Misplaced Pages

Category talk:Pseudoscience: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:05, 13 December 2005 editHackwrench (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,327 edits →Voting← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:35, 26 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,505,789 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(587 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Skepticism}}
{{WikiProject Science}}
{{WikiProject Sociology}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative views}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|logic=yes|science=yes}}
}}
{{Old AfD multi
| date = April 24 2007
| result = '''Keep'''
| link = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_24#Category:Pseudoscience
| date2 = January 27 2008
| result2 = '''Keep/nom withdrawn'''
| link2 = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_27#Category:Pseudoscience
| date3 = March 24 2014
| result3 = '''Keep'''
| link3 = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_24#Category:Pseudoscience
| type = category
}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{Archive box|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}


==Parapsychology==
Many of the inclusions are subjective. Is it right to describe all parapsychology as pseudoscience? There are pseudoscientists working in the field (and indeed physics, chemistry etc - witness the cold fusion debacle), but there are also certain people who attempt to employ scientific method. --] (]) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


::Those people do not self describe as parapsychologists; they look for a scientific explanation. For example, Chris French looking at it from a psychology perspective. Considering that science operates under Methodological naturalism and appeals to the supernatural are essentially a form of special pleading which make a stab at wearing the guise of science while they do it. ] (]) 14:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
===Discussion===


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


A few notes:
:I agree. It's not the place of Misplaced Pages to claim that, for example, ] violates the scientific method. I might personally (indeed, I do) think that it's a load of absolute bunkum - but the absolute ''most'' that Misplaced Pages should say is that some named person has claimed that homeopathy is bunkum. I'm going to soften the description even more. --] ] | ] 14:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
*I have cleaned up the category page:
**removed links to project namespace
**removed redundant bare url (ext link to dictionary.com - hey we got our own!)
**removed redundant wikilinks
**tweaked layout
*I am now trying to clean out the contents. It was a mish-mash of over 250 articles that readers would struggle to wade through.
**Created ]
**Removed companies, products, unrelated lists, and minor topics that had little to do with the subject.
My attempt to clean it all up is being hampered by editors who do not understand the category guidelines (or convention - they vary!), do not understand the hierarchical nature of topics, and attempt to link everything to everything else. -- ] (] - ]) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:Please focus on the content and policy/guideline issues rather than the editors involved.
:There seems to be a great deal of disagreement on whether or not some of the articles are relevant to the subject. Discuss rather than edit-war please if you want to change consensus. --] (]) 20:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


:(edit conflict)
:: Checking the history I see that ] had softened it and someone had then hardened it again. There is a difference between the article intro and the category. The article intro effectively says "this is what we believe ] means". The category effectively says "we believe these articles to be examples of pseudoscience", and ''must'' therefore, at the very least, contain the word "alleged" or something similar. --] ] | ] 14:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:You know, I don't really overly care about this category, or even this topic (and not even certain how I saw/got to this page).
:But you would be hard pressed to claim that I do not understand the category guidelines and policies : )
:Anyway, in reading the arbcomm case, and associated pages, it seems clear that this is a drama-laden topic, and by extension the pages thereof.
:So I would think that it would be a good idea to at least provide the opportunity for "enthusiastic editors" to check out certain project pages. Links are cheap. And having links to project pages on a category page (as opposed to categorised IN the category) is very much not uncommon.
:Our goal should be to reduce disruption, and if a couple links may help to prevent future disruption, then that's a no brainer, I would think. - <b>]</b> 20:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::"Our goal should be to reduce disruption" Having some familiarity with some of the drama around this topic, let's be clear: our goal first is to improve this encyclopedia. --] (]) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Lol, yes, and one way we do that is by reducing disruption.
:::I'm not sure what your concerns are, or even what edits your concerned with.
:::For me it's that the links to the Project pages which cover this topic broadly (] for example) should be linked in the category page intro. In looking over other situations in categories, it would seem a hatnote would be the best way to go with it.
:::If you're interested in arguing what should be a member of this category, sorry, I'm not who you're looking for. - <b>]</b> 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Since the links are already here at the top of the talk page, I just added a hatnote to see the talk page. I still think that a link to a related project page should be at the top, but for now, this should suffice. - <b>]</b> 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:One of the problems that's come up is that some articles about practioners/vendors/applications of PS are often placed in the category, such as ], ], ], ]. If these don't belong in PS, then where? Perhaps subcats for "Pseudoscience products", "Pseudoscience advocates", "Pseudoscience companies"? ] <small>]</small> 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


::As I have already said at the head of this thread they don't need a category relating to pseudoscience since it a non-existent or tenuous relationship. -- ] (] - ]) 07:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Obviously, as the guy who softened it the first time, I support ] position. --] 18:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


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


...because nothing gets done. -- ] (] - ]) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::I think your concern about category breadth may touch on why I don't like this category. Unlike the ''article'' ], where claims and counterclaims can be attributed and discussed, with a category of Pseudoscience it's as though WP comes down and puts its imprimatur on all these articles to say, "WP agrees that everything here fails to comport with the scientific method and is pseudoscience." That's why I liked the waffle language about "alleged to be"; that way the category was only setting up the possibility of contested claims, WP wasn't vouching for any of them, and the reader could go to the individual articles to see who was claiming something was pseudoscience. (I actually considered proposing changing the category title to "Alleged pseudoscience," but that seemed a bit much.) If we go to the "currently mainstream science" language in the description, we are inserting a broad, definite attribution across the board, to many places where it may not be justified. For instance, this category currently contains the broad article ]. I don't think we want to be in the position of certifying that all of mainstream science thinks everything connected with the supernatural is pseudoscience. Hence, I would propose leaving the admittedly wafflish "alleged to be" language in the description. (What I'd really like to do is dump the category.) --] 20:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


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


] : pseudoscience?
== Why hasn't this been deleted yet? ==


First of all, she's a person and the article is a BLP, not an article about a theory. I scan for other ''person's'' in the list and i find ], a creationist. I find ], a Holocaust denier. These are the people she's being lumped in with for calling out certain chemicals in foods that have some scientific support for being harmful, and for opposing wholesale antiobiotic use in raising animals, and for promoting diets with less sugar and more whole foods? Perhaps it's her support for the concept of ] and ] that has people classifying her as pseudoscience? But these are in fact real concepts within science. Maybe it's based on some long-deleted tweet of hers about vaccination or the air in an airplane being pumped with nitrogen? Those would be considered embarrassing early mistakes, but not a systematic pushing of some kind of pseudoscience.
It looks like we have a consensus here. Why hasn't any action been taken? The article is OK, but the Category is POV, not to mention insulting. Why haven't any Wikipedians who support the existence of this category posted their opinion?


The guidelines for deciding whether something is pseudoscience states:
Specific proposal: rename the category to something like <nowiki>]</nowiki>. --] 16:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


{{quotation|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.}}
== Quackery? ==


It seems to me that the bulk of her work is actually fairly in line with generally accepted science, and that she has a few vociferous critics who call her work "pseudoscience" but as stated in the above guideline, this does not qualify her for this category. Note that middle of the road scientists such as ], who is in a fairly good position to judge, do not call her work pseudoscience, and merely nudge her to include more nuance in her explanations of science as well as to prioritize her focus to be more effective. That's not pseudoscience. So, i propose removing her from this category, unless a very strong and clear case can be made in accordance with the guidelines. Note that "pseudoscience" is generally seen as pejorative, so special care should be taken when applying this term to a ]. ] (]) 11:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Now what about the Quackery category? Does that fit in here at all? Does it have any proponents (i.e. people who say "I'm a quack, and proud of it")? Or is it just an insult? --] 16:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


:Hari certainly does not belong in this category. I had never heard of her work before, but it is clear that she is merely a food activist with a strong agenda. One need not agree with all of her concerns but they are founded on selective use and interpretation of existing scientific research, not upon in themselves false principles which she claims are scientific. ] (]) 11:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
== Keep this category ==


==subjective==
Smithfarm: please stop removing this categorization like you did for ]. There is clearly the need to mark non-scientific topics as non-scientific (or non-mainstream or whatever). Removing this category would be blatant POV. I also don't like the the name "Alternative scientific paradigms". Why not stick to "pseudoscience", a term that is widely in use and where we have an article for. ] 22:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: Do you at least agree that putting a derogatory label on something is POV? (Same as taking the derogatory label off is, as you state) Can you suggest a non-derogatory label? --] 06:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*How about "Widely challenged theories"?&mdash;] ] 30 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)


inclusion of topics here is very subjective - couldn't we include ]?] (]) 21:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
== Alternative approachs ==
: Inclusion is based on ]. Additionally, for something to be ] it is typically considered that it be presented by proponents as if it were scientific, or supported by science, when it is not. Tasseography, a divination practice, does not meet that description. But more importantly, "pseudoscience" is not supported by the sources. &#32;&#8239;<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px 2em #eea">]</span></sup>]] 16:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
*I don't support deleting this category or giving it too silly a name ("Alternative paradigms" or whatever). The way I see it, you can look at the term "pseudoscience" as having one of two meanings: 1. An essentialist meaning: things are pseudoscience because they do not adhere to the scientific method. 2. A pragmatic meaning: Things are pseudoscience which the mainstream scientific community labels as pseudoscience.
*Clearly the people who use the term to designate certain things as "pseudoscience" or not are implying an essentialist meaning -- that "pseudoscience" is a real category. The problem with this is that there is considerable debate by philosophers, historians, and even scientists at times about whether or not there is any clear demarcation criteria that seperates science from non-science. People throw "falsifiability" around as if it was an easy and straightforward term -- any small amount of prodding will show that it is a bit more complicated than that, though.
*The second approach is one which doesn't assume to understand or validate the accusation of "pseudoscience", but rather is more of a sociological approach to the question. I think it works better for a source like Misplaced Pages. It tells people who generally tend to trust the "mainstream scientific community" that these things are considered problematic. It allows the people who support these practices to say, "well, the mainstream scientific community might be wrong." It clearly points to the power structure imbedded in this form of labeling (labels to not just magically appear out of nothing apply themselves, they are always applied by someone) which I think is important for a NPOV approach (avoiding the assumption of any one group's essentialist criterion).
*How this can apply in practice here is difficult, though. "Considered psuedoscience" might be a bit more NPOV as a title, but the odds of it actually being used are low. The category page itself would of course indicate ''by whom'' it was considered. I think words like "allegedly" or "putatively" don't really get at the sociological approach that I think is necessary for NPOV. Perhaps if we just changed the category description to reflect that the label was being actively applied (and not just existing outside of time and space)? I don't know for sure. I'm very wary about deleting the category, though -- I think there should be a category for things which are purpored to be scientific practices but are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. I think that's a useful thing to think about and a useful categorization scheme. But I'm not sure what the best concise category name is for that. Thoughts on this? --] 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


==Cleanup==
I think we should see a category not as a label to discredit an opinion but way more pragmatically as a way to find articles by descending into the categorization tree. There are many people interesting in this topic and they will look for this specific category name. Therefore I would keep the current category name. We may extend the category text, but because we already have a detailed article on the topic I would then link to it for further details. ] 20:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This category is literally overflowing with articles, and has been for several years. Most could be dropped down into new or existing subcategories (or already have been). Obviously, the main article and the main list should stay here, though. ] (]) 03:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


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


Aside from the insane amount of non-applicable categories here (Nazi science, chiropractic, Natural News, etc), I don't believe that interpretation of outcomes by scientific outcomes can really be in this category. I.E. Institute for Creation Research, Flood Theory, etc. Just because the majority disagree with the interpretation, does not therefore mean it is immediate quackery. I could not find any substantiated evidence that the PhD's at the ICR were using fake or wrong methods. And as a PhD student at CU Colorado having had a lecture (that I disagreed with) from an ICR PhD, I can attest to this. Nothing in the methods are fake, wrong, or incorrect...just their interpretation. But that is all opinion, and shouldn't fall in this category. Otherwise, we need to put Pluto in here since many scientists still agree that it is a planet. Frankly this "topic" is an excuse for pseudo-intellectuals to place their hated articles in.<br>
:: I'm willing to agree to any non-pejorative category label. This will preserve the "utility value" of this category. For example: "Non-mainstream scientific theories".
<br>
] (]) 02:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
:The Pluto-planet thing is about the definition of the word "planet", and therefore by definition an arbitrary decision and not a scientific question. The fact that you think this could even qualify as a pseudoscience shows that you don't have the first idea what science and pseudoscience is. (Your remarks on other examples confirm this.) The articles, on the other hand, contain reliable sources calling those things pseudoscience. '''Those sources are more important than the opinion of some random guy on the internet.'''
:But the category is too big, and maybe there should be more subcategories like ], ] and so on. ] and ] already exist, and some articles should go there. --] (]) 08:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
::] is a redirect to ]... --] (]) 08:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


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


This is an anti-vaccine film about vaccines causing autism. It is a completely unbalanced review. ] (]) 18:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
:: Now some have objected that the term "pseudoscience" has a clear definition. Evidently they haven't read ]. But even if we say, for the purposes of argument, that pseudoscience is any branch of science that doesn't rigorously apply the scientific method, is that definition clear to all? To me and, I daresay, alot of other people, many of whom may be casual readers of the pages "branded" with this category (people who are interested in the topics in question), it will simply appear that Misplaced Pages ''itself'' is against anything that dares to question the dominant paradigm. Why else would it need to label something with a derogatory word? This appearance (referred to in the discussion above as Misplaced Pages giving an ''imprimatur'') belies the fact that the category represents only a certain fraction of Wikipedians who are pushing their own, anti-New-Age agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Balance==
I'm going to add category:Belief to this category, since I think that some of the articles / subcategories fall into both partial science and belief realms. Hopefully, this will provide a balanced categorisation. ] 20:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
:I think that's a wise idea. -] 21:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

==comments==

Request made to move category to Category:Science of Questionable Validity at
]
==Requested Move==
Category is misleading and has fueled a revert war on ] — ] 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
===Voting===
:''Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''

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

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

:], voting for deleting or renaming this category take place at ]. We have a procedure. Thanks, -] 07:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

::Sorry, I had originally submitted this to Requests for move. The procedure there is to vote in the Talk page.

Latest revision as of 19:35, 26 November 2024

This category does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSkepticism
WikiProject iconThis category is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
WikiProject iconScience
WikiProject iconThis category is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
WikiProject iconSociology
WikiProject iconThis category is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis category is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconAlternative views
WikiProject iconThis category is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Logic / Science
WikiProject iconThis category is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Logic
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of science
Articles for deletionThis category was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
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:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, 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 pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: 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.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • 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.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Archiving icon
Archives

Parapsychology

Many of the inclusions are subjective. Is it right to describe all parapsychology as pseudoscience? There are pseudoscientists working in the field (and indeed physics, chemistry etc - witness the cold fusion debacle), but there are also certain people who attempt to employ scientific method. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Those people do not self describe as parapsychologists; they look for a scientific explanation. For example, Chris French looking at it from a psychology perspective. Considering that science operates under Methodological naturalism and appeals to the supernatural are essentially a form of special pleading which make a stab at wearing the guise of science while they do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What a mess!

A few notes:

  • I have cleaned up the category page:
    • removed links to project namespace
    • removed redundant bare url (ext link to dictionary.com - hey we got our own!)
    • removed redundant wikilinks
    • tweaked layout
  • I am now trying to clean out the contents. It was a mish-mash of over 250 articles that readers would struggle to wade through.

My attempt to clean it all up is being hampered by editors who do not understand the category guidelines (or convention - they vary!), do not understand the hierarchical nature of topics, and attempt to link everything to everything else. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please focus on the content and policy/guideline issues rather than the editors involved.
There seems to be a great deal of disagreement on whether or not some of the articles are relevant to the subject. Discuss rather than edit-war please if you want to change consensus. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
You know, I don't really overly care about this category, or even this topic (and not even certain how I saw/got to this page).
But you would be hard pressed to claim that I do not understand the category guidelines and policies : )
Anyway, in reading the arbcomm case, and associated pages, it seems clear that this is a drama-laden topic, and by extension the pages thereof.
So I would think that it would be a good idea to at least provide the opportunity for "enthusiastic editors" to check out certain project pages. Links are cheap. And having links to project pages on a category page (as opposed to categorised IN the category) is very much not uncommon.
Our goal should be to reduce disruption, and if a couple links may help to prevent future disruption, then that's a no brainer, I would think. - jc37 20:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
"Our goal should be to reduce disruption" Having some familiarity with some of the drama around this topic, let's be clear: our goal first is to improve this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Lol, yes, and one way we do that is by reducing disruption.
I'm not sure what your concerns are, or even what edits your concerned with.
For me it's that the links to the Project pages which cover this topic broadly (WP:FRINGE#PS for example) should be linked in the category page intro. In looking over other situations in categories, it would seem a hatnote would be the best way to go with it.
If you're interested in arguing what should be a member of this category, sorry, I'm not who you're looking for. - jc37 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the links are already here at the top of the talk page, I just added a hatnote to see the talk page. I still think that a link to a related project page should be at the top, but for now, this should suffice. - jc37 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems that's come up is that some articles about practioners/vendors/applications of PS are often placed in the category, such as Samuel Hahnemann, Bach Flower Remedies, Blacklight Power, Ionized bracelet. If these don't belong in PS, then where? Perhaps subcats for "Pseudoscience products", "Pseudoscience advocates", "Pseudoscience companies"? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
As I have already said at the head of this thread they don't need a category relating to pseudoscience since it a non-existent or tenuous relationship. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So it remains a mess...

...because nothing gets done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Vani Hari

Vani Hari : pseudoscience?

First of all, she's a person and the article is a BLP, not an article about a theory. I scan for other person's in the list and i find Carl Baugh, a creationist. I find Fred A. Leuchter, a Holocaust denier. These are the people she's being lumped in with for calling out certain chemicals in foods that have some scientific support for being harmful, and for opposing wholesale antiobiotic use in raising animals, and for promoting diets with less sugar and more whole foods? Perhaps it's her support for the concept of toxins and detoxification that has people classifying her as pseudoscience? But these are in fact real concepts within science. Maybe it's based on some long-deleted tweet of hers about vaccination or the air in an airplane being pumped with nitrogen? Those would be considered embarrassing early mistakes, but not a systematic pushing of some kind of pseudoscience.

The guidelines for deciding whether something is pseudoscience states:

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.

It seems to me that the bulk of her work is actually fairly in line with generally accepted science, and that she has a few vociferous critics who call her work "pseudoscience" but as stated in the above guideline, this does not qualify her for this category. Note that middle of the road scientists such as Dr Marion Nestle, who is in a fairly good position to judge, do not call her work pseudoscience, and merely nudge her to include more nuance in her explanations of science as well as to prioritize her focus to be more effective. That's not pseudoscience. So, i propose removing her from this category, unless a very strong and clear case can be made in accordance with the guidelines. Note that "pseudoscience" is generally seen as pejorative, so special care should be taken when applying this term to a WP:BLP. SageRad (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hari certainly does not belong in this category. I had never heard of her work before, but it is clear that she is merely a food activist with a strong agenda. One need not agree with all of her concerns but they are founded on selective use and interpretation of existing scientific research, not upon in themselves false principles which she claims are scientific. HGilbert (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

subjective

inclusion of topics here is very subjective - couldn't we include tasseography?Vorbee (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion is based on reliable sources. Additionally, for something to be pseudoscience it is typically considered that it be presented by proponents as if it were scientific, or supported by science, when it is not. Tasseography, a divination practice, does not meet that description. But more importantly, "pseudoscience" is not supported by the sources.  Adrian 16:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup

This category is literally overflowing with articles, and has been for several years. Most could be dropped down into new or existing subcategories (or already have been). Obviously, the main article and the main list should stay here, though. 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Creation, ICR, Chiropractic...really?

Aside from the insane amount of non-applicable categories here (Nazi science, chiropractic, Natural News, etc), I don't believe that interpretation of outcomes by scientific outcomes can really be in this category. I.E. Institute for Creation Research, Flood Theory, etc. Just because the majority disagree with the interpretation, does not therefore mean it is immediate quackery. I could not find any substantiated evidence that the PhD's at the ICR were using fake or wrong methods. And as a PhD student at CU Colorado having had a lecture (that I disagreed with) from an ICR PhD, I can attest to this. Nothing in the methods are fake, wrong, or incorrect...just their interpretation. But that is all opinion, and shouldn't fall in this category. Otherwise, we need to put Pluto in here since many scientists still agree that it is a planet. Frankly this "topic" is an excuse for pseudo-intellectuals to place their hated articles in.

73.217.43.51 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The Pluto-planet thing is about the definition of the word "planet", and therefore by definition an arbitrary decision and not a scientific question. The fact that you think this could even qualify as a pseudoscience shows that you don't have the first idea what science and pseudoscience is. (Your remarks on other examples confirm this.) The articles, on the other hand, contain reliable sources calling those things pseudoscience. Those sources are more important than the opinion of some random guy on the internet.
But the category is too big, and maybe there should be more subcategories like Category:Pseudopsychology, Category:Pseudobiology and so on. Category:Pseudophysics and Category:Pseudomedicine already exist, and some articles should go there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Pseudomedicine is a redirect to Category:Alternative medicine... --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Trace Amounts film

This is an anti-vaccine film about vaccines causing autism. It is a completely unbalanced review. Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories: