Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:13, 29 July 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Multidel

Archives Archives Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archive 1: 2003 — August 2006 Archive 2: August 2006 — December 2006 Archive 3: December 2006 — March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 — April 2007 Archive 5: April 2007 — July 2007 Archive 6: July 2007 — October 2007 Archive 7: October 2007 — January 2008 Archive 8: January 2008 — April 2008 Archive 9: February 2008 — November 2008 Archive 10: December 2008 — January 2009 Archive 11: January 2009 — March 2009 Archive 12: March 2009

Memetics

Deleted memetics, references to the "mainstream considerations as psedoscience" were Aaron Lynch an american writer, Luis Benitez bribiesca a medic in a 2 page essay, and Alister McGrath a well know opponent of Dawkins. The three hold opinnions on the matter and dont add "the mainstream" support as presented. Looking for more solid references to revert the edit. 190.158.6.164 (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Memetics is an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer based on the concept of the meme. Starting from a proposition put forward in the writings of Richard Dawkins, it has since turned into a new area of study, one that looks at the self-replicating units of culture. It has been proposed that just as memes are analogous to genes, memetics is analogous to genetics. Memetics has been deemed a pseudoscience from several fronts. It has been called redundant, without physical basis, and a means for attacking others' beliefs as opposed to actual science; according to one reviewer, "Memetics is nothing more than a pseudoscientific dogma encased in itself."

My analysis parallels that of 190, above. I am not finding any indication from sources reliable to make the distinction that as pseudoscience is a notable description of memetics. The main article includes some criticism, but it does not appear to be widespread. If someone else can find a rock solid source for inclusion it should go back in the article, but I do not see it at present. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is "topics characterized as pseudoscience". I would suggest that only a single reference is required to pass a characterized test. You state "some criticism" which is sufficient for a "characterization".  BRIANTIST  (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on what a single source or significant minority of sources say would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Everything in the world could be characterized as pseudoscience based upon a single reference if that reference just blanket labels everything that way. It has to rise to a level of significance in multiple reliable sources before it should be mentioned. (And to clarify, I am not opposed to memetics being listed presuming it has enough solid sources. I know a number of people think it is hooey, or at the very least that a lot of the claims associated with it are nonsense, but whether the people saying that are notable or have bothered to publish on the topic is another question. (I also did not specifically check the sources above, so there may be room to disagree with the above posters on those points, but I am just responding to rebut the idea that a single source makes something worth mentioning here.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is that we use sources generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (emphasis in original). It is my assessment that the sources presented do not satisfy the inclusion criteria at the head of this article, but I am willing to be convinced (hence moving it here for discussion). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several good sources - I added one more - as well as one poor one. The terminology clearly justifies inclusion here; the standard is higher than many other sections, where just one known critic's comments have sufficed. If anyone objects, just take it back out again, and we can discuss it further, but it seems pretty clear to me that there's no justification for excluding this. hgilbert (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled; this has been removed again despite having two competent citations. Notable critics are verifiable sources; you can't claim that they are invalid merely because they are critical (circular reasoning!) hgilbert (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the three cited critics has a PhD in Molecular Biophysics and is a professor at Oxford. Fits notability by any standard. (His book criticizing the theory was published by Blackwell, a mainstream academic press.) hgilbert (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Of the sources, only McGrath's book is even arguably suitable. As for that's use for the inclusion- I generally agree with the assessments of 2over0 and DreamGuy. Jefffire (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, only one source is needed and you agree that there is one. Second of all, the Benitez-Bribiesca paper is by an established medical researcher published in a mainstream journal. I don't quite understand your comment about an "unknown Venezuelan essay" in your revert edit summary; is there some sort of prejudice behind this? hgilbert (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wellll...look at that. Memes even have a well-deserved entry in the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Title: Memes as Pseudoscience. Hmmmm...guess this one's going back in. hgilbert (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that too. Here is the Google Books link. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This actually looks like a decent source. I am pleased the two of you are beginning to understand reliable sourcing and referencing. Jefffire (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Promissory materialism

• • Promissory materialism is a term coined by the philosopher of science Karl Popper to describe theories of consciousness that claim an exclusively biological basis for phenomena of consciousness. Such theories deny any independent existence of consciousness, considering this to be an effect of biological brain functions. Popper considered such theories to be based at present essentially wholly on promises of future discoveries rather than any extant scientific work and suggested that they would remain untestable by any empirical measures in the future, as such tests could at best establish parallelisms of consciousness and biological brain function. He decried the refusal of promoters of the theories to consider any alternatives to materialism. The theories have been called "humbug" sustained by "elaborate evasions" "superstition" "antiscientific," "science turned upside down," "in conflict with biological evolution" and a belief or faith without evidence.

