Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:10, 27 June 2006

Discussion

Ultimate POV article

So I was reading the Wiki POV article and I got linked to this.. ? wht ultimate in POVery.. for instance.. Intelligent Design asserts that God was involved in the original degsign of everything. Astro physical events leading eventually to Evolution (it would assert) was the plan of God. Einstein believed this. Heck.. anyone who believes in God and believes he had anything to do with making the universe believes in Intelligent Design.. what's that like 80% of all people? BUT.. the only way to proove it is to go back to the beginning of everything and watch it happen (impossible) or to meet God himself and talk about it (debatable). But the same goes for the opposite.. the I dunno, athiesm, viewpoint. Only there's is even harder to proove because you can't disproove non-existance.. or whatever. So... is this article just here as a joke or a slap in the face of anyone you think is "not scientific enough" or is this article taking a stance on the God issue or what? --DjSamwise 18:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A few more questions.. how do these topics all wind up in the same category? http://en.wikipedia.org/Human_zoo <- Crazy junk that happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/Nazi_Moon_base. yeah ok.. <-- ok seriously? hahahah... http://en.wikipedia.org/Lime_%28TV%29 <- Is the fact that a Newage TV show called LIME TV exists considered Psuedo Science? http://en.wikipedia.org/Ex-gay <- sexual lifestyle vs religious dedication <- what the crap? Science/Psuedo science? I vote niether. This page is messed up. --DjSamwise 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Category Existence

Look, I admit that a lot of this stuff is way out there, but the very existence of this category is perilously close to skeptic POV; I have softened the description line, hoping that helps a bit. --Gary D 04:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's not the place of Misplaced Pages to claim that, for example, homeopathy violates the scientific method. I might personally (indeed, I do) think that it's a load of absolute bunkum - but the absolute most that Misplaced Pages should say is that some named person has claimed that homeopathy is bunkum. I'm going to soften the description even more. -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Checking the history I see that Gary D had softened it and someone had then hardened it again. There is a difference between the article intro and the category. The article intro effectively says "this is what we believe pseudoscience means". The category effectively says "we believe these articles to be examples of pseudoscience", and must therefore, at the very least, contain the word "alleged" or something similar. -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, as the guy who softened it the first time, I support ALargeElk's position. --Gary D 18:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In keeping with NPOV#Pseudoscience why not change the description to indicating that this category is for fields currently regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream science ? Then it will not contain both creationism and evolution just because supporters can be found on both sides. Having said that, I feel the category may be too broad. Do we add in everything in the "Alternative Medicine" project? Zuytdorp Survivor 03:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think your concern about category breadth may touch on why I don't like this category. Unlike the article Pseudoscience, where claims and counterclaims can be attributed and discussed, with a category of Pseudoscience it's as though WP comes down and puts its imprimatur on all these articles to say, "WP agrees that everything here fails to comport with the scientific method and is pseudoscience." That's why I liked the waffle language about "alleged to be"; that way the category was only setting up the possibility of contested claims, WP wasn't vouching for any of them, and the reader could go to the individual articles to see who was claiming something was pseudoscience. (I actually considered proposing changing the category title to "Alleged pseudoscience," but that seemed a bit much.) If we go to the "currently mainstream science" language in the description, we are inserting a broad, definite attribution across the board, to many places where it may not be justified. For instance, this category currently contains the broad article Supernatural. I don't think we want to be in the position of certifying that all of mainstream science thinks everything connected with the supernatural is pseudoscience. Hence, I would propose leaving the admittedly wafflish "alleged to be" language in the description. (What I'd really like to do is dump the category.) --Gary D 20:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I too would completely do away with this category completely. Redirecting the category to "Alleged pseudoscience" would remain a poor second choice. The term "pseudoscience" tends to be used pejoratively about a study or practice, in the same way that the word "dictator" is used to describe certain national leaders. When you call a subject "pseudoscience" you are making a positive claim about that subject. You are proposing a theory about the subject, and unless you are providing falsifiable evidence about your proposal, you are yourself (within our definition of the term) acting pseudoscientifically. For the subject to be pseudoscience there must at least be a semblance or pretense of being scientific, and to the extent that the subject has individual adherents who sincerely attempt to apply (perhaps in futility) scientific methods those individuals do not deserve to be contemptuously called pseudoscientists. The behaviour of the so-called scientists in this matter is reprehensible; as I read many of the related articles I often find them trying to disprove and spotlight claims that the proponents never made. The cited section on the NPOV page is not much better than biased POV sophistry, beginning with the presumption that what "scientists" consider to be pseudoscientific is repugnant. In a later section the author goes so far as to associate the holders of minority beliefs with flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. I don't know if I have the stomach to go there to change that to a truly NPOV presentation. Eclecticology 12:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been deleted yet?

It looks like we have a consensus here. Why hasn't any action been taken? The article is OK, but the Category is POV, not to mention insulting. Why haven't any Wikipedians who support the existence of this category posted their opinion?

Specific proposal: rename the category to something like ]. --Smithfarm 16:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I just dicovered -- to my astonishment -- the existence of this category. Shall we make it Afd? Harald88 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Quackery?

Now what about the Quackery category? Does that fit in here at all? Does it have any proponents (i.e. people who say "I'm a quack, and proud of it")? Or is it just an insult? --Smithfarm 16:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep this category

Smithfarm: please stop removing this categorization like you did for holistic science. There is clearly the need to mark non-scientific topics as non-scientific (or non-mainstream or whatever). Removing this category would be blatant POV. I also don't like the the name "Alternative scientific paradigms". Why not stick to "pseudoscience", a term that is widely in use and where we have an article for. Cacycle 22:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you at least agree that putting a derogatory label on something is POV? (Same as taking the derogatory label off is, as you state) Can you suggest a non-derogatory label? --Smithfarm 06:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• How about "Widely challenged theories"?—Theo (Talk) 30 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)

Alternative approachs

• I don't support deleting this category or giving it too silly a name ("Alternative paradigms" or whatever). The way I see it, you can look at the term "pseudoscience" as having one of two meanings: 1. An essentialist meaning: things are pseudoscience because they do not adhere to the scientific method. 2. A pragmatic meaning: Things are pseudoscience which the mainstream scientific community labels as pseudoscience.
• Clearly the people who use the term to designate certain things as "pseudoscience" or not are implying an essentialist meaning -- that "pseudoscience" is a real category. The problem with this is that there is considerable debate by philosophers, historians, and even scientists at times about whether or not there is any clear demarcation criteria that seperates science from non-science. People throw "falsifiability" around as if it was an easy and straightforward term -- any small amount of prodding will show that it is a bit more complicated than that, though.
• The second approach is one which doesn't assume to understand or validate the accusation of "pseudoscience", but rather is more of a sociological approach to the question. I think it works better for a source like Misplaced Pages. It tells people who generally tend to trust the "mainstream scientific community" that these things are considered problematic. It allows the people who support these practices to say, "well, the mainstream scientific community might be wrong." It clearly points to the power structure imbedded in this form of labeling (labels to not just magically appear out of nothing apply themselves, they are always applied by someone) which I think is important for a NPOV approach (avoiding the assumption of any one group's essentialist criterion).
• How this can apply in practice here is difficult, though. "Considered psuedoscience" might be a bit more NPOV as a title, but the odds of it actually being used are low. The category page itself would of course indicate by whom it was considered. I think words like "allegedly" or "putatively" don't really get at the sociological approach that I think is necessary for NPOV. Perhaps if we just changed the category description to reflect that the label was being actively applied (and not just existing outside of time and space)? I don't know for sure. I'm very wary about deleting the category, though -- I think there should be a category for things which are purpored to be scientific practices but are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. I think that's a useful thing to think about and a useful categorization scheme. But I'm not sure what the best concise category name is for that. Thoughts on this? --Fastfission 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should see a category not as a label to discredit an opinion but way more pragmatically as a way to find articles by descending into the categorization tree. There are many people interesting in this topic and they will look for this specific category name. Therefore I would keep the current category name. We may extend the category text, but because we already have a detailed article on the topic I would then link to it for further details. Cacycle 20:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not the people applying the label consider it pejorative, the people on the receiving end definitely do. We don't use racial epithets to refer to other people when we're in public places, even if we don't consider the epithets pejorative and use them on a daily basis in the privacy of our homes. Misplaced Pages, too, is a public place, and if a term is known to have pejorative connotations, I don't think it should be used as a category. I'm not the only one who thinks this -- see the the July 2004 debate above.

I'm willing to agree to any non-pejorative category label. This will preserve the "utility value" of this category. For example: "Non-mainstream scientific theories".

But, echoing several contributions in the July 2004 debate above, what I really think is that this category should be done away with completely as an inherently POV, "in-your-face" label. It's like having a category "Nonsense".

Now some have objected that the term "pseudoscience" has a clear definition. Evidently they haven't read Demarcation problem. But even if we say, for the purposes of argument, that pseudoscience is any branch of science that doesn't rigorously apply the scientific method, is that definition clear to all? To me and, I daresay, alot of other people, many of whom may be casual readers of the pages "branded" with this category (people who are interested in the topics in question), it will simply appear that Misplaced Pages itself is against anything that dares to question the dominant paradigm. Why else would it need to label something with a derogatory word? This appearance (referred to in the discussion above as Misplaced Pages giving an imprimatur) belies the fact that the category represents only a certain fraction of Wikipedians who are pushing their own, anti-New-Age agenda.

The term science itself can't be defined as something that rigorously applies the scientific method. Such a definition would relegate a significant portion of mainstream scientific work or research to being "non-scientific" or "pseudoscientific". I quote from Demarcation problem: After more than a century of active dialogue, the question of what marks the boundary of science remains fundamentally unsettled. It follows that it is a matter of opinion whether or not a given theory is pseudoscience. Opinions are fine. But they have no business "masquerading" as Misplaced Pages categories, which are supposed to be straightforward and uncontroversial.

(( Aside: I just noticed that String theory has not been placed in this category. Why not? Are any of you willing to go there and put the pseudoscience label on it? Why isn't there a "Non-science" category? ))

So, to sum up, let's ask ourselves why a label is necessary at all. The only reason I can think of is that mainstream science feels threatened by something. And so it has instituted a system akin to kosher in foods. Something is kosher because the religious authorities say it is. That's the only criterion. Something is scientific because mainstream science says it is. "String theory is OK, but homeopathy -- over my dead body!" --Smithfarm 21:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep the article. We have greater POV problems than this one, go and crusade against those. WP:SPOV has certain virtues, and can be incorporated within NPOV. Deleting or renaming the category shuld be done thru WP:CFD. Dunc|☺ 22:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, I vote "keep," but still hold open the question of renaming. It is not too different from having a category like "racists" or "bigots." It is a not a self-assigned label and represents a purposefully derogative assignment of status. Put another way, it is a less extreme version than having a category like "race traitor" that Neo-Nazis would apply to whites in the Civil Rights Movement. Again, I'm not sure of the best way to deal with this aspect of things -- either we take a line which is completely within the POV of the mainstream scientific community (certainly not a standard we do on other articles, and certainly not NPOV), or we end up with something ridiculous (none of the alternatives proposed work for me). Or, perhaps, we just heavily edit the category description to emphasize that we are only using it because it is such a well known term for this. Hmm. I don't know for sure, I'll think about it a bit, though. (I don't think the label of pseudoscience is just a "matter of opinion", though -- I think it is a little more complex than that, and has to do with professionalization of disciplines and the internal content of the science itself, even though I think it is a sociological rather than a philosophical phenomena -- but that's not really the point, here). --Fastfission 00:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to point out that I don't think the term pseudoscience is necessarily always offensive to proponents of a subject labelled as such: the term does have a specific meaning and a specific relationship with the terms fringe science and protoscience. Still though, in response to the POV complexities and the above-mentioned problem of the Misplaced Pages "imprimatur," perhaps we could put an asterix in the title? I think " Pseudoscience* " as the category title at the bottom of pages, with explanation on the category page would mitigate these problems. (looks like this wouldn't be prevented by technical restrictions)--Nectarflowed 04:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What Nectarflowed said, seems to makes sense at first, adding something like an asterisk to the title, let's say "considered Pseudoscience". But then, I foud the category doesn't make sense, I mean see the terorism article. We don't have fuzzy categories here, and to put it in one pot for good science and another for bad science, is not really the idea of an open, free dictionary. We have the articles that should come to the point and say, "most people believe..." or something, see NPOV. I agree that some people might not find it offensive to let their field be called pseudoscience, but then its meaning is "something like science " Let's just put them all in the science bag, after all most people who did "pseudosience" did some kind of research, etc. It's largely political considerations that some fields are called "pseudo-". Of course something like phrenology was not "real" it didn't show anything, but it was a (kind-of) scientific approach. So, let's forget about the category. Ben talk contr 12:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Balance

I'm going to add category:Belief to this category, since I think that some of the articles / subcategories fall into both partial science and belief realms. Hopefully, this will provide a balanced categorisation. Ian Cairns 20:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a wise idea. -Willmcw 21:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

comments

Request made to move category to Category:Science of Questionable Validity at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion

Requested Move

Category is misleading and has fueled a revert war on Aetherometry — Hackwrench 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Having presented the request, I vote 'For' Hackwrench 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Support or oppose what? What exactly is the proposal we are asked to vote on?

Also, this "discussion" seems to have been going on for a year and a half now, and nothing seems to be have been done as a result. I see some people have quite cogently argued on this page that the category Pseudoscience is POV, that it is insulting, that its uses cannot be adequately justified since the Misplaced Pages editors do not have enough resources and knowledge to judge the scientific merits of non-mainstream scientific claims, etc. And what? Does this discussion have any procedural significance, or is it just meant as a venue for marginals to blow off steam and think they are accomplishing something? FrankZappo 05:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hackwrench, voting for deleting or renaming this category take place at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion#Category:Pseudoscience to Category:Science of Questionable Validity. We have a procedure. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I had originally submitted this to Requests for move. The procedure there is to vote in the Talk page. Hackwrench 17:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Outcome

"The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)"

discussion archived at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 10

Creationism

The creationism category includes articles which are pseudoscience such as Flood geology, and many other articles which aren't such as Theistic evolution. I strongly suggest that crationism should no longer be a sub-category of pseudoscience. ...dave souza 19:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Items don't need fall 100% within a category to be categorized there. The point of categories is not to define articles (or subcategories) but to provide readers with a navigational tool to related topics. -Willmcw 19:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As the discussion above shows, this is a contentious label and should not be applied lightly where it can't be justified. Oddly enough, parent categories tend to be less of a fuss as they don't appear at the foot of the page, but at the moment the categorising seems to be leading to arguments and confusion, hence my agreement with Fastfission's 13 June 2005 suggestion on the cat:creationism talk page. ....dave souza 23:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Though you've cross-posted this I suggest we only discuss it one place, Category talk:Creationism. -Willmcw 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A deductive justification for this category's existance

Without first ever reading this talk page(oops), I have posted a justification for this and similarly POVed categories at Category talk:Pseudophysics. Assuming that one agrees that we should categorize things as science and that there exists at least one uncontroversial(and therefore minimally exclusive) criteria met by science, I've shown there why there is necessarily reason for a 'similar-to-but-not-science' category to exist. It is impossible to NPOVly couch a POVed categorization, whether it be favorable or unfavorable. However, this doesn't imply that such categories are unuseful nor even controversial in their contents. Even with POV categories, it is still possible to maximize compromise and minimize edit wars with a reasoned category scheme. Anyways, I guess I'll read this talk page now. =P

--Intangir 06:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please post any comments to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience instead of here. --Intangir

Category Scheme Proposal

As an off-the-cuff proposal, I think that a good scheme would be

• Natural Ontologies->Science+Pseudoscience+(Other reality-oriented beliefs)

Or better yet,

• Natural Ontologies->Science+(Controversial Ontologies->Pseudoscience+fringe science+more)

Ontology might be a big word, but at least it means the right thing(unlike belief) and is quite value neutral(unlike a parent category which implied science or validity). The second suggestion allows for overly controversial categorizations to be compromised and marked merely as Controversial Ontologies. --Intangir 07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

History of category at WP:CFD

This category has been nominated for deletion or renaming several times. This section is a summary of that activity.

• nominated for deletion at end of May 2005 ~ diff showing addition of template
  • decision to keep at start of June 2005 ~ diff showing removal of template
  • I've not found the archived discussion for this, otherwise I would have added that link instead of these User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• nominated for renaming in early December 2005 ~ decision was to not rename ~ archived discussion

• nominated for deletion in late December 2005 ~ discussion not to delete ~ archived discussion

Defn

The defn of pseudoscience used in this cat includes and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. Of itself, this is wrong: there are quite a lot of PS theories (aetherometry being one obvious example) that are so wacky that they are totally ignored by the scientific community, and thus come in for no significant criticism from scientists. It seems to me that Pseudoscience does a better job of defining PS. William M. Connolley 19:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Hi, Dr. Connolley, this is Janusz. I dont see how definition in article Pseudoscience makes difference. There it writes:

Classifying pseudoscience

Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:

by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;

by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);

by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;

by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;

by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")

by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;

by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;

by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible; ::or

by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.

You cannot yourself make such determination when claims are very complex and is not obvious that they contradict empirical results. Just because is obvious they contradict some existing accepted theory and many people think this is wacko is not enough for jumping to saying they contradict experiment or are not reproducible or lie about prediction or violate Occam's principle or are not progressing toward evidence. You as scientist must know this. To make such classification in encyclopedia, you still have to support it with quotes from reputable existing sources. Otherwise it is not place of encyclopedia to concern with it. Somebody said Misplaced Pages is not soapbox, and this, in my view, should also hold for administrators. To classify something in encyclopedia as science or as pseudoscience only because of strong opinion is soapbox, is not real scientific viewpoint. Especially administrators who are scientists should give with behaviour model of difference between real science and soapbox. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 15:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Caroll's definition in his Skeptics' Dictionary is good and concise: "A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific." Obviously, there are going to be things at the fringes due to demarcation issues and the degree of misrepresentation. When something is at the fringes, Misplaced Pages quidelines say to omit it (just saw that -- gonna have to dig it up.) -Jim Butler 08:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, found this under WP:CG; more below. Jim Butler 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

New tag: Template:CategorisationDisputedTopics

Given that this category remains contentious and there's no good rule of thumb for when to use it in disputed cases, I decided to be bold and create this tag (following Template:CategorisationDisputedPeople) and add it. I'll probably add Template:Cleancat later for particular issues (such as lingering confusion about the definition of pseudoscience). Thoughts? thx, Jim Butler 08:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with adding the tag, but surely the only time the category won't be disputed is when the "science" has no remaining adherents online. As a definition, the opening paragraph of Pseudoscience looks good. For a rule of thumb, the subject should have claims to be science and be described as not being science by a reliable source as required by WP:NOR. As WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience requires, this should be in the article. It should be noted that Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons can be held to require a source attributing pseudoscience to that person, even though they're a proponent of a subject which itself is credibly described as pseudoscience..dave souza, talk 11:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This category is not only contentious with respect to deciding what belongs here, its name is inherently biased. Namely, it reflects scientific POV: it's the scientist's label for disciplines outside of mainstream science. I don't think anybody presumably practicing 'pseudoscience' would be happy with that term, and this will eventually have to change, much like 'nigger' changed to 'black', etc. Aquirata 11:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If those declining to abide by the scientific method don't like it, they don't have to call their ideas "science". ..dave souza, talk 14:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dave, good points above. Additional considerations:

• Dispute over evidence. Some topics are more disputed than others among legitimate scientists. Acupuncture has more legitimate claim to dispute than baraminology.

• Dispute over representation.

• Among practitioners: Not all proponents of an alleged pseudoscience may agree on whether they want to call it scientific. Some proponents of Reiki say their system is scientific, but others explicitly disavow science and say Reiki is spiritual healing. In that case, the pseudoscience tag applies, but only to the degree that congruence with science is claimed.
• Between critics and proponents: I think that grey areas frequently have more to do with what is being claimed and less to do with the demarcation problem of science's boundaries. Again, with acupuncture, of course TCM's yin-yang theory isn't scientific. But its originators didn't conceive of it as such, and many modern acupuncturists appreciate the clinically useful information that they believe people from another age and culture "encoded" in it. Whether the meridians have objective existence isn't the issue; whether points on them work as predicted is. Nonetheless, Carroll calls TCM a pseudoscience because it "confuse(s) metaphysical claims with empirical claims". That isn't quite the same thing as his concise definition of pseudoscience a "set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific."

• Dispute over breadth of definition. Agree that the WP definition in the first paragraph of pseudoscience is good, but not all popular usage (including among self-identified skeptics) is in accordance with it. Sometimes the term seems to be used to indicate any field that makes objective claims which haven't been verified. The underlying presumption here is apparently that any claim to achieving an objective result is implicitly scientific, whether or not the proponents of the system explicitly claim they're doing science. Thus, has been debate over whether or not religion is pseudoscientific. Some people are using the term "pseudoscientific" as nearly synonymous with "nonscientific".

I didn't mean to do a bunch of original research venting above, but rather to highlight why OTHER reliable sources may legitimately disagree over use of the label. In that case, if we're going to use the WP category, it certainly should be flagged somehow. Also see below; under WP:CG's criteria there are obviously going to be some grey areas. thx, Jim Butler 22:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If foo's inclusion is disputed, it should be discussed at talk:foo. Looking through the list, I can't see anything that doesn't warrant inclusion here. As it is, these tactics from certain individuals to pretend one's favourite pseudoscience isn't pseudoscience are are rather tiresome.— Dunc|☺ 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Dunc. As I said before elsewhere, if you dispute the inclusion of a topic in this cat, the correct place to raise the issue is at the article, not in the category. The people most interested in the inclusion of a given topic are editing that topic - they probably don't have this page on their watchlist. In addition, inclusion of the tag on this page is not useful to users - there's no indication of which articles are in dispute (and there's no way of indicating disputed inclusions in a category). So this is a very bad idea, since it doesn't help editors and it doesn't help readers. Guettarda 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

On review, agree with Dunc and Guettarda: the categorisation is at an article level, and it's there that any dispute must be resolved. Categories are about helping people to find articles, and should not be taken as a judgement on a dispute. ..dave souza, talk 00:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, spare me the ad hominem, don't be dense about grey area existing here (see the EBM discussion on acupuncture), and don't be a dick and remove the tag without a little discussion. Some of these issues are long-standing and non-trivial. Guettarda, I agree that it would be good if there were a way to flag which categories were disputed, and have that show up both on the article and the category page. Maybe there is, or we can create one. Any idea what is meant when WP:CG says: "you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed"?

I'm fine with the idea that the proposed template may not be the best way to address problems with this category, but it still does need attention. I created the template along the lines of Template:CategorisationDisputedPeople, which presumably was meant to help readers be aware of disputes. I'm pretty sure that there are more than a couple fuzzy and contentious categories on WP. I think this is still a useful and interesting category, and for the record am no apologist for creationism or many alt-med things.

Dunc et. al., I don't agree that debate over inclusion of foo in fuzzy categories depends only on foo; obviously it depends on the boundaries of the category as well. In practice, topics get put in the category because a reliable source has applied the label, irrespective of whether the reliable source is using the definition on the page, and irrespective of whether other reliable sources disagree. Also see the "dispute" list I posted above to Dave. I hope some editors perceive a little substance here and don't line up along hardcore pseudoskeptic lines.

I made this edit as a start: This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both allegedly claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. Am also adding Template:Cleancat until we reach consensus on clearer criteria for inclusion, and say explicitly what they are. If consensus is that these concerns are insubstantial, fine, but let's extend the mutual courtesy of saying why. thx, Jim Butler 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late... anyway the word alledgedly is one of those weasel word which we are instructed not to use. It will need to be reworded -- unsigned message from User:Jefffire, 11:45, 21 June 2006

Thanks for stopping by, and I find that after having slept on it I agree. It's too broad. At tyhe time I added it, I felt that the cat was being used more broadly than its definition warranted. But I agree a better solution is to keep the category precise and use it with due attention to WP:CG. Removing; thx. Note that there remains another "alleged" that was there before I edited it. - thx, Jim Butler 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

ROFL: "Dunc, spare me the ad hominem...and don't be a dick" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad someone caught the irony. :-) I did have WP:DICK somewhat in mind. Dunc's multiple reverts without an explanatory edit summary do flirt with dickishness, IMO, but it's not like I haven't done stuff like that too (hence tongue planted lightly in cheek). Jim Butler 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Criteria from WP:CG

Here are some criteria on whether to include something in a category:

Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:

• If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?
• If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the category is probably inappropriate. ....

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. ....

Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed.

thx -Jim Butler 22:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Science is important (so is pseudoscience)

Pseudoscience helps explain science. This is extremely important. Just because something is categorized as pseudoscience, that doesn't mean it is altogether a pseudoscience. It can mean that it has pseudoscientific elements. This is basically what the pseudoscience article says, and it is what the cat is used for. Its an important issue. If there is an issue in a subject that says it or part of is is pseudoscience, then it should be mentioned and categorized as being part of that issue. Firstly, this is correct in encyclopedic terms. Secondly, it is correct in educational terms (for helping the understanding of related subjects such as science). Thirdly, it really is something that a reader will want to know straight away about a subject. If an article is written well, then it is simply a matter of the reader making up their own mind. There is also an issue (not sure if it is so important here) that the public in general are not good at recognizing pseudoscience when they see it (take a look at the pop psych section in bookshops). Misplaced Pages will allow them to see that it is at least an issue within certain subjects. Whether this last point is an issue for Misplaced Pages or not, the use of a pseudoscience cat will be both useful and clarifying. The only people benefiting from abolition of the cat are those promotors or advocates of the subject (those wishing to present a strongly biased or narrow view). The cat will still allow balance and a better inclusion of the science view. It is up to the rest of the editors to use the cat properly. KrishnaVindaloo 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KV. I agree with a great deal of what you say. I certainly don't want to abolish the cat, or dilute it into irrelevancy, or lend aid and comfort to those who deceptively claim to be scientific. I do want to make sure that we're clear on the criteria for putting things in the category.

When you say, "If there is an issue in a subject that says it or part of is is pseudoscience, then it should be mentioned and categorized as being part of that issue", this is the heart of the matter. Of course we can mention PS in the article with NPOV wording and sourcing, but we have to be clear about the criteria for the category per WP:CG. Some things are more self-evident and untroversial than others. As I said above, in practice, topics get put in the PS category simply because a reliable source has applied the label, irrespective of whether the reliable source is using the definition on the cat page, and irrespective of whether other reliable sources disagree. If we address this issue by (a) agreeing on criteria for inclusion, (b) clearly explaining those criteria with appropriate wording on the cat page and (c) follow WP:CG in categorizing indiviual articles, then I think the validity of the category will improve. That's kinda my bottom line concern and I apologize in advance to other editors if I've gone on too much about it. Thanks again, Jim Butler 07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest point of this issue is found in Misplaced Pages policy here. Specifically, guideline #8 which states:

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.

Too often when adding subjects to Pseudoscience, we have seen lots of contraversy. Many times, one person's view of "self-evident" is based purely on POV. The determiniation of whether something is pseudoscience can be highly subjective. Science is not always a black-or-white stage, where labelling is easy. This is because of one of the most objective facts: We do not know everything. Most of the world of science is neither black or white but rather some shade of gray. There are so few laws and so many theories. And just because something is accepted by science today, certainly does not stop it from being heralded as pseudoscience tomorrow.

In general, I think we have to show great care when placing a discipline in the pseudoscience category. The term has become a pejorative label ussed to attack beliefs that are completely divergent from another set of beliefs. But if they are both beliefs and neither are scientific laws, then which side gets to determine categorization? Levine2112 22:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Levine2112, and this raises an interesting issue: we can say in articles that "Jones says foo is pseudoscientific" if Jones is a reliable source and not a tiny minority viewpoint. However, if an editor wants to place foo in Category:Pseudoscience, guideline 8 above from WP:CG suggests a higher threshold: the editor would have to show something like scientific consensus that the topic is pseudoscientific. That's not a hard standard to meet for egregious things like ID. It may be tougher for, say, Reiki, but we can still use NPOV wording if someone reliable says Reiki is pseudoscientific, and we could still place it in a "healthcare modalities of unproven or disputed efficacy" category or something like that. (Reiki, btw, just an example I got drawn into editing recently; I'm not a Reiki advocate and my view is that it's gotta rise or fall based on efficacy just like the rest of 'em).

Bottom line: if (e.g.) Robert Todd Carroll calls foo pseudoscientific, that alone isn't enough under WP standards to put foo in Category:Pseudoscience. We should be able to show something along the lines of scientific consensus to that effect. Thoughts? Jim Butler 23:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. KrishnaVindaloo, on your concerns about pedagogical completeness: it just occurred to me that a reader can still use "what links here", in the toolbox bar just under the "search" box, in order to see articles in which pseudoscience is wikilinked but which aren't placed in Category:Pseudoscience. I'm still getting familiar with all the tools around here; this is probably a "duh" point for experienced folks. -Jim Butler 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think scientific consensus is needed. What is important though is that if a subject is considerd PS then it should be mentioned if the subject is considered unfalsifiable, or falsified and still promoted, or full of obscurantisms, or anti-scienific. Basically wherever science or a reliable scientific source clarifies a pseudoscientific subject or takes issue with a subject that they consider pseudoscientific, then it should be categorized as such. Perhaps in this way, the notes of the category should say that there are issues of pseudoscience in the subject. KrishnaVindaloo 09:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi KV -- It sounds like you're arguing that "if a reliable a source says foo is pseudoscientific, then foo should be placed in the category". Please read WP:CG, excerpts of which I posted just above, e.g. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. I think that contradicts your "reliable source" criterion for categorizing. While a reliable source is fine for mentioning pseudoscience in an article, WP:CG requires a significantly higher standard for categorization. Do you disagree? Thanks, Jim Butler 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is blatant Wikilawyering. You are not making a specific point, just plucking pieces of policy out of the air that you think supports your "position" (whatever that is). If you have a problem with anything categorised here, say, and we'll discuss it on its talk page. — Dunc|☺ 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that the criteria for populating this category need clarification. What's so hard to understand about that, and why shouldn't it be discussed on the cat talk page? If you think the criteria are clear, then say what they are. Say whether or not you agree with KrishnaVindaloo's "reliable source" criterion.

Example - why was the entire Category:Alternative_medicine put in Category:Pseudoscience? I just removed it, and it's fine to discuss that on Category_talk:Alternative_medicine, but I still think we should firm up the criteria for this cat. Why recapitulate a debate on every talk:foo page that can be at least partially addressed here? Jim Butler 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Jim Butler here. There is always so much quibbling over individual disciplines being placed in the Pseudoscience category. Wouldn't it be much eachier to more rigorously define what is Pseudoscience... then we can see what is a pseudoscience. I will reiterate that which Jim Butler has stated: We must clarify the criteria for populating this category. The Alternative Medicine debacle is a perfect example of mainstream medicine POV gone awry. Just because something is an alternative medicine does not make it pseudoscience. Much of what is called "alternative medicine" is actually extremely scientifically based. Levine2112 02:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it is even easier that that. Take a look at a good book on pseudoscience (eg Science and Psudoscience in clinical psychology) or The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. The subjects are examined for pseudoscientific elements (eg alternative medicine). There is nothing perjorative about it and it all adds knowledge. Misplaced Pages takes science seriously as it is knowledge oriented. If a notable or reliable source brings up the subject of pseudoscience then it should be added to that category. There may be some subjects that are not completely suitable (eg quantum physics). But then again, pseudoscience is an issue, so why not add the cat? I'm sure there is no way we can set comprehensive criteria or rules about this category. As usual it is a matter of getting reasonable editors together to be as neutral as possible about it. So finding criteria as guidelines is great and clarifying the pseudoscience art is important, but it is also a case by case issue. There will indeed be quibbling over which discrete subjects will go into the cat. But you can guarantee it will be mostly from those with vested or promotional interests in those subjects. Those editors with a more neutral inclination will be able to recognize any significant view of pseudoscience and recognize its significance for that category. KrishnaVindaloo 07:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

None of this relevant here. The NPOV policy already covers these issues and WP:NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable. Please read: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ Giving"equal validity" and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ Pseudoscience.

As long as majority of the scientific community says a particular belief is pseudoscience, then WP:NPOV allows for it's categorization as such, period. FeloniousMonk 18:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CG requires higher standards for categorization

Hi KV; this is in response to your post just above on 07:27, 21 June 2006. Again, please read WP:CG, excerpts of which I posted above, e.g. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A reliable source is fine for citing pseudoscience in an article, but WP's guidelines for using the category are stricter. This makes sense. By analogy, a notable scholar may say that the US government has elements of fascism, but we still wouldn't put it under category:fascism. Note that the reader can still use "what links here" (under the "search" box at the left) to find out more about pseudoscience even when the cat isn't used.

The wording on the cat page is actually pretty good if we apply WP:CG: This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. The phrase "scientific community" suggests consensus, or at least a solid majority view. (There also has to be reliable evidence that a field's proponents say their field is scientific.) That's what needs to be sourced in order to use the cat, not just one source saying "X is a pseudoscience". It's a higher standard than you suggest, but it's compatible with the cat page wording and with WP category guidelines. thx, Jim Butler 14:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC

OK, well the line is certainly inaccurate and misleading. Plenty of pseudoscientific subjects are full of proponents who swear blind that their mojometers or whatever are not science. But they use scientific and pseudoscientific terms all over their promotional booklets, they put the word "neuro" in every sentence, they call themselves Dr. and they claim to do stuff that legitimate medical practitioners would be struck off for saying.

So it should read: pertaining to subjects that are made to seem scientific or scientifically supported but do not adhere to the scientific method, and are considered pseudoscientific by experts.

The fact remains, we can list the characteristics of pseudoscience and that will be useful for deciding inclusion. But it really is a matter of sensible application, rather than hard and fast rules. Pseudoscience is becoming more prevalent in undergrad science courses as a way to understand science, especially as there are new pseudos popping up all the time in science and fringe psychotherapy. As a category it is an increasingly important issue. I would treat the pseudoscience cat as a kind of book in itself. A book on pseudoscience will give a good number of pseudosciences proper mention. So really, just take a look at some good books on pseudoscience, and understand the subject to a good degree before trying to apply the cat. From what I have seen of the application of the cat by editors here, it has been pretty well applied already. KrishnaVindaloo 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi KV. I do agree with your point that something can be pseudoscientific as long as its proponents portray it as scientific even if they try to avoid explicitly saying "this is science". I think the definition allows for inclusion of such things by its use of the phrase "claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method."

You propose: "So it should read: pertaining to subjects that are made to seem scientific or scientifically supported but do not adhere to the scientific method, and are considered pseudoscientific by experts." Ummm... I don't think that a good encyclopedic definition would include a criterion to the effect that "experts know it when they see it". That's just circular reasoning and argument by authority, isn't it? And by definition not very scientific. One of the primary criteria for the scientific method is intersubjective verifiability. If pseudoscience is a valid category, its definition ought to be stated plainly. I understand that the term pseudoscience, like "cult" etc., is popularly used in different ways. That fact only underscores the need for NPOV language and reliable sourcing, and even more stringent use of the cat.

I think there is value in your idea of listing everything that has been said to have elements of pseudoscience. However, doing so with the WP cat is plainly not consistent what WP:CG says about NPOV. You haven't been able to refute that point; you've only restated your opinion that it should be otherwise. I do think your proposal can and should be pursued someplace on the internet, and as I said above it still can be achieved to some extent on WP by using "what links here". But not with overbroad use of the cat.

In practical terms, I think that Category:Alternative_medicine, which I recently removed, certainly didn't belong here. Acupuncture and chiropractic have been proposed and deleted in the past, and I agree with that. Both arguably have elements of pseudoscience, but also legitimate elements of science. Even Jarvis, writing for the very-likely-biased NCAHF, acknowledges that such a mix exists for chiropractic. Similar points are made in the entry for acupuncture. That means both topics fail WP:CG's "self-evident and uncontroversial" test. thx, Jim Butler 20:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Sure, my "definition" certainly needs tweaking heavilly:) But the main reason for categories is to help the reader browse similar articles. Someone reading a pseudoscientific subject (eg, QiGong (a kind of shamanism)) will want to know what is meant by pseudoscientific, and to compare and contrast various pseudoscientific subjects. There is variety there. I would also want to know what parts of acupuncture are pseudoscientific, and the same with chiropractic. This is all the more important as pseudoscience helps to clarify the scientifically supported aspects of a subject if they exist. There are definitely subjects that have been labeled as a pseudoscience by collections of scientists. But there will always be resistence against calling something pseudoscience per se. More commonly, subjects are called pseudoscientific, or containing pseudoscientific elements. The latter is by far the more NPOV and useful for the reader (though will also encounter resistance). Really its just a matter of finding subjects that have reliable views saying it is pseudoscientific in whatever way, and adding it to the cat so that readers can compare and understand pseudoscientific subjects better. If I see quantum physics in the cat, for example, I do a doubletake and have a look at the article, and low and behold, someone views a part of quantum physics as pseudoscientific, then I have learned something. KrishnaVindaloo 04:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the what links here button essentially accomplish the same thing? It's basically an indexing function, which is what it sounds like you want. I look forward to your thoughts on this issue. cheers, Jim Butler 17:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Concerning perjorative use of the term pseudoscience. It generally doesn't happen in encyclopedias. In fact even when it happens in conversation it is usually informed by reference to an expert who has deemed a subject pseudoscientific (eg Dianetics). The literature on pseudoscientific subjects is generally written by scientists or science minded experts who wish to clear up some misconceptions. These will be by far the most reliable sources anyway. So perhaps a key element to deciding whether to categorize a subject in the pseudoscience cat would be "where a subject requires clarification". Eg, Dianetics seems scientific, but there is a lot of pseudoscientific elements to it. So it needs the clarification. Neurolinguistic programming certainly pretends to be science, but the pseudoscientific elements have been well displayed on the article. But really, wherever there are pseudoscientific elements, they need clarity. Comparison is very important here and will allow the reader to get a good idea of what pseudoscience is (there are many elements, and there are questions of degree that can be seen in the article as long as the reader is allowed to browse that cat).KrishnaVindaloo 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages isn't your typical encyclopedia!  ;-) Pejorative or not, it's still an implicit NPOV violation to use the cat if it's disputed. That's what WP:CG says, anyway. Are you proposing a rewrite of WP:CG?

Quantum physics is an excellent example of something that has been said by some to have pseudoscientific elements (I'm thinking of Feynman wondering how some theories could possibly be falsifiable), but clearly doesn't belong in the cat. Why? Because the categorization would be fiercely disputed, and not just by passionate "believers". cheers, Jim Butler 17:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that its an implicit NPOV violation if the cat is disputed is nonsense. If someone from the Discovery Institute came here, of course they'd state that ID is good science. Its not, so what we must do is state in the article, with cites, that the DI's position is that ID is good science. But one person dissenting, or even a few? See NPOV#Undue weight. If we allowed anyone with a pet project to dissent, we might as well let the lunatics run the asylum. If the scientific community regards something as pseudoscience, it is. If eventually someone comes along with proofs and the scientific community accepts the subject as science, then we remove the psucat and edit the article to say something like "Long regarded as pseudoscience, ScienceMan's groundbreaking work in the 2020's proved that..." One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 22:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi KC - you commented "The assertion that its an implicit NPOV violation if the cat is disputed is nonsense." Yet that's actually what WP:CG says; see the relevant excerpts; I'm not making this stuff up. But of course undue weight still applies, and that is exactly what resolves the issue. In order to cause an NPOV violation, the dispute needs to be a legitimate one. That means within the scientific community, including significant minority POV's (the real kind, from scientists publishing in the same refereed journals, not in their own would-be peer-reviewed journals). I don't mean dispute between scientific consensus and advocates within the pseudoscience community. Creationism is thus safely within the cat. Quantum physics, which another editor suggested could be in the cat because some say it has pseudoscientific elements, should not be. Some of the so-called alt-med stuff for which there is EBM-level evidence IMO shouldn't be either. cheers, Jim Butler 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like we're more or less on the same page, then. EBM is tricky; there have been many cases of improper procedure, faulty and/or biased reports, etc. I will have to disagree with you on that one. We note that there is EBM support, note also there are no actual studies. Until actual, double blind studies with a reasonable size group, full follow up, etc. are done then it is still completely anecdotal and we should report that accurately. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 14:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm - what definition of pseudoscience are you using, KC? "Unproven" isn't synonymous with PS although some use it that way. For EBM, I have never heard of a case where there is support but no studies. But the solution is simple: follow WP:NPOV and WP:V and say who says what, and why. Use of the cat, unfortunately, doesn't allow any such qualification. cheers, Jim Butler 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to bear in mind that WP:CG is (a) only a guideline, not policy, and (b) like all guidelines and policy, should not be interpreted as a legal document - ie, focus more on the general sense of the wording, don't try to interpret it too narrowly. Anything that can be described as pseudoscience will be "controversial" inasmuch as it will have practioners who claim it is "real". But in many cases it's pretty clear whether the subject can be reasonably descibed as pseudoscience or not. If there is general agreement among the editors of the article that the topic is pseudoscience, then it is "uncontroversial". If there is major disagreement as to whether the subject can be described as pseudoscience, as per policy (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV) then the subject shouldn't be in this category. But that's something for the editors of the article to decide. Guettarda 15:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am on the same page as Jim Butler. Even if all the Misplaced Pages editors of an article agree that something is pseudoscience, it cannot be called this or categorized as this; this would be original research by committee. We would need to see that this is also the reasonably unified view of the scientific community. It would be good to be clear about this standard and to ensure that it is applied in all cases, not solely to leave it up to the editors of the various articles, especially as this seems to be a category that is applied pretty arbitrarily (meaning without checking that there is any objective back-up for the use).Hgilbert 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it "OR by committee"? Misplaced Pages editors are supposed to evaluate sources, determine which ones are credible and which ones are not, and this should be a collaborative process. How you can characterise that as "OR by committee" is baffling. Guettarda 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guettarda - Hgilbert's point (as I took it) is that it's OR to overinterpret what scientists are or are not saying. Just because something is not proven isn't the same as saying it's pseudoscientific. But more important is the fact that things can be a mix of scientific and pseudoscientific, yet the cat tag is on or off, no middle ground. "Inconsistent with such principles and method" can mean that something isn't falsifiable, or that it's overpromoted, or that its underlying theory is nonscientific even if in practice it (sometimes) verifiably works. So the main issue IMO has to do with applying the tag to partial cases -- please see the example of "being partially in the kitchen" at fuzzy logic. That is what I think WP:CG is getting at. cheers, Jim Butler 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert, extremely well-made point about "OR by committee". Even though there is no scientific consensus that foo is proven, that alone doesn't mean scientific consensus exists that foo is bogus, unworthy of research, misrepresented as having scientific foundation, or inherently untestable. "Unproven" is not synonymous with "pseudoscientific". I think that use of this cat at least requires scientific consensus. Such consensus is demonstrable for things like so-called intelligent design. If it's also demonstrable for alt-med and other things, great, let's use the cat.

Or at least let's be clear on what the cat means. Look at the range of definitions that come up Googling for "pseudoscience definition". They're in the same ballpark, but some are broader than others. It's a bit like defining pornography, or a cult, or a hate group. Definitions in popular usage vary. Even if we agree upon a single definition, we need to make sure that sources we cite are using the term in the same way.

Pseudoscience is a useful concept, and I have no problem at all discussing it in articles, especially when we follow WP:NPOV and WP:V and say who says what, and why. But applying the category requires great caution, because even with a specific definition, populating the cat is still fuzzy: something can be partly pseudoscientific and partly not. (Check out the example of Bob being "partially in the kitchen" in the fuzzy logic article.) If the criteria from WP:CG are saying anything, surely they're saying: don't use the cat unless it clearly applies, because it's an on/off condition: there's no way to "partially" apply or qualify a cat, which creates an NPOV problem. best regards, Jim Butler 08:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how evaluating sources is "OR by committee". Are you advocating uncritically reporting what every source states, regardless of whether it is credible or not? Guettarda 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I hope my comments above were clear. I'm also saying that any nuance of "who says what and why", and of stuff being "partially" pseudoscientific, is totally lost by the on/off nature of being put in a category. A majority of editors can't just say "we know it when we see it". We've gotta have clear criteria and use the cat carefully. cheers, Jim Butler 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest applying the following criteria for including an article in the category: the topic must be documented as verifiably pseudoscience (preferably in the article), including citations — this to prevent editors' arbitrary usage of this category (original research) — and its being categorized pseudoscience must be essentially uncontroversial (both amongst our editors and in the world at large) — thus respecting the NPOV policy that is (justly) strongly emphasized for category usage. Hgilbert 14:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How is this less OR than what I discussed? Guettarda 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If editors can decide something is categorizable as pseudoscience without needing to provide any citations to back this up - which I understood you to have suggested - then that is OR by committee or individuals. I am suggesting two more stringent standards: 1) that some reasonably qualified and citable individual in the academic or professional community has used the term or its essential equivalent, i.e. made clear that the subject in question is not merely an unproven scientific idea (viz. general relativity in its early years), or a wholly improbable suggestion (viz. string theory), or a philosophical speculation (viz. Wheeler's multiple world scenario), but a systematic falsification of scientific process or method (which is what the term pseudoscience implies). It is obviously not original research if you can cite someone on the question.

And, two, that any demonstrable diversity of opinion in the scientific, academic or professional community about the possible validity of the field (more than a couple of lone voices of little repute) is sufficient to torpedo the use of this label. In such a case, the diversity of opinion - even if one-sided - should be accurately represented within the article, and people should be allowed to form their own opinion. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs)

It's less OR to the extent that it doesn't involve overinterpreting consensus, e.g. inferring that because scientists don't accept something as proven, that means they think it's "unscientific" in other senses, like being unfalsifiable, lacking plausible mechanistic basis, or not being worthy of study. I'm not saying that's what you were proposing, but I do think we need to do more than amalgamate the consensus of "skeptical" groups if we are to apply the cat. I agree with Hgilbert that WP:CG is setting a high bar and doesn't just let editors by majority override the NPOV considerations it raises. Jim Butler 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree on a few points. Firsty and most importantly, the opinions of editors on whether there is a controversy must have no bearing on the inclusion of the category. Secondly, since being a pseudoscience or not is chiefly a scientific matter, I propose that only legitimate scientific opinions be counted on the matter (that sounds terrible, but let me explain). The reason being that almost every pseudoscience does not regard itself as a pseudoscience. Thus Creationism, for instance, could be argued to be non-includable, even though almost every scientists on the planet thinks otherwise.

My counter proposal is that the only criterion be that the subject is verifiably considered scientifically highly dubious by the scientific community, and directly described as a pseudoscience by a reliable source. Jefffire 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire, I agree with your first point on editorial opinion not being a criterion for controversy; we all must meet WP:V. On your second: what about cases where one reliable source says foo is pseudoscientific, and another disagrees? Or cases where foo is "partly" scientific, cf. fuzzy logic? Isn't WP:CG saying such cases shouldn't go in a cat, since a cat is either on or off with no way to qualify partial or conditional cases? cheers, Jim Butler 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your second criterion, that the field has been described as pseudoscience by a verifiable source, corresponds precisely to my first, except that I would also urge that a citation be provided in the article to document this.

As far as your first criterion goes: 1) I am concerned that editors have had and will have quite different views as to the scientific community's consensus. How is the latter objectively determined? 2) It is generally Wiki-policy that when there is a range of legitimate editorial opinion, this presumably reflects a range of opinions in the actual world. I appreciate what you are aiming at here, and am not trying to keep genuinely pseudoscientific subjects out of the list, but cannot see quite how we will assess the state of genuinely contested fields, several of which I see on this list. Hgilbert 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere. Jefffire, I believe your counter proposal is very reasonable. I believe we will always have a problem with the term "consensus". But as long as a reliable source or sources consider a subject to be dubious, and it is directly stated to be pseudoscience or pseudoscientific, then the cat should apply. The problem with relying on saying "the view of the scientific community" in general is that is similar to consensus. There are a great many new subjects that are said to be pseudoscientific and new ones cropping up all the time. Of course, not many scientists will have passed comment on such fringe practices. Most credible scientists just go, "yeh.. right....and pigs can fly!" and leave the subjects alone because they are obviously dubious. Therefore, as long as a reliable scientific view states a subject's dubiousness, and mentions the term pseudoscience, then that is very good reason to place it in the category. If there is also a reliable scientific view that states it is not dubious, or not pseudoscientific, then that changes things and balance is an issue. Otherwise, simple reliable factual statements are fine. KrishnaVindaloo 05:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi KV -- I agree that new pseudosciences crop up all the time, but we do have to go with WP:V which, sometimes frustratingly, calls for verifiability, not truth. We don't need to fret about underpopulating the cat because simply NPOV wording, including on lack of legitimate scientific support, should suffice. Regarding your statement "If there is also a reliable scientific view that states it is not dubious, or not pseudoscientific, then that changes things and balance is an issue": in such cases, are you saying it's better not to use the cat? best regards, Jim Butler 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the question of what we do if there is a difference of opinions within scientific sources, then what we do is take notability and reliability into account. If, for example. Nature said that X was a pseudoscience, but Science said it wasn't, then frankly I'm not sure what we should do, but such a case is unlikely to come up. However if Answers says Y is a pseudoscience (evolution in this case) but Cell disagrees, then obviously Cell wins out (although we will probably have a lot more references than that. Conversley if 'Cell says creationism is a pseudoscience, but Answers disagrees' then Cell wins out. Obviously this works on a case by case basis, so there will be no easy route. Hope that makes sense. Jefffire 13:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, yes, weight certainly an issue. Usually journals in the physical and life articles don't take stances on whether something is pseudoscientific. That designation is usually applied in other contexts, e.g. in the civic and political arenas regarding education and healthcare. Very often the term is used by local "skeptical" groups patterning themselves after CSICOP and the like. So we need to be clear on who is saying what. Which, I reiterate, is easily done when prose in articles follows WP policy, and is almost impossible with categories. So the bar has to be set pretty high. More below under your "Pseudoscience is not the same as wrong" comment. best regards, Jim Butler 16:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim. I believe the cat is very important. I believe we are thrashing out pretty much how to use it here. Obviously we are working towards verifiability rather than truth. I believe it is quite easy to identify what should be in the cat. Beyond that it is simply a matter of justifying it. Eg A subject can be in the cat because a significant and reliable source brings up the issue of pseudoscience and the subject has been described as dubious. Misplaced Pages is not calling the subject false in this case. This is an encyclopedia and not a sounding board or piece of research. The purpose of categories is to help the reader search similar subjects (subjects considered by some verifiable sources to be pseudoscientific). A reader is not going to find a set of subjects that state at the top "Blahblahology is a bogus pseudoscience and is false". A properly worded article will not make a conclusion one way or another, and the reader will be able to make up their own mind. Remember that some subjects at the bottom of the page will have many categories . eg, science, psychology, pseudoscience, history etc. So if pseudoscience is a significant issue in one subject, then one can browse it with similar subjects. Its all very reasonable. Inclusion is simply a matter of reasonably determining that a view is verifiable (and it would really help if the categorizers checked the refs themselves) and then allowing readers to browse subjects with the issue of pseudoscience. They can then compare various subjects and will be even better informed about the first subject they came to. In fact, when done right, this may reduce conflict and increase the likelihood of the subjects in question being written more neutrally. KrishnaVindaloo 03:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi KV -- there are NPOV problems, because by putting something in a cat, Misplaced Pages is in effect saying it "is" in that cat, not maybe, not kind of, not has elements of, but "is". (Please see my comments about what could happen with other categories under Jeff's "Pseudoscience is not the same as wrong" comment, below.) WP:CG says that's an NPOV problem. Earlier I pointed out that a reader can use what links here in order to brosw similar subjects. Do you have a comment on that? Cheers, Jim Butler 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no NPOV problems with this category. But there is your allegation that there are NPOV problems with this category, and it is caused by you not fully understanding the NPOV policy. I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ Giving"equal validity" and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ Pseudoscience. WP:NPOV trumps WP:CG, and as long as majority of the scientific community says a particular belief is pseudoscience, then WP:NPOV allows for it's categorization as such, period. You've been raising this misbegotten notion and objection long enough, it's time to get up to speed on policy here and move on. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's nice that you believe it's important. We need to settle whether it is in line with Misplaced Pages's guidelines, however (see below). A subject cannot be categorized because of a single author's comments. The category must be uncontroversial and unproblematic with regards to the NPOV policy. These are essential parts of Misplaced Pages's standard for applying a category. A further part is that the category should be a matter of fact, not opinion. I think this is highly problematic. But I think it unlikely that I'll achieve consensus on this. So, if the category is going to be used anyway, I propose a very clear set of three guidelines:

Three guidelines for use of this category: a proposal

I suggest the following three guidelines be applied strictly. Only fields that meet all three qualify as being categorized here.

1. First test, someone citable must call a field pseudoscience or the equivalent ("unscientific balderdash" might be reasonably assumed to be the equivalent).
2. Second test, there must be scientific unanimity about the subject; minimal cognitive dissonance. Otherwise, a more differentiated approach is required within the article itself, citing evidence or opinions on both sides.
3. Third test: there must be demonstrable methodological weaknesses in the field in question: proponents refusal to test objectively or to recognize the results of these tests, un-disprovable hypotheses, or something similar.

The first test ensures that the category is not verifiable, not original research. The second ensures that use of the category follows the NPOV guideline. The third ensures that the category is accurately and uniformly applied; that it is a little less an echoing of opinion and a little more factually based.

I'd like to hear people's responses to this.Hgilbert 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasonably good, but the wording of "scientific unanimity" could be abused by editors wishing to remove their pet pseudoscience from the category, and the third test is bordering on OR and I suspect it could be similarily abused. I propose a wording of "clear majority in mainstream scientific opinion" to avoid abuse, and the absence of the third test. Jefffire 13:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support Jeffire's version. Nice work, kudos to both of you - clarification will hopefully reduce the amount of warring going on. KillerChihuahua 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither proposal is necessary. Nor will one stand if they run counter to existing policy that covers articles going into this category, which is already covered by WP:NPOV and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ. FeloniousMonk 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are excellent references. As is WP:CG, which as it is specifically written for categories must be seen to be yet more applicable to the current discussion. Let's not cherry-pick our guidelines. Recall that this is indeed a fractious category; most categories could be found in a sufficiently detailed Dewey Decimal System list, or are purely discrete lists (i.e. albums by Nicholaus Harnoncourt, or people born in years ending in 0). This is a cat of a different stripe, and we should be careful upon whom we let it loose. Hgilbert 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Assertions and opinions

I have been rereading the Misplaced Pages NPOV guidelines and discovered that there is a section on Pseudoscience there (you probably all know this).

I quote from this section: when writing about pseudoscience from a neutral point of view, "we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false" (my emphasis). Are we not asserting that a field is false by labelling it pseudoscience? The whole tenor of this and other sections (e.g. "when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence") is not to declare (their example) that Hitler is evil, for example, even if historians generally concur in this; it is an opinion, not a fact (for Misplaced Pages purposes, anyhow).

It seems to me that with this category we are clearly promoting the opinion that something is pseudoscience as if this were objective fact, whereas it's clearly an opinionated judgment, though perhaps often a well-deserved one. The NPOV guidelines emphasize presenting all opinions solely by attribution, i.e. "William J. Williams, the editor of the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, says that the fried potato model of gravitational repulsion is pseudoscience." The pseudoscience category clearly contravenes this policy by raising opinion to the appearance of objective fact. Hgilbert 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is not the same as wrong. Jefffire 13:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, but putting foo into a category does in effect state that it is true that foo is in that category. So what to do about things that arguably have elements of pseudoscience, but in other ways are scientific? If your answer is to just put them in the cat anyway, consider the repercussions if that same logic were used to populate, say, category:cults or category:fascism. The US government has been argued to have some fascist elements, so by the same logic it should go in category:fascism. Can you acknowledge the NPOV problem here? cheers, Jim Butler 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's specious reasoning that been raised and considered many, many times here before and always ultimately rejected.

From WP:NPOV:

"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

"Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article."

"But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil. Please be clear on one thing: the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

This policy covers when a particular belief is categorized pseudoscience. Please become more familiar with the policy before raising objections here again. FeloniousMonk 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I did read those passages, FM. I assume you've read WP:CG, which discusses NPOV in the context of categorization. These points particularly apply.

You're right that in many cases categorization is unambiguous when we're talking tiny minority views (within the scientific community). But there is a grey area for other alt-med stuff, like acupuncture and chiropractic, which (unlike "baramins" and the like) have been the subject of serious research, provide testable hypotheses, show some evidence of efficacy, while also (in the minds of some) having some pseudoscientific elements. I've never seen good evidence that scientific consensus exists that all alt-med stuff is pseudoscientific (unless stuff, by fiat, conveniently defined out of alt-med as soon as any good evidence appears for it).

How would you reconcile the issue? Doesn't WP:CG set a higher bar for using category:pseudoscience than for mentioning pseudoscience in an article? cheers, Jim Butler 18:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you need to read the NPOV policy. It clearly states at the "These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." WP:CG is trumped by WP:NPOV, no matter what WP:CG may say. The NPOV policy specifically deals with Pseudoscience. There's no ambiguity there. What part of NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" is not clear? You're flogging a dead horse. Time for you to find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That text is not at the link you supplied. It is now at: Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience — goethean ॐ 18:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's at the FAQ subpage, which is linked to the NPOV page. Seeing the lack of understanding of how the NPOV applies here, I suggest starting at the main page. FeloniousMonk 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you not say that calling a subject pseudoscience is implying various things about the subject, one of which is that the claims made there are wrong? (Philosophical question: can something be methodologically pseudoscience and yet quite valid in content.)Hgilbert 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not say that. KillerChihuahua 17:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)