| Revision as of 07:38, 30 November 2008 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,281 edits →Remember this? -- This is a Solomon's Sword solution to the above morass: reply to Jim← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:37, 4 November 2024 edit undoMcSly (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers32,228 edits Undid revision 1255421065 by 2600:1702:50B4:1C10:515D:BA50:768B:9CA5 (talk) Not a WP:FORUM |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skiptotoc}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{talkpageheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Notice|image=Stop hand nuvola.svg| In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a ] in the ]: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.}} |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{Old AfD multi |
|
|{{anchor|Notice}}'''Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience''' |
|
|
|
| date = January 31 2007 |
|
|
| result = '''Speedy keep''' |
|
|
| page = List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts |
|
|
| date2 = February 1 2007 |
|
|
| result2 = '''Speedy keep''' |
|
|
| page2 = List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (2nd nomination) |
|
|
| date3 = April 14 2009 |
|
|
| result3 = '''Keep''' |
|
|
| page3 = List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (3rd nomination) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=List|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Science|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Creationism |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Scientology|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ps}} |
|
|
{{Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience|collapsed=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
In December of 2006 the ] ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in ]. |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
* ''']:''' ], a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to ]. |
|
|
|
|counter = 19 |
|
* ''']:''' Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
* ''']:''' Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as ], may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
* ''']:''' Theories which have a following, such as ], but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive %(counter)d |
|
* ''']:''' Theories which have a substantial following, such as ], but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. |
|
|
|
|archiveheader={{aan}} |
|
*''']''': Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{physics|class=List|importance=high|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Paranormal|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{Rational Skepticism|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{Template:Homeopathy/Warning}} |
|
|
|
|target=Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive index |
|
{{oldafdfull |
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive <#> |
|
| date = January 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
| result = Keep |
|
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
| page = List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
{{oldafdfull |
|
|
| date = February 1, 2007 |
|
|
| result = Keep |
|
|
| page = List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (2nd nomination) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="infobox" width="270px" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!align="center"|]<br/><small>]</small> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
*]: 2003 — August 2006 |
|
|
*]: August 2006 — December 2006 |
|
|
*]: December 2006 — March 2007 |
|
|
*]: March 2007 — April 2007 |
|
|
*]: April 2007 — July 2007 |
|
|
*]: July 2007 — October 2007 |
|
|
*]: October 2007 — January 2008 |
|
|
*]: January 2008 — April 2008 |
|
|
*]: February 2008 — September 2008 |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Examples == |
|
|
There is a discussion at ] which may interest editors of this article. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Read, agreed, and, I repeat: "]". Said: ] (]) 16:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Misplaced Pages == |
|
|
Shouldn't ] belong to the article too? It's not a scientific work, but it alleges as such, and might be mistaken for science, while it in fact only repeats pseudofacts that are written outside wikipedia? Said: ] (]) 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:As soon as you can find a pair of good ] sources for that... :D --] (]) 18:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::OK, OK, I'll see what I can do. Said: ] (]) 06:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I suppose that Brittanica should also be listed then, I mean it fits your definition above. Just for the record, wikipedia does not claim to be a science, nor does it even claim that to tell the truth; it claims to report what verifiable sources say. Finally, whether, or not, it can be mistaken for science is irrelevant to its status as pseudoscience. ] (]) 04:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Ayurveda?== |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see a source meeting this list's criteria (in the "skeptical groups" section or any other). AMA doesn't call it anything at all close to pseudo, and I think we've already established that Quackwatch is unsuitable for our purposes here: it's been called a partisan and unreliable source (who, in that ruling, were right to criticize Quackwatch but wrong to criticize the editor who had used it in good faith as a V RS, as many had prior to that ruling). The final cite calls unlicensed practitioners "quacks", which is a term that can be fairly applied to unlicensed or otherwise improper practitioners of any medicine, including the modern kind (c.f. chelation therapy). --] (]) 12:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:(Disclaimer: I wrote that entry with those sources, see ]). The AMA source is only sourcing statement-of-fact explanations of what Ayurveda is. The Quackwatch source was added later, and it was repeating some of those statements, so I added it also there. (Mind you, the AMA source cites Carl Sagan lamenting "the rise of pseudoscience and superstition") |
|
|
|
|
|
:If the complaint is that it should be sourced from the ], then see that their newsletter had an article where Ayurveda was given as an example of the "scientification" of pseudoscience, and ] had an article on how alternative medicine misrepresented alternative medicine (aka pseudoscientific claims) (it cites ayurveda as the source of certain beliefs). Would that be enough to verify CSICOP's opinion? |
|
|
|
|
|
:Other sources that could possibly be used: the Skepdic Dictionary lists Ayurveda as an example of "pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims" . ''The Skeptic'', the journal of "]" group, mentions it tangencially , and the same group listed two promoters of Ayurveda as valid reader-submitted nominees for their ] (search "ayurveda" on the and ) The ''Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking'' has an article mentioning Ayurveda while reviewing the pseudoscientific aspects of an article on alternative medicine. ] gives zero scientific legitimacy for Ayurveda, albeit all mentions are either cites of other authors or tangencial mentions. ] also criticized it on his newsletter (ok, Randi is neither a "body" nor a "group" :D ) --] (]) 17:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hi Enric, thanks for gathering all those sources. For purposes of this list, my concern is that while there are quite a few of them, they don't appear to be the right kind. They (i.e., all the sources saying Ayurveda is PS) are all comments by individuals. Regarding CSICOP, while it's probably true that they wouldn't publish something that the editorial board violently disagreed with, the same is true regarding the Massachusetts Medical Society and NEJM. However, we don't assume that papers published in NEJM necessarily reflect the views of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and therefore we don't accept such sources for the first, "sci consensus" tier. Obviously (well, to most people), one author's opinion is not self-evidently the same thing as consensus of a scientific or skeptical group (it's maybe even kind of the opposite). The opinions of even prominent individuals ''do not suffice'' for meeting ]; cf. Carroll's observation that Karl Popper called psychoanalysis pseuodscientific: ] spefifically says that that topic should not be so characterized (and nor should any topic that is neither trivially obvious PS nor "generally considered PS by the sci community"). Putting a topic in ] or on this list, presently titled "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts", in fact amounts to characterizing a topic as PS. That is indisputable. |
|
|
|
|
|
::So, if we can't cite Popper in this particular case (i.e., saying a topic *is* pseudoscience), we can't cite some random dude writing for CSICOP either. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't necessarily use those sources elsewhere on WP: e.g., in a topic's own article, or in a list like this but with an appropriately qualified title, e.g. "List of alleged pseudosciences" or "" or something. Do you see what I'm getting at? Under the ] part of NPOV policy, we can't designate topics as pseudoscience without being able to hit a certain threshold of source, i.e. one showing general scientific agreement. (See also ]; NPOV and VER are completely intertwined.) This issue has been a point of contention for practically the lifetime of this article, despite WP's mission to present facts about opinions, not opinions as facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
::To be honest, I'm also pretty dubious that the "statements from skeptical groups" are really indicative of general scientific agreement. I've been willing to live with including them as a sort of metastable solution, i.e. one that's the least offensive to most editors, but I would have significant problems with loosening the inclusion criteria even more, e.g. by taking articles attributed to single authors as being the voice of the publishing org. I still think the best solution would be to either retitle the article as above, or have two articles and only keep the first section (and maybe the trivial examples, following the curious logic of ]) here. However, experience shows that such proposals always degenerate into polarization and the forwarding of proposals even worse than what we have now. So I think the best thing is to hold the line and keep the inclusion criteria from getting much broader or narrower. regards, ] (]) 09:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Oh, noes, not this again, please. That section is clearly labelled as "considered by skeptic groups" to clearly separate it from the part that has statements from scientific bodies and academies, there was already ]. About why it's silly to dismiss the statements of skeptic groups when talking of pseudoscience, see . (as an example, search for the "Hongcheng Magic Liquid" entry, which only has a book by Sagan as source, as nobody on academia commented on it) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::About ], it looks like a strawman in this case: Popper also called ] a pseudo-science for the same reasons as Psychology, and nobody argues to list marxism here (among other things because 1962's Popper's definition of pseudoscience differs a bit from 2008's CSICOP's definition). Also, you ought to show that Ayurveda has a "substantial following" on mainstream, so you can show that it's only "some critics" that are saying that it's pseudoscientific.... |
|
|
|
|
|
:::About using statements by individuals, you see, as far as I know, CSICOP doesn't have an editorial stance (apart from a very general list), so I can't really point you to a CSICOP-sanctioned statement. We will have to do with pointing at what articles they decide to publish on their official journal and newsletter, or pointing at statements by founding members like Randi or Sagan, unless you can think of a better way to decide it. Also, it's pretty clear to everyone that CSICOP considers pretty much all of alternative medicine to be pseudoscience, and ayurveda is an alternative medicine, so I don't think that this part is open to debate... ''unless'' you want to argue that CSICOP actually considers Ayurveda as serious science :D --] (]) 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::"Oh noes"? I don't think you understood my statement: I said that while I had serious reservations about the skepticial society section being included in this list ''as currently titled'', I'm cool with keeping it as a compromise, but not with expanding the inclusion criteria further to include statements by individuals. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The point with Popper is that statements by individuals don't suffice, per ] (part of NPOV, not quite a strawman). It's pure ], not to mention utter absurdity, to argue that "hey, no one contradicted that guy, so his views must represent sci consensus". That's why of yours is wrong in practically every respect possible (], ], ]). We may have to go to article RfC over your fanciful attempt to redefine ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::There's a very fundamental point you're just not grokking, Enric: ]. Sure, lots of scientifically-minded types think lots of things are bullshit, if they even consider them at all. Guess what? We don't say, "hey, no way CSICOP could possibly think Ayurveda is for real, let's put it on the pseudoscience list". There's this thing called ] that says we have to find a suitable source. And we follow NPOV, which includes ]. Topics like Ayurveda (which, from a worldwide view, certainly have a substantial following) don't necessarily have to be assumed pseudoscientific until proven otherwise, ''or'' assumed scientific until proven otherwise. They don't have to be characterized as one or the other at all, unless we can find the ''proper'' source saying so. If you can't find that source, you don't "make do" with what you have just because you really want to list as many pseudosciences as possible: instead, you work those sources into WP where you can, in ways that are consistent with NPOV. regards, ] (]) 23:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::P.S. The Hongcheng thing clearly belongs on a list like this, but we should tweak the inclusion criteria of that section to include statements by groups (like governmental organizations) that aren't official scientific bodies, but that do, like sci-skeptic groups that are composed of both scientists and laypeople, carry some weight of consensus. --] (]) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I opened an article RFC below, as it seems the best course of action. I agree that statements by bodies like governamental organizations can be added. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::About Ayurveda, I need to check other sources and tweak that entry, can't do right now. --] (]) 19:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I changed the entry to "Maharashi's Ayurveda", as that's the most pseudoscientific part of it. I need to check some stuff, like a JAMA article destroying Maharashi's and Deepak's version of Ayurveda. It seems that Maharisihi's version of Ayurveda is probably different from what traditional ayurveda was, but I'm unsure on whether the Ayurveda being teached at India's medicine schools is based on Marasishi's version or not. --] (]) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::We should be careful about government statements, though: slippery slope, especially from dictatorships, or for that matter highly idealogical governments that have taken anti-science positions for political reasons (cough Bush administration cough). IMO, ] falls under ]'s "obvious pseudoscience", so we don't have to worry about the specific source. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::However, the Ayurveda entry, Maharishi or not, still lacks a source fitting the inclusion criteria of the section it is in, or indeed any section on the list; and more importantly, it lacks a source fitting either of the two categories permitted under ]. That's a simple fact; the only thing to debate is whether to expand the list's inclusion criteria, or whether to include such information someplace else on WP in a way that doesn't violate ] by "characterizing" them as pseudoscience, as inclusion on this list plainly does. Our discussion seems to be hung up on that point, as well as the RfC below, and to some extent the very existence of the skeptic-group section; so perhaps the next thing to do is ask ArbCom for a limited comment clarifying the relevant ruling, ]. I think there's an avenue to do that, someplace... I'll try and find it. Let's discuss the wording before submitting it. (I thought you did a very nice, neutral, accurate job of presenting the issue in the RfC, btw. I just want to make sure we include all the relevant issues so we don't have to pester ArbCom more than once.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::A bit more re Ayurveda: (1) No, Maharishi's style isn't taught in Indian med schools, fwiw. (2) If we have a suitable source for "quantum" stuff, then whatever Chopra said might go under that. --] (]) 09:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Yeah, government statements have to be taken in context. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Chopra is already under quantum mysticism, search for "Quantum Quackery" on the article. For CSICOP's position on Chopra, see . On the meeting of the American Physical Society, a panel was presented by CSICOP where he was talked about while explaining "some of the wackier attempts to misuse physics" . |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::For CSICOP's position on Maharishi's Ayur-veda, it seems that CSICOP centrates mostly on his TM and not on his ayurveda, see . However, it turns out that "Maharishi Ayur-Veda is a registered trademark for a line of TM products and services. Dr Chopra had been the sole stockholder, president, treasurer, and clerk of the company that sells Maharishi Ayur-Veda products". So, I'll be damned if skeptic groups like CSICOP don't consider it as clear pseudoscience, as it's owned by Chopra and thought out by Maharishi, and CSICOP considers the ideas of both of them as pseudoscience, even if there is not any "smoking gun" that I can point at. (And the Indian CSICOP published on "Indian Skeptic" two articles relating Maharishi Ayurveda with TM and Chopra respectively: "From Spiritual Sadhana to Maharishi Ayurveda: Transcendental Meditation Evolves" and "Deepak Chopra and Maharishi Ayurvedie Medicine"). And the list is about stuff that groups like CSICOP consider pseudoscience, while ] is about what wikipedia should consider pseudoscience. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::''Traditional'' Ayurveda would ''not'' be considered pseudoscience, as I initially believed. For example, an article on Annals of Internal Medicine explicitely includes it on a different section (I need to tweak the entry again to reflect that and make what it makes reference to). |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::See also "''The authors misrepresented Maharishi Ayur-Veda to JAMA as Ayurvedic medicine, the ancient, traditional health care system of India, rather than a trademark for a brand of products and services marketed since 1985 by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's complex network of research, educational, and commercial organizations.''" --] (]) 03:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Disagreement in a nutshell (re: title a/o inclusion criteria)=== |
|
|
|
|
|
(de-indent, continuing from above) Enric, I think this comment of yours sums up our disagreement: |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''"And the list is about stuff that groups like CSICOP consider pseudoscience, while WP:PSCI is about what wikipedia should consider pseudoscience."''' |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but this list falls under Misplaced Pages's rules, and its title unambiguously states that the topics '''are''' pseudosciences, not that they are "considered pseudosciences (according to certain groups)". Do you see? |
