| Revision as of 12:25, 1 August 2024 editMrOllie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers236,143 edits →Unfalsifiable: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:13, 12 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 16) (bot | ||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Feyerabend == | |||
| I have removed the line about ] under ===Criticism of the term===, because the cited source does not criticize the term, or even say anything about it. A quick search indicates that the entire book contains exactly one instance of the word ''pseudoscience'', in the preface, when he says that Kuhn's terminology has "turned up in various forms of pseudoscience". Feyerabend using the term without comment does not make sense as a source to support a claim that he criticized the term, and the question of the dividing line between ] (e.g., physics) and ] (e.g., theology) does not make really sense for an article that is neither about science nor about non-science nor about the dividing line between the two. I have wondered whether it might have been added primarily as a ] for the quotation in the note, which is about a different source. If someone feels strongly about Misplaced Pages including that information, I suggest that you move it to an article like ] instead. ] (]) 04:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Should UFO still be categorized as Pseudoscience and fringe science? == | |||
| {{ctop|Socks don't get to start threads -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| I recently got a notification on my talkpage when I edited this article. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Lonestar-physicist#Introduction_to_contentious_topics | |||
| So is UFO considered Pseudoscience and fringe science? if so why is US government considers it a national security threat and scientifically analyzing it? | |||
| this is from AARO website published today: | |||
| https://www.aaro.mil/ | |||
| "Our team of experts is leading the U.S. government’s efforts to address Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) using a rigorous scientific framework and a data-driven approach. Since its establishment in July 2022, AARO has taken important steps to improve data collection, standardize reporting requirements, and mitigate the potential threats to safety and security posed by UAP." | |||
| https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/?utm_content=262515320&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-1450183022616121344 | |||
| from the article: "When asked why she went all-in on prioritizing AARO as an element under her purview, particularly now, Hicks told DefenseScoop: “The department takes UAP seriously because UAP are a potential national security threat. They also pose safety risks, and potentially endanger our personnel, our equipment and bases, and the security of our operations. DOD is focusing through AARO to better understand UAP, and improve our capabilities to detect, collect, analyze and eventually resolve UAP to prevent strategic surprise and protect our forces, our operations, and our nation.” ] (]) 17:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Governments get mislead by pseudoscience all the time. See for example ] or the ]. - ] (]) 17:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::well that's such a huge false equivalency. So how do you determine when government is being misled or not? And what makes you think you're more intelligent than DOD scientists like Sean Kirkpatrick? ] (]) 17:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::We determine it by following what the best available ] say (this is how we determine more or less everything on Misplaced Pages). They're pretty clear. Ufology is a field dominated by fringe/pseudoscience. ] (]) 17:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::there's fringe/pseudoscience in every field, such as vaccinology. is Vaccinology considered fringe/pseudoscience? ] (]) 18:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We don't have reliable sources that say so, so no. ] (]) 18:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So in your opinion editors are supposed to not use their brain, ignore facts and delegate their thinking to so called reliable sources? Great idea! ] (]) 18:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yes, that's exactly what Misplaced Pages does, and always has done, because it roots our articles in fact rather than opinion. There is a big difference between fields that have some minor fringe/pseudoscientific theories attached to them, and fields (like UFOlogy) that are effectively completely fringe. And yes, that's what reliable sources say. ] 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|And what makes you think you're more intelligent}} Intelligence does not come into it either. Your whole approach is totally fakakte. Pseudoscience, that is, a thing that pretends to be science, does not stop being pseudoscience just because someone falls for the pretense. That would be like throwing the theories of relativity out of the window just because of one measurement of a speed value above c. Mistakes happen. --] (]) 18:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Intelligence is also irrelevant to this then? lol. that's what I meant about some people here expecting editors to not use their brains. | |||
| ::::Aren't you just appealing to authority and pretending that your approach is science and fact based? ] (]) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I ask everyone to not make this personal and stay on subject. This is all to improve the article. ] (]) 18:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes. Misplaced Pages is based on appeals to authority, by design. That is the essence of our core policies, ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 18:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::appeal to authority is a fallacy according to wikipedia | |||
| :::::::An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument against shame), is a form of fallacy when the opinion of a non-expert on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument or when the authority is used to say that the claim is true, as authorities can be wrong | |||
| :::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/Argument_from_authority ] (]) 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq| is a form of fallacy '''when the opinion of a non-expert'''}} - This is why we rely on experts (that is, reliable sources as laid out in ]). ] (]) 19:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::you don't make any sense man. read what you write first. you don't know what you're talking about. ] (]) 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Right back at you, my man. ] (]) 19:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::if you can't act as a grown up, please go play somewhere else. ] (]) 19:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You can always tell an argument is going well when the personal attacks come out. You're right, though, we've accomplished everything this thread is going to accomplish - you now know that per Misplaced Pages's policies, this article can and will continue to identify Ufology as a pseudoscience. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. ] (]) 19:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| == Creationism vs Creation Science == | == Creationism vs Creation Science == | ||
| Line 100: | Line 56: | ||
| :changing the link seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. and if creation science is what we use for that subject on wikipedia, i think it makes sense for the text to also be changed to Creation Science. ] (]) 04:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC) | :changing the link seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. and if creation science is what we use for that subject on wikipedia, i think it makes sense for the text to also be changed to Creation Science. ] (]) 04:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
| ::We use the term "creation science" for creation science and "creationism" for creationism. Both are pseudoscience (see my contribution above; I moved yours down because it is newer, see ]), so there is no good reason to replace it. --] (]) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC) | ::We use the term "creation science" for creation science and "creationism" for creationism. Both are pseudoscience (see my contribution above; I moved yours down because it is newer, see ]), so there is no good reason to replace it. --] (]) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
| :::According to ] guideline, it is better to use a more accurate language rather than pseudoscientific one. So, ] and ] is better to classified as ] rather than pseudoscience. ] and ] is better to classified as scientific speculative rather than pseudoscience. ] is better classified as traditional ] or ] rather than pseudoscience. ] is better classified as ] rather than pseudoscience. The term "Pseudoscience" is better reserve for only those theory that really look like science but actually are not science or rejected by science, say ], or ] ] (]) 07:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Furthermore, there are critical difference between real pseudoscience vs religious concept like creationism, or traditional superstitions concept like astrology. A Real pseudoscience is difficult to differentiate from real science, say most people who believe ] think they are real science and widely accepted by mainstream scientist. However, most creationism believer and advocator are well-informed and they understand creationism are religious concept not current science concept, but they believe bible is more reliable than science when we study the origin of species. Astrology believer are also well-informed that it is being criticized as superstitions. Better language can highlight which one is the real pseudoscience. ] (]) 08:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The gist is that we (meaning Wikipedians) aren't the ] who establish demarcation. ] (]) 18:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Race == | |||
| About recent edit. The removal based on the edit summary appears incorrect, if ] is merely a ] then then logic goes that it is not scientifically valid. ] (]) 14:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == UFO == | |||
| Hello, there's a topic on this subject already, but I still wonder, why are you people claiming UFO are pseudoscience? Clearly, life doesn't exist only on this planet, and the UFO sightinghs are real... so it may not be a science, but it's not false either. ] (]) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Strictly speaking, the claim that there are flying objects which have been not identified is not pseudoscience. Claiming that aliens visit the Earth ''without very good evidence'' is pseudoscience. ] (]) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Pseudoscience on the Pseudoscience Article == | |||
| The section ] heavily relies on ], presenting it as if the popular science book ] and its proposed terminology and concepts were widely accepted as fact. Special attention should be paid to ] and ]. At the very least, the paragraph should be changed to contextualize the statement as being made in the view of dual process theory, and not simply throw out "System 1, our default operating system which requires little to no effort" as a phrase with no wiki links as if it was an obvious well-established concept. | |||
| == Merge proposal ] == | |||
| {{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was ''No consensus to move, bordering on consensus not to move''; either way, the merge is not on. ] (]) 21:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| I propose merging ] into ]. ] (not to be confused with ]) it is just a definition (]) and the whole article is based entirely on ] speech. A quick mention in ] would be enough. Another option would be to RM cargo cult science into somehting like "Feynmans's 1934 commencement speech". --] (]) 14:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with the proposal to merge. Feynman's thoughts on the topic might merit more than a quick mention here; perhaps a paragraph.--] (]) 22:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Not a bad idea. I don't think the speech is notable as a speech; unlike, say, ], nobody talks about the build-up to it, the process of writing it, etc. ] (]) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::One could also compare to Feynman's own ]. I don't think we can write a similar article from references to this speech. ] (]) 17:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Strong oppose. I link to this article frequently. I like it the way it is. ] says usefulness is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for including an article on Misplaced Pages, so I concede that the mere fact that I find this article useful may be insufficient reason to refrain from putting a thumb in my eye. The reason I look at Misplaced Pages is because I find it useful. I wish there were a way for the number of off-site links to a Misplaced Pages article to count for something. My first question is: who or what is being harmed by the existence of the ] article? That is, what purpose does the proposed merge serve? And "enough" for what? (With reference to the evidence-free assertion "A quick mention in ] would be enough.") Feynman made points in this speech that resonate to the current day and which bear on the ] in social psychology and related fields. Feynman anticipated that crisis decades before it came to light, and he might have prevented it, had more people heeded his advice. The talk was also reprinted verbatim in '']'' (an article that links to ], naturally) and is arguably part of what made that book a best-seller in its niche and keeps the book relevant. Also, the year for the speech was 1974, not 1934. --] (]) 08:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::The question is about notability, since the whole article is based on the speech itself. Before this discussion, there was some preliminary discussion at ]. Btw, ] is another argument to be avoided. | |||
| ::That being said, I am a bit uncomfortable with merging to ]. That article should focus on the big picture, and a brief mention of Feynman's talk there may seem like trivia. The book ] might be better target for merge. It would also allow more of the current content to be preserved. Perhaps have a section of its own there. ] (]) 09:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can understand if this is not the right target but an article just to provide a definition does not seem right ]. Either the article is about the speech or about pseudoscientific practices. As an alternative I would agree with merging it into '']''.--] (]) 11:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why would you merge it into a 1985 book, when it comes from a 1974 speech (which was reprinted in the campus magazine at the time, and other places later)? ] (]) 17:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} because it is adapted and discussed in that book.--] (]) 15:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''': cargo cult science is such a typical Feynman thing that is deserves its own article, as it has now. It definitely needs to be ''mentioned'' and wikilinked in this ] article. - ] (]) 09:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::But then if you oppose could you provide your opinion on what the article should be about, is it about pseudoscientific practices or about Feynman's speech?--] (]) 11:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I.m.o. the current article is just fine as it is. ] (]) 13:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Would you be against rewriting the lead to make it about the Feynman's speech?--] (]) 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I just went through the articles that link to it, only 7 article cite it without relegating it to "See Also" but except for ], all the rest link to cargo cult science by making a reference to Feynman "Feyman in his speech...". The article seems to be just an easter egg to Feynman and not about cargo cult practices.--] (]) 14:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I'd change the paragraph myself and remove any mention of Dual process theory as per the fringe theory policies outlined at ], but the page is protected, likely due to similar content continually being added to it. ] (]) 16:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :(''deprecated vote'') '''Oppose''', Cargo-Cult Science refers to action where researchers do not know what to do and refer to methods where it resembles scientific ones while it is actually an imitation of scientific thought. It does not always happens in fields where it is accepted as pseudoscience, for instance it can happen in physics. ] (]) 18:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Should cargo-cult science remain as it is? Is it truly a term if it does not refer to Feynman?--] (]) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::While this has become a common metaphorical interpretation of the phrase "cargo cult" it is ''not'' what Feynman described in his address. The entire thing is just a colorful description of confirmation bias. ] (]) 02:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Vote Change''', '''Support''' | |||
| ::I got scolded by my professor. She and I had a talk about the definition of term. ] (]) 14:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::What was the conclusion?--] (]) 14:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am convinced that the term "Cargo Cult Science" is a description of Pseudoscience. ] (]) 15:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Cargo cult is a specific type of pseudoscience, and a reasonable place to have an article per ]. It is not (as of this writing) a mere dictionary definition of the term. ] (]) 17:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Would you be against rewriting the lead to make it about the Feynman's speech and not about cargo cult science in general (if that even exists)?--] (]) 15:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{Discussion bottom}} | |||
| == |
== Scientific Consensus == | ||
| I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in ] that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority." | |||
| is this pseudoscience? It cannot be tested repeated, falsified, it uses statistics but averaging averages leads to anything. Is it a sort of primitive sacrifice religion? ] (]) 19:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No. And see ]. ] (]) 22:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :] is pseudoscience. --] (]) 13:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! ] (]) 19:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu== | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Research_Process_and_Methodology_-_SP24_-_Sect_201_-_Thu_(Spring) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-03-04 | end_date = 2024-05-04 }} | |||
| :Thanks for your question. And welcome to Misplaced Pages. You've also asked this question at ] and it is receiving response there. Please don't ask the same question in two different locations. ] (]) 08:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 01:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::Sorry, I am new to this. Should I delete the question, if it is possible? ] (]) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's fine. Personally, I would just leave this conversation here. It shows that the issue is noted and resolved. ] (]) 18:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Danger of Pseudoscience == | |||
| == Unfalsifiable == | |||
| "Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects." This seems like an incomplete statement to make that leads the reader to believe that, conversely, Science does not have dangerous effects and is therefore superior. Countless products of the scientific process have caused dangerous effects on humans, animals, plants, and the environment (csuch as chemicals in our food, side effects of vaccinations, radiation, etc, all of which have evidence of harm to ). Pseudoscience is not necessarily more beneficial or harmful than science, but rather has different processes leading to it. ] (]) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Should be falsifiable I believe. ] (]) 10:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The quoted statement is true. But unless you suggest a specific edit based upon ], your request has to be discarded. | |||
| :No, in this case 'unfalisifiable' is correct. ] (]) 12:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Namely, the evil consequences (real or purported) of science amount to ]. ] (]) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:13, 12 December 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pseudoscience article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| 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, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
 | 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. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pseudoscience. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pseudoscience at the Reference desk. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Please read before starting
First of all, welcome to Misplaced Pages's Pseudoscience article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents the fields it lists as "pseudoscience" in an unsympathetic light or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:
The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). Notes to editors:
|
Creationism vs Creation Science
I understand that the list for pseudoscience's is a quote,
"that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences."
but should the link for creationism be changed to Creation Science rather than Creationism, seeing that that page is dedicated to the specific pseudoscientific claims instead of Creationism, which is more philosophical. Chip K. Daniels (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Creationism has sections on different types. Young Earth creationism, Gap creationism, Day-age creationism, Progressive creationism, Creation science, Neo-creationism, Intelligent design, Geocentrism, Omphalos hypothesis are all pseudoscience.
- changing the link seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. and if creation science is what we use for that subject on wikipedia, i think it makes sense for the text to also be changed to Creation Science. Handpigdad (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- We use the term "creation science" for creation science and "creationism" for creationism. Both are pseudoscience (see my contribution above; I moved yours down because it is newer, see WP:THREAD), so there is no good reason to replace it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- According to Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience guideline, it is better to use a more accurate language rather than pseudoscientific one. So, Creationism and Creation Science is better to classified as religious belief rather than pseudoscience. Ufology and ancient astronaut theory is better to classified as scientific speculative rather than pseudoscience. Astrology is better classified as traditional superstitions or pseudopsychology rather than pseudoscience. Homeopathy is better classified as pseudomedicine rather than pseudoscience. The term "Pseudoscience" is better reserve for only those theory that really look like science but actually are not science or rejected by science, say Ten percent of the brain myth, or Neuro-linguistic programming Cloud29371 (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, there are critical difference between real pseudoscience vs religious concept like creationism, or traditional superstitions concept like astrology. A Real pseudoscience is difficult to differentiate from real science, say most people who believe Ten percent of the brain myth think they are real science and widely accepted by mainstream scientist. However, most creationism believer and advocator are well-informed and they understand creationism are religious concept not current science concept, but they believe bible is more reliable than science when we study the origin of species. Astrology believer are also well-informed that it is being criticized as superstitions. Better language can highlight which one is the real pseudoscience. Cloud29371 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The gist is that we (meaning Wikipedians) aren't the authorities who establish demarcation. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- We use the term "creation science" for creation science and "creationism" for creationism. Both are pseudoscience (see my contribution above; I moved yours down because it is newer, see WP:THREAD), so there is no good reason to replace it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Race
About this recent edit. The removal based on the edit summary appears incorrect, if race (human categorization) is merely a social construct then then logic goes that it is not scientifically valid. Gotitbro (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
UFO
Hello, there's a topic on this subject already, but I still wonder, why are you people claiming UFO are pseudoscience? Clearly, life doesn't exist only on this planet, and the UFO sightinghs are real... so it may not be a science, but it's not false either. 46.97.168.128 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, the claim that there are flying objects which have been not identified is not pseudoscience. Claiming that aliens visit the Earth without very good evidence is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Pseudoscience on the Pseudoscience Article
The section Pseudoscience#Education_and_scientific_literacy heavily relies on Dual process theory, presenting it as if the popular science book Thinking, Fast and Slow and its proposed terminology and concepts were widely accepted as fact. Special attention should be paid to Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Replication_crisis and Dual_process_theory#Issues_with_the_dual-process_account_of_reasoning. At the very least, the paragraph should be changed to contextualize the statement as being made in the view of dual process theory, and not simply throw out "System 1, our default operating system which requires little to no effort" as a phrase with no wiki links as if it was an obvious well-established concept.
I'd change the paragraph myself and remove any mention of Dual process theory as per the fringe theory policies outlined at WP:FRINGE, but the page is protected, likely due to similar content continually being added to it. Sprintente (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Scientific Consensus
I am totally new to Misplaced Pages, sorry if I make mistakes. But I read somewhere in here that, if I understand it correctly, though we must call pseudoscience pseudoscience, we must not make statements of whether it is true or false. Therefore, instead of saying "such and such a theory is false" we should say "the vast majority of scientists reject such a theory" or "this theory is unscientific." Even pseudoscientists agree. For example, on the topic of young earthism, I have a quote from Ken Ham saying "we are the minority."
Just wondering if I got this correct. Thank you! Lenderthrond (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your question. And welcome to Misplaced Pages. You've also asked this question at Talk:Creation science and it is receiving response there. Please don't ask the same question in two different locations. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am new to this. Should I delete the question, if it is possible? Lenderthrond (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine. Personally, I would just leave this conversation here. It shows that the issue is noted and resolved. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am new to this. Should I delete the question, if it is possible? Lenderthrond (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Danger of Pseudoscience
"Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects." This seems like an incomplete statement to make that leads the reader to believe that, conversely, Science does not have dangerous effects and is therefore superior. Countless products of the scientific process have caused dangerous effects on humans, animals, plants, and the environment (csuch as chemicals in our food, side effects of vaccinations, radiation, etc, all of which have evidence of harm to ). Pseudoscience is not necessarily more beneficial or harmful than science, but rather has different processes leading to it. 2600:1014:A020:7D9F:EDB3:C4AE:45A6:1A57 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The quoted statement is true. But unless you suggest a specific edit based upon WP:RS, your request has to be discarded.
- Namely, the evil consequences (real or purported) of science amount to WP:COATRACK. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Top-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Top-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- B-Class paranormal articles
- Top-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class logic articles
- Mid-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of science articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- B-Class science articles
- Top-importance science articles