Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:31, 27 August 2013

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

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

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: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Encyclopedia of pseudoscience An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural Skeptic's Dictionary Skeptical Inquirer talk.origins archive Bad Astronomy Quackwatch Sense About Science Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.) Statements from scientific societies Q6: Isn't pseudoscience a philosophically meaningless term? A6 The term describes a notable concept in common use. Q7: Why is a particular topic omitted? A7 Some ideas are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article; other topics have been explicitly rejected by the consensus of editors here at the talkpage. Please search the archives for relevant discussions before beginning a new one. Still, this list is far from complete, so feel free to suggest a topic or be bold and add it yourself. Q8: What relation does content here have to the four groupings (below) from the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience? A8 Many fail to understand the nature of this list. It is not exclusively about "Obvious pseudoscience", but, as the list's title indicates, about "topics characterized as pseudoscience" (emphasis added). That wording parallels the Arbcom description from group three: "but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" (emphasis added). Therefore we include items covered in the first three groups below, but not the fourth. In this list, we refuse to decide whether an item is or is not an "obvious" pseudoscience (although most of them are ). Four groups 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal Top‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Creationism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism 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.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views High‑importance This article 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Multidel

Archives Archives Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Archive 1: 2003 — August 2006 Archive 2: August 2006 — December 2006 Archive 3: December 2006 — March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 — April 2007 Archive 5: April 2007 — July 2007 Archive 6: July 2007 — October 2007 Archive 7: October 2007 — January 2008 Archive 8: January 2008 — April 2008 Archive 9: February 2008 — November 2008 Archive 10: December 2008 — January 2009 Archive 11: January 2009 — March 2009 Archive 12: March 2009 Archive 13: 2009 Archive 14: 2010 Archive 15: 2010-2013

Splitting article: science & non-science topics

199k -- is this article a bit looooonnnng? I've done a layout of topics in line with {{science}} and have a non-science section set up. The non-science portion is 39k. With this in mind, I propose splitting the article. Rename this one as "List of science topics characterized as pseudoscience" and name the new article "List of general topics characterized by pseudoscience". Please note the distinction between "as" and "by" in the two. The "as" is appropriate because of the clear word connection between science and pseudoscience. The "by" works better because it shows pseudoscience is being used to booster the topic (like in history, which clearly is not a science topic) rather being an alternative to the actual science. Thoughts are welcome – especially as to using the word "general" in the split article. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The distinction you made between "science" and non-science topics appears to have been completely arbitrary. For example, Astrology is listed under astronomy and space science, while creation science is listed under non-science. Putting these in different articles by some arbitrary division doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. You appear to have grouped a collection of disparate things together which wouldn't make any sense in an article. The article is 200k because there are 372 references, not because the content is particularly long, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, 150k is the references. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving the sections and subsections as I did was not arbitrary. Going by the headings, sections 1-4 follow the science template. I left the bulleted listings under the subsections as is, hence the inclusion of astrology & creation science where they are. Given your comment (thanks!) cleaning up/re-bulleting the subsections first is probably a wise preliminary step to a split. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with IRWolfie that your distinction is not helpful, and that there is no need to split the article. Your use of "science" vs. "non-science" here is bizarre and jarring. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And interesting article will look at more carefully; probably a few more things need adding. At this point I do think it's not quite long enough to split, and splitting it would necessitate some discussion, given issues raised above. User:Carolmooredc 17:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Srich32977's idea has some merit, but the article is in such a poor state, I think it's preferable to keep everything in one spot so it's easier to fix. We have items that are completely unsourced, items that are sourced to broken links and items that probably don't belong on this list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's just silly. A topic can't be a "pseudoscience" unless it makes scientific claims - and it's not a proper science because it doesn't follow the scientific method. The whole *POINT* of this list is that none of them are properly sciences - and all of them are half-assedly claiming to make scientific statements about the world. On that basis, dividing the list into sciences and non-sciences is...paradoxical? Anyway...No! Bad Idea!

Besides, to quote from WP:LENGTH: "If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact"

QED SteveBaker (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Face on Mars

I've removed Face on Mars. The cited link is broken. I tried to find other reliable sources characterizing this as pseudoscience, but couldn't find any. What's more, I sincerely doubt that anyone actually believes that this is a real face. This is just one of those things people on the Internet find interesting/funny. I don't think anyone actually believes that this is a real face. Anyway, without solid sourcing, it doesn't belong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Prepared to be surprised. You are under the bad assumption that people are rational. A very cursory google will tell you Hoagland still believes this, as do a number of other proponents . IRWolfie- (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have done the impossible, and fixed the broken link automagically, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I stand corrected. But I don't think that this list should feature every single theory that some nutcase on the Internet believes in. What exactly is the inclusion criteria for this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Effectively; that there is a sufficient characterisation that noting the characterisation with attribution would not be undue. Psychoanalysis is a classic example of a topic often characterised as pseudoscience, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Knock if off. You should know better. The very instructions on this page say not to include this item. And you should be smart enough to know the difference between pseudoscience and the supernatural. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood that standard template. Firstly, we are not characterising psychoanalysis as pseudoscience, we are describing that it has been so characterised by others, precisely the criteria of this page. If we were characterising it as pseudoscience in the wikipedia tone, we would be stating it unequivocally, which we are not. Even the psychoanalysis page mentions this characterisation. Secondly, ARBCOM does not decide content Misplaced Pages:Arbitration: "The Committee has significant autonomy to address unresolvable issues among the community, but at the same time does not exist to subvert community consensus, adjudicate matters of article content (Misplaced Pages has no "content committee"), or to decide matters of editorial or site policy." IRWolfie- (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for this article was set about 4 years ago to be that a reliable source had to characterize the topic or concept as a pseudoscience either directly or by means of obvious description (e.g. if they used a synonym like "anti-science" or they listed the attributes of the idea as being the same attributes as are listed at pseudoscience). I was rather skeptical at the time that this was the best inclusion criteria, but it was the thing that offended the sensibilities of the least number of people, I guess. The reason the title of the article contains "characterized as" is on this basis. However, the fact that the arbitration committee ruled (rather specially) that certain content is or is not pseudoscience is a little odd. I'm of the opinion that we ought to ignore this attempt at making a content-based ruling. Better to go with what the sources say and not with what the arbitration committee of 2006 said. jps (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Scroll to the top of this talk page. The instructions specifically state not to include this item. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That "instruction" is a generic template used in many articles. It does not refer specifically to this page. You also ignored the "... but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, ...". If you insist on continuing the "ARBCOM made a content decision and they said X", go to arbcom, ask for a clarification so they can reject your reasoning and we can wrap this discussion up. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This particular template was created on the basis of the arbitration ruling. I'm not particularly fond of it and would not object to someone rewording it in spite of an observed tendency at this website to treat arbitration rulings as God's One True Law. In fact, I note that the specific demarcation list has in the meantime been removed from WP:PSCI, so at the very least someone should reword the template so that it doesn't lie about where the "four groupings" are actually found. jps (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I updated with text from WT:FRINGE. It highlights how arbcom created rulings on 2006 guidelines. They can not create the content guidelines themselves (as they are first to admit, it's outside their remit), they just summarise them. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

AQFK (and others), there seems to be some confusion. The ArbCom decision (and template above) do NOT refer to "characterizing", but to "categorizing", as in adding the subject to Category:Pseudoscience. We must be careful about that, but we, according to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, can document what RS say, and in this case there are RS which "characterize" some subjects as pseudoscience. Also, this has nothing to do with whether a subject is or is not pseudoscience, but simply if someone, in a RS, as characterized it as such. At Misplaced Pages there is a huge difference between "characterizing" and "categorizing" something as psi. There must be strong agreement in the scientific community and RS for us to add something to the category. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think "Face on Mars" should stay. There is a continued effort from the Cydonia Institute to promote it, now as a Mesoamerican figure. See pages 5-10 in this book, printed by the same publisher as Hoagland's book (North Atlantic Books). Also this book (by academic publisher BRILL) describes the Face on Mars as part of "fringe astronomy". Labeled as pseudoscience in this book by MIT Press, when discussing its inclusion in the movie Mission to Mars. Given as a "classic example in the pseudoscientific literature" in this conference paper. James Trefil in an 1997 popsci book described it as "one of those stories that lead a shadowy existence on the fringes between science and pseudo-science" , and this was before most of the hi-res imaging became available. I have no comment on psychoanalysis, other than ask it to be discussed in a separate thread. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cosmic ancestry

Suggesting a new entry: Cosmic ancestry. There is quite a bit of faith/belief involved so it may belong to the religious section. Also, it was used by the defense (Creationists) in the Evolution-Creation law suit proceedings: Chandra_Wickramasinghe#Participation_in_the_creation-evolution_debate. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the sources where it is characterised as pseudoscience? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please erase Intelligent Design from the list of topics

I am concerned that Misplaced Pages has declared an unstated war on individuals with religious viewpoints. Pages like this one basically set it up so that only atheistic viewpoints are allowed and any evidence or support to the contrary is attacked. This is particularly disturbing when large portions of the population believe in the ideas being attacked (it's one thing to criticize ancient Greek mythology when it has almost no adherents, it's another to criticize ideas like intelligent design when millions accept it). Is particularly difficult when most pro-I.D. sources are rejected for not appearing in a peer reviewed work even though the majority of peer reviewed works are run by Darwinists that work on keeping opposing theories out of the scientific debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.254.10 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design is not presented by proponents as a religious doctrine, but as a scientific theory. As such, it is subject to the kind of scientific, rational evaluation that one normally would not give to religious doctrines. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

But Misplaced Pages ignores both the evidence presented by I.D. subscribers and the fundamental problems in Darwinism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.254.10 (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You can, of course, provide reliable third party references outlining this evidence? And what is this "Darwinism" of which you speak? Are you by chance referring to the set of theories set forth by Charles Darwin in 1859, theories which have been superseded by further study into the nature of evolution and which not even the most dedicated evolutionary biologists subscribe to nowadays? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I just had a thought. What if we were to add a new section under the pseudoscience list that described subjects that were still being heavily debated. The arguments could be listed alongside their parallels. Evolution-Intelligent Design, Anthropogenic Climate Change-Climate Change Denialism, ect. That way Misplaced Pages would not be listing these hot-button issues as "no question" pseudosciences, but as possible psuedosciences. No one is offended, but the discussion of pseudoscience continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.254.10 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's quite funny - the only debate that is going on in these areas is with people who don't or wont understand the science,in situations like this for example. So no, because they are "no question" pseudosciences. Roxy the dog (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia - we're supposed to publish the truth, even if a large fraction of the world happens not to believe in it.

Obviously we have to have standards for how we determine "The Truth" - and that's rolled up in reliable sources and verification policies.

For scientific matters, that means that we mainly rely upon the latest scientific literature - and that means that by Misplaced Pages's standards ID is a pseudoscience because it makes scientific claims without following the scientific method (which is the definition of a pseudoscience). Now, if you can find books or journals that meet Misplaced Pages's standards that clearly show that either ID doesn't present any scientific claims - or that show that ID does indeed follow the scientific method - then we'll have to change this entry. Right now, I think we both know that you're not going to find such sources. So it's end-of-discussion time. You could of course complain to the WP:RS and WP:V policy makers and try to get the policy changed...but I really think you'd be wasting your time.

Regardless of what you and I think - the way that Misplaced Pages defines "truth" is what decides the matter here.

SteveBaker (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. I am a major in chemistry, a field of science, and for you to criticize me as being unscientific just because I don't accept Darwinism is appalling (although I can't say I'm surprised). The problem is that many kids and young adults use Misplaced Pages on a regular basis and they are being told, flat out, that there is no God and that Darwinian evolution is fact leaving no room for debate. I can find several sources that either present scientific evidence of I.D. or argue that Darwinian evolution is just as much a pseudoscience, but its going to take me a couple weeks since I don't have time to log on every day. Please leave this discussion open for a while and please stop insulting me simply because I don't agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.218.30 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What is this Darwinism of which you speak? And why are you trying to declare war on those with religious viewpoints that accept science rather than demanding theistic science, which is of course blatant pseudoscience? . . dave souza, talk 20:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Theistic evolution, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"I am a major in chemistry, a field of science, and for you to ..." That's an appeal to authority. I am embarrassed on your behalf that you are a chemist but deny the existence of evolution (since we are into fallacies, that's an appeal to ridicule if I had used it as a basis of an argument), but being a chemist does not mean you aren't unscientific and credulous about basic biology. I know many theologians and religious people who accept evolution and reject creationism/ID so let us not bring atheism and religion into it. Let's keep stating our opinions out of things, and stick only to what the sources say. Now, the sources that say ID/Creationism is a pseudoscience are strong, so for what policy based reason would it be removed? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not the one declaring a war on religious people who believe in evolution (of which I do not believe there are many). I'm just tired of having my beliefs insulted every time I use Misplaced Pages and I'm scared of people believing that whatever is posted on Misplaced Pages must be true. Darwinian evolution is not even close to being declared fact due to the immense number of problems with it. I was not trying to appeal to my own authority, I am just frustrated that I can't be treated equally or taken seriously here simply because I don't believe in Darwinism. Like I said before, give me a week or two and I'll provide some counterpoints from some reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.218.30 (talk • contribs)

evidence of common descent. Read it. evolution read it. You owe it to yourself to at least read it, point by point. Misplaced Pages is not the place for "counter-points", science isn't decided by debate. As a chemist you should know that if someone where to deny quantum mechanics it would be wrong of us to present the case for the denialist in articles or treat them as equal. As a chemist you wouldn't rely on a random unpublished blog from denialists in an article. Besