clearly is not a science topic) rather being an alternative to the actual science. Thoughts are welcome – especially as to using the word "general" in the split article. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The distinction you made between "science" and non-science topics appears to have been completely arbitrary. For example, Astrology is listed under astronomy and space science, while creation science is listed under non-science. Putting these in different articles by some arbitrary division doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. You appear to have grouped a collection of disparate things together which wouldn't make any sense in an article. The article is 200k because there are 372 references, not because the content is particularly long, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, 150k is the references. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving the sections and subsections as I did was not arbitrary. Going by the headings, sections 1-4 follow the science template. I left the bulleted listings under the subsections as is, hence the inclusion of astrology & creation science where they are. Given your comment (thanks!) cleaning up/re-bulleting the subsections first is probably a wise preliminary step to a split. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with IRWolfie that your distinction is not helpful, and that there is no need to split the article. Your use of "science" vs. "non-science" here is bizarre and jarring. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And interesting article will look at more carefully; probably a few more things need adding. At this point I do think it's not quite long enough to split, and splitting it would necessitate some discussion, given issues raised above. User:Carolmooredc 17:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Srich32977's idea has some merit, but the article is in such a poor state, I think it's preferable to keep everything in one spot so it's easier to fix. We have items that are completely unsourced, items that are sourced to broken links and items that probably don't belong on this list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's just silly. A topic can't be a "pseudoscience" unless it makes scientific claims - and it's not a proper science because it doesn't follow the scientific method. The whole *POINT* of this list is that none of them are properly sciences - and all of them are half-assedly claiming to make scientific statements about the world. On that basis, dividing the list into sciences and non-sciences is...paradoxical? Anyway...No! Bad Idea!

Besides, to quote from WP:LENGTH: "If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact"

QED SteveBaker (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Overview of all the topics in a Venn diagram

See here, we should make our own version of this. Count Iblis (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we should not. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Count Iblis's suggestion actually illustrates one of the problems with this article. This article is supposed to be about pseudoscience, yet the majority of topics on the diagram aren't pseudoscience (and that's assuming that the diagram is correct). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's NOT about pseudoscience - it's about claims that things are pseudosciences. Again, my pet hate about this list - but that's what it is. It doesn't matter a damn whether something is or is not an actual pseudoscience - only that someone said that it was in some notable source. SteveBaker (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a picture from a blog. Are you sure you want to extrapolate anything from that? This article is supposed to be about topics characterised as pseudoscience, fixed that for you. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@AQFK. Would you care to comment on the topics in the article rather tYhan the topics in the unimportant diagram? Roxy the dog (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a bizarre thing That's two bizarre things to say. AQFK (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

you started it !.Roxy the dog (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, someone else started this thread.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Conflicts over the focus of this article and a suggestion for changing its name

On the one hand, we have some people arguing that this article should be defined narrowly as List of pseudoscience topics and exclude mention of creationism and supernatural subjects. Others are arguing that this article should be defined more broadly to include topics to which anyone has objected for any reason, such as psychiatry and evolution.

I would like to propose for consideration changing the article title to List of topics for which there is a general consensus as being pseudoscience, or some shorter version that conveys the same meaning. The lede would then be reworked to clarify what, exactly, is meant by the word "pseudoscience": I believe we can agree that the current lede is rather muddled.

Thoughts? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(this is connected to the ID thread above, of course) - it does seem like the language needs to be clarified. Getting rid of "which have at one point in history been characterized..." and adding something to the effect of what TechBear's renaming would accomplish (that pseudoscience is defined not by the coincidence of the words "pseudoscience" and e.g. "phrenology," but by the majority of scientists taking the position that phrenology is not a credible science -- would (a) dismiss the potential torrent of additions based on skeptics of every developing science in the past centuries and (b) current minority judgments of majority opinions (which, whether people like it or not, is generally how Wikipedia operates). --Rhododendrites (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need clearer inclusion criteria that helps this article avoid NPOV and FRINGE problems. Mixing historical and contemporary characterizations as we do now (or at least imply that it's allowed) doesn't appear to work. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between a list titled "List of pseudoscience topics" and one titled "List of topics for which there is a general consensus as being pseudoscience"? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We can find plenty of good quality references establishing the consensus view that, say, astrology is a pseudoscience. It is much more difficult to establish that astrology is a pseudoscience, as the definition of pseudoscience -- "a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status" -- would arguably require proving a negative. The result would be that a "list of pseudoscientific topics" would end up argued down to a blank page. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand the difference now. Thank you for the lucid explanation. I think your proposal is right on the money. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, which historical characterisations? I don't see what the issue is with what we have at the moment. Setting the criteria as "the characterisation has due weight to be mentioned in the parent article" is a simple criteria. I think you'll find that if you have a List of pseudoscience topics advocates will ensure there are next to no entries, and the topics which are famously characterised as pseudoscience would probably not be present, such as psychoanalysis and I would dare say many others, even clear pseudoscience. In fact I would wager that such an article would have a good chance of being deleted. You will know that even mentioning that something is commonly viewed as pseudoscience is difficult enough, and something being called pseudoscience in the wikipedia tone is indeed a rare event (I've seen articles where Jimbo himself has turned up to remove it from the lead without reading the sources or the rest of the article). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to concerns raised in the Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Please_erase_Intelligent_Design_from_the_list_of_topics and Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Do_we_want_the_list_to_include_topics_that_are_no_longer_considered_pseudoscience.3F. If it's not a problem, then nevermind. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@TechBear: I agree that the article should be List of topics for which there is a general consensus as being pseudoscience although I think we should explain this as part of the inclusion criteria, rather than the title. List of pseudoscience topics works for me. Whatever inclusion criteria we decide up, I'd like to see it result in the following:

• Astrology - Included. Classic example of a pseudoscience.
• Climate change - Excluded. Yes, it's been characterized as pseudoscience by detractors, but is the mainstream scientific opinion.
• Creationism - Excluded. It's a religious belief that doesn't purport to be a science.
• Evolution - Excluded. The same rationale as CC.
• Intelligent design - Included. Clearly a religious belief purporting to be a science.
• King Tut's curse - Excluded. Supernatural belief. Doesn't purport to be a science.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose your suggested name, for the same reasons I gave above: I believe that it is important not to make the claim or give the impression that the topics listed in the article are pseudoscience, but rather that the general consensus of scientists is that they are. As for Creationism, its promoters are pushing it as science. They are working very hard to get it taught as science. Not as history, not as religion, not as mathematics or PE. Science. That puts creationism very firmly and quite unambiguously into the category of pseudoscience. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You are using your own original research definition of what pseudoscience is, and an extreme one at that. It does not need to purport to be a science, it is enough that its claims overlap with scientific claims or in some way challenges the scientific viewpoint etc as creationism and others do. It is not for us to decide what is pseudoscience by the original research you are engaging in. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@TechBear: Well, perhaps someone else can come up with a better, but less wordy name. But if not, that's fine. Regarding creationism, I don't think anyone is pushing creationism anymore (at least not in the US). About 20 years ago, the emphasis was switched from creationism to intelligent design. I could be wrong on creationism not being pseudoscience. Twenty years ago is long time, we'd have to do some research on what reliable sources are saying about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: Nobody's engaging in OR. Stop making false accusations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Which source includes your criteria above, which you have explicitly laid out and rejects the items you have shown as not being pseudoscience as you have done. Me stating that I think a reasoning is OR is not an "accusation", false or otherwise. I think your reasoning is original research, and now you can demonstrate it is not original research by demonstrating a source which explicitly includes your criteria. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: First, it's up to us as Wikipedia editors to decide inclusion criteria. We don't need sources to decide inclusion criteria. Second, this is a talk page. There are no formal requirements that every single sentence we type on a talk page must have sources. But if required, it's fairly easy to find sources that say Astrology is a pseudoscience, that Climate change isn't, that Evolution isn't, that Intelligent design is. I'm not sure about Creationism; I'd have to look that up. As for King Tut's curse, I can't prove a negative. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria should be one such that we do defer to reliable sources for what to include i.e due weight in reliable sources for the characterisation etc. We don't decide first what we want to include and work backwards; To do so is to engage in original research. I've already shown a source that explicitly refers to the King Tut's curse as being pseudoscientific (you dismissed it as being too trivial, remember?) and it has an entry in an encyclopaedia of pseudoscience (I didn't check the others), I can show sources that call or refer to creationism, psychoanalysis, parapsychology etc etc pseudoscience. In fact this article consists of entries which have all been characterised in that fashion. Hence 'List of topics characterized as pseudoscience'. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: Please cite the specific Wikipedia policy or guideline which states that inclusion criteria must be found in reliable sources. How do you account for inclusion criteria that each entry meet Wikipedia's definition of notability? No, you provided one source with trivial coverage and another source which also covers supernatural claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources WP:LSC. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

When the inclusion criteria is not supported by reliable sources, the criteria and article is at risk of violating NPOV, NOT, and related policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Here, here! Well said, both of you. The current criteria and title is ambiguous, and I think it falls victim to Popper's infamous demarcation problem. Here are suggestions for a brief title: List of topics scientifically considered pseudoscience or List of topics generally considered pseudoscience. I think the phrasing of the second one would be ambiguous ("generally considered by whom?") if not for the banner I just found at the top of this top page which defines "considered by whom?" as the scientific community. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What about List of pseudoscience related topics? (Strictly speaking, List of pseudoscience topics serves the same purpose, because it is sufficiently vague to cover more material, as follows. It would have two(?) "major" sections, one for confirmed (including by the ArbCom decision) pseudoscientific subjects (by mainstream science), and one for everything else in the current list which doesn't fall under that umbrella (figure out some wording for that one). I'm suggesting a short title because a very long title is simply too unencyclopedic and unwieldy. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom can't decide article content. I'm not against List of pseudoscience related topics, it seems it would have pretty much the same inclusion criteria as the current one. Except it might be a little broader. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: Thanks for pointing me to that guideline. I'm not sure that's what it means, but it's certainly not what happens in practice. Consider, for example, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which uses selection criteria not part of selection criteria used by any reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" is a rather poor list, and the poor criteria has been discussed extensively in that articles archives. For some reason lists aren't given ratings by wikiprojects but it wouldn't get a particularly good one. The criteria for inclusion is essentially to use primary sources and in the authors own words to avoid BLP implications (not that I agree but that was the rationale as far as I understand it). Have a look at featured lists perhaps ... IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I like User:BullRangifer's suggestion of List of pseudoscience topics, but, to be grammatically correct, the title should be List of pseudoscientific topics or List of pseudoscientific concepts or List of pseudoscientific ideas or List of pseudoscientific proposals. Such a renaming would have the added benefit of keeping the inclusion criteria sensible. Just because something has been characterized as pseudoscience doesn't mean we should write about it. After all, in some more heated arguments commentators may be inclined to characterize certain ideas as "pseudoscientific" for rhetorical reasons rather than as a careful evaluation (the oft-trotted out creationist canard of "evolution is pseudoscience" is a classic example), and competent editors should be able to see the difference. The topics, concepts, ideas, and proposals listed here should be actual pseudoscience rather than accusations. jps (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What about say Psychoanalysis where I imagine the discussion of whether or not it is pseudoscience is itself probably notable (i.e an article could be written which would survive AfD)? How do we distinguish a characterisation of something as pseudoscience from it being actually pseudoscience without delving into original research? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia, there is no distinction between a characterization and a point-of-fact demarcation because Wikipedia simply reports on the basis of reliable sources. In that sense, any list that includes "characterization" is redundant because Wikipedia only deals in characterizations. The key is to look for which sources are reliable and move from there. Interestingly, in the case of psychoanalysis, it is pretty clear that its characterization as a pseudoscience is not disputed in a serious way by reliable sources. I'm not sure why there is controversy over this point. The sources which do dispute the characterization of psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience are generally psychoanalysts who explicitly acknowledge that they are not scientists nor equipped to decide whether an approach or an idea is scientific or not. They just object to the characterization on the basis of "misunderstanding" the goals or approach of psychoanalysis which may be a fair point, but doesn't contradict the facts outlined by those who indicate psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. This is much the same as any other pseudoscience on the list. Chiropractors, creationists, and even Gene Ray have their rejoinders, but are simply not equipped to be reliable or independent enough to show that the sources which indicate their pseudoscientific characteristics are wrong. jps (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with the title of the article than I am with it's content. Non-pseudoscientific items such as evolution and King Tut's Curse don't belong in this article. We need to fix this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Four lists

Here's a solution which relies on the partitions described in the banner at the top of this page. Why not create four lists?

• List of obvious pseudosciences
• List of generally considered pseudosciences
• List of questionable sciences
• List of alternative theoretical formulations

172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are many sources we can use which actually make distinctions like this which would make the selection criteria for such almost impossible. The arbcom ruling itself ought to be vacated as being rather obtuse, IMHO. jps (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose me re removing that banner and replacing it with {{talk fringe}}. ArbCom can't make content decisions so what they say isn't relevant except to give a general idea of what editors thought 7 years ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I object. One of the biggest problems with this article is the fact that it includes off-topic entries. We need higher standards, ones that follow actual science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is an old one. The Demarcation problem is alive and well on Wikipedia, such that -- without any content guidance -- it would be impossible to factually label a topic as "pseudoscience". Psychoanalysis is the classic example. We can find reliable sources which positively identify it as a pseudoscience. Does that mean we should categorize it as an example? I don't believe this to be workable without guidance. I don't claim to know the history of the policy I've invoked above, but I believe it to be helpful at setting some kind of parameters for editors to positively identify junk as junk and to prevent questionable science from being called junk. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I too object to removing the ArbCom template above. While in the end it is the community which makes decisions, we have chosen to use the ArbCom to step in when intractable problems arise, and it's best to abide by their decision. In this case it involved a type of content decision, but one that does not override RS. It's more a method for preventing the chaos and abuse which was a serious problem. Using the four groupings is actually very wise and avoids problems. While the four groups aren't strictly "demarcations" in the Demarcation problem sense above, they are very closely correlated. For practical "encyclopedic format" purposes we can still use them for "categorization" or "no categorization" because RS is another matter entirely. We must use RS for ALL content anyway, regardless of group.

One thing really cool about this list has been how it could remain stable by avoiding getting into the demarcation problem, but just sticking to what RS say ("their" characterizations). If we change the delicate balance which has existed for several years, we open the Pandora's box which ArbCom closed and unleash some awful times of disruption for this list. "If it's not broken, don't fix it," and it's not really broken, when we understand its purpose.

Here comes a history lesson:

The list's purpose is not to deal with the demarcation problem. In fact, we deliberately avoid that and don't give a flying hoot about whether something "is" or "is not" pseudoscience. This list is here to deal with a problem which existed because of the strong demands of the ArbCom decision. The decision solved some big problems related to disruption, but we were left with a whole lot of opinions found in RS which we suddenly couldn't use. That situation violated one of the basic purposes of Wikipedia, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge. It left a huge "knowledge hole" which we didn't mention. It was like looking into a huge lava tube cave, and because of the ArbCom decision, we could only document the main tunnel, but must ignore numerous interesting side tunnels. This list allows us to document and explore those side tunnels using special types of RS which act as flashlights designed to see into those side tunnels. That means we no longer have that undocumented "knowledge hole" in our documentation of the sum total of human knowledge.

I understand how the itch to categorically state that some nonsense "is" pseudoscience demands to be scratched (I feel it too... ), but I think we need to resist that urge and keep things as they have been, avoiding anything close to solving the demarcation problem "in this list". We should not destabilize this list by playing with the title, wordings, or inclusion criteria. We can still deal with that itch for certain types of nonsense using groupings 1 & 2. We don't need this list for that purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the "history lesson"! That is very helpful. I think the imagery of a "knowledge hole" is very helpful -- as this list attempts to fill such a hole. Given that Wikipedia's goal is to document the sum of total human knowledge, I would like to know your opinion about including topics which has been historically characterized as pseudoscientific by the scientific community but are now accepted scientifically. Examples include the proposal to include Evolution above and now a call to include Continental Drift below. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any immediate problem with the idea, provided it is framed properly to show the progression from misunderstood and wrongly accused to now accepted and proven. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of the framing in the proposal above to include Evolution? I'd sure appreciate some more feedback. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Please note that there is a request for clarification/amendment at ArbCom that editors of this article might wish to aware of.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please erase Intelligent Design from the list of topics

I am concerned that Wikipedia has declared an unstated war on individuals with religious viewpoints. Pages like this one basically set it up so that only atheistic viewpoints are allowed and any evidence or support to the contrary is attacked. This is particularly disturbing when large portions of the population believe in the ideas being attacked (it's one thing to criticize ancient Greek mythology when it has almost no adherents, it's another to criticize ideas like intelligent design when millions accept it). Is particularly difficult when most pro-I.D. sources are rejected for not appearing in a peer reviewed work even though the majority of peer reviewed works are run by Darwinists that work on keeping opposing theories out of the scientific debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.254.10 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design is not presented by proponents as a religious doctrine, but as a scientific theory. As such, it is subject to the kind of scientific, rational evaluation that one normally would not give to religious doctrines. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

But Wikipedia ignores both the evidence presented by I.D. subscribers and the fundamental problems in Darwinism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.254.10 (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You can, of course, provide reliable third party references outlining this evidence? And what is this "Darwinism" of which you speak? Are you by chance referring to the set of theories set forth by Charles Darwin in 1859, theories which have been superseded by further study into the nature of evolution and which not even the most dedicated evolutionary biologists subscribe to nowadays? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I just had a thought. What if we were to add a new section under the pseudoscience list that described subjects that were still being heavily debated. The arguments could be listed alongside their parallels. Evolution-Intelligent Design, Anthropogenic Climate Change-Climate Change Denialism, ect. That way Wikipedia would not be listing these hot-button issues as "no question" pseudosciences, but as possible psuedosciences. No one is offended, but the discussion of pseudoscience continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.254.10 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's quite funny - the only debate that is going on in these areas is with people who don't or wont understand the science,in situations like this for example. So no, because they are "no question" pseudosciences. Roxy the dog (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia - we're supposed to publish the truth, even if a large fraction of the world happens not to believe in it.

Obviously we have to have standards for how we determine "The Truth" - and that's rolled up in reliable sources and verification policies.

For scientific matters, that means that we mainly rely upon the latest scientific literature - and that means that by Wikipedia's standards ID is a pseudoscience because it makes scientific claims without following the scientific method (which is the definition of a pseudoscience). Now, if you can find books or journals that meet Wikipedia's standards that clearly show that either ID doesn't present any scientific claims - or that show that ID does indeed follow the scientific method - then we'll have to change this entry. Right now, I think we both know that you're not going to find such sources. So it's end-of-discussion time. You could of course complain to the WP:RS and WP:V policy makers and try to get the policy changed...but I really think you'd be wasting your time.

Regardless of what you and I think - the way that Wikipedia defines "truth" is what decides the matter here.

SteveBaker (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. I am a major in chemistry, a field of science, and for you to criticize me as being unscientific just because I don't accept Darwinism is appalling (although I can't say I'm surprised). The problem is that many kids and young adults use Wikipedia on a regular basis and they are being told, flat out, that there is no God and that Darwinian evolution is fact leaving no room for debate. I can find several sources that either present scientific evidence of I.D. or argue that Darwinian evolution is just as much a pseudoscience, but its going to take me a couple weeks since I don't have time to log on every day. Please leave this discussion open for a while and please stop insulting me simply because I don't agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.218.30 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What is this Darwinism of which you speak? And why are you trying to declare war on those with religious viewpoints that accept science rather than demanding theistic science, which is of course blatant pseudoscience? . . dave souza, talk 20:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Theistic evolution, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"I am a major in chemistry, a field of science, and for you to ..." That's an appeal to authority. I am embarrassed on your behalf that you are a chemist but deny the existence of evolution (since we are into fallacies, that's an appeal to ridicule if I had used it as a basis of an argument), but being a chemist does not mean you aren't unscientific and credulous about basic biology. I know many theologians and religious people who accept evolution and reject creationism/ID so let us not bring atheism and religion into it. Let's keep stating our opinions out of things, and stick only to what the sources say. Now, the sources that say ID/Creationism is a pseudoscience are strong, so for what policy based reason would it be removed? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not the one declaring a war on religious people who believe in evolution (of which I do not believe there are many). I'm just tired of having my beliefs insulted every time I use Wikipedia and I'm scared of people believing that whatever is posted on Wikipedia must be true. Darwinian evolution is not even close to being declared fact due to the immense number of problems with it. I was not trying to appeal to my own authority, I am just frustrated that I can't be treated equally or taken seriously here simply because I don't believe in Darwinism. Like I said before, give me a week or two and I'll provide some counterpoints from some reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.218.30 (talk • contribs)

evidence of common descent. Read it. evolution read it. You owe it to yourself to at least read it, point by point. Wikipedia is not the place for "counter-points", science isn't decided by debate. As a chemist you should know that if someone where to deny quantum mechanics it would be wrong of us to present the case for the denialist in articles or treat them as equal. As a chemist you wouldn't rely on a random unpublished blog from denialists in an article. Besides, wikipedia is not the place for debates, we aren't a forum. Also per first comment see below. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States, 2007) Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth Source: Pew Forum Buddhist   81% Hindu   80% Jewish   77% Unaffiliated   72% Catholic   58% Orthodox   54% Mainline Protestant   51% Muslim   45% Hist. Black Protest.   38% Evang. Protestant   24% Mormon   22% Jehovah's Witness   8% Total U.S. population   48%

IP editor from Colorado Springs, you seriously need to read the messages on your growing number of user talk pages (you should normally only have one of them). Unfortunately you probably don't even know where they are, and therefore can't read the messages left for you. This is just one of the many reasons why sock puppetry is not allowed here. You are most likely editing from a dynamic IP which changes. That creates a situation where you are in violation of our prohibition against sockpuppetry. The best solution is to create an account. It will give you more rights, more privacy, and much more respect. You have nothing to lose by doing so, and a lot to gain. Just choose a pseudonym.

Also remember to use edit summaries, read them, and read the history. As a registered user you'll also be able to follow along with what's happening in ways that unregistered users cannot do.

There are two things in what you say that need comment:

1. Offensiveness to anyone and bias in favor of anybody are not legitimate reasons for content decisions. Only when dealing with living persons do we take that into account, and even then only if the content is not properly sourced. If properly sourced, we include some pretty awful things in articles, and the subject of the matter has little recourse to get it removed. In fact, if they try to do it improperly, they are sometimes blocked from Wikipedia. I've seen it happen, so there is a proper way to do things here, and numerous improper ways.
2. Stating that a subject is considered pseudoscientific is not the same as saying that there is no debate or that the matter is settled. There are some subjects which are in a state of flux, but they are still seen as pseudoscientific by many. Depending on who those "many" are, we may or may not mention, state, or even go so far as to categorize a subject as pseudoscience. Sometimes the debate is within scientific circles, and then we don't usually categorize the matter as pseudoscience, even if we mention that it's considered so by some scientists. In other cases the debate is between certain members of the public and scientists, such as is the case with creationism and homeopathy, to provide another example. There is no serious debate in scientific circles about either of them, and they are both considered pseudoscientific beliefs, regardless of how much debate occurs in public. Therefore we categorize them as pseudoscience. All of this is because reliable sources say so, and we follow the sources.

Currently Intelligent design, Creation science, and Climate change denial are all categorized as pseudoscience by reliable sources. This has nothing to do with Darwinism or atheism, but because of the scientific evidence and the failure of believers to follow the scientific method when conducting research and making claims. That = pseudoscience.

You also need to carefully read the template at the top of this page. It describes how we deal with the subject of pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We document everything here, including the fact that some consider your favorite topics to be pseudoscience, and we also document what believers think about it. Do you want us to delete that too? I think not. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a running blog or discussion list, and this talk page is supposed to be used for improving this list, not promoting your religious beliefs. If you choose to continue this discussion as you have done, we will need to archive this discussion and possibly block your access here. Please don't make us do that. Take your religious battles somewhere else. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

To reply to User:128.198.218.30's earlier post:

• This is absolutely ridiculous. I am a major in chemistry, a field of science, -- Congratulations. But you evidently don't have a major in encyclopedia-writing - which is what's actually at issue here. We're not here to debate whether ID is right or wrong, true or false, scientific or pseudoscience. Wikipedia leaves that up to the reliable sources that we're required to use to establish what we may or may not write. There are plenty of references that Wikipedia considers reliable enough for us to use that most definitely state that ID is pseudoscience - and so far, we're unaware of any that meet Wikipedia's WP:SCHOLARSHIP criteria that say otherwise. By that standard, we can (and indeed must) say that "ID is characterized as pseudoscience" regardless of whether we personally believe it to be the case. If there are references that meet the standards of WP:RS for scientific subjects that say what you believe to be true - then you may write about that too. Otherwise, you may not - no matter your personal qualifications. Wikipedia's standard is verifiability in reliable sources - not "what a lot of people believe to be true" or "what a qualified editor claims to be true". So, in this case, by Wikipedia's standards - ID is most certainly considered to be pseudoscience because lots of second-party scholarly books and peer-reviewed articles in well-respected journals say precisely that.

• and for you to criticize me as being unscientific just because I don't accept Darwinism is appalling (although I can't say I'm surprised). - you are entirely incorrect. I did not criticize you for anything. I didn't even make a judgement about ID. I merely point out that we're writing what the reliable sources say. What you or I happen to believe is entirely irrelevant. That's how Wikipedia and all other good encyclopedias work.

• The problem is that many kids and young adults use Wikipedia on a regular basis and they are being told, flat out, that there is no God and that Darwinian evolution is fact leaving no room for debate. -- Wikipedia is indeed saying that evolution is categorically true. Yes - because our standards for saying that are fully met by the available literature. HOWEVER: You won't find us anywhere stating that "there is no God" because that has no backing whatever in reliable sources (basically because it's unfalsifiable). I personally, firmly disbelieve in God (because Occam's razor says that's the most likely working hypothesis). Yet I have personally removed several sections in Wikipedia articles over the past five years that erroneously said or implied that there is/are no God(s). If you find any article here that says that, just let me know and I'll work with you to expunge those too. That's because it doesn't matter what I believe - it only matters what the reliable sources say. This is why your qualifications (and mine) are entirely irrelevant to our editing of this encyclopedia. Similarly, despite your personal beliefs - you should encourage us to say "ID is pseudoscience" because (right or wrong) that's what the reliable sources tell us - and (right or wrong) that's what Wikipedia requires us to do. If you can't live by those standards (and I could certainly imagine you might not) - then Wikipedia is a bad place for you to be.

• I can find several sources that either present scientific evidence of I.D. or argue that Darwinian evolution is just as much a pseudoscience, but its going to take me a couple weeks since I don't have time to log on every day. -- That's fine. But please be sure that these sources of yours meet Wikipedia's strict criteria for "reliability" in regard of scientific matters - as explained in detail in WP:RS - and especially in WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

• Please leave this discussion open for a while -- There is no need to "leave discussions open". If you have reliable sources (within the rather strict bounds of WP:RS/WP:SCHOLARSHIP) then you can Be Bold and add the relevant information from those sources into whichever articles are in need of change.

• and please stop insulting me simply because I don't agree with you. -- Please explain where I insulted you. That was never my intention.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Like -- Brangifer (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There is another aspect to this too. This article is entitled "List of topics characterized as Pseudoscience"...and not "List of Pseudosciences". I wish it were otherwise - but my effort to change the name failed to get consensus.

The unfortunate consequence of that is that we don't even have to show that ID is actually a pseudoscience - we're not saying that it is. We're only saying that some notable source has said that it is.

That's important to our OP because to get ID off of this list, you'd have to show that no notable sources ever said it was a pseudoscience. Not that it actually isn't a pseudoscience...that nobody ever even incorrectly characterized it as one! That's essentially impossible to do because there is no doubt whatever that "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District" says that ID is pseudoscience - and so does "STATEMENT OF THE POSITION OF THE IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON PSEUDOSCIENCE". So those two sources most certainly are notable and that means that nobody can deny that ID has been characterized as a pseudoscience.

There is really no ducking out of it.

IMHO, this a cowardly way for us to title the article. It should be "List of Pseudoscience" so that it actually means something - even if the WP:RS requirements are tougher and the list much shorter as a result.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Steve, I understand your feelings, but (and I know you understand this, but for the sake of others....) the strict demands of the ArbCom decision would indeed leave us with a very small list, but that list could be made... That doesn't mean this list would disappear, because it still serves a purpose. It documents the POV of the scientific community and other notables who have stated their views in RS, and their POV is broader than the ArbCom's inclusion criteria for this encyclopedia's Category:Pseudoscience, and we would like to document those POV here. It's part of our mission to document the sum total of human knowledge, as found in RS. A limited list could be made for those subjects which do meet the ArbCom criteria in the template above. Another option would be to make a section here for those items. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to list evolution and climate change alongside I.D. and climate change denialism as "topics characterized as pseudosciences" since there are people who would argue that they are. However, I can see that none of you are willing to do that at this point in time. I'll be gathering sources to support this point, but I work 6 days out of the week so I can't do so quickly, so if you would be willing, please stop leaving me messages. By the way, if your interested in using scientific sources, then you can't sight Kitzmiller v. Dover because that is a legal issue, not a science issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.218.33 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

ID is a legal issue, not a science issue: it's religion in drag, pretending to be science for the purpose of trying to get religion into US science classrooms. Though cdesign proponentsists can be expected to deny it. . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which characterize Evolution and Climate Change as pseudoscience, then by all means feel free to include those subjects on this list. Again, inclusion doesn't mean that the topic is pseudoscientific; only that is has been characterized as such at some point in time. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. It also should be such that mentioning the characterisation in the main article would not be undue, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Undue meaning that a tiny minority of people hold such a view or a tiny minority of scientists hold such a view? The chart above seems to indicate that a significant amount of people hold the view that Evolution is not the best theory of the origin of human life. Right or wrong, clearly a lot of people don't believe in Evolution, and thus we are not dealing with a tiny minority here. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Biologists of course (and some other related fields). What the average yokel believes doesn't really matter, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please show us where in WP:UNDUE it says that this only applies to scientific opinion and we should pay no attention to general opinion. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

On articles we may mention the opinions of the general public i.e denial etc, but as a societal issue, not a scientific one, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@172.250.119.155: WP:UNDUE says it right here: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So in the case of this list, we are only needing a realizable source of what has been characterized as pseudoscience. Which brings me back to my original point above. If you can find reliable sources which characterize Evolution and Climate Change as pseudoscience, then by all means feel free to include those subjects on this list. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

By all means, if you can find such sources, they can be added to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@128.198.218.33: There you go. Find a reliable source where academics or researchers characterize(d) Evolution and/or Climate Change as pseudoscience and then you can add it to this list. While I don't agree with such a characterization, I certainly defend that it can be included in this list if a reliable source is provided. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ID "dissent from Darwinism" petition

Rather nauseating, but apparently there is at least one organization of academics and scholars who are skeptical of Evolution (Darwinism)...

• Home page
• List of signatories

So while the thoughts and theories of this skeptical society may not fall in line with the extraordinarily overwhelming scientific consensus, it does seem to qualify as a reliable source of there being some tiny percentage of academics and scholars who characterize Evolution as pseudoscience. As such, I have no objection to its inclusion in this list –- though it probably should be qualified that this characterization flies in the face of the wide majority of biological scientists. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Didn't you know that A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is an intelligent design creationist gimmick, organised by the Disco Tute? . . dave souza, talk 22:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should that matter for inclusion on this list? I see that some of the credentials of some of the signatories have been called into question, but regardless, these are academics/scholars who have characterized Darwinism as pseudoscience. (It disturbs me that I am defending this, but it's like NSPA v. Skokie, right? You might disagree with what they are saying, but you have to defend their right to say it. Given the rules of Wikipedia and the inclusion criteria which this list describes, I don't see any good reason to exclude an entry on Evolution or Darwinism to this list. Do you? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Dave beat me to the punch, but yeah. It's Discovery. An advocacy group for intelligent design. An advocacy group's website -- no matter how big the "PhD" font might be in its quotes -- is still an advocacy group's website and not a reliable source for these purposes (lists and quotes from scientists does not a scientific publication make). --Rhododendrites (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Why should this ** ahem ** skeptical society be treated differently here than any other skeptical society? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not reliable.