Removing new section from article for discussion:

* Promissory materialism is a term coined by the philosopher of science Karl Popper to describe theories of consciousness that claim an exclusively biological basis for phenomena of consciousness. Such theories deny any independent existence of consciousness, considering this to be an effect of biological brain functions. Popper considered such theories to be based at present essentially wholly on promises of future discoveries rather than any extant scientific work and suggested that they would remain untestable by any empirical measures in the future, as such tests could at best establish parallelisms of consciousness and biological brain function. Popper compared these theories to "humbug" sustained by "elaborate evasions" and decried their refusal to consider any alternatives to materialism.

This seems to me more a critique of some forms of materialist philosophy than an example of pseudoscience falling in the remit of this article. Although Popper and Eccles are fairly harsh on the idea, I cannot find where they describe it as pseudoscience in fact, synonym, or effect. If there are more references from sources reliable to make the distinction showing that this is a notable idea, we can add this back in. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He is critiquing claims similar, in their context, to quantum mysticism in the context of modern physics. Whether they are philosophical or not, they make scientific claims (here, that consciousness is reducible to biological events) and thus give themselves the appearance of science. Popper's whole point is that empirical evidence has never been provided for the purportedly scientific claims being made, "nor have any serious suggestions been made how this could be done".

Popper calls the result "humbug," sustained by "elaborate evasions" and writes that it puts its own claims forward as scientific, to be one day validated by the march of science, but without any present evidence. Either this explicit terminology or this description are sufficient to classify it here; both together are quite clear. One reliable source - and this is a very reliable source - has sufficed for other topics here; shall we remove all topics for which only one source exists or allow these? I hope we are not proposing a double standard. hgilbert (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I've restored the passage with supporting sources, as requested. hgilbert (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If not being able to disprove a spiritual element to something makes assuming natural causation pseudoscientific, then every field of science is pseudoscientific. This is clear WP:SYNTH based on a few opinions. Jefffire (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeffire: you removed this section with the edit summary, "Popper not liking something doesn't make it pseudoscientific." No, it doesn't. Neither does anyone characterizing anything. But see the title of this page; this is a list of topics that have been so characterized. PM is clearly characterized as pseudoscience, and by no means just by Popper. Unless we're going to go through the whole process of reevaluating the criteria for inclusion - which will mean reevaluating every entry - we have to use the criteria we have. We have agreed that if a topic has been so characterized by a verifiable source, it should be listed here. hgilbert (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:SYNTH, there is hardly a need to re-evalutate everything. Jefffire (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a clear case of a topic which has been characterized as a pseudoscience by a notable source. Whether you agree with the characterization or not is irrelevant here. What's important is there is a soure (multiple ones) which has characterized the topic as a pseudoscience. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, some are arguing that descriptions of PM such as humbug, sustained by elaborate evasions, superstition, antiscientific, science turned upside down, in conflict with biological evolution, and a belief or faith without evidence are not equivalent to calling it a pseudoscience, whereas (for other fields) phrases like "There is little scientific evidence" (polygraphs), "it was the subject of an almost entirely critical Taskforce Report," "these ideas have been rejected", "effectiveness has not been demonstrated" or "ideas are not based in science" are. Can we clarify why using the latter to include subjects here is not WP:Synth, while the former are? I'd like to sign myself, Confused in Dayton, but am, yours truly, hgilbert (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See your real complaint is about the other entries. Please see WP:POINT. Unless you have sources other than a few dualists ragin' against the machine, this is obviously a nonsense. Jefffire (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's about consistency. Consensus has been that synonyms suffice and that they aren't OR. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also the unrelated point the entire subject seems to be pretty non-notable. A quick google search reveals about 1,400 hits for "Promissory materialism", which is a rather poor result. Jefffire (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that we should be following the article's guidelines. This means that when there are six substantial sources fully satisfying WP:Verify that characterize a topic as pseudoscientific in various terms the topic should be included in this article, while when there are no sources whatsoever characterizing a topic as pseudoscientific it should not be included. Follow the guidelines: that's the point.

BTW: Are you suggesting that Karl Popper is not a notable source? hgilbert (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Evolution Dissected" is a fairly blatant creationist tract. I think we can rule that out as a "substantial source", don't you ;) . In any case, I see no reason to suppose that this "promissary materialism" exists in any form other than in the writings of it's opponents. A bit like "reductionism", it's one of those things you only write about to be opposed to. Hey, how about we come up with a whole bunch of new words and declare them to pseudoscientific? Should liven the place up a bit. Jefffire (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored the section because the argument for it's removal (about it not being "clear cut" -- well neither is psychotherapy etc. also listed there) didn't seem to make sense to me, but there may be other reasons to remove it. The main problem with it is it is worded confusingly, so I do not know if Popper supports the idea or opposes it, and which way the people say is unscientific, etc. As it does not have an article yet, that may be an indication that the topic isn't notable enough for a mention here. I don't know. But at the very least the wording should be clarified. DreamGuy (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Eccles was a devout theist, so I suppose he probably opposed it. Regardless, one can disagree with something (even on quite fundamental philosphical levels) without regarding it a "pseudoscience", which is why I regard this as being highly synthetic addition. Jefffire (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "promissory materialism" probably shouldn't be the title; this is Popper's special term for a widely promulgated idea, that all consciousness is biologically determined. Popper and many others believe that this idea's advocates are making claims with no evidential basis, and they are terming it pseudoscience or equivalents (look at the terms used). Does that help? hgilbert (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A "widely promulgated idea" that few to no-one would actually regard as a proven scientific theorem. It's a straw-man, like Steven Jay Gould's Phyletic gradualism. Frankly I'm rather disappointed that respected philosophers would stoop to such a poor rhetorical device, but that's that.

As you can see, progressing from Popper's strawman into any kind as Misplaced Pages acceptable format would bring with it colossal amounts of original research (a wiki no-no), and so the entry is an example of wp:synthesis. Jefffire (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm just slow. A variety of verifiable sources, including an extremely notable authority used elsewhere in this article, have described a topic in terms that are clearly equivalent to pseudoscience. Whether the topic is listed by the name given by the most prominent of these authorities and used by many others, or whether it is listed by their description of the theme (e.g. a "biologically-deterministic theory of consciousness"), no SYNTH is required; we can merely summarize their own descriptions without any new combinations, syntheses or original research whatsoever. If you prefer, we can use exact quotes throughout. hgilbert (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How about you show some evidence that this is anything other than a non-notable strawman? Most scientists would say that consciousness was almost certainly biologically determined, but I don't know of any who are forwarding an actual scientific theory to explain it. Jefffire (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're proving the point; as you say, most scientists say this. In addition, quite a few books have been written purporting to prove it; the sources listed in this section critique various of these - look at them for details.

The topic is notable (though not always named using Popper's somewhat disparaging term); critiques are found in quite a number of mainstream works; it satisfies the criteria of this article, being a "...topic characterized as pseudoscience by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or by notable academics or researchers. Besides explicitly using the word "pseudoscience", some may also have used synonyms that help to explain why they consider a topic to be pseudoscientific. The existence of such expressed opinions suffices for inclusion in this list" hgilbert (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You've missed the point. There's no-one claiming "promissary materialism" as a scientific claim, only people holding philosophical opinions on the matter, or debating the relative weights of evidences on the debate. The "promissary materialism" that is being criticised only exists within the minds of those objecting to it. You've simply dreamt up a controvery based on a few strawmen. The fact that one of the references you cite is a creationist shows just how unable you are to find serious discussion of the matter. Jefffire (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like your rationale is based on a hefty dose of OR and you're the only one objecting. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OR doesn't apply to talk page comments, you are aware. I'm asking that someone show some evidence that "promissary materialism" - the position that science WILL eventually prove a biological basis for consciousness - is actually held as a scientific position. It's quite distinct from garden variety monism, which I gather some editors are conflating with it here. Burdon of evidence is always on the editors wishing inclusion. Jefffire (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the concern about verifying how many people believe in "promissary materialism"? Popper's an excellent source, he said so, and that's that -- we cite him, and refrain from endorsing or refuting his view. You may think he's knocking down a straw man -- well, I too perceive a lot of fallacious reasoning in sources here, and Popper's just one more, but I don't let my preferences disclude sources just because I don't argee with their reasoning. (That's what I meant by "OR", although it was a poor analogy metaphor.)

The notability of a topic, or how widely it is held, has never been used before as a consideration for inclusion on the list (just look at the range of topics). Popper is an RS, and if we go by longstanding consensus on inclusion criteria (as explicitly laid out in the lead, per WP:PSCI), then he goes in. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The citations already show this adequately. But cf. this and this or E Gerald, The remembered present: a biological theory of consciousness for a few examples. hgilbert (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're still supporting the creationist book as a "substantive source"? We'll discuss the finer points of WP:RS later.

The remembered present: a biological theory of consciousness Looks like fairly standard materialism - not promissary materialism. You're conflating the two ideas entirely. Jefffire (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking into "History Beyond Trauma" - I can't really find much of anything about "promissory materialism" in it from what's available online. Could you please quote the relavent section from it (also for the other books, for the benifit of those checking the reliability of your citations). Also, it appears to be written by nobodies. Another shining example of your "substantive source" ;) ? Jefffire (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there is still some confusing about the scope of inclusion with the list. This article doesn't include items which we claim are pseudoscience. Rather, this list contains items which have been characterized as pseudoscience by notable academics or researchers or organizations. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 16:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when have creationists been "notable academics or researchers or organizations"? I'd advice you to actually check the sources rather than blindly reverting. Jefffire (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone is a creationist, does not mean that they are not a notable academic or researcher. To assume such a thing is highly POVish. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Does that mean we get to have a section on Evolution? Because a whole lotta creationists characterize it as pseudoscience. Auntie E. 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We absolutely should include that characterization as made by notable academics/researchers. Remember, even notable creationists are a reliable source for their own opinions. This article lists notable opinions ("characterizations"). An opinion about evolution as asserted by William A. Dembski, for instance, is notable. You and I and the majority of the science world may not agree with such a charactization, but "correctness" has nothing to with this list of opinions. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It rather does preclude someone from being a serious researcher. Why not prove me wrong and demonstrate that the authors of "Evolution Dissected" have made a serious contribution to biology and that they are well respected authors in the field? A few papers in Nature or Cell, that sort of thing (burden of evidence is on editors wishing inclusion after all). Because right now it looks like you're blinding defending kooks. Jefffire (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the very principle of what you are saying. The inclusion criteria of this article says nothing about the researcher being "serious"; only that the researcher is "notable". So while I - like you - don't take creationists seriously, I do regard them as notable with respect to the Misplaced Pages policy. (See Category:Creationists for a list of creationists notable enough to have their own article at Misplaced Pages).

I think we commonly attribute Voltaire with, "I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it." I know some people will claim that I am defending "kooks". Such a claim is the hallmark move of the pseudoskeptical POV-pusher here at Misplaced Pages. It's tantamount to calling the U.S. Supreme Court "a bunch of Nazis" for allowing the National Socialist Party of America to march in Skokie. It's an unfair characterization and I know you wouldn't stoop that low, Jefffire, but I thank you for the admonishment.

I don't believe in creationism. The "Tale of the Tape" on my user page should make that abundantly clear. But while I don't believe in what they say, I do neutrally recognize that there are creationist academics and researchers who are notable and thus have characterizations which perfectly satisfy the inclusion criteria of this list-article as currently written in the lead.