|
|
|
|
|
To clarify: If this list is about what groups like CSICOP, then it should have a title reflecting that, e.g. "List of topics considered pseudoscientific by skeptical organizations". Instead, it has the title "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts": in other words, its title explicitly says "this is what Misplaced Pages considers pseudoscience". The present inclusion criteria violate NPOV, which is why I intend to seek comment from the ArbCom. |
|
|
|
|
|
For the last two years or so, we have had quite as few editors who believe their own views about pseudoscience, and not WP policy, should dictate what goes on the list. Some (not you) have tended to !vote with little or no explanation of their reasoning, and at least one editor, ScienceApologist (cf. below and recent edit history), has additionally engaged in varying degrees of incivility, ] and edit warring to try and get his way. In a situation like this, there's only one thing we need: '''<s>]!</s>''' more ], specifically a limited ArbCom comment on how the relevant ruling, ], applies to this and perhaps a few related articles. |
|
|
|
|
|
(Footnote re Ayurveda and CSICOP: I still don't see a group statement from CSICOP, but please correct me if I'm wrong.) regards, ] (]) 04:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC: Can we use individual staments to measure scientific consensus on pseudoscience == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{RFCsci | section=RfC: Can we use individual staments to measure scientific consensus on pseudoscience !! reason=When deciding if something is pseudoscience "by scientific consensus", are there cases in which we can use statement by individual scientists, or is it required that we use ''only'' statements from scientific bodies and academies? !! time=19:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
On the ], there is a dispute (see section above) on ]/] interpretation and on what type of sources are sufficient to ] the "scientific consensus" on a topic. This part is undisputed: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|The following have broad consensus concerning their ] status. Indicative of this are assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of ]) or one or more national- or regional-level ]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
And this other part was removed as a violation of ], ] and ] (see section above): |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|'''or, in the case of non-notable concepts that have received no attention from those bodies and academies, and only then, the indicative can be that expert scientists have challenged the legitimacy of these ideas and no other expert scientists have contradicted them.'''}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The question is, should we keep this text or remove it? |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''keep''' there are topics notable enough to get an article, but not notable enough to get a statement by a scientific body declaring them pseudoscientific (and/or unscientific), so it's impossible to meet that level of verifiability. WP:PSCI does not require statements from scientific or governmental bodies, if there is a statement by a notable scientist of the field on a reliable source saying that it's pseudoscience, and no other notable scientists saying that it's not, then that should be enough. There is no requirement anywhere that sources for scientific consensus can't be from individual scientists. ] says, for example, that consensus can be determined from "''independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion''", and it just warns about using reliable sources for claims of "most scientists". The section of the policy has never required anything other than "a reliable source for the consensus" (or a version of that wording), see the creation of the section on December 2006, and versions of January 2007 and April 2008. --] (]) 19:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Comment: If we are talking about "non-notable concepts", how can there be scientific consensus?''' ] is the criterion for whether an article per se should exist, not whether it should be on a list. Non-notable things can be on the list, per ], but it seems to me that those would go under "obvious pseudoscience" rather than "generally considered pseudoscience" by the sci community. (The exception would be for obscure topics that belong to a an established pseudoscientific superset, e.g. perpetual motion machines, and our existing wording does cover that.) <span style="font-size:0.9em">"Generally considered" requires a high threshold in terms of sourcing; "obvious" does not. You say "There is no requirement anywhere that sources for scientific consensus (or "most scientists") can't be from individual scientists" -- is there a V RS, anywhere, saying that they can or should, and when they should? Per ], you need to provide one if you want to put single scientists alongside scientific academies. Otherwise there's a huge ] problem. Or we can just go with "obvious pseudoscience", which stuff like "Hongcheng liquid" obviously is, and put it under the "idiosyncratic" heading or something like that.</span> regards, ] (]) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep''' per Enric's arguments. Statements that this is contrary to the ArbCom findings are incorrect, and it is misleading to say that we are taking one persons view and using it to represent consensus. Protestations that we should wait for the Royal Society or similar to declare something PS grossly misunderstand the nature of these organisations and are unreasonable demands that would damage the Misplaced Pages project. ] <small>]</small> 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Also '''Keep current name'''. There are no NPOV, V, or RS problems with the article content or the name. Renaming has been the subject of other RfCs, and has not gained consensus. ] <small>]</small> 07:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: Also keep in current location. There are no NPOV, V, or RS problems with current placing or usage. Basically ''No Change''. ] <small>]</small> 20:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*::: '''Question''' You seem to have a novel notion of "scientific consensus": you're saying that somehow we can infer it from one scientist's stated opinion. Wow. One dude = consensus. That is amazing -- it's like that scientist must have superpowers or something, to be able to impose the sheer force of his will upon reality, thereby forging a sort of '''singular consensus'''. Hey, consensus means agreement, right? And no good scientist would disagree with ''himself''! The implications are profound... so, um... got a source supporting your position? --] (]) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Isn't it obvious? Since all expert scientists are always ] when talking about science, and there is only one, objective, scientific ], a statement by a single expert scientist is of course enough. The qualifications ("non-notable concept", no contradiction) are ''only'' needed to prevent damage in case someone is not actually a real expert scientist. Sadly, that's ], after all. |
|
|
*::::More seriously, Verbal, there are plenty of brilliant scientists who are openly racist, antisemitic, antiislamic, etc. Would you trust their judgement about a somewhat dubious field that is tangential to their main area of expertise? What if we don't know anything about the expert scientists character? Scientists may stay away from a subject because they think it's not sufficiently promising, or because of funding problems. It's unfair to take this as prima facie evidence it is pseudoscience, and to lower the bar for applying this pejorative label so extremely. --] (]) 23:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::Maybe in this case "scientific consensus" is like a ] or a ]. ;-) --] (]) 07:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::: Where have I said or supported the use of a single persons opinion to describe scientific consensus? ] <small>]</small> 07:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::I think it was ]. --] (]) 08:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::: Note the plural: "scientist'''s'''". Don't link to inappropriate and silly essays please, it's rude. A better link would be one where I say a single persons say so is allowed - which I haven't done. That isn't what the wording asks for. Scientists are multiple people, a scientist is a single person. ] indeed. I am therefore fully endorsing the view that Enric has given. There is another essay that might be relevant for you behaviour, Jim, but I'm too polite to link to it. Indeed, I specifically stated "it is misleading to say that we are taking one persons view and using it to represent consensus". ] <small>]</small> 10:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::::That sounds like a distinction without a difference: using two or three scientists (or five or fifty, if they're just ]) to indicate "consensus" is just as ridiculous as using one. (Yes, such sources have weight; no, they shouldn't be used under the "consensus" header.) If some alt-med article wanted to cite a study involving a few self-selected patients, "skeptical" editors would nuke the source, and rightly so; yet those same editors are saying they want to use the same type of source here?? Seriously, the irony astounds me. |
|
|
*:::::::::So, I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position, but you did say you agreed with Enric's comment above (emphasis mine), which included the statement that "if there is a statement by '''''a''''' notable scientist of the field on a reliable source saying that it's pseudoscience, and no other notable scientists saying that it's not, then that should be enough." And above, you again said you are "fully endorsing" Enric's position, while in the next breath you contradict yourself and reiterate that "it is misleading to say that we are taking one persons view and using it to represent consensus". So maybe you'll excuse my confusion. Where do you and Enric agree, and where do you diverge? Maybe one scientist isn't consensus, but at what point when you add the second or third or tenth or whatever, does consensus emerge? How exactly does that work? What RS says things work that way? This reminds me of a quote on Eldereft's user page: "The plural of anecdote is ]". |
|
|
*:::::::::I'm not meaning to be a ], but I do find it unhelpful when editors just state their opinion and don't explain their reasoning with detail or consistency. If I've misunderstood, let alone misrepresented, your position, my apologies; please assume ''I'm'' dense and explain specifically how WP policy supports your position, and why my interpretation is wrong. And again, please show us a source supporting your position regarding what constitutes "consensus we can believe in", so to speak. --] (]) 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::I agree (more or less) with Jim Butler that this is what the RfC is about. You even seem to be endorsing Enric's clear statement: "There is no requirement anywhere that sources for scientific consensus can't be from individual scientists." The problem is that we can't rely on such statements to be interpreted reasonably. Do you remember the spiteful Nigerian quackery article, the abstract of which was for a long time our ''only'' source for claiming homeopathy to be pseudoscience? If that's not what you have in mind, you should be more careful about what you endorse. |
|
|
*:::::::BTW, you may be wondering why I didn't comment elsewhere in this RfC. That's because while I think the current wording is no good, the question is complex and I am not sure what would be the best solution. (Short of removing everything non-notable from this list, that is. I am generally deletionist wrt lists and categories, and most of this article seems to be an excuse for labelling. I don't see why it's encyclopedic to list non-notable and borderline pseudosciences. But that's really an argument for merging into ].) --] (]) 09:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::: Hi Hans. I agree with you that the word of one person generally shouldn't be used (possible exceptions for people like Feynman, and perhaps the head of the RS, or similar, but those would need discussion). Jim has (AGF) misunderstood my comments and the original wording, and the RS policy, where it has always been plural; "from individual scientists" not "from a scientist". I think this distinction is important, but seems to have confused a few people. ] <small>]</small> 10:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::::The text we are discussing (the one in bold above) has "expert scientists" in a context that is already plural ("in the case of non-notable concept'''s'''"). Given the context (for non-notable pseudoscience it's hard enough to find even one expert; a history of label pushing related to pseudoscience; no details about the number of experts required) I don't think it's correct to read it the way you seem to be doing, and even if it was correct, many would misread it. |
|
|
*::::::::Moreover, I can't find your statement about individual scientists in ]. What I found instead under ]: "The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source." After reading the sentence in context I think it says even if there is unanimous agreement among all physics textbooks and all physicists (who talk about the topic) that things tend to fall down, saying there is a scientific consensus on the question still requires a RS that says there is such a consensus. (In this case I would say ], but not in a contentious matter.) --] (]) 11:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep''' There are some things that are clearly pseudoscience that the academies have not yet issued statements on. It would be disingenuous to not label these as pseudoscience just because the academies have better things to do. -] (]) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Comment''' We can do that under a different section than the "scientific consensus" one. ] mentions two categories: "generally considered PS by the sci community" and "obvious pseudoscience". Isn't it more encyclopedic to be a bit more selective with the former? --] (]) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|reason=(archived comments by Jim Butler that apply to a different debate)}} |
|
|
*'''Note after archiving this longish comment''': the comments below apply to a different debate, i.e. whether or not single sources published by groups like CSICOP can be used for non-notable topics, and whether single sources by ''anyone'' can be used for notable topics. My argument below is that they can, but not when the list's title unmbiguously characterizes all topics on the list as pseudoscience. See ]. If we want a more inclusive list with relaxed inclusion criteria, we need a suitably NPOV title like "List of topics considered pseudoscientific". See what ] redirects to; the logic is the same. --] (]) 07:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep, with a title change. Or remove, without one.''' - I'm in favor of having a robust list, but not at the expense of NPOV and VER. My logic flows from WP's very basic mission to present facts about opinions, not opinions as facts. We should not say topics "are" pseudoscience (which is what inclusion in an article called "List of pseudosciences..." ''undisputably'' does) without strictly meeting ]'s "generally considered PS by the sci community" criteria. (Yes, single sources may make statements which if uncontradicted imply consensus, but see ]. Yes, many minor topics don't attract commentary from group sources, but see ].) |
|
|
:The reason for an absence of commentary from gold-standard sources is sometimes that the demarcation is not always clear, e.g. in medicine. Listen to what one of the most gold-standard sources in the English Language, the ], says: "Boundaries within ] and between the CAM domain and the domain of the dominant system are not always sharp or fixed."] We really need to wake up and acknowledge the fact that just as there are obvious pseudosciences like perpetual motion machines, there are real cases like acupuncture, or psychoanalysis, where the ] applies. In such cases, WP needs to be smart and nuanced rather than cavalier. Scientists and doctors are well aware of mixed-bag topics like chiropractic, and if they were as obviously pseudoscientific as intelligent design or something, a big science academy would have said so. Only recently did such a group get around to making about homeopathy. The emergence of consensus, especially the verifiable kind (which is the main kind WP cares about!), takes time. We should not rush things, but rather report them as they verifiably stand. Grey areas exist, NPOV and VER matter, and we should always qualify and attribute opinions on any topic where sources fail to meet the highest standards to which ] rightly points. |
|
|
:However, we can fix all this with a simple title change. We can say "X topic is called pseudoscience by Y source" and not have to worry about ] as long as the list title is tweaked to allow for that qualification: e.g., "List of topics described as pseudoscientific". That would also allow citations of individual authors, e.g. writing for CSICOP, cf. the Ayurveda debate above. As ] says, "The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." That means such things CAN be cited on WP but NOT in ways that ''characterize'' them as pseudoscience (which includes this list, as titled). |
|
|
:For those who worry that such a change would dilute the impact of the list, don't worry: the first section, with rock-solid sources and wikilinks to the relevant topics, will remain just as it is. No one could possibly read that section and not understand that all those topics are considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community, and that the sci community has spoken clearly and en masse to that effect. Likewise, other sections can remain, and new ones can be added, each stating exactly what type of source is used. How can that not result in a better list? |
|
|
:(whew) If that came off as long-winded apologetics for pseudoscience and muddy thinking, sorry, I'd already parted ways with your thinking awhile back and we'll have to agree to disagree, and follow ] as needed. If this sounds reasonable, maybe we should revisit the idea of a title change? regards, ] (]) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Keep'''. Well formulated and necessary given the amount of pseudoscience cropping up on this wiki. ] ] 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep, but not in this section''' <span style="font-size:0.9em">''(and that's a compromise: personally I'd rather see this wording, and all the stuff outside of rigorously-sourced sci consensus statements, split into another article. Or, keep everything in this article and retitle it, per ].)''</span> |
|
|
:''(])'' On reflection, the particular sentence debated in this RfC sounds OK to include in the list as titled, but why don't we just stick it under the ] section instead of the "scientific consensus" section? I agree with all the other editors who have commented so far that we should include the info on WP, but we shouldn't overreach: it cheapens scientific consensus to throw the term around casually and ]-ishly assume it exists. We can just go with ]'s "obvious pseudoscience" for topics that are obscure and flaky enough for just one major dude to have commented on, no? As I mentioned above, how can "scientific consensus" exist over obscure things, except for those that belong to a an established pseudoscientific superset, e.g. yet another perpetual motion machine? |
|
|
:<span style="font-size:0.9em">However, if someone can produce an RS supporting the position that uncontradicted statements by notable scientists really can indicate a scientific consensus position on fringe topics, then sure, let's do it. (My objections, expressed in the section above, to expanding the inclusion criteria without changing the list's title apply to including sources like the one disputed for Ayurveda, i.e. individual, non-notable scientists writing for CSICOP, or any ''single'' source commenting on a notable topic, like chiropractic, etc.)</span> regards, ] (]) 19:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Drop, or any alternative solution that solves the problem I will describe'''. It took some time for me to get an opinion about this, but by now I feel very strongly that we have no business diluting ]: |
|
|
::The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. |
|
|
:Consensus claims based on original research is exactly what we are discussing here; and in the context of a pejorative label, too. We are discussing the following argument, which is a clear case of ]: "A, B, C said X is the case. A, B, C are experts on the subject. No other experts contradicted them. Therefore A, B, C is scientific consensus." --] (]) 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Comment''' Completely agree. I too am dubious about many aspects of this list, and while I'm open to compromises (cf. below), my own views are very close to yours. Couldn't have said it better. regards, ] (]) 02:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
<small>'''Note:''' This discussion has been listed on the ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 17:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Drop''': if these topics ''are'' truly non-notable then they should not be included in this article. If, on the other hand, they are notable then there should be demonstrable scientific consensus to deserve inclusion here. Individuals' opinions may well deserve mention on the topic's own page, but are not justification for inclusion here. ] (]) 02:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Obviously these topics are notable in the sense of Misplaced Pages, since they all have articles. Notability in the field of science that is qualified to talk about them is an entirely different matter, though. I think something like the section "idiosyncratic ideas" really is in order here, but its introduction should explain (in guarded language!) the connection to the article's title. --] (]) 08:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I mean notable as examples of pseudoscience. If they are notable in this respect, sources (generally more than a single individual scientist) will have mentioned this connection. If they are not, they don't belong here (this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every topic in connection with which someone has used the term pseudoscience, or an equivalent!) ] (]) 03:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I completely agree with Hans Adler's and Hgilbert's comments in this thread. --] (]) 09:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Keep''' but word it less prescriptively. There will obviously be borderline situations, and it will depend on the degree of authority. ''']''' (]) 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hi DGG - can you explain why you mean by "word it less prescriptively"? Also, would you be open to moving the wording to a different section, cf. below? thanks, ] (]) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment:''' I've suggested just above, under the preceding section, that if we can't resolve this RfC we may want to go to ArbCom. I think there's a particular, limited avenue for asking them to clarify a particular ruling, which in this case is ]. I'll try and find out how to do that; anyone else know? regards, ] (]) 09:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Remove''' This list is of poor quality and would be best deleted. But while it exists, it should be held to a high standard and so the statement of a single person is not enough to establish such a POV. For one thing, who are "expert" in such cases? For example, consider ]. It doesn't seem to me that this is a science of any sort - it seems to be a practical art inspired by religious ideas. But who would be the experts on such a categorisation - philologists; philosophers; historians of science; theologians; etc? We need a broad consensus of such, not a narrow one, in order to make such a finding. ] (]) 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Remove''' Per Colonel Warden. In general, a list of what some skeptic groups or persons have labeled "Pseudoscience" seems trivial. Further, as ] are subject to NPOV, the compilation of a list based solely on unconfirmed opinions seems a bit POV-forkish. We should keep the criteria high and - as per ] - only include topics which are generally considered pseudoscience or an obvious pseudoscience. And in that case why have this when we already have Category:Pseudoscience? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Proposed alternative, re RfC above: keep the wording, different section== |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Proposal''': include the disputed wording (italicized below) under the section ], in the spirit of ]'s "obvious pseudoscience": |
|
|
|
|
|
* The following concepts have only a very small number of proponents, yet have become notable; or have enjoyed popularity as ] or otherwise received attention but have become discredited. ''An indication of this can be that one or more expert scientists have challenged the legitimacy of these ideas and no other expert scientists have contradicted them.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I think it makes sense to put the wording here, because the topics it covers should indeed be on the list, but by definition there will be no scientific consensus for non-notable topics. (The exception would be for topics that are just obvious variations on a theme in the first section, e.g. various kind of "creation science" which we include without an academy-level statement for each one: pseudoscience is indeed a many-headed hydra.) Thoughts? -] (]) 08:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: Disagree per arguments in RfC above. ] <small>]</small> 08:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::You mean the part "There are no NPOV, V, or RS problems with current placing or usage"? Gee, thanks for clarifying. --] (]) 08:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Snark aside, it would be helpful if you could explain the reasoning behind your opinions. It's very hard to pursue compromise without knowing why other editors agree or disagree. regards, ] (]) 02:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comment'''. Basically, this proposal has the opposite effect of the previous one, so it's unlikely to work as a compromise. The relaxed consensus definition (which I reject) might have allowed us to move some topics from "Idiosyncratic ideas" to "Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus"; this proposal has the effect that a topic that is not even discussed by a single expert must be dropped from "Idiosyncratic ideas". I think that would be a good thing, since not being discussed at all is a good indication for not being noteworthy in ''this'' article. But I don't really care. --] (]) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hans - Regarding the "Idiosyncratic" section, I didn't mean to suggest that we start excluding stuff like "Time Cube" that no scientific RS has deigned to comment upon. I just meant we might add some more stuff to that section. But anyway, I like Enric's idea below to have these things in their own section. And I absolutely, 100% agree that we should not relax the definition for scientific consensus; if we do that, we might as well quit pretending WP is an encyclopedia at all. (Ironically, I bet a large plurality of scientists and academics, if not a majority, already don't take WP very seriously. Wonder why.) --] (]) 09:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hum, I don't like the idea of mixing it with "idiosyncratic ideas", but only because it seems to be a different thing. Maybe, as a compromise, we can make a separate section for "topics called pseudoscience by individual scientists (and not covered by neither scientific bodies nor skeptic groups)" or something --] (]) 22:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sounds good, as long as we stick to relatively "obvious pseudosciences" per ] and don't start including "questionable sciences", as I mentioned above under the RfC. (That simply means we wouldn't use Popper for psychoanalysis, or Andrew Weil for chiropractic, etc.: we'll have alter the wording somehow to be explicit about ]'s distinction from the start, or else we may see "criterion drift" as some editors start adding anything that a single scientist has commented on, despite ].) Otherwise, sure: since my other concern is that we not put it under the "sci consenus" section (or any section implying consensus by a group), it would be fine to put it in its own section. thanks, ] (]) 08:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I need to go down the list and pick a few examples, so we can discuss them --] (]) 04:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Remember this? -- This is a Solomon's Sword solution to the above morass == |
|
|
|
|
|
]? I do. The consensus is that a two-tiered system demarcating difference between "skeptical" organizations and "scientific societies" is not supported by reliable sources and is essentially an original synthesis attempt to demarcate between things that Wikiepdia cannot demarcate. We therefore combine the two sections as per the consensus seen in that section. I'm surprised that this wasn't done earlier. ] (]) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ahem. I haven't got the time to look at your edits in detail or to follow the link, because my little daughter is bothering me. Will try to do all that later. But did you consider the fact that there is also an obvious demarcation problem between "sceptical" and "pseudosceptical" organizations? --] (]) 17:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Show me a reliable source which reliably demarcates anything being "pseudoskeptical". ] (]) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Show me a reliable source which reliably lumps together sceptical organisations and scientific societies. Aren't they typically run by scientific laypeople? Doesn't their membership consist mostly of people who are ''at most'' school teachers of scientific subjects? Do they all occasionally accept that they got something wrong, or do some of them suffer from the same subjective infallibility that pseudoscientists do? --] (]) 18:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If you would like to impeach any source in the article, you may do so by asking ] if it is a good source for the article. Otherwise, I think we're done playing games here. Specific issues with the article only, please. General critiques such as the one you are attempting do not help. ] (]) 18:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::OK, now I had the time to at least look at the article, and I can certainly return the compliment about "playing games". Your version gives statements by " skeptical groups" the authority (by association) of statements by scientific societies. That's completely unacceptable, since they are not even playing in the same league. Scientific societies become notable by having a lot of members who are scientists. Sceptical organisations become notable by doing good media work, so their notability is only indirectly correlated with their reliability. As a result of your edits we had the following structure: |
|
|
:::::''List of sciences and pseudoscientific concepts'' (article title) |
|
|
::::::''Topics which notable scientific'' or skeptical ''groups consider to be pseudoscientific'' (section title) |
|
|
:::::::''Hypnosis'' is actually not pseudoscientific itself, but it's often used in pseudoscientific contexts. |
|
|
:::::To make this clear: If you don't want a separate section about pseudosciences by scientific consensus, that's fine with me. Just put everything into the section for topics criticised by sceptical organisations. (I would be very surprised if the first category wasn't a proper subset of the second.) What is completely acceptable is giving fake authority to the entire second category by merging parts of the description of the first category into it. If you don't understand what I am talking about, think about the following: |
|
|
:::::''List of things that are flat'' |
|
|
::::::''List of things that scientists'' or notable works of literature ''consider to be flat'' |
|
|
:::::::''Earth'' is where we all live. Nowadays there is almost universal agreement that it is not flat, but many literary works, including… |
|
|
:::::Last time there was no consensus for your proposal, and your representing it as a compromise doesn't make a consensus, either. For some reason I don't think you would see removing all the misleading references to scientific bodies or scientific consensus as a compromise, so I have simply reverted. If I was wrong, please say so. --] (]) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There is consensus for the proposal, no one has put forth any suggestions for what distinguishes a "skeptical" organization from a "scientific" organization and Misplaced Pages cannot be in the business of demarcating between the two. If you have a source which offers a demarcation between the two, show it. Otherwise, please stop being obstructionist. ] (]) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::''(comment made subsequent to discussion below, and indented accordingly)'' I'd have in mind a different Solomonic solution: split the article into one with the current list and only the "consensus" section, and another with a list title such as "List of topics called pseudoscientific by skeptical groups". As things stand, you have not met ]: Hans is correct that you need to show that CSICOP has equal footing scientifically with the American Academies of Science. In terms of ], which is established NPOV policy: apart from "obvious pseudoscience" like flat-earthism, '''you need to show that statements by "skeptical groups" suffice to show that topics are "general considered pseudoscience" by the sci community'''. The burden is on you to show that you are meeting NPOV, not on others to show that you are not. No reasonable Wikipedian would agree that you can put whatever you want in the article unless others can find a source saying, e.g., "statements by scientific academies, "skeptical groups", ] and ] are ''not'' all the same". The ] is on you, SA, not those who disagree with the fanciful assertions of equivalence you wish to incorporate. |
|
|
:::Also, please do not misrepresent the obvious fact that there has never been consensus for your proposal: |
|
|
::::(1) it was ] (largely by yourself), but that discussion hardly generated consensus (something like 4 in favor, 2 opposed). A glance at the edit history shows that your proposed merge was either never done or didn't last long, and the article has retained its for months.. until your now: which 4 editors have reverted and only one besides you has supported. Hardly the "consensus" you claim, and as a longtime Wikipedian you must be aware that this is so. Your false assertion of editorial consensus represents very poor Wikiquette, whether due to carelessness or disingenuousness. |
|
|
::::(2) It is obvious from the RfC above that as of this writing, editors are evenly split on the closely related issue of whether to effectively "dilute" the consensus section by including statements from individual scientists in it. |
|
|
:::SA, since you have, in less than 24 hours, managed to violate several standards of ], I would urge you to change course, and would strongly support an RfC/U regarding your conduct if you choose to continue as you have. --] (]) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I read through the proposal and saw no consensus for it. This is a major and controversial edit which you are suggesting. Please let's open it up for community discussion before reverting again. Thanks. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::'''ALREADY HAPPENED AND NO ONE DISAGREED'''. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:24, 26 November 2008</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
::::<span style="font-size:0.9em">'''''...and said comment by ScienceApologist happens to be ]. Please do not make false assertions regarding consensus.''''' --] (]) 05:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
: Further, if we are to keep the "Skeptics" section (which I am against), I think it is important to demarcate what is generally considered "pseudoscience" by the scientific community and what is only labeled as such by a skeptical organization or person. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<big>There are no reliable sources that distinguish between a "skeptical organization" and a "scientific organization".</big> |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<small>Personal attack by ScienceApologist removed. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
I have reverted because, as usua,. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::There is clearly a difference between scientific organizations and skeptical organizations, and no one would confute the two. It is appropriate to distinguish between two very distinct types of entities. It is not appropriate to attack other editors, even (especially?) in edit summaries; ] arguments (read, ]) are unacceptable here. Let's look at the current version; where are the problems? The advantages? ] (]) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
According to ]: ''Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." '' We may contain information to that effect. ] 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:QG, you are not helping by introducing additional complexity. So far it was only an edit war about the structure of the list. Now you have introduced another dimension. In any case I have asked for page protection at ]. It's a pity that SA's edit behaviour (edit-warring instead of discussion) will probably be rewarded by protection on essentially his version, so that he can safely continue to not engage in reasonable dialogue. --] (]) 00:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't know what you want to say with your quotation. It clearly says that, e.g., in the article ] we may mention that critics say it is a pseudoscience. (FWIW, I agree with them, more or less.) It says nothing about whether we are allowed to put psychoanalysis in a "list of pseudosciences", although it seems clear that we break the spirit of the ruling if we do it without some kind of qualification. These questions have nothing to do with the original dispute here. Did you get confused because ScienceApologist moved things around? --] (]) 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The section title is ''Topics which notable scientific or skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific''. This is attributed per ]. ] 00:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Your explanation makes no sense to me. My point is that it is improper to have a list of topics criticised by sceptical organisations and to give the impression that they are criticised by scientific organisations. ScienceApologist's point is apparently that he proposed his changes 3 months ago and the people who disagreed with him at the time didn't use bold face – and that whoever disagrees with him is a POV pusher. What's your point? --] (]) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(de-indent) QG and Hans, it's simple: ] was about when to categorize, or otherwise characterize, topics as pseudoscientific. Categorizing or characterizing a topic as pseudoscience on WP includes (cf. ], ] and other guidelines): |
|
|
|
|
|
*Including a topic in ] or any of its subcategories |
|
|
*Including a topic on a list with an unambigious, unqualified title such as this one (as opposed to a qualified title mentioning attribution, cf. what the POV-isnly titled ] now redirects to) |
|
|
*Putting a "pseudoscience" infobox (or similar template) on an article |
|
|
*Stating in the topic's article, without attribution, that the topic is pseudoscientific. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm 95% sure that I am correctly interpreting ArbCom's intention in ]; that ruling was made in response to questions ] that I and other editors asked. Anyway, we can ask ArbCom to clarify that ruling vis-a-vis this article, and that should finally resolve our problems. regards, ] (]) 05:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Oppose''' We don't need a reliable source to say that one source is a scientific group and another is not. It's fairly clear that some of these sources are scientists, and some are nonscientific skeptical groups. I don't see why the two groups should be conflated. It seems like an attempt to avoid NPOV and confuse readers to some degree. ] | (] - ]) 09:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:* While there is clearly a difference based on the URLs used, don't give the false impression that scientific skeptical groups are "nonscientific". The members are often top scientists and/or very much supporters of use of the scientific method, in contrast to alternative medicine's typical reliance on anecdotes and fringe OR by individual mavericks. They are totally allied with mainstream science, IOW on the same side. If not, we wouldn't be having this discussion. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 15:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Deleted Section on EMDR as pseudoscience. == |
|
::* These groups may be allied but no way in heck does that mean they're as authoritative, or that they're V RS's for sci consensus. It may ] they're about as reliable, but they're just not operating at the same level at all in terms of group membership (self-selected based on enthusiasm rather than invited by peers based on accomplishment, decision-making, etc. I mean, as scientists, we do grok these distinctions... right? --] (]) 10:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I deleted the section on Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy. The section was written with very old sources. EMDR now has good empirical support and an impressive research base from the APA and Cleveland Clinic and is a notable treatment for PTSD. |
|
:::* I understand what you are saying, but I wasn't referring to that in any manner. I was only trying to point out how misleading it was to use the word "nonscientific" to refer to people who are often scientists themselves, and who are at least allied with science, in contrast to those who often aren't. That's all I was trying to say. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 07:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/treatments/eye-movement-reprocessing |
|
: '''Support one list''' per my cogent and persuasive (IMHO) comments the last few times this came up. Separating this list like this does a disservice to our readers (remember them?) by decreasing the article's accessibility, and ''de facto'' the distinction made speaks more to notability of the theory than probability that any of these theories will ever be part of scientific discourse. Attribution is good, but artificial distinctions serve no ] purpose. - ] <small>(])</small> 07:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hi Eldereft -- If one list, can't we change the title, based on my earlier comments? And while I agree artificial distinctions are bad, there is a real and important distinction consensus statements on climate change alongside grouchy CSICOP rants about laundry balls, isn't there? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I understand your arguments, but I see a ] caveat (i.e., we want to know, and not to think, what scientific consensus is). There is also a reliability problem with skeptical groups, who are generally ] based on enthusiasm for the group's goals. Hence the undue weight and ] problems I mentioned (see un-indent, upthread): the title is unqualified and (if ] means anything) restricts the contents to "obvious" and "generally considered" pseudoscience. At the same time, the inclusion criteria drift ever looser. Thus, if we follow Enric's approach, we'll be including less-reliable sources (like some random dude writing for CSICOP, dissing Ayurveda) who push the label too hard and venture into "questionable sciences" a/o "alternative theoretical formulations". See also , itself from csicop.org. |
|
|
|
: this since its better to bring this up in talk first. This entry literally has a section called "Pseudoscience", so it meets the criteria for this list. ] (]) 19:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Falsifiability in lead == |
|
::If we're going to do populate the list liberally, surely we should fix the title to something like "List of topics regarded as pseudosciences by various commentators" or something like that? In which case, I'd still argue for sequestration based on source, if we're gonna use sources that range from Academies of Science to compilations of Michael Shermer articles, which AFAIK represent a "consensus" of the editorial board that Shermer himself appointed. As Fyslee says, sure these guys are allies of science, but they're self-selected and operate outside the normally-accepted means of peer review, and thus are not nearly as V RS as the sci academies whose statements populate ] and the like. Note also the "tiering" of sources on that list: would you eliminate that, too, as you propose doing here? Don't you think it's a greater disservice to the public to mislead them about scientific consensus, as opposed to breaking out some extra sections? regards, --] (]) 10:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think that title is fine, but it may give in to some problems with ]. Michael Shermer is an excellent source for this particular topic (he is an expert) as are the other sources we list. The fact that they're "self-selected" seems a bit ridiculous. Sure, they are "self-selected", but it doesn't take a ridiculous amount of incredulity in order to distinguish science from pseudoscience. The television show ] would also suffice. We are not making claims of "scientific opinion" nor one on "scientific consensus" here (though they are related ideas), we instead are simply documenting claims of demarcation. All we need are sources that are acknowledged to have been relatively well-regarded for this task. Randi, Shermer, etc. are all well-regarded for this task by virtue of both their self-appointed natures and the high-regard with which they are viewed by scientists and other reliable sources. ] (]) 21:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We need a statement about this in the lead. Let's try to formulate something. Here are a few thoughts to work with (and correct if necessary): |
|
::::Sure we're making claims of "scientific opinion" here on WP. As soon as we use "category:pseudoscience" or "List of pseudosciences..." or a pseudoscience infobox, or otherwise characterize a topic as pseudoscience, we've invoked ] and have to abide by it. That's the deal, till NPOV changes. And you say ] doesn't matter? That's pretty amusing. As for TV shows, great idea! How about Penn & Teller's ], which identifies pseudoscience all the time.... e.g., ironically, when it took a pseudoscientific stance . Your arguments here are, sadly, no credit to science. --] (]) 02:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Again, I believe that we have to try to "get it right" and not mislead the reader. One skeptic's opinion doesn't represent any scientific consensus and we should be sure not to represent it as such. There is a large distinction (]) between an Academy of Science declaring a topic to be a pseudoscience and a skeptic society making such a declaration. I am not saying that all skeptic societies are unreliable. I am not saying this in any way, shape or form. I am saying that AoS are lightyears more reliable in terms of ]. As such, if we are to maintain a list of items which have only been deemed "pseudoscientific" by a skeptic or a skeptic society, then we damn well should keep it separate from the "scientific consensus" list (either by sub-section in the same article or by a separate article). I personally don't think the that a list of things which skeptics feel are pseudoscientific is really all that notable or enyclopedic. I mean, do we have an article such as ]? I doubt it. Why? Because it seems kind of lame and POV-fork-ish. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: If a claim is not ], it is not a pseudoscientific claim. All scientific claims are falsifiable, and if a belief makes no falsifiable claims, in other words no claim to be scientific, it is not pseudoscientific, but may be classed as a religious belief. The moment a religion makes falsifiable claims, those claims are subject to examination and, if they are falsified, they are then classed as pseudoscientific claims, and many pseudoscientific claims have been falsified. |
|
:::::ScienceApologist, your recent stunt is completely unacceptable. You are simply ignoring my concerns, based on your personal fringe ideology that a ''Mythbusters'' show carries the same weight as an official statement by the American Physical Society? And then, per ], you revert twice in a row against a clear consensus that your change must be discussed first, and in the face of no apparent chance of an actual consensus for them? I am sure there must be a saying about people getting increasingly similar to their enemies. Perhaps someone can remind me what it is. --] (]) 02:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Jim Butler has mentioned an ], but perhaps this poor behavior should simply be presented as evidence at the ongoing ]? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That looks good, if ArbCom is really looking into the conduct of all parties. In just a few visits to this page, {{User13|ScienceApologist}} has provided more than enough evidence to give pause to anyone who cares about ] and ], e.g.: |
|
|
:::::::* Making and acting on false statements that consensus exists (see above, will get diffs later); |
|
|
:::::::* Twice violating ] in edit summaries:, to Levine2112; , to myself; |
|
|
:::::::* Reverting with an ES falsely saying I didn't reply on talk page (. In fact, between the two reverts above (the NPA-violating ones), I made 10 substantive posts to this talk page, each addressing SA's concerns or closely related ones. SA, by contrast, made that glossed or ignored most of my comments, and then claimed I wasn't engaging. Per Hans, this is very much ], and certainly disruptive. |
|
|
:::::::These are all disruptive behaviors that are careless at best and disingenuous at worst, and imo (in light of his past behavior) deserve community review and sanction. --] (]) 04:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) (''''']''''') 16:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Proposed request for clarification with ArbCom== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The lead word "]" takes the reader to the definition. Do we need to duplicate part of another article here? ] (]) 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
Following up on comments I've made above (e.g.; ]): Here is the apparent venue for asking for ArbCom's clarification on how a prior ruling (in this case, ]) would affect present disputes regarding this list: |
|
|
|
:: You have a point. This isn't the main article. I just thought a mention would be appropriate here, but maybe not. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 16:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
* ]. |
|
|
I will propose wording here and we can file it after others have had input. I ask that we all show good faith and a collaborative spirit and refrain from filing the request until we've all commented and there is agreement that we are framing the dispute(s) in a neutral manner. Thanks, ] (]) 05:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: I doubt you'll get a straight answer from ArbCom on this. It's a question about ranking sources, and Kirill recently declined (in the Cold Fusion case) to even make a general statement about ranking scientific sources: ]. ] ] 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for the input. Sources are important, but secondary to ] and highly circumscribed by same. ] is how I'd planned to frame the issue: in terms of ], asking that ArbCom clarify that it not just apply to ], but to any unambiguous characterization of a topic as pseudoscience (e.g., this list as presently titled; use of a pseudoscience infobox etc.). (] does invoke sources when it mentions "Generally considered pseudoscience by the sci community", and ArbCom shouldn't need to expend too much brainpower in agreeing or disagreeing with the arguments editors have presented here, I think.) Que será... --] (]) 21:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Offensive ] nonsense included in your formulation, Jim. Arbcom does not rule on content and they will not rule on content in this case either. You can file a query at ] to confirm this. The pseudoscience ruling applied solely to a general principle of categorization. That's it. Arbcom does not rule on content. ] (]) 06:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== History == |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The impact of pseudoscientific ideas ] (]) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
I have started an RfC: ]. Please comment on this important subject. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: Yes, that's a legitimate topic. Have you checked the ] article? That's where we cover that topic. This is just a list article. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 17:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I'm replying with this to everywhere Fyslee has put this request, though you are of course welcome to comment on what he's created. I need to write where he has put this because the title of this thing, started without Fyslee bothering to talk to me about it at all on my talk page, is inaccurate because as I would have told him if he asked, all I'm doing is moving things into the subcategories, (where they should be) which are still in the category. The reason I'm doing this is because at the top of the page it says (the bolding is the page's, not mine, and it's also in a red box '''This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories.''' So I did what it said. Controversial and shocking "mass deletion" eh?:):):):):) ] ] 14:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Popper's views on historical materialism == |
|
== New list == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if the mention of Popper's views having been criticized is unwarranted. Almost all of these things being classified as pseudoscience are criticized by their proponents, and it'd be one thing if scientific publications were publishing these complaints, but it's entirely philosophy outlets or an "in-universe" so to speak communist journal. I'm going to remove them because as detailed in ] those aren't really the sources Misplaced Pages should be using on if something is considered pseudoscientific or not. ] (]) 03:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
Announcing a new list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 == |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|List of topics characterized as pseudoscience|answered=yes}} |
|
-- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Lunar effect on humans anb living beings have several scientific studies to avail, it makes no sense to mark it as pseudoscience would be like tampering science itself ] (]) 16:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> Happy Editing--''']]''' 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think what the editor is trying to say is that there is ''some'' evidence that ''some'' human behavior is affected by the lunar cycle e.g. increased epileptic episodes, motorcycle accidents, and sleep disorders. (per the ] article.) |
|
|
::Of course that doesn't mean there's not a whole bunch of pseudoscience attached to the topic so simply removing the entry would seem to be an overreaction. Perhaps we could be more circumspect in our synopsis, something similar to the wording at the ]: |
|
|
:::The phase of the Moon does not influence fertility, cause a fluctuation in crime, or affect the stock market. There is no correlation between the ] and human biology or behavior. However, the increased amount of illumination during the full moon may account for increased epileptic episodes, motorcycle accidents, or sleep disorders. |
|
|
::] (]) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
I deleted the section on Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy. The section was written with very old sources. EMDR now has good empirical support and an impressive research base from the APA and Cleveland Clinic and is a notable treatment for PTSD.
We need a statement about this in the lead. Let's try to formulate something. Here are a few thoughts to work with (and correct if necessary):
I wonder if the mention of Popper's views having been criticized is unwarranted. Almost all of these things being classified as pseudoscience are criticized by their proponents, and it'd be one thing if scientific publications were publishing these complaints, but it's entirely philosophy outlets or an "in-universe" so to speak communist journal. I'm going to remove them because as detailed in WP:FRINGE those aren't really the sources Misplaced Pages should be using on if something is considered pseudoscientific or not. XeCyranium (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why has my edit been reverted? What did I do wrong?
A1: Check the edit history for the article. Hopefully, the editor who reverted you left a useful edit summary explaining why they feel the previous version of the article to be better; occasionally, links to various policies and guidelines are included. The most common reasons for reversion are that the article should not contain editorial bias and every statement should be cited to sources reliable to the topic at hand. If you disagree with the reasoning provided or otherwise wish a fuller discussion, please check the archives of this discussion page for a similar proposal or open a new section below.
Q2: One entry to this list is better described as an emerging or untested area of research, not pseudoscience.
A2: A few topics have several facets, only some of which are described by reliable sources as pseudoscience; multiple notable descriptions or points of view may be appropriately included as described in Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. On the other hand, proponents of a particular topic characterized as pseudoscience almost always self-report as engaging in science. The several points of view should be weighted according to the reliability of the sources making each claim. Advocacy sources are reliable only for their own opinions - it is okay to state that Dr. X claims to have built a creature under the usual caveats for self-published sources, but the creature's exploits should be described as reported in independent sources. If the majority of scientists would be surprised by a claim, it is probably not mainstream science.
Q3: Real scientists are investigating this topic, how can it be pseudoscience?
A3: Respected researchers, even Nobel Prize laureates, sometimes have or propound ideas that are described by sources reliable to make the distinction as pseudoscience, especially when they are working outside of their core expertise.
Q4: Why is the description so negative? Why not just describe the views covered and let the reader decide?
A4: The Misplaced Pages policy Neutral point of view requires that the prominence of various views be reflected in the articles. We strive to summarize the tone and content of all available sources, weighted by their reliability. Reliable in this context means particulary that sources should be generally trusted to report honestly on and make the distinction between science and pseudoscience.
Q5: Why does this article rely on such biased sources?
A5 Scientists generally ignore pseudoscience, and only occasionally bother to rebut ideas before they have received a great deal of attention. Non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience can only be had from second- and third-party sources. The following sources are almost always reliable sources for descriptions of pseudoscience:
).
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)