It's original research to say they claim evolution is pseudoscience.

Please if you want to change this article, please provide a source, please indicate what you want changed in the article, and please make it clear how the source actually supports the change that you want. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The signed petitions states that the signatories are skeptical that the theory of evolution (random mutation, natural selection) "are responsible for the complexity of life." So why is this source not reliable for this claim that the signatories have characterized Evolution as pseudoscience? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh? The petition states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Nothing there about "the theory of evolution", which you're conflating with natural selection. Any proponent of neutral theory could agree with the petition while continuing to agree with the modern synthesis. . dave souza, talk 05:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Because (again) it's not a reliable source (the site, not the person being quoted). No advocacy website would be, especially when it presents only the highlights (short quotes, vague generalizations that "these people are skeptical") which satisfy a particular agenda. That a website quotes someone with credentials does not make that website a reliable source. Find a reliable source/scholarly publication written by the person who is quoted which argues the same and there's something to talk about. --Rhododendrites (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am unclear why this site is not a reliable source in this instance where advocacy sites such as CFI (Center for Inquiry) are considered a reliable. Please explain the standard we are applying.

Not sure if I will spend the time to research whether a person who is a signatory on the Disco Tute (lol) petition has written any scholarly papers describing Darwinism as a pseudoscience, but as a thought experiment, let's say such a source existed. If Prof. Joe Blow of some accredited university wrote a paper that the university published where he pronounced his skeptical views of the science behind theory of Evolution, then in theory you would be totally okay with its inclusion in this article? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Extreme minority or fringe views carry little, if any, WP:WEIGHT. You could probably find a odd crank who characterizes just about anything as pseudoscience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately with Evolution we are not dealing with a tiny minority opinion when (according to the chart above), 48% of the U.S. population dispute Evolution (Very sad indeed). 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the part I said about it being undue. I suggest you re-read the comment I made above. We would only include a characterisation here, if it wouldn't be undue to have the characterisation in the main article. i.e pseudoscience advocates calling the mainstream pseudoscience doesn't cut the mustard, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't miss it and I even just re-read it and I still don't understand the standard you are applying. I would agree with you if this were a list of topics which are considered pseudoscience by scientific consensus. But that is not the case. This is a list of topics which merely have been characterized as pseudoscience. So if a scholar/researcher/skeptical group has made such a characterization about any topic, and the characterization can be verified in a reliable source, then per the criteria of Wikipedia, why shouldn't we include it in this list? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie has argued that this article is not a list of pseudoscience topics, but rather a list of characterized as pseudoscience. 172.250.119.155 has presented evidence that evolution has been characterized as pseudoscience. I don't think that this is a tolerable solution and we need to rethink what items actually belong on this list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is it being characterized as pseudoscience? Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I cannot find where it is characterized as such, and so I brought up WP:OR and WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• @A Quest For Knowledge. It's quite simple, would it be undue to mention the topics being characterized as pseudoscience in its main article? For evolution, global warming (imagining for a second that the sources exist) yes including that characterisation would be clearly undue, therefore it doesn't belong here either. Simple system. Now you can try and wikilawyer for a bit to fit your existing agenda which is to find a pretext to get rid of this list, but you'll find little scope for that in this direction, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• • @IRWolfie-: Excuse me? Existing agenda? Wikilawyer? Please don't cast aspirations against your fellow editors, especially without evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks as though I have stumbled into an old debate here. My endgame here would be to better define the standards being applied for inclusion on this list. Interesting enough, both articles IRWolfie cited (Evolution and Global Warming) each make reference to the debate about their scientific validity. However, I don't think that should be the standard for inclusion here as while I agree that WP:UNDUE would prohibit the article Evolution from giving too much weight to the beliefs of its deniers, I don't agree that the same standard should apply here... or at least not applied as IRWolfie has suggested. This is an article about topics which have been characterized as pseudoscience; it's about the characterizations and not the topics. I have shown that such a characterization has been made about Evolution from academics/researchers. This is the exact criteria which Wikipedia calls for as does this list in its opening statement: This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. I have given you a source which shows roughly 700 academics/researchers who doubt the very science behind the theory of evolution; which is to characterize the topic as pseudoscientific. And getting even more granular with the opening statement, we could include Evolution in the list on the grounds that it is a topic which at one point or another in its history was most certainly deemed pseudoscience by even, yes, the scientific community. I am not quite sure why some of you are resistant to including this well-known characterization in this list. Do you fear that some people might read it and believe that since it is on this list, it must be a pseudoscience? Because as I stated above, in its entry here, we should state quite plainly that the scientific consensus is that the theory is quite in fact wholly scientific and not at all pseudoscientific. In fact, that is where UNDUE comes into play. Not including a statement like that to balance the characterization that it is pseudoscientific would be giving too much weight to the deniers. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? Do you know what Darwinism means to every one of these roughly 700 academics/researchers? Note that the Disco Tute mischaracterises the very petition they circulated. This is a primary source of a creationist claim, a reliable secondary source is needed rather than your synthesis: the petition said nothing about pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 05:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The petition calls into question the science behind the theory of Evolution; therefore it is a perfectly good assumption that the signatories call into question the science behind the theory of Evolution. Admittedly, I don't know about any mischaracterizations the Disco Tute have made. I just learned of the organization yesterday. Certainly, if the mischaracterizations were deliberate and broad enough, that would call into question their reliability as a source. Otherwise, I don't see why we would be treating them differently than CFI or any other skeptical group's website used as a source on this list. Does a claim made on CFI require a secondary source? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not about agreeing or not, that is the inclusion criteria for the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia is about consensus building. If so, then isn't about agreeing or not? Besides, the very inclusion criteria you made – that the reference wouldn't be undue in the main article of the topic - would indicate that Evolution could be included in this list as in its article it discusses the denialism quite thoroughly. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to close this discussion: Seems the discussion is straying from the topic and now ignores the fact that no sources have been offered that actually verify the proposed change. If there's a side discussion that needs to take place, let's start a section to do so with a section title that makes clear the topic of discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. This definitely has strayed from the original topic. Please accept my apologies for wanting some clarification about the uneven standards being applied to the inclusion criteria of this article. I still don't feel that my questions have been adequately answered at this point, and most of the time they've been dodged and circumvented. I've opened a can of worms which the majority of regular editors of this article would prefer be closed because it so clearly illustrates that what they want this article to be and what Wikipedia's rules allow it to be are at odds with each other. As an outsider, I have to say that it is plainly obvious what's going on here. I believe my Skokie comparison was right on –- in an attempt to silence the ignorant, you are destroying the foundation on which all of us stand. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your failure to assume good faith does not serve you well, please accept that we are attempting to inform the ignorant. The "dissent" petition itself does no more than state the bleedin' obvious, that natural selection alone does not explain all the complexity of life. Nothing there about describing evolution as pseudoscience. You appear to have a vivid imagination, but accurate secondary sourcing is needed showing significance of any such claim. . dave souza, talk 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Grassé on evolution

I accept that you are attempting to inform the ignorant. Therefore, I don't understand why you are so willing to leave out factual information from this list. That Evolution has been characterized as pseudoscience is a fact. While I don't agree with such a characterization (neither does the vast majority of biologists), I do recognize that the characterization exists. The brazen disregard of the existence of this fact in the face of evidence is really off-putting especially from volunteers who are supposedly attempting to inform the ignorant. But since you asked for another source and for whatever reason the wall I am hitting here has ignited some passions in me, here is another source which characterizes Evolution as pseudoscience. It is from Professor Pierre-Paul Grassé, who in his book L'évolution du vivant: matériaux pour une nouvelle théorie transformiste plainly made the characterization. Please mind that the translation directly from his book but is based on Google Translate. With regards to Darwinism Grassé wrote: By means of hidden assumptions, reckless otherwise illegitimate pseudo-science is created and installed at the heart of biology. I guess this quote is a favorite of the creationist movement. Here's a larger translation quoted by Phillip E. Johnson (a well-known Creationist/AIDs denier): Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created.... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. Here's the bibliographic entry: Pierre P. Grasse L'Evolution du Vivant (1973), published in English translation as The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) . The review of the original French edition by Dobzhansky, titled "Darwinian or 'Oriented' Evolution?" appeared in Evolution, vol. 29 (June 1975). So there's another example of a scholar (Grassé ... not Johnson ... though Johnson does have an impressive educational background) characterizing Darwin's Theory of Evolution as pseudoscience. Are we ready to discuss how to word this entry in this list? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Two fringe views, by promoters of views [now] characterised as pseudoscience: in Grassé's case, neo-Lamarckism, in Johnson's case intelligent design creationism and theistic science. Do you have any secondary sources discussing these assertions that evolution includes pseudoscience? . . dave souza, talk 19:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)→ On review, although the list includes Lysenkoism it doesn't include neo-Lamarckism, which is perhaps better characterised as obsolete science. Unlike Johnson's creationist claims. . dave souza, talk 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What should it matter if Grassé views are now considered pseudoscience. He was a notable biologist who characterized Darwinism as pseudoscience. And since the opening statement of this list states, This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers, we should also be able to thusly include entries which have been characterized as pseudoscience historically. As I mentioned above, the battle for the theory of Evolution to be promoted out of the realms of pseudoscience is a rather well-documented historical fact. In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem editors Pigliucci and Boudry wrote: For the first one hundred and fifty years evolution was -- and was seen to be -- a pseudoscience. That's a pretty explicit characterization. In its entry in the list, I think we should focus on this historical characterization, touch on the continued Creationist view, but alway qualify that the vast majority of biologists view the Theory of Evolution as solidly scientific and the deniers views are often considered pseudoscientific themselves. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is why we need secondary sources: to establish if this passing remark has any significance to the topic, and to clarify what Grassé meant: he clearly agreed with evolution, but opposed some aspect or other of natural selection. As for "the first one hundred and fifty years", from when? Evolution was solidly accepted in science by around 1870, and science itself was not fully developed in the 1820s (see William Whewell etc.). . dave souza, talk 19:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's quite a nice secondary source. Stephen Jay Gould smacks down Evolution critic Jeremy Rifkin who characterizes Evolution as a pseudoscience and invokes the words of Grassé. Rifkin then suggests that the entire field of evolution may be a pseudo science because the great French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé is so critical of Darwinism. This critique of Rifkin was published in Discover Magazine, January 1985. It's a fun read: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/bi430-fs430/Documents-2004/1A-INTRO/Gould_origin_specious_critics.pdf.

As for the 150 year question, I was quoting directly from this source and I believe most of that sesquicentennial is allotted to pre-Darwinian acceptance. Interesting, that author (Michael Ruse - I mentioned the editors above, but forgot the rather notable author of that section of the book) invokes Gould quite a bit. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed text

• Evolution – Though generally regarded as science today, the theory of evolution was characterized as a pseudoscience for 150 years leading up to the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859. By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution. Today, there remains academics and researchers who still characterize evolution as pseudoscience; however, their competing theories are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community.

We have all of the citations needed for this entry. They are either listed above or found within the Evolution article. I just dropping in the "fact" tag for now while we work out the actual text. At this point, I am looking for your feedback before entering it into the list. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm failing to find a way to see this as a good faith proposal, given this ip's comments and the responses to those comments. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize. I've now been following the welcoming advice you left for me on my home page -- discussing article improvement. Other than personal comments, do you have any suggestions that might help me with the proposed text? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussions on the inclusion criteria, evolution will never be an entry in this article. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read the first sentence of this list and tell me how evolution does not qualify historically. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to continue this discussion further. I stand by my first comment: I fail to this as a good faith proposal based upon the previous comments by this ip and the replies to those comments. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, I cannot force you to continue this discussion, but please do personally accept my sincerest apology for any comment that I wrote which has offended you. Please know that I have made the above proposal in good faith -- the best of faith really. However, I completely respect and understand why you would want to duck out now. No hard feelings on this end. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the above proposed text with one minor change

• Evolution – Though generally regarded as science today, the theory of evolution was characterized as a pseudoscience for 150 years leading up to the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859. By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution. Today, there remains academics and researchers who still characterize evolution as pseudoscience . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.239.179 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 August 2013 (edit) (undo)

@71.219.239.179, your feedback is appreciated. However, I don't understand your rationale for leave out the last phrase which describes the competing origin theories of the deniers of evolution are regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community. I have now add references. Please look them over and let us know if you still object to this passage and if so why. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So the term pseudoscience has been used for over 300 years? Pardon me for being a bit skeptical about this. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's not waste our time. No sources are offered, and the proposal violates our inclusion criteria, OR, NPOV, FRINGE, NOT, etc. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia, and I'm not seeing it with this proposal. --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Dougweller. Your skepticism is well-received and appreciated! I just went through and added all of the necessary (hopefully) references to the proposed text. The portion which you bring up can be verified in the Michael Ruse source, nearly word-for-word in the conclusion of his chapter on evolution of the cited book. On relevant side note, you may be interested to know that the usage of the word "pseudo-science" dates back at least to the 18th century! Do you have any notes on the proposed text for inclusion or concerns about any of the references?

@Ronz, again, I respect your desire to duck out of this conversation. However, I do take objection to you turning this discussion into a battleground by insulting my competence as an editor. Your opinion about the proposed text has been duly noted - though your policy objections are not fully explained and thus not comprehensible. If you would like to take the time to more clearly express why this proposal violates the "inclusion criteria, OR, NPOV, FRINGE, NOT, etc." -- just listing policy names is not helpful -- I would sincerely appreciate the education. If you don't wish to do this, that's fine too. Either way, I remain open to fact that this proposed text may very well be in violation of some or all of your list. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you need an education in our policies and guidelines. I always recommend that editors refrain from that are under sanctions, where breaches of policies can quickly lead to blocks or bans, which is not the norm for Wikipedia. See this excellent essay for a start. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, first, thank you so much for adding the reference list tag. That will make things so much easier as we move forward with this proposal. I hope that was your way of saying that you are willing to examine this proposal with an open mind. Second, I really don't want to bog down this discussion space with your criticisms of me as an editor. Please just use this space to discuss the proposal. If you have specific policy objections please do more than just list them. I understand that I may be at a disadvantage here, but if you would just take the time to write an explanation of your policy objections (Eg. This specific sentence of the proposed text violated NPOV because according to NPOV... or This entire proposal does not meet the inclusion criteria of this because as the inclusion criteria states...', etc.), I think it would better foster conversation here. Please recognize that I did a lot of hoop-jumping to satisfy the requests of fellow editors (finding reliable primary and secondary sources, crafting language which I believe satisfies both NPOV and the inclusion criteria of this list). If you could please reciprocate my efforts by explanation of your objections, I would greatly appreciate it. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! Thank you for the comprehensive feedback! 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

First proposed sentence: Please quote, with enough context so it is understandable, the information from "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" that verifies the information proposed. The proposed clause fails FRINGE and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I pulled this reference from the Evolution article in support of this statement: Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. I figured if it is good enough for that article, then it is good enough for this list. But to be honest, I have not review the actual source. That said, I am sure there are a myriad of sources which support the claim that evolution is generally regarded as science today. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're misreading Ruse 2013. Please quote more from the source so we can determine what we might possibly say, if anything. If we can't come to consensus on what we could possibly use that meets the inclusion criteria, then we can't have an entry at all. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is Ruse's conclusion in greater detail: Our story is told. The history of evolutionary thinking over the past three centuries falls naturally into three parts. For the first one hundred and fifty years evolution was—and was seen to be—a pseudoscience. It was a vision of the organic world that emerged simply because living things were viewed through the lens of an ideology about the cultural and social world. It was an epiphenomenon on the back of hopes of cultural and social progress. It made little or no pretense that it was doing the things that one expects of good quality, empirical enquiry. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species raised the status of evolutionary thinking. However, it did not do everything that the great naturalist had intended. Darwin had wanted his mechanism of evolution through natural selection to be the foundation of a new branch of professional science, the new branch of the life sciences devoted to organic change. This did not come about, primarily because Darwin's supporters—notably Thomas Henry Huxley—had other ends in mind. Thanks particularly to Huxley,,evolution was used as a kind of secular religion or what one might call a popular science.

Much of his conclusion is in reference to passages earlier on in his chapter of this book which discuss works such as "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" which pseudoscientifically discuss evolution as a process which began "from the frost patterns on windows in winter day, to the possibility that newly crowned Queen Victoria might represent a more highly evolved type of being."

All in all, this source certainly supports the statement that evolution was characterized as (and actually was) pseudoscientific for the 150 years leading up to the publication and eventual acceptance of Darwin's seminal work. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading. Keep it out. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What about it is misleading? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Second proposed sentence: Again, FRINGE and NPOV problems presenting the viewpoints of the scientific community together with those of the general public. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This text and its sources are directly lifted from the article Charles Darwin. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Third proposed sentence: Confuses evolution with natural selection. NPOV, FRINGE, NOT problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This text and its sources are directly lifted from the article Charles Darwin. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fourth sentence: Violates the inclusion criteria, NPOV, FRINGE, NOT. Evolution is modern science. We don't care how it's detractors currently characterize it as far as this article is concerned. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the story this entry tells -- the historical characterization of the theory of evolution as a pseudoscience -- I think a discussion of those who still hold onto this mis-characterization is fully warranted. Inclusion criteria applies to the entry as a whole. NPOV and FRINGE are satisfied by putting this minority opinion in its place -- as an opposing but not nearly an equal viewpoint. This is precisely what NPOV/FRINGE asks of us as editors. If anything, the sentence goes beyond that and belittles evolution denialism to the point of pejorative. Finally, in regards to your invocation of NOT, can you please specify which portion(s) of this policy you feel this fourth sentence violates? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, these views are so utterly on the very fringes that they deserve no mention at all, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• "the theory of evolution was characterized as a pseudoscience for 150 years leading up to the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859", doesn't make sense chronologically and isn't what the source says. "By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact." contradicts what the first source says. "However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution", is very vague and appears to confuse natural selection and evolution. "Today, there remains academics and researchers who still characterize evolution as pseudoscience", fringe POV push and some of the sources don't even mention pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, IRWolfie. For the first sentence regarding the 150 years leading up to the publication of "On the Origin of Species", it sounds as though you have a different interpretation of what the Ruse is stating when he wrote: For the first one hundred and fifty years evolution was -- and was seen to be -- a pseudoscience. This was written in conclusion of his chapter on evolution, in which he describes the very pseudoscientific beliefs and practices of proponents of the early theory of evolution. So much was the word "evolution" associated with kooky science, that Darwin himself didn't use the controversial word in his first edition of his seminal work. Can you please explain how you interpret this sentence? While chronologically, it makes complete sense to me, I am open to rewording in a manner which would help it make sense to you. Please propose some text.

The second and third sentences' text and sources are lifted directly from the article Charles Darwin, which -- as far as I know -- is quite stable indeed. For a "hot button" article, surprisingly very few edits have been made for quite some time and the talk page is rather mild in terms of discussion.

As for the last sentence, I am not sure what you mean by "fringe POV push" -- specifically what you mean by "push". This does exactly what NPOV tells us to do -- put fringe views in their place -- not on equal ground with scientific views. We have more than enough sources there to verify what is being said, so if you take issue that one of them precisely describes pseudoscientific reasoning though it doesn't actually use the terms "pseudoscience", then please specify which one.

I think a good way to think of this proposal on the whole is like this: "Once upon a time, the scientific community characterized evolution as pseudoscience. Then Darwin came along and changed all that. Today, people who still characterize evolution as pseudoscientific have alternative theories which are in turn considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community." Really that's all this proposal is saying. It's a vindication of not just evolution, but of science. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE: "Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects". It's very undue to include the very tiny minority opinion about a mainstream subject. They have no weight attached to their views, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this part of Fringe doesn't apply here on this list. This list is about fringe subjects, and thus may well include such things. The proposal is not to say that evolution is pseudoscience, but that it has been considered/characterized as such in the past. The proposal is really related to the thread further down on this page: Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Do_we_want_the_list_to_include_topics_that_are_no_longer_considered_pseudoscience.3F

Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, I think stating WP:FRINGE does not apply to a sentence beginning with "Today, there remains academics and researchers who still characterize evolution as pseudoscience ..." is a very extraordinary claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"...to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." In this case, this viewpoint is included by reliable sources. This aside for now, though, IRWolfie, is your only issue with the proposal the last sentence? Would you be in favor of adding it to the list without the last sentence? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

These creationists are only mentioned in the reliable sources in the context of their pseudoscientific beliefs, they are not part of the scientific discourse. Their religiously based attempts at science are given no credence at all. It would be the epitome of undue to include their mistaken beliefs, The blog you point at shows that the earliest known usage of the term pseudoscience is 1843, not 150 years before Darwin. i.e Evolution was not characterised as pseudoscience at that time. Also, any entry would be required to put into context precisely what is highlighted and clarified at the source you cite: [8]. Also, post-Darwin evolution was never characterised as pseudoscience, a completely different approach than the ones mentioned in the blogs. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source of a reliable secondary source

I am not sure about the Wikipedia policy on expert blogs as a reliable source, but please take a look at this article in Massimo Pigliucci's blog in which he supports Ruse's claim that early on, the theory of evolution was very much considered pseudoscience: Evolution as pseudoscience?

TLDR? Here are a few select paragraphs:

Ruse's essay in the Alexander-Numbers collection questions the received story about the early evolution of evolutionary theory, which sees the stuff that immediately preceded Darwin — from Lamarck to Erasmus Darwin — as protoscience, the immature version of the full fledged science that biology became after Chuck's publication of the Origin of Species. Instead, Ruse thinks that pre-Darwinian evolutionists really engaged in pseudoscience, and that it took a very conscious and precise effort on Darwin’s part to sweep away all the garbage and establish a discipline with empirical and theoretical content analogous to that of the chemistry and physics of the time.

Ruse asserts that many serious intellectuals of the late 18th and early 19th century actually thought of evolution as pseudoscience, and he is careful to point out that the term “pseudoscience” had been used at least since 1843 (by the physiologist Francois Magendie), while the concept was prominently on display during the historical investigation of mesmerism ordered in 1784 by King Louis XVI of France and jointly carried out by Antoine Lavoisier and Benjamin Franklin.

Ruse’s somewhat surprising yet intriguing claim is that “before Charles Darwin, evolution was an epiphenomenon of the ideology of [social] progress, a pseudoscience and seen as such. Liked by some for that very reason, despised by others for that very reason.”

'Ruse’s claim that evolution transitioned not from protoscience to science, but from pseudoscience, makes sense to me given the historical and philosophical developments.'

So there is a very reliable (Pigliucci is the chair of the Department of Philosophy at CUNY-Lehman College, the editor in chief for the journal Philosophy & Theory in Biology, and an outspoken critic of creationism and advocate of science education) secondary source discussing Ruse's claims. I'm hoping this settles it in terms of this proposal's qualification to be added to this list. Thoughts? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What you propose to add to the article is misleading and inappropriate. I can't see how any sources will help. --Ronz (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the second time you have leveled the charge of "misleading". Could you please explain precisely what you find misleading here? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, I see no problem with this proposal. It's good enough. See my comment above. The proposal is really related to the thread further down on this page: Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Do_we_want_the_list_to_include_topics_that_are_no_longer_considered_pseudoscience.3F

BTW, this IP is not the same disruptive IP we have also been dealing with here. This is apparently a different person who is not pushing a fringe agenda, but is seeking to improve the list. Their suggestion qualifies as an improvement. Work with them. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brangifer. I went ahead and added this new reference to further support the first sentence in the proposal. In which section of this list do you think this entry would best fit? Life sciences? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking such things should be in a historical section with a heading something like "Concepts formerly characterized as pseudoscience". This makes it clear that even well-proven concepts have previously been considered pseudoscience by mainstream sources of their day. Things change, and we can document that here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Waste of time.

First, the proposal needs a complete and total rewrite to follow the inclusion criteria. Right now it appears to have been written as if the inclusion criteria didn't exist and wasn't being discussed.

Second, "evolution" has multiple meanings, and the meaning used in the source is not the same in Evolution. So, the sources don't verify the proposal.

This isn't even close to the plate tectonics vs Wegener's Continental drift theories, and that isn't in the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, could you please either specify what about the proposed text doesn't follow the inclusion criteria or please offer suggestions for the rewrite which you propose? I've gone through the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia articles in general as well as what this list specifies, and this proposal fully satisfies the requirements. No one has presented any convincing evidence to the contrary. I have jumped through each and every hoop you have presented for me. Now please do me the courtesy of either specifying your grievances or kindly duck out of this conversation. An example of where you could specify your issues includes where you described the statement about the 150 years of evolution being considered pseudoscientific as "misleading". The Pigliucci essay dispels the claim that the statement is "misleading". As a secondary source, Pigliucci makes it clear what Ruse has written; that prior to the acceptance of Darwinian theory, evolution was -- and was considered by scholars to be -- a pseudoscience. It also makes it clear that evolution as a theory has evolved. But what has not changed about the theory of evolution is the principle of a population's inherited traits changing over generations. The sources make this quite evident. So when you say "'evolution' has multiple meanings, and the meaning used in the source is not the same", I have difficulty accepting that. Ruse's and Pigliucci's sources makes it evident that we are dealing with an evolving theory with the same core premise.

I am guessing that your reluctance to accept what is so clearly evident is based on a fear that deniers will view evolution' entry in this list as a victory for their POV. But given the context which so clearly states that evolution is now considered solid science while the theories of today's evolution deniers are now considered pseudoscience, and given Brangifer's suggestion to set evolution (and probably plate tectonics) into a new section of "Concepts formerly characterized as pseudoscience", I cannot see how that would give deniers any sense of satisfaction.

Again, if you have content suggestions, please specify. If you have inclusion criteria points, please detail. Otherwise (and I absolutely mean no disrespect here), please -- pretty please on a sundae with a cherry on top -- kindly step aside. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

BRangifer, did you read the source linked? It indicates that the term didn't even exist then. Also, more importantly the theory of evolution didn't exist in anything like its current form as the proposed text heavily implies, rather it should state, perhaps

Early Evolutionary models, before Darwin's work on the Origin of Species, conflated evolution with social progress and thus, according to philosopher of science Michael Ruse, they were pseudoscientific, and were probably viewed as such during the 18th century as well as into the start of the 19th century.

Cited to the blog and to the book. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The best trolling this year has been done by 172.250.119.155 (talk) It could only get better if this user created an account called user:Kent Hovind. --Roxy the dog (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

user:Roxy the dog, I pity you. Insulting others is probably the only recourse you know of to address your own inadequacies. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is misrepresentation of the sources. I've written something which does conform to what the blog was actually saying. Unfortunately I don't have access to the book, but I assume it conforms since the blog post was written by the editor, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've boldly made an edit along the lines of what I wrote which does not include any of the misleading confusion of pretending early evolutionary models are the same as Darwin's proposal, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

While you are not fully representing what the Ruse source states (it very much goes beyond social progress in its discussion of evolution as a pseudoscience), for the sake of compromise (and out of my own shear boredom with this discussion) I am willing to accept your proposal. Thank you for at least your willingness to address this very real historic characterization. I found this whole process very educational about the behind-the-scenes workings of a Wikipedia article. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The very essay is entitled "Evolution and the idea of social progress" and the blog states clearly: "Ruse’s somewhat surprising yet intriguing claim is that “before Charles Darwin, evolution was an epiphenomenon of the ideology of [social] progress, a pseudoscience and seen as such.". IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Pigliucci's essay focused on that aspect of Ruse's chapter on evolution, which -- to be fair -- is what Ruse focuses on too. However, Ruse does go beyond that. For instance, Ruse discusses works such as "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" which pseudoscientifically discuss evolution as a process which began "from the frost patterns on windows in winter day" and the link between these early evolutionary theories and perennial "best pseudoscience example going" phrenology. Even after Darwin -- even into the 20th century and the "Age of Professional Science" -- scholar took Darwin's evolutionary theories and pseudoscientifically applied them to social progress. So while I agree with you (and Pigliucci) that Ruse does link evolution as a pseudoscience in terms of how it was applied to the ideas of social progress, he does go beyond that. Regardless, I think your entry is "good enough" for this compromise, so I am not requesting any changes. Thank you once again. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Post-Darwin Evolution was not regarded as pseudoscientific, and what you have stated does not show Ruse going beyond that. The other attempts to misapply evolution, such as with scientific racism post-Darwin, are already on the list. That is very different. It's like people who extrapolate from relativity to think that it implies relativism; it says nothing about the validity of the theory of relativity, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Without retyping blocks of text from Ruse's chapter, this is difficult to explain. While Darwin's theories were not and are certainly not considered pseudoscience by any serious scholar, there were many popular pseudoscientific applications of the theory well into the 20th century. He writes of Herbert Spencer's "Synthetic Philosophy" which was used to (mis)apply evolutionary theory to social progress, cultural beliefs, et cetera. He writes of the robber barons of America who used Spencer's take on Darwin to justify their cutthroat business tactics, while at the same time as a means to justify "widespread benevolence". Carnegie invoked Darwin's theory while supporting public libraries for the downtrodden and poor, as a means to help them rise up and "evolve" morally and educationally. Fascinating stuff, really. According to Ruse, it wasn't until the 1950's before all of this conflation of evolution and social progress was truly deemed nonsensical. Again, no need to add any of this to this list, unless anyone else thinks this knowledge warrants inclusion here. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Resurrecting original request

Sorry to bring this up again, but I strongly believe that ID and the wider heading "creation science" should be removed from this list. They are properly categorised as religious beliefs and categorising them as pseudoscience is an inappropriate inflation of their scientific credibility. Reasons:

1. The whole section starts with the statement that religious beliefs should not be categorised as pseudoscience. I think we should bow to Sagan on that point unless there is extraodinary evidence to the contrary.
2. The definition of creation science is in two parts: "belief that the ... universe ... brought about by a creator deity" AND "that this thesis is supported by ... scientific evidence". The first part of this definition is a purely religious one. The second part does not correctly categorise all creation science, but only some specific aspects of it. For example "irreducible complexity" probably is best characterised as pseudoscience since it does have at least something approaching a scietific framework and scientific studies can and have been done to show how certain features can arise through evolution, thus rendering it possible to disprove an assertion of irreducible complexity. However, the fact that IC is linked with ID and CS doesn't inflate them as a whole to the level of pseudoscience. Baraminology is something that I do not think is even psuedoscience but is rather basic bible study.
3. The kitzmiller trial categorised ID as religion and as "not" science. It did not say it was pseudoscience and the fact that the judgment is nevertheless being used as a source is revealing of the lack of reliable sources that support including ID in the list. McLean v. Arkansas also did not categorise creation science as pseudoscience (the only use of the word in that judgment is a quote from Morris and Clark categorising evolution as pseudoscience, and we don't want to go back there again!). Such strong statements made after careful consideration by eminent judges should be supported and respected, not watered down by inflating "not science" or "religious belief" to the category of "pseudoscience".
4. The only people who say ID is science are its supporters, as also referenced in the list. To pay any attention to this claim by using the word science when describing ID, even when prefaced with pseudo-, rather than just calling it a religious belief, is surely giving minority viewpoints undue weight.
5. I don't deny certain writer and journalists HAVE charcaterised ID as pseudoscience, but I do not think this is the majority viewpoint expressed in the totality of reliable sources. I don't think it's much of a stretch to the imagination to say that sometimes writers are lazy and have their own POVs to push and maybe think pseudoscience sounds more pejorative than "not science".
6. Related to the preceding point, pseudoscience is commonly defined as something that "masquerades" as science or "pretends" to be science or "has a close resemblance" to science. ID and CS do none of those things except in the eyes of its supporters.

Sadly there is no List of religious beliefs to move these entries to. However, recategorisation would be a good alternative.

Fundamentally I would like to see this change because calling something pseudoscience does actually give that thing a modicum of scientific acceptability. Surely that's not the intention or what the reliable sources, particularly the US court judgments, are saying?

If there is support to keep ID and CS in the list... Well, it's simple: can't we find some more credible sources that really discuss the question of how best to categorise them rather than relaying on a few sources that just happen to use the words "creationism" and "psuedoscience" in close proximity. Isn't "find better sources" exactly what we always tell the anti-evolution-pov-pushers! GDallimore (Talk) 19:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As has already been stated at great length, the proponents of intelligent design are pushing it as science, not as religion. They are pushing to have it taught in science classrooms, as part of the science curriculum. This is quite well documented by the reliable sources that are already referenced in this article. Since the proponents of ID are insisting that it is science, and because the overwhelming consensus of actual scientists is that ID is bunkum, it certainly belongs on this list, classified as pseudoscience. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Further, you may wish to look at the talk page for 'Intelligent design'. You will note that the topic has been subject to various rulings and arbitrations which have settled the classification of ID as pseudoscience. If you wish to take up arms against this classification, you will need to start there, not here. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

(a) I've already addressed why we should ignore what ID proponents say (b) being "bunkum" is not the same as pseudoscience which is precisely my point and (c) where exactly has the arbcom ruled specifically on ID? GDallimore (Talk) 22:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your concerns should be addressed at the ID article. As long as it is characterized as pseudoscience there, there is no justification for it being removed from the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we want the list to include topics that are no longer considered pseudoscience?

(includes content moved from "Do we want the list to include topics that are no longer considered pseudoscience?" )Roxy the dog (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Title also moved here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria currently states that in order for an entry to be included, it need not be currently considered a pseudoscience. So, for example, plate tectonics would meet the article's inclusion criteria. Is this what we want? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about plate tectonics? Perhaps you're thinking of Wegener's Continental drift which is rather different, though don't know if that was actually characterised as pseudoscience. However, good point about historical allegations. . dave souza, talk 20:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant continental drift. Thanks for the correction. Yes, I believe it was at one time considered pseudoscience.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it strengthens and broadens the usefulness of the article to show the historical progression some subjects have taken...in both directions. Some have been met with skepticism and called "pseudoscience", only to later be proven correct and then accepted by mainstream science. Others have been accepted from ages old, before the concepts of "science{" (and therefore "pseudoscience") had much meaning. They have later been shown to be false and are now called "pseudoscience", and those who hold to them are called "pseudoscientific" and "pseudoscientists". There are some which have always been, and continue to be, considered pseudoscience: chiropractic's foundation and only justification for existence, vertebral subluxation, just like homeopathy, have still failed to prove their existence and are rightly called pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty much already in the article in the form of the Expanding Earth entry. To me I always think it's weird that so many articles call continental drift a theory, it's the observation, the mechanism is the theory and what's also interesting is about the reference to the glove not fitting in the linked article, Wegener proposed the match along the 200m isobath, and not along the coast, something his supporters and detractors both overlooked, but that is neither here nor there. I think the entry could be included if it is put into context Re: mechanisms and the later discovery of plate tectonics. It might be easier to tack it onto the expanding earth entry and add some context, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we want it. We don't want to create a separate article for List of topics previously characterized as pseudoscience. The current article provides better context. I think that people expect to find this stuff in the current article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't care about whether the topic is pseudoscience, then the article should include include a lot of legitimate science. The article starts with the definition "This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers." Smithsonian magazine has an article on "When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience" [10] So that should be on the list. Roger (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that to be a wonderful secondary source which discusses the historical (mis)characterization. The topic could be included based on that source alone. Please craft some text for us to consider. Also, what do you think about the proposal to include Evolution to this list as another historical (mis)characterization? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, provide some suggested wording, with some sources, and this might fly. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall if a heading has been suggested, but something along the lines of "Formerly considered pseudoscience" might work. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a duplicate thread of Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Do_we_want_the_list_to_include_topics_that_are_no_longer_considered_pseudoscience.3F. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I don't have the time right now, so could someone else combine and bump that thread down here and just add this content to it? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

done... um... I think... I hope I did it right. --Roxy the dog (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC).

Good work. I have tweaked it a bit to complete the process. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of early evolutionary models pre-1800s

I don't know how we can justify including anything that is so old, since the only characterization would have to be made long after the fact. Given the state of alternative models of the day and the biased viewpoints of the sources, I don't see how this could possibly belong. Maybe if we had an extensive history of the state of the models of the time? Still, since the theories were primarily spiritual in nature until the mid-to-late 1700s, claims of evolutionary models being pseudoscience don't make sense. It seems more that the creationists would like the spiritual theories of those times to be used as justification for theirs of today. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Early Evolutionary models, before Darwin's work on the Origin of Species, conflated evolution with social progress and thus, according to philosopher of science Michael Ruse, were pseudoscientific and were probably viewed as such during the 18th century as well as into the start of the 19th century (though the word pseudoscience may not have been used in reference to these early proposals).

• The characterisation is being made after the fact, by Ruse, a modern era philosopher of science. I made it clear in the text that this isn't Evolution being pseudoscience. "the theories were primarily spiritual in nature" sounds a lot like pseudoscience and this is more of a critic of the precursors to Herbert Spencer perhaps Comte etc, or so I would gather, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's my impression as well - an after-the-fact characterization. If it's a characterization based upon what today is considered science rather than upon the thinking of the time, then I don't think it belongs. Otherwise we open all early science and pre-science to being eligible for inclusion, which I don't think would be helpful.

Further, without a comparison of the science of the time, I don't believe it meets the inclusion criteria, especially given the recent discussions. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what inclusion criteria you are referring to? I'm not sure what the issue with pre-science being included is? For example why alchemy is pseudoscience by modern standards would surely be an interesting entry IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria is the introduction to the article, especially, "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." Seems like this example is the opposite of the intent of this article: taking early science out of the context of being developed when non-science prevailed. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

educating the public . . . Yep. defining the nature of science. . . Yep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 108.184.99.186 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 September 2013

Ronz' logic would eliminate entries such a phrenology from this list. Terrible idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.99.186 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Howso? --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

it's right there in your "after the fact" logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 108.184.99.186 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 September 2013

No, it's not. If I made it seem that way, explain how and I can clarify. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ronz, this helps to define the nature of science, but is explicitly in the inclusion criteria which is the same as having due weight for the characterisation in a main article on the intersection of pre-Darwinian models and social progress, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, but howso? It's a completely misleading definition if we ignore the state of science at the time, especially the pressure of religious beliefs to stifle science then which today's creationists are some of the last vestiges. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, I encourage you to read both the Ruse and Pigliucci sources which describe how pseudoscientific applications of evolutionary theory continued post-Darwin, and well into the 20th century and the age of professional science (as applied to social progress and even somewhat more specifically to biology; though we are only mentioning social progress in the entry per consensual agreement).

You may also be interested to know that the term "pseudo-science" dates back to at least to the 18th century. Here -- in a discussion of alchemy -- is one of the earliest known usages in a printed work: [11]. Printed in 1796, this most certainly pre-dates the birth of Charles Darwin, let alone the publication of his seminal work in 1859. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Darwin's theories, nor that time frame. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, if there is any clarification you need to make to the text to make sure it is given the correct context feel free. Check the sources out, these sources are written by people who accept evolutionary biology and are also quite notable in their own right for their work on. For example, the blog and the editor of the book is Massimo Pigliucci, someone who has been vocal in the criticism of creationism and was a professor of evolutionary biology (now a philosopher of science) and has written many books on the topic. I might leave it out for now until someone can get their hands on the book (I was basing my addition from the blog describing the book), IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, access to the book would be nice. Still, I don't think we can justify including something that is characterized as pseudoscience centuries later and a good century before the term was used. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the chapter in question is available for preview on Google Books. I think it is missing just a page or two. We are not talking about centuries later here. According to Ruse, pseudoscientific applications of evolutionary theory continued post-Darwin, and well into the 20th century and the age of professional science. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are missing his point, which is the "According to Ruse" part. Personally I don't agree with the reason, I think it is fine if the characterisation is separated in time, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Ruse in Wikipedian translates to: According to a reliable source. And according to Ruse, "evolution" did not truly become a professional science -- separating itself professionally from pseudoscientific applications such as social progress -- until the 1940's / 1950's. Ruse tells us that even the professional scientist of the 40's and 50's and even onward still would profess about social progress; Ruse goes into detail with this particular phenomenon in his 1996 work Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology. Eventually, the ideas of social progress were completely routed out of evolutionary biology, where Ruse tells us that today there are very few people who would subscribe to such a "happy view of social and cultural progress". 172.250.119.155 (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel you are still trying to conflate evolution as a theory with evolution and social progress. Can we please stick to the sources that discuss this in connection to pseudoscience (i.e "Still, it must be recognized that after Darwin, evolution was pseudo-science no longer"). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I apologize. It is a difficult line to tread what the source says in total and which portion we have consensually agreed to include in this list. We are attempting to keep this pre-Darwin, even though the pseudoscientific mis-application of evolution to social progress continued post-Darwin. Ronz feels it is improper to include a modern characterization of an ideology from two centuries ago. My point is that the ideology (the pseudoscientific link between social progress and biological evolution) continued halfway through the 20th century. So we are not dealing with a modern characterization about some long defunct ideology from hundreds of years ago. Ruse's characterization extends well into the professional age of science, so more like 60 or 70 years ago. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

" even though the pseudoscientific mis-application of evolution to social progress continued post-Darwin". That's not what the source is saying, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Ruse has written, but he seems quite clear that this pseudoscientific mis-application of biological evolution to social progress continued to be made by academics and scholars well into the 20th century. If you have access to the source, you'll find what I am talking about on pages 239 - 241. Again, you can preview the book on Google books. Please do read it for yourself and let me know if I am incorrect in my understanding of what Ruse has written. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So what are we waiting on at this point in order to reintroduce the text for which we had consensually agreed to add? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no consensus to add it. Please drop it per WP:STICK. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, you are the only one who opposes the addition. I cannot believe that Wikipedia work like this -- where one dissenter can obstruct other editor's consensual work. Please at least do us the favor of explaining your dissent, and addressing our responses. At this point, you have not extended us this courtesy. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As brought up earlier, it would be extremely helpful for you to learn how Wikipedia works, especially when working on topics under ArbCom rulings. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, I do appreciate the advice. I have ingested a lot of guideline information in a short amount of time. I feel fairly confident about my understanding of how Wikipedia works. What I never came across is a policy asserting that a lone dissenter can stop a discussion in its tracks. Can you please point out where I can find that guideline? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unproven theories?

Are all theories to be considered "pseudoscience" until they are proven or disproven by science? For a science to be "pseudo" I'd say it has to 1.) willingly reject scientific practice, yet 2.) claim to have scientific backing. Kortoso (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Please read the first paragraph of the article. We're not assuming anything is pseudoscience. It must be sourced, and in a manner that fits the inclusion criteria for this article. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

King Tut's Curse

To the best of my knowledge, King Tut's curse is a belief in the supernatural, and has no actual pseudoscience in it. Should supernatural topics be included in a list about pseudoscience? It seems to me that this list is being treated as a List of Things that are Wrong, regardless of whether an individual item is pseudoscience or not. Looking at the article's history, this is a problem that has plagued this article for a long time now.[12] I don't think the article should be deleted, but I do think that it should say focused on pseudoscience and not include items that aren't pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's given an entry in a book of pseudoscience, it's also used in research as a given pseudoscience [13][14][15]. Case closed. Your OR is irrelevant, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The "encyclopedia of pseudoscience" never actually describes it as a pseudoscience. Reincarnation is also in that book. Would you suggest that belief in reincarnation should be listed here? How about we just add "religion" and "spirituality" to this "list of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and save everyone the trouble of pretending that these entries are being included based off a rational definition of pseudoscience?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: Your last two sources appear to be behind a paywall (or perhaps an account wall), so I can't read them. But based off your first source, I am not impressed. The source provides trivial coverage. I think we need to have higher standards here. Please remember that our purpose here as editors is to provide a high-quality, educational encyclopedia to our readers. By including non-pseudoscientific topics in this article we do our readers a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Without claiming to be very up on this topic in general, the pdf indicates that there is widespread belief that his is as factual as, say, Nessie, which we do cover. Clarification is needed about this [mis]understanding and how it relates to pseudoscience, presumably this could be cited to these additional sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Trivial coverage? Reliability does not matter about how trivial something is. Notability is not the criteria for inclusion. Featuring as an entry in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience is non-trivial anyway ... IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it matters. Reliability is not a binary on/off switch. Rather, it's a gradual continuum. You've seized upon a source that provides only bare, trivial coverage of the topic. You have not provided any significant coverage or evidence that this is a mainstream view within the scholarly community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Scant coverage? It has 2 pages in the skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopedia that is just a collection of articles from a magazine that were compiled together by the history of science major who runs said magazine. The article itself never likens belief in King Tut's curse to pseudoscience, but instead describes it as an urban legend.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, re "notability is not the criteria for inclusion" (and other iterations about what the criteria for inclusion are/are not on this page): What is the criteria for inclusion exactly? I don't have much of a history with this page. Was there a consensus at some point that you're basing it on? Is it, as below, along the lines of "if it's wp:due to call something pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here?" That would be easy enough to adhere to, I suppose, and would remove the need to debate about the inclusion of this or that here (e.g. if a given source was good enough to characterize as pseudoscience on an article page there's no point in questioning it here). There are already debates on the subject on those article talk pages, which this page has produced iterations of. Do I understand correctly? If so, is there consensus here such that this might be simply written at the top of the talk page? --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No quite, because almost nothing can be called pseudoscience on wikipedia, because people assume its POV even if all the sources say it. Generally articles say it has been characterised as pseudoscience (usually by scientists). "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here". Some topics, such as Psychoanalysis have been characterised as pseudoscience, but otherwise still have some academic support (not much amongst psychologists, but amongst psychiatrists), saying "It is pseudoscience", would not be a fair reading of the totality of the sources, but saying "it has been characterised as pseudoscience for reasons X etc" is neutral. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still unclear on the criteria for this page, then. If I'm reading your response correctly, it sounds like for the purposes of inclusion here you're saying the other article pages are effectively irrelevant. Or perhaps that pseudoscience mention in an article is sufficient but not absolutely required? For those instances that it's not required, what is the criteria for inclusion? It's clearly not simply "characterized as pseudoscience," so it must be based on the source of the pseudoscience allegation. Must be a scientist? Scientist or academic writing in a scholarly publication or peer-reviewed work of some kind? Multiple? Don't mean to be pedantic, but I think it being spelled out would avoid a lot of the effort on the talk page. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you've confused two points I was making together. I'll just repeat the first point. "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here", that is what I view the criteria for this page as. See the psychoanalysis page for an example, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: According to the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience's own publisher[16], the book also includes supernatural claims. BTW, it also includes conspiracy theories. This not an article about the supernatural or conspiracy theories. It's about pseudoscience. Please stop insisting that we include off-topic entries in this list, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary to frame everything as being personal? Now, if you read that linked page it says: "Finally, the volumes include five classic works in the history of science and pseudoscience, including ..." and then goes on to list the paranormal as being included. What it does say is "Includes over 100 entries about pseudoscientific subjects", which includes the Tut entry as well as all the others. Framing it as "pseudoscience and paranormal" (in fact something can be both as the publisher highlights) is not what that link says. To recap, It's in the encyclopedia of pseudoscience, and I have shown sources that refer to it as being pseudoscience.

Initially you said that you think its not pseudoscience ("the best of my knowledge, King Tut's curse is a belief in the supernatural, and has no actual pseudoscience in it"), but I have shown that these further sources indicate or treat it as obvious pseudoscience, yet you think these are too "trivial". Your initial opinion is incongruent with those sources. Those sources back up the pseudoscience encyclopaedia as well, which does establish due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie - So the inclusion criteria is "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterized as pseudoscience on its main article page." But just clicking on a few of the links here shows that several of them are not characterized as pseudoscience in the articles. Tutankhamun's curse, Séance, and Holocaust_Denial (3 of the 6 I clicked on and searched the page). They have references that are clearly about pseudoscience but there's no precedent for book titles in reference lists to be used for justification of claims by association. My point is, whether or not "it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterized as pseudoscience on its main article page" is a conversation that needs to happen at that article page first. To just claim WP:DUE here without gaining consensus on that page that it's WP:DUE seems problematic. Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding, though. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page", I said if it could be. It would not be undue for something to be included does not mean it has been included. The distinction is important. The actual content of the other article does not matter. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Except, of course, that nobody has yet to provide a single reliable source, let alone a general consensus of reliable sources, saying that this is a pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, the curse is listed under "Volume 1: Section 1: Important pseudoscientific concepts".

Feder's survey, the introduction says that it's testing "pseudoscientific archaeological claims" and "pseudoscience in archaeology". Feder also calls it "cult archaeology", a synonymous for Pseudoarchaeology, a sub-branch of pseudoscience.

Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, also by Feder.

Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public (I can't check the contents of this book)

Mind you, the amount of actual pseudoscience on this topic seems to be minuscule. Personally, I wouldn't mind if it was moved to Pseudoarchaeology#Examples. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is that it also covers supernatural claims and conspiracy theories,[17], and there is no clear delineation between which items are pseudoscience, which items are supernatural and which items are conspiracy theories. But even ignoring that, we should not be examining any individual source in isolation. What do other reliable sources say about this item? Hypothetically speaking, if we have 10 sources, and 9 do not describe an item as pseudoscience and one does, we shouldn't cite the oddball source that describes it as a pseudoscience. That's a WP:FRINGE view point and a violation of WP:NPOV to present fringe viewpoints as mainstream. I have no problem with putting this item in some other list. I know, for example, that we have a separate List of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If somebody was to boldly delete the King Tut stuff, and perhaps comment that if anybody has decent sources to back up re-instatement, bring them to Talk, I'd be happy. I think the source is weak. It isn't pseudoscience, it is an urban myth. --Roxy the dog (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

AQFK. Naval provided information showing conclusively that it is in the book as pseudoscience, "Volume 1: Section 1: Important pseudoscientific concepts". The rest of what you said is flawed anyway since claims of the supernatural can also be pseudoscientific. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll on King Tut's Curse

Perhaps it would be useful to gauge everyone's opinion if we can take a straw poll on whether King Tut's Curse belongs in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to !vote or comment on this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care enough to. Your comment, "this is supernatural claim, not actual pseudoscience", is WP:OR, and the other is a vote without rationale. As you are a aware, we don't operate by vote counting. I've already shown it is listed in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience, and have shown its mention as pseudoscience in other contexts. Be honest, you don't want it to be here regardless what the sources say, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to weigh in? We appear to have consensus that this item should be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's been over a month since anyone has weighed in on this discussion. Consensus is clear. We have three editors in favor of removing this item and no editor opposing. Even if we had an editor opposing, that's still consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't Include

1. This is supernatural claim, not actual pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
2. +++ Sticks hand up +++ --Roxy the dog (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Minuscule amount of science, lots of false archaeological claims. Pseudoarchaeology#Examples is a much better fit. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   I was under the impression that archaeology was science, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   This particular item doesn't contain much real archaeology, if any at all. There are no pseudoarchaeologists trying to pass bad research as good research (at least, I couldn't find any). I couldn't even find creative reinterpretations of real archaeology papers, there are only made up stories. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

4. Supernatural, not archaeology. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New Topic - Audio Pseudoscience (especially High-End Audio)

High-End Audio is full of pseudoscience and bunk terms. The vagueness of terms even leak down into mid-range and lower-range audio gear. Monster (company) is a big abuser of terms used to describe their cables, including more recent things like overhyped headphones like "Beats Audio by Dre" and "SMS Audio by 50 cent", which are basically nothing more than a headphone amp with bass-boost built into the headphones and sold at high prices. Actually, there needs to be an entire article about this subject on Wikipedia! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• The 10 biggest lies of Audio which came from The Audio Critic Issue 26 fromThe Audio Critic PDF archive
• Testing audiophile claims and myths
• Monster Cables, Monster Ripoff: 80% Markups
• Audiophiles can't tell the difference between Monster Cable and coat hangers
• The Truth About Monster Cable

For sure this is a rich area (see Speaker wire#Quality debate and Audiophile#Controversies) though cables are just part of it (and Monster just one company). Green felt-tip pens for CD, magic banadages for cables, Extended Resolution Compact Discs ... you name it. Perhaps the Audiophile article could be expanded a bit and then linked-to from here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be enough in those other articles for the use in this article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Climate Change Denialism

I observe that an editor has just reverted my removal of this asinine political entry. I'm not not going to waste time arguing the subject here; I'll simply include a link to the most perspicacious scientific forum regarding the issue.--Froglich (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL! You'd do better with VVatts Up With That ?, the website you link to is of course at hot topic. . . dave souza, talk 06:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Froglich that "Climate Change denialism" does not belong here. This criticises the existence of skepticism on the topic of climate change; the problem with that is that (a) skepticism is not a science, therefore it cannot possibly be anything-science (proto-science, pseudo-science, anti-science, etc) and (b) skepticism is a very healthy and indeed fundamental component of the scientific method. There are indeed many lay people who hold positions on climate change that are *unscientific*, but it is by no means limited to one side or another. A survey of American meteorologists shows only a simple majority support the thesis. You cannot call this pseudoscientific and lump this with Lysenkoism or perpetual motion on which there is no shred of doubt as to their falsehood.

Therefore, I think that either this section gets expanded and more nuanced and make a clear distinction between skepticism and pseudoscientism and include some of the wackier claims of each side (and there are many to choose from), or this item should be removed from the list.Willa wonky (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If good quality reliable sources characterise climate change denialism as pseudoscience, then it belongs in the list. The survey of meteorologists does not address this, and you appear to be misreading its results which are actually quite interesting and supportive of earlier studies. . . dave souza, talk 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Do the sources actually say that this is pseudoscience? The three references in the article are all behind paywalls (or membership walls) so I can't check them. One of the problems with this article (and this has been noted before) is that the article is used as a 'List of things that are wrong' regardless of whether each item qualifies as pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the two articles support this label. The Science article does not mention the word "pseudoscience" and the Science, Technology & Human Values is a discussion of the lack of clear demarcations between "science" and "pseudoscience". (My first impression is that it is a bunch of nonsensical hand-wringing, actually, but it doesn't support the use of the term here.) The congressional report appears to support it and I've added a link to an Internet Archive copy. Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This brings up another concern of mine. If, hypothetically speaking, we have 10 sources regarding X, and 9 out of 10 don't describe X as a pseudoscience, but 1 out of 10 does describe X as a pseudoscience, is it considered a pseudoscience? IOW, do we cite the oddball source and include X in the article, or do we go with the consensus of reliable sources and omit it from the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Naturally we should go with the consensus of the sources. But the omission of the word from a source does not mean that we should read that source as asserting that climate change denial is not a pseudoscience, it merely means that the source does not discuss the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any consensus in this discussion that skepticism of AGWT (however "updated" in terminology to "climate change denial" -- an updating which positively screams of disingenuous alteration due to the fact that no net warming has been observed for over a decade now) constitutes pseudoscience. (There is demonstrably more pseudoscience, when not outright fraud, going on in AGWT formulation and promotion.) Furthermore, the "-denial" claim in the label, as derivative of holocaust denial, is highly insulting on multiple levels.--Froglich (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to have a POV, as are all editors, but being a climate change denialist doesn't exactly increase your credibility here. Your POV is definitely a fringe, pseudoscientific POV. As far as the "denialism" terminology, it is not exclusively related to holocaust denialism, but to many other forms, including HIV/AIDS denialism and Germ theory denialism, so no insult is intended. It's a generic term often related to conspiracy theories. See: Category:Denialism. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The deciding issue here is whether the sources used characterize climate change denialism as pseudoscience. Do they or don't they? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added a source to the National Center for Science Education which clearly identifies climate change denial as pseudoscience: NCSE Tackles Climate Change Denial, National Center for Science Education, January 13th, 2012 -- Brangifer (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If I had to guess, most sources don't refer to this item as pseudoscience. Even when specifically looking for sources which call it pseudoscience, I only found weak sources. IOW, sources with just casual references to it being a pseudoscience with no depth or actual explanation as to how it's a pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, nobody's disputing that certain groups with vested interests have quotes at-the-ready. The issue is whether or not there is consensus here to give this particular species of nonsense credence. I count four editors in this thread (the majority of those weighing in), who are either outright opposed to it or at least skeptical of its asserted scientific and/or ethical merits.--Froglich (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

dave souza and I certainly support its inclusion based on sources which do characterize it as pseudoscience. We know that you, 2.5% of published climate scientists, and the vested interests of Big Oil and the Koch brothers, think it's "nonsense. They have very deep pockets and they don't want their denialism included here, but they don't count as sources in this list because they are not RS which characterize it as pseudoscience. We have RS which do that, so it gets included. Fortunately those sources are on the same side as the 97.5% of published climate scientists, who know more than any of us editors what is really the case. Being an amateur in these matters, I place my bets on them being right, but that is neither here nor there as far as inclusion here. There are RS which characterize this type of denialism as pseudoscience, and that's enough for inclusion. "Climate Change Denialism" is indeed 100% Bollocks according to 97.5% of published climate scientists! Big money can't change the facts, and scientists tend to go with the facts. Not all of them can be bought.

The "scientific and/or ethical merits" are not decisive here, because, for purposes of inclusion here, we are not concerned with whether climate change or climate change denial is or is not actually pseudoscience. That's rather irrelevant (for purposes of inclusion). The question is whether RS have so characterized climate change denial. They have, and that is decisive here. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC) (Comment revised in response to next comment.)

I disagree with the later assertion: whether items are actually pseudoscience is relevant. Otherwise, we do a disservice to our readers by presently misleading information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize with you, and that's why we try to include subjects which really ARE pseudoscience (and use sources that are sympathetic to mainstream science, not fringe anti-science sources), but that's not the purpose of this list. The inclusion criteria ("characterized") must be followed. I have clarified my comment about relevance ("for purposes of inclusion"). We do not mislead readers by implying that climate change denial isn't pseudoscience. If there was doubt, we would leave it out, but 97% is a pretty large majority, and sources which sympathize with that position say it's pseudoscience.

Another matter is the PSI Arbcom decision linked at the top of this page. It notes the types of information we can include here, and we try to limit inclusion to the first three groups, and stay away from definitive statements in Wikipedia's voice that such-and-such IS pseudoscience. We just let the sources speak for themselves. Some of the subjects listed here are clearly in group one, and their articles are in Category:Pseudoscience. Others are not, but we still document what RS have said about them. The archives contain many discussions about this.

Pseudoskeptics and pseudoscientists have repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to sabotage this article in attempts to force a deletion of the whole thing. Their attempts usually are aimed at seeking to include claims by fringe sources that proven facts are pseudoscience. Such attempts are obviously frivolous and never succeed. Basically, one need not agree that content here is pseudoscience, just recognize that some RS, which are on the same side of the issues as mainstream science, have characterized a fringe idea as pseudoscience. That's all. I have now beefed up the content with a number of RS to document the fact that denials of the mainstream climate science position (97%) have been characterized as pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an article containing a list of pseudosciences? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The closest we get is the Pseudoscience article itself, where a few representative examples are mentioned. Otherwise, check out Category:Pseudoscience. The following template is good. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we don't have a "List of pseudoscience topics", how about we rename this article "List of topics characterized or mischaracterized as pseudoscience" to make it more clear to the reader that the list contains items that are not pseudoscience? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We've been over this about a million times and the current title is fine. Changing it always creates problems, and your suggestion actually introduces editorial opinion directly into the title! We keep it simple and just document what the sources say. For more detail of the controversies on each one, look in their articles. This isn't the place for that. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The title is wrong, useless, horrible. It's a way for us to say "We need a list of pseudosciences someplace - and we can't be bothered to come up with a battery of reliable sources to show that they truly are pseudosciences...so instead we're going to cop out and say 'if anyone *ever* said it was a pseudoscience then it goes on the list'!". The result is a list that clearly contains things that are not pseudosciences...and it's weak on evidence for things that undoubtedly are pseudoscience. Who really cares whether someone at sometime in the past said "X is a pseudoscience"...but that's what the list is. What people really need to know is the answer to questions like: "Is this guy who's selling me magnets to cure my rheumatism talking bullshit?"...and for that kind of search, this list is useless. SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@SteveBaker: I couldn't have said it better myself. In addition to what Steve just said, @BullRangifer:, if this issue keeps coming up time and time again, that indicates that that current title is not fine, correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

We did have a !vote on this some time ago - and the consensus then was for not changing the title. Maybe it's time for an RfC? SteveBaker (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're up to AQFK. Is this baiting, IDHT, sarcasm, or some other possibility? I obviously think it is fine. The only ones who consider it problematic are usually those who object to their favorite delusion's inclusion. They refuse to understand the purpose of the list. The lead makes it plain. Don't overinterpret.

We are deliberately and carefully treading a fine line between no list at all (which would leave a hole in Wikipedia's goal of documenting the sum total of human knowledge) and violating the PSI ArbCom ruling. Push it too far one way and it gives pseudoskeptics and pseudoscientists an excuse to delete the whole list. We don't want that. Wikipedia's goal must be served. Push it too far the other way and we're violating the ruling by definitively categorizing in Wikipedia's voice many subjects which are borderline pseudoscientific. We shouldn't do that. That's why we limit content to "characterizations" found in RS. The source obviously believes in is pseudoscience, and so do we, but that's our own opinion as editors. We can't write that, except in obvious cases (see groups 1 & 2 above). We don't take a position as to whether a subject absolutely IS pseudoscience here, even if is really is, but we definitely do that in some of the articles. We abide by the ArbCom decision and limit content to the first three groupings seen at the top of this page.

We have had many RfCs on this matter, and this title has always been the best solution. Since nothing has changed, and no new arguments for change have been brought forth, such an RfC would be disruptive. If you don't like the list, no one is forcing you to play here. Of course there is a better option. Instead of creating disruption, how about abiding by the inclusion criteria and improving it? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"The only ones who consider it problematic are usually those who object to their favorite delusion's inclusion." - not so, I have no such agenda. If you check you'll discover that I have no specific topic or topics that I' pushing for. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"...usually..." is the key word here. There are exceptions, and I'm glad you are one. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

SteveBaker's concern could still be met by creating a list which only covers items in groups 1 & 2. Go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My objection is that this list should NOT exist because it gives a false impression that it's an authoritative list of pseudosciences when it is not - and a better list SHOULD exist because we do need a list of such topics. Hence creating a new list in addition to this one is not a complete answer to the problems I see. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, but the title and inclusion criteria described in the lead are pretty clear. It makes no pretense to be "an authoritative list of pseudosciences." Is there some wording in the lead which is ambiguous or not clear enough? Please copy it here so we can improve it. Is there some wording which could make it even more clear? Please propose it.

We aim to fill a hole in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. Such holes must not exist. Documenting the "sum total of human knowledge" aims at "total" coverage. Your proposal would miss a lot which this one covers, but it could work as a supplement. It wouldn't create anything really new that is not in the articles, but it would collect the pseudosciences we are allowed to categorize as such (groups 1 & 2) into one nice list. Unfortunately it would likely be the target of constant edit wars by pushers of fringe POV, but if it were created properly I'd likely help you build it and defend it, so go for it. It might be a great list and I'm not against the idea. Once you create such a list, and it proves its usefulness, you might be able to make a better argument for deletion of this list, although I still think this one serves an important purpose for the reasons mentioned. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Water-fuelled car

Resolved

This seems to be an item which was included contrary to the inclusion criteria. I just took a look at the article Water-fuelled car and there isn't a single mention of pseudoscience. That needs to be fixed. RS must exist which do characterize it as such. Until that is done, it needs to be removed from this list. We can't allow OR to dictate what gets included here, without even a source. We not only follow the sources, we follow the existing articles. Article content and sources used there dictate whether we can include something here. When that is fixed it can be returned here, with proper sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because the EXACT word "pseudoscience" isn't used in the Water-fuelled car article doesn't mean that water-fueled cars isn't B.S. It takes some form of electricity or chemical reaction to split water into its components of hydrogen and oxygen. These are just a few links that I found via google in a few minutes, and I'm sure there are lots more out there. The bottom line is that it needs to be restored! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-06/local/me-13510_1_trial-date

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4271579

http://jalopnik.com/5944443/the-never+ending-dream-of-the-water+powered-car

http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam_faq.shtml

"there isn't a single mention of pseudoscience" in the article because the "fans" keep removing it[18][19]. Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources, not the opinion of its editors. So put it back in, meets list criteria. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that it’s BS and pseudoscience. We are in agreement, but regardless of our feelings, we must do this properly. We always follow the sources, so this should be relatively easy to fix. The sequence to getting this restored is described at the link below.

I have mentioned the problem and created a thread there:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water-fuelled_car#Pseudoscience_isn.27t_even_mentioned_here

Brangifer (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources, not the opinion of its editors." My point exactly! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, please remove your OR from the article and fix the problem first. It should be easy. Start at the main article and then restore the item here using a source that actually does clearly characterize it as pseudoscience. We really do need to ensure that RS have primacy over OR editorial opinion. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Added a second ref. Fixing the main article is a good idea (it desperately needs a "Criticism" section) but it is NOT a requirement to be listed here simply because "Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for any purpose". If a topic meets this list's definition then it gets listed here. We can't de-list an article simply because the article has gone through one (or many) edit changes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Just some extra reading through this: the statement "We not only follow the sources, we follow the existing articles" is actually contrary to WP:WPNOTRS. Wikipedia is an unreliable source and can not be used for any other articles content. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that I need to clarify my statement. Obviously our articles are not themselves RS. I've been around here for nearly ten years and we both know about WP:WPNOTRS, so I obviously must have meant something else. You should AGF and know that. My meaning of fixing the main article (which you grant is a good idea) first is based on the requirement for each item in a list to be notable and relevant (which can be established in two ways...see later).

Articles and lists are slightly different in that regard. Article "creation" is based on notability, while article content is based on RS, not notability. Lists are different, in that they require that each item is notable and also relevant for the list. In all cases, "RS always take primacy over editorial opinion" (one of my edit summaries directed at your OR in the article).

The two ways to establish notability and relevance for an item in a list are: (1) the item is notable enough to have its own article; (2) the item is accompanied with strong RS establishing relevance. Number two is because there are some types of things which cannot have their own articles, but are good enough for a list because of strong RS. In that case RS are enough. Otherwise we usually remove redlinks and require an item to first pass the gauntlet of article creation. In that process, RS are discovered and used, and if the article is strong enough to exist for any length of time, then we can also list the item in a relevant list, and accompany it with a couple of the best references which are "relevant". Why "relevant"? Because an article will have many types of references, but the list is on one topic, and the references must establish the relevance of the item for the list's topic. For this list, the item must have references which document "characterization as pseudoscience".

Right now neither ref mentions pseudoscience. The second ref, a book, uses the word ONCE in relation to cold fusion, but as a rebuttal against calling cold fusion pseudoscience! So we have patent OR based on editorial opinion in the article because those sources do not fulfill the inclusion criteria. Both sources should be removed (and the whole item removed until good sources can be found). The sources should likely be used in the main article. So the main article needs fixing. The article itself is not a RS, but the sources it uses can be, WHEN they are found.

I hope you now understand what I meant. If an item is too weak to be included here, that will be evident by the fact that its main article will not document that it has been characterized as pseudoscience. The very word won't even be in the article, and therefore the article should not be included in Category:Pseudoscience.

This makes evident the problem right here. We are agreed (our editorial opinion, which cannot substitute for RS) that Water-fuelled cars are BS and pseudoscience. I think that's abundantly clear. So why isn't that in the main article? We should fix that. If that cannot be fixed, it should not be included here. If it can be fixed, then it can be included here, together with a couple of the best refs which are relevant. Isn't that a good idea? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I see the word "pseudoscience" specifically in the lead in the first ref. I think WP:LABEL about covers it. We do not use the word "pseudoscience" in the main article because we have the room to give readers detailed information about relevant controversies, no need for a one word name. This list is the opposite, its a short-hand description/listdef and short entry and we are not "in doubt" (the article in question is in the category "Water-fuelled cars", a sub-category of "Pseudophysics" and calls the topic un-scientific in every section, but in a weaselly soft pedaled wording style). Category:Pseudophysics has a to the point set of reasons for inclusion in a list like this. The word being present is not a requirement enumerated anywhere in the guidelines and there will never be consensus so it will never be clear-cut. Should this list have a value-laden label in the title, combine a preponderance of the evidence to match to a short-hand description, or even exist? Not the question here (RCF above). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, you've won me over! As you are aware by now, my main concern is to avoid OR and editorial opinion being used instead of RS. In a case like this, I think we can be a bit lax with the exact wording in the RS because this subject falls in group 1, IOW "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more."

The combined weight of the sources screams every word we'd use to help us define pseudoscience, and this subject is "obviously bogus." The last words "without more" seem to indicate that RS aren't absolutely necessary. Why? Because the obviousness of the case justifies invoking IAR and just using common sense. We are all agreed that this is pseudoscience and we "may....label and categorize [it] as such..." Actually I'm rather happy that you win this one and have convinced me. Thanks for your persistence and good spirit. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This means that Water-fuelled car stays and can be categorized as pseudoscience here and elsewhere without violating the ArbCom decision, OR, or RS. I think we can mark this as resolved. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in the RfC, above - it doesn't matter a damned whether the subject is, or is not a pseudoscience. The present list demands only that a topic has been "characterized" as pseudoscience. That said, our one reference here does not say that it's a pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct on both points. RS are needed. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether someone actually uses the EXACT word "pseudoscience" isn't the point. Fraudulent Science = "Pseudo Science". Numerous articles and lawsuits have called it FRAUD / SCAM / BUNK, which means it is fake science, thus "water-fuelled vehicles" are pseudoscience! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Per my other comment in this edit, I agree with both of you. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Please summarize the outcome. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Water-fuelled car stays and can be categorized as pseudoscience here and elsewhere without violating the ArbCom decision, OR, or RS. I think we can mark this as resolved. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Though I've done a mountain of edits over the last few years, I'm still not aware of every Wikipedia acronym that is thrown around in some discussions. What is OR and RS? Is it "Original Research" and "Real Science"??? Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Half right! RS = reliable source. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Anthroposophy

Should anthroposophy be added here?Totorotroll (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The pseudoscientific aspect is listed here: List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Health_and_medicine. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What's going wrong here:

1. We say that (for example) Crystal healing is characterized as a pseudoscience. It certainly has been characterized as such - and there is little doubt that it truly is a pseudoscience. It belongs on this list - and it would belong on the list I propose here. So far, so good!
2. We don't say that "Climate Change" has been "characterized as a pseudoscience". Clearly, climate change is a carefully researched scientific subject (even if you happen to disagree with the conclusions it comes to). So even if you think the conclusions are incorrect, you should certainly agree that it's not a "pseudoscience". However, if as Wikipedia editors, we're being honest, and unbiassed and if this article truly is a list of topics that have merely been characterized as pseudoscience - then Climate Change belongs on the list. Because, to pick just one of dozens of examples, US Senator David Vitter (clearly a notable person) characterizes it as such when he calls it, quote: "ridiculous pseudo-science garbage". There are tons of WP:RS reporting him saying that (for example in "The Guardian" newspaper - which is a reputable, reliable source which doesn't make a habit of misquoting people: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/29/climate-committee-republicans). So, if we're being honest about this article, we must include Climate Change as one of the entries. Clearly we're not doing that because we all know in our hearts that it shouldn't be characterized as a pseudoscience and regardless of how Sen Vitter feels about the truth of it, he should not deny that armies of scientists are avidly studying the subject. But that's only because we're quietly ignoring the title of this article and behaving as if it's really "List of Pseudosciences".
3. Interestingly, we do say that the reverse ("Climate change denialism") is characterized as a pseudoscience. Isn't this just total bias on our behalf? Why do we arbitrarily decide to ignore one characterization and accept the other?
4. We do include "Water fuelled cars" on our list. The idea that you can fuel a car with water is clearly pseudoscientific. It's in complete violation of the laws of thermodynamics, the proponents of the idea most certainly do not follow the scientific method - and no reputable scientist agrees that the idea is true. It would clearly belong on "List of Pseudosciences" - and yes, it's on our current list. However, I don't see a reference to anyone "characterizing" it as a pseudoscience. I see an article that says that opponents of pseudoscience hate the idea of water fuelled cars - but they probably hate the idea of having raw broccoli for breakfast too. The truth is that the hypothesis that you can extract energy from water is indeed a pseudoscience, but nobody that we've managed to find has actually said so (the writer of our link has a degree in chemistry - but he's a journalist, not a practicing scientist with expertise in the field of thermodynamics). Water fuelled cars would definitely belong on "List of pseudosciences" - because we can show plenty of sources saying that thermodynamics says it's impossible. But you could certainly argue doesn't belong on this list because we can't find anyone who actually says that it's a pseudoscience.

Replacing this article with "List of pseudosciences" would force us to be more honest about sources. It would allow us to retain Water fuelled cars and exclude Climate change whilst keeping Climate change denialism. It would be a clean, factual list of what things truly are pseudosciences and which are not.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the examples you give don't demonstrated anything wrong here. Water-fuelled car and Climate change denialism are currently in, while Climate change is not. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

His point, I think, is that because of the current inclusion criteria climate change should be included -- and the only reason it isn't is because of POV -- whereas if the article name were changed it would be clearer that climate change should be excluded. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Under our present rules, "Climate change" should be included and "Water fuelled car" should not. Under my proposed change, "Climate change" could be legitimately excluded and "Water fuelled car" legitimately included - no change to the current content of the article - but without POV bias. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Howso? We still need references. What specifically is being proposed that changes what references we use and need? --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Right now you need a reference that says that someone (could be anyone) said "X is a pseudoscience". The reference has to be from a reliable source (a newspaper, for example) - but the person making the statement can be an unqualified, biassed, unreliable kind of a person.

Under my proposed change, you'd need a reference that says directly that "X is a pseudoscience"...which (because of WP rules) would have to be a science journal or some qualified/reputable scientist saying it in print.

The difference isn't whether you do or do not need a reliable source - it's what the source has to demonstrate about the person making the claim. Right now, the reliable source only has to demonstrate that some random, unqualified person said "X is a pseudoscience" for it to get onto the list. In the approach I'm seeking to institute, the person saying "X is a pseudoscience" has to be a reliable source.

Doing this would change this list from the present rather useless list of topics that someone wants to bitch about - into an actual list of topics that are making scientific claims without following the scientific method. SteveBaker (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"A list of topics that are making scientific claims without following the scientific method." Gosh, haven't we got that already? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what we have here, and that's its purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

SteveBaker, that's not true. This isn't the first hyperbolic, denigrating, statement of this kind you've made about our sources. Haven't you looked at the inclusion criteria for where we should get our sources? We do try to vet them to some degree. We don't use just any type of source, as you claim. If you do find a source that's poor, then please replace it with a better one. The main article will usually have several to choose from. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"Under my proposed change, you'd need a reference that says directly that "X is a pseudoscience"...which (because of WP rules) would have to be a science journal or some qualified/reputable scientist saying it in print."

Thank you for the detailed explanation. So why propose that the reference be limited to "a science journal or some qualified/reputable scientist saying it in print"? Science journals and scientists focus their efforts on promising science, so it seems an extremely poor restriction. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The bar is raised so high that FRINGE and PARITY won't apply and scientific skeptic sources won't be allowed. Those guidelines were designed to allow use of good sources which this proposal will disallow. That's a policy violation. All policies and guidelines govern content here, and Steve will be excluding the use of some of them. Unfortunately, since science journals and bodies don't discuss or even mention pseudoscience very often, that will mean we will have a hard time finding sources for many of the obvious pseudosciences. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As Brangifer notes, there is WP:PARITY, which justified the exclusion of climate change. The sources saying it's real -- scientific academies, meeting our standards for academic consensus -- outweigh the opinions of any individual (let alone politicians, who aren't reliable for science) or self-selected group. And remember IAR: even if the letter of our self-imposed laws allowed climate change on the list, we wouldn't put it on, because we're writing an encyclopedia, not a tract about demarcation.

That said, PARITY also suggests the handful "questionable sciences" (per WP's criteria; cf. ArbCom above) should perhaps be flagged somehow. (Psychoanalysis; polygraphy; a couple more mainstream-ish alt-meds, e.g. some aspects of acupuncture.) That's because it's not just fringey proponents, but mainstream sources, that take them seriously: and those sources are of more-or-less equal parity with the sources that do demarcate them as pseudoscience. The expository text we have for these topics might be sufficient qualification, but we could be more explicit. But that wouldn't be worth it if it's going to lead to every topic's proponent clamoring to have their pet area so labelled. There's no ideal way. Demarcation is never straightforward for every single topic, though most topics on the list are clearly pseudo. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The title as it stands defines the intolerable situation (in "scientific terms") that the criterion for inclusion is not an intrinsic function of the included view itself, but of the history of its associated polemics. Someone said something rude about it? Ipso facto it has been characterised as pseudoscience.

Veeery interesting... right?

In these shoes?

But if someone shows that the observations were shown not to have been collected and verified as claimed in the published material, or show clear evidence of tampering, or figures are not published according to the alleged criteria of the publication medium (the journals etc) then we have either sloppy, or dishonest, or incompetent "scientific" misbehaviour, or outright incomprehension of the intrinsic nonsense of the topic, or Burtian or Vitterian dishonesty in pushing a POV, or dishonesty in hindering a rival from presenting counter-arguments, and I think we can then justify our speaking of certain classes of pseudoscience. They are not all the same you know; there are more ways of being unscientific than of being scientific. But in any case that is totally different from, and a lot more important than, whether some fatcat with agenda, or some nut case, speaks of "voodoo" science, whether or not he so much as understands what the function of peer review is or should be. And there might be a good argument for splitting the article in the interest of coherent discussion. At the moment its merit and value are about on a par with an article arguing the relative merits of two splinter faiths or garage dancing groups. And about as interesting or encyclopaedic. JonRichfield (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jain cosmology

This entry was removed because it lacks sources:

• Jain cosmology is the description of the shape and functioning of the physical and metaphysical Universe (loka) and its constituents (such as living, matter, space, time etc.) according to Jainism, which includes the canonical Jain texts, commentaries and the writings of the Jain philosopher-monks.

Please find sources saying it's pseudoscience before restoring. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Expanding Earth

Hello Collect,
I noticed you reverted my previous edit about Expanding Earth with the motivation "there is a difference between a hypothesis which is now "obsolete" and "pseudoscience" - we do not call Newtonian physics "pseudoscience" IIRC even if "obsolete"". Although that point may have merit, I only later noticed that Expanding Earth was already listed in this article under Idiosyncratic ideas; I just listed it under "Earth sciences". So what do you think about the current description under "Idiosyncratic ideas", because either we should also remove it from there, or your argument has apparently had no merit until now (and we may still want to change the listing). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I rather feel that hypotheses which are not currently popular are not "pseudoscience" in the sense that no reasonable person could find value in them. Taken to the logical conclusion, Newtonian physics is "pseudoscience" since no major group endorses Newton for Relativity etc. <g>. A strict use of "pseudoscience" seems to me to cover a lot of material properly belonging in it, but a loose usage could cover a great deal of material which is not "pseudoscience." Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between a good model which has been refined and pseudoscience. A pseudo-scientific model never was, nor ever will be, a good model for the natural world. aprock (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In which case, you have to redefine "pseudoscience" alas. As your apparent definition would include thousands of principles which are not in your opinion "good models" including essentially every religion and religious movement in the History of Man :(. As that is not the definition we appear to use, that use would appear to require a specific consensus to adopt here, as well as approval from ArbCom to alter its prior decisions which would be affected. Collect (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have edited Expanding Earth a few times, and it's usually qualified as obsolete, not as pseudoscience. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

<g> I do my best to follow where the reading leads me. Collect (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It being an obsolete hypothesis is trumped by the fact that an albeit small number of people are still promoting it. Therefore, it qualifies as pseudoscience and should be restored to the article. (Simply refer to it as an obsolete theory in the text.)--Froglich (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dianetic edit

[20] shows a revert of what I had considered a fairly simple edit. Which is superior for purposes of the project?

Dianetics (which is involved in Scientology) – L. Ron Hubbard's pseudoscience that purports to treat a hypothetical reactive mind by means of an E-meter, a device which Hubbard was later legally forced to admit "does nothing".

or

Dianetics - a pseudoscience that purports to treat a hypothetical reactive mind by means of an E-meter

Noting that Scientology is specifically a "new religious movement" under ArbCom statements for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC) .

I am looking at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology. Where does Arbcom say that "this topic can't be mentioned as context in any entry in a list of topics characterised as pseudoscience, even when it's highly relevant"? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion is nicely useless here. The only pertinent issue is whether Christian Science is a religion or not. IT is considered a religion by the US Government, and state and local governments. It is linked to "religion" in more than an order of magnitude RS sources, and if one removes sources before 1920, more than two orders of magnitude. Check Questia if you doubt this. There is no doubt that "dianetics" is pseudoscience, but your extrapolation to an organisation legally recognized as a religion is problematic. Scientology is listed in the "new religious movements" category on Wikipedia, and thus falls into the decisions on those movements -- specifically the Cirt and Beback cases. [21], [22] and [23]. ArbCom does not make content decisions, but where the acts of sanctioned editors are clearly connected with their edits, it is reasonable to assume that POV pushing is not liked. Over a lengthy time period, Scientology-related articles have been subject to biased or aggressive editing that has failed to comply with the fundamental policy of NPOV. This has involved both some editors who appear to be supporters of Scientology, often editing from the Church of Scientology's own facilities and IP address, as well as some opponents of Scientology. but noting that Scientology per se is a "church." Questia finds a total of 13 books with both Scientology and pseudoscience in the text -- though only three appear to link the two -- one saying it mixes religion and pseudoscience. Scientology + religion gets 280 books. Do you understand that you appear to hold a fringe position on whether it is pseudoscience or religion? Cheers. `Collect (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference here. The former contains more information than the latter (which is good), but the latter is more readable (which is also good). I suggest a combination of the two. Also, the part about "Hubbard was later legally forced" needs some explanation. I assume that this was part of some court case? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to make it more readable. I don't which one of the sources contains the information about being legally forced. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Global Weirding

This entry removed because it lacks sources and it doesn't have an article:

• Global Weirding - "Global Weirding", a term first popularized by Thomas Freidman in a 2010 New York Times Op-Ed column, is the claim that climate change causes or will cause various weather-related extremes to become more intense, with instances of such extremes then subsequently constituting (via fallacious circular reasoning) evidence in support of the claim.

References

Isn't this just a variation of global warming? I am not sure that it merits its own separate entry in this list, specially without sources from scientists. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's just a suggestion for indicating that global warming can imply increasingly extreme incidents rather than a gentle warming of a degree or so. All of which is subject to continuing peer-reviewed research and is certainly not pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 18:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The circular logic claims to proof is what renders it pseudoscience, not the mere predictions.--Froglich (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It still needs sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Religions

Sagan specifically said religions and spiritual beliefs are normally not categorised as "pseudoscience." One editor has repeatedly added Christian Science to the list here. The discussions at that article decided that it was improper to categorise it as "pseudoscience". Should religions in general be now added to this list? (Noting that aspects of almost all religions would fall into this category were we to do do). Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect, it sounds like you took Sagan's quote from List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Religious_and_spiritual_beliefs without reading the original source. It doesn't say what you think it says. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Collect" appears to be referring to the ongoing dispute he is having with me (we're both at 2RR, with him presently having the last word). The problem here is that he is conflating Christian Science (a particular religion) to all religion in an attempt to establish a straw man fallacy. (Side-note: I didn't originally "add" CS to the list; I merely reverted one of his earlier deletions of it while browsing historical edits, with that Undo apparently flagging him as he responded very quickly.)

"Christian Science" is blatant pseudoscience per Group #1 (see top of this Talk page) -- it contains the very word "science" in its title, while being manifestly not science. The first sentence of the CS Wikipedia article contains the word "metaphysical". CS is not only pseudoscience, it is archetypical, quintessential pseudoscience. Other religions (e.g., Judaism, Hinduim, etc), or "faith" in general, do not qualify for the pseudoscience moniker when they do not make pretenses to science (as Christian Science obviously does).--Froglich (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry -- using "straw man fallacy" when I am the person raising the issue here is not especially utile. Discussions here in the past relied on Sagan and his position that most religions could be called "pseudoscience" by someone -- and the fact that your position was not prevailing in the past might indicate that your desire to add this particular religion is doomed. My Watchlist includes at this point about 3.384 pages, so any feeling that I am somehow watching this page more closely than others is errant, untrue, and of no actual value in the discussion. And if you read the archives on that subject, you would discover that the use of "science" in the religion name does not assert "scientific method" but was a commonly used term in the 19th century for the topics related to metaphysics. The religion makes no claim as to heliocentrism or other scientific concepts, thus you apparent belief that "it has 'science' in its name, and it is not actual 'science' therefore it is 'pseudoscience'" is fallacious. [24] (the entire page is mainly on this topic) Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Appending [25] ... is no conflict with the so-called natural sciences to which Dr. Millikan contributed much. Nor could there be. The natural sciences deal wholly with the affairs of matter; the other science deals wholly with the affairs of Spirit. seems quite to state that CS is not "science" in the usual modern meaning, nor did Eddy claim it to be. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

See: James R. Lewis (9 February 2009). Scientology. Oxford University Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-19-971595-4. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I can understand saying that we don't call beliefs pseudo-whatever, but beliefs and actions are not the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Let's distinguish beliefs (I believe that Noah embarked all species into the Ark) from claims of science-supported facts (I have archaeological/geological evidence of Noah's Ark physical existence). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"The discussions at that article decided that it was improper to categorise it as "pseudoscience"." If you had searched and linked those discussions, you would have found archive 4, where several editors agree that "pseudoscience" is well-sourced and appropriate. The article used to have sources for its pseudoscience status but they have disappeared over time, and I couldn't find any edit summary saying "pseudo", which suggests to me that they were silently removed. And, of course, you are using a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. This article has enough sources to justify inclusion, and the content of other article is not relevant as soon as the content here is well sourced. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'd like to see proper sourcing for describing it as pseudoscience, it's clearly way over the line. "Scientific statement of being: "There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all." That's got less scientific credibility than Flying Spaghetti Monster theory, is clearly a religious view presented as science, and should be shown as pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 18:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just templated for thinking Christian Science is a religion here. Is it a religion or is it pseudoscience? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Froglich has cited Group 1 from the page header, but it's obvious to me that no credible argument in his favor arises from Group 1:

"1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more."

Before CS can be considered part of this group, there must be a sourced claim that CS purports to be scientific. Absent that, Froglich's proposition fails ab initio. It is not sufficient that CS has the word "science" in its name. It is also not sufficient that sources have called it pseudoscience, if the argument is to rely upon classification in Group 1 which, again, requires a claim to be made by the adherents of Christian Science, not its critics. Roccodrift (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean like (direct quote from the CS article follows) their faith-healing "view that sickness and death are illusions caused by mistaken beliefs, and that the sick should be treated by a special form of prayer intended to correct those beliefs, rather than by medicine."? Are you seriously suggesting that such quackery cannot be labeled pseudoscience if its practitioners believe in it?

The very first sentence of this article reads: "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested." I am furthermore unimpressed by the argument that Christian Science does not qualify because it adopted its "Science" name back in the 19th century -- I don't really care; as it's the 21st century now, and CS is still making medical claims.

Your line of argumentation in this thread has amounted to (in my appraisal) an attempt to remove CS' claims (which would necessarily include their medical claims) from the realm of falsifiability, a mentality which is the embodiment of a pseudoscientific outlook.--Froglich (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your original research is duly noted, and I also note that you placed the emphasis on the wrong word:

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested."

Again, in order to satisfy the criteria you are relying upon, there must be a claim -made by the adherents of Christian Science- that Christian Science is scientific. You have helpfully pointed out that CS relies upon prayer, therefore it is an operation of faith, not science. If you can come up with a source that actually supports your claim -a source, not your own personal reasoning- then you might have something to support your argument. At this point, I see nothing but naked assertion and fallacious reasoning. Roccodrift (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am unimpressed with the argument that CS should get a pass because it named itself in the 19th century (the portion of my response above which you are obviously ignoring). This is the 21st century now; and the group still has "Science" in its very name. Therefore, it is manifestly making claims to science via its own label.--Froglich (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, we get that you don't think CS should "get a pass", but do you have any argument at all that is germane to criteria #1? Because if you cannot credibly satisfy the criteria, then CS must come out of the article. Roccodrift (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Faith-healing, peddled under the term "XYZ Science", is obvious bogus medical pseudoscience, and therefore must stay in the article.--Froglich (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on a specific religion i.e., CS; those wishing to add that CS is pseudoscience should focus on specific aspects of the religion. We don't say Scientology is a pseudoscience, we have specific practices of Scientology that fall under that category. I am not familiar enough with CS to know what if any specific practices of the religion would fall under this category, however, some editors have pointed out there are enough sources out there that say CS is a pseudoscience those sources should also point to specific practices that would make it a pseudoscience. Again we should focus on the specific psuedoscientific practices if there are any and mention those specifically. VViking_TalkEdits 06:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the faith-healing medical pseudoscience of CS, in specific, comprised the entirety of my last one-sentence post, I am having difficultly fathoming how anyone missed it while replying directly to it.--Froglich (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, faith healing by itself alone is not pseudoscience. But arguing about this won't get the article written. How about we do what VViking suggest? Let's read the sources and add the specific pseudoscientific practices? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that no current practices appear to fall into the "pseudoscience" category as "Metaphysical stuff" is not considered to even pretend to be "science" now - and Eddy's use of the word "science" in the 19th century had a quite different meaning from its current usage. Words do, indeed, evolve. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider Catholicism - major "faith healing" religion [26], Baptist and Pentecostalism [27], and a host of other religions which would fall into your net here -- in comparison CS is actually less "pseudoscience" than the others if you use that as your measure. Of course I trust you will add Catholicism now with such a stong source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Confederate revisionism

I've removed the bit about Confederate revisionism[28] because a) it failed verification and b) I don't see how this purports to be a pseudoscience. This seems more like a political opinion, and do we really want to include political opinions as pseudoscience. Anyway, I want to open this up for discussion. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Confederate revisionism is not "a political opinion"; it is premised upon pseudohistorical claims. The link to the Pseudohistory main article was right there in the section containing the topic you deleted; its first sentence reads:

Pseudohistory...purports to be history, and uses ostensibly-scholarly methods and techniques (which in fact depart from standard historiographical conventions), but is inconsistent with established facts and/or with common sense and often involves sensational claims whose acceptance would significantly require rewriting accepted history.

If this article is going to have a section for pseudohistorical claims, then topics which meet the description above (and Confederate revisionism certainly does) may legitimately be listed here. I.e., Holocaust revisionism would qualify even without its bollocks gas-chamber forensics. Secondly, critiques of pseudohistory generally do not contain the word "pseudoscience" in them, so it's a bit disingenuous to blank a topic if its otherwise applicable references lack said word). Lastly, the relative shortness (at present) of the list of psuedohistorical entries displayed in this article is not really that good of an excuse to maintain that it be kept that short (as another editor circuitously did by maintaining that if Confederate revision were included that we'd then have to address Chinese historical claims); the pernicious claims of Confederate revision are considerably more topically relevant than, say, the currently-retained Ancient astronaut hypothesis or Fomenko's chronology.

Consequently, I have reverted the deletion.--Froglich (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in an article/list of pseudo-scientific things. Perhaps a pseudo-history list is the place for it. Please read the intro paragraphs to the article to understand criteria for inclusion. Thanks --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Froglich: Really? So, if somebody claims (or rejects the claim) that Ronald Reagan helped bring down the wall, is that pseudoscience? Some argue that he did. Others argue that he didn't. Is it pseudoscience? If so, which side is the pseudoscience? Regardless, none of the three sources you provided actually stated that this was a pseudoscience. It failed verification.

In any case, it appears that we have 3 editors who agree that this entry doesn't belong in the article and one editor that does. Would anyone else like to weigh in this debate? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

We could always include all historical revanchism and irredentism here ... as well as all "political theories" based on such. And of course such outmoded economic beliefs as Bryan espoused. But since the term "pseudoscience" is not really applicable to such, we would simply make this article fully risible. Collect (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could eliminate all the entries in the Historical section (leaving just the main article link) -- which would be the logical end to your argument. Doing so then precludes any potential appearance of POV favoritism pro or con for the few that are listed (or listed and then deleted after a month, as is the case with Confederate revisionism).--Froglich (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society

The article currently states that the organization known as the Flat Earth Society is a pseudoscience, which, of course, is patently ridiculous. An organization cannot be a pseudoscience. An organization can, of course, advocate a pseudoscience but groups of people are not pseudoscience. That said, any current belief that the Earth is flat may well be pseudoscience. So, maybe the issue here might simply be an issue of wording. Can someone please suggest a wording that calls the belief that the Earth is flat is pseudoscience, rather than groups of people are pseudoscience? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has responded so I'm going to change the article from the organization to the actual theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Done.[29] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Global warming is also under discretionary sanctions

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Memetics

I removed "memetics" from this list. A search on Google Scholar reveals hundreds of scientific and theoretical articles on memes. A single source in a science writer's book does not trump actual scientific practice. I am One of Many (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC) I'll also add that there is no evidence from the scientific literature that there is any consensus (even weak consensus) that theoretical approaches using memes are characterized as pseudoscience. If the criterion for inclusion on this list is that someone has characterized X as pseudoscience, then it might as well include every science ever conceived. I am One of Many (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it a fairly common characterization? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Many view this list as absurd, but to say that an active field of study is characterized by pseudoscience because one non-scientist, James Polichak, characterizes it as pseudoscience just proves the point. At least, one real scientist ought be required to say that something is pseudoscience for it to be characterized as such. I am One of Many (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you click my link? The very first person there characterizing mimetics as a "Darwinian pseudo-science" is this guy, who by all appearances is a scientist (not that that is strictly a requirement of this article's inclusion criteria). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, then that should be the source because the current source doesn't make a claim of pseudoscience. Here is a link where one can get the original article. It turns out that no where in the article does he characterize what he calls "memetics" pseudoscience. This list is baffling. Why isn't climate science and Darwinian evolution listed here? Even though ridiculous, there are plenty for reliable sources that characterize these sciences as pseudosciences. I am One of Many (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Usually "reliable sources" are not "ridiculous". jps (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

How is characterizing an active field of research in science not itself fringe, when it is held by a very small minority at best? How is this not placing undo weight on the views of a few? I think careful consideration should be given to the view that some of the items on this list appear to be based on fringe views that have been given undo weight. I am One of Many (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)