So while I may not necessarily agree with what a creationist characterizes as pseudoscience, I will vigorously defend the right of that characterization to appear in this list. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 06:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Soliloquy aside- I asked for evidence that these particular authors were respected, and therefore notable. Please provide this. Jefffire (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And I repeat that "respect" has nothing to do with notability and thus you are making an unnecessary request of me. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing a book does not make one "notable". Jefffire (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would phrase it that per WP:AUTHOR, writing a book does not necessarily make one notable. Popper, however, is indisputably notable, so why are we having this conversation? You may be interested in reviewing Mind uploading which - though not necessary for this discussion - seems to be an example of promissory materialism currently put forward by what we would normally characterize as scientists. Even if not totally applicable, it does make for an interesting read! -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 18:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Keeping this sub-thread on target- You accept that "Evolution Dissected" is not an acceptable source? Jefffire (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough one to answer. But I am certainly not discounting the book based on the fact that I disagree with theories it propounds. The author, Fredric Nelson, does not have an article written about him on Wikipeda (yet?), nor is there an article written about the book itself (yet?). In a cursory research attempt, I am able to discover that the Nelson is a pediatrician at a Philidelphia hospital and has been published in The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation and in AAP News. So that bodes well for his notability, but I am not rendering final judgment yet. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 18:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, you are beginning to understand what "providing evidence" means. However, neither of those establishes any particular notability (except perhaps, on the topic of paediatrics). Jefffire (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well what "providing evidence" means and I don't appreciate your tone. I agree that being published in the AAP News helps to establish his notability as a pediatrician and that is off-topic here. The ASA publication, on the other hand, helps to establish his notability as a creationist. From the Misplaced Pages article: The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) describes itself as a fellowship of men and women in science and related disciplines, whose stated goal is to share a common fidelity to the Bible and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. Published articles such as this one and this one in the ASA's journal and the fact that he was a scientific (ahem) presenter at ASA meetings such as this one help establish Nelson's notability on the particular subject we are discussing, namely that he is a notable creationist academic/researcher. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 19:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I imagine Bill Demski has called evolution a pseudoscience on any number of occasions, and he's probably a thousand time more notable a creationist than Nielson. Will you be arguing for the inclusion of evolution, if that's the logic you are following? Jefffire (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the inclusion criteria given in the lead of this list-article, yes, I would advocate the inclusion of Evolution on this list. Dembski is clearly a notable academic and if he truly has a characterized Evolution as pseuodscience, then that characterization should be included on this page. Again, we as editors don't have to necessarily agree with the characterization, we only must recognize that the person making the characterization is a notable academic/researcher. Dembski is clearly that. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The whole point of this page is that it does not claim that the topic is pseudoscience, merely that it has been so characterized. We went through long discussions agreeing this. hgilbert (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) Are we really back to ignoring sources generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (emphasis in original) after only two months? Yes, it is entirely appropriate to limit this list to exclude extreme minority viewpoints, such as the idea that evolution, big bang theory, and the germ theory of disease are pseudoscience. Turning this list into a dumping ground for for this sort of thing would violate neutral point of view by inappropriately giving the impression of parity between the nonsense and the items sourced to ... (wait for it) ... sources generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For example, Popper? hgilbert (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And promissory materialism is not the subject. The subject is the biological explanation for consciousness, as is clear from the description. PM is merely a frequently used sobriquet for this frequently advocated, dubious theory. (If we like we can change the title of the section to reflect this.) hgilbert (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But our "notable" critics- Eccles and Popper (and almost entirely Eccles, based on what I've been reading)- are criticising "promissory materialism", not regular materialism. The rest of your sources are fairly poor. Since you've made no effort to defend them, I must assume you agree. This is why I made the point of WP:SYNTH- you have conflated two separate subjects in your rush to add this in. Jefffire (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misread what I wrote. We're not talking about a critique of materialism in general, but a critique of the biological explanation for consciousness, sometimes called "promissory materialism", and for which we have quite a list of sources, several of which are clearly notable and one of which is a disputed, but certainly plausible candidate for notability. Since any one of the notable sources would suffice, what are we arguing about? hgilbert (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that intelligent design creationists are prima facie not reliable to make distinctions relevant to this list. There may be exceptions, but why go there if we do not need to? As a side note, can we please stick to arguing this redlinked entry on its own merits (which, incidentally, I still find lacking) without getting sidetracked into another discussion on inclusion criteria and the misconstruing thereof? - 2/0 (cont.) 05:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any objection to citing only Popper and sticking close to his words? To hell with the creationists (!!), but if Popper isn't an RS around here, what on earth is? --Middle 8 (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The original wording of the section cited only Popper; it was removed with the justification that there was only one author who had made a characterization to this effect. You just can't please some people.

Obviously we should have one quite substantial source; additional, confirmatory sources seem sensible (if nothing else, to preclude this being demanded at some later point). BTW: None of these sources in any way violate WP:RS. hgilbert (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.99.82 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That one would be pathological science, per sources that one day I have to get around to add to the cold fusion article.... --Enric Naval (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Earth Science candidates

Earth energy and vortices? Feng Shui? Ley lines?

References

Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.

1. "Benitez-Bribiesca, Luis (2001):Memetics: A dangerous idea. Interciecia 26: 29–31, p. 29.
2. McGrath, Alister (December 7, 2004). Dawkins' GOD: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 119–135. ISBN 1405125381.
3. Rosenfelder, Mark. "The new pseudoscience of memes" (Essay). Retrieved 2009-04-24.
4. Martin Lockley, "Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life" (book review)
5. ^ Karl Popper and John Eccles, The Self and Its Brain. pp. 96-9. ISBN 0415058988
6. John Carew Eccles, Evolution of the brain, p. 253
7. Françoise Davoine, Jean-Max Gaudillière, Susan Fairfield, History Beyond Trauma, ISBN 1590511115. P. 107
8. Fredric P. Nelson, Evolution Dissected p. 79
9. Eccles, quoted in Arnold M. Cooper, Otto F. Kernberg, Ethel Spector Person Psychoanalysis, p. 197-199
10. Maxine Sheets-Johnstone, The primacy of movement, p. 472
11. This view of the theory is also supported by Robert Spaemann and Oliver O'Donovan in Persons, p. 95-6
12. Karl Popper and John Eccles, The Self and Its Brain. pp. 96-9. ISBN 0415058988

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed science articles
• Unknown-importance science articles
• List-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• List-Class physics articles of High-importance
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• List-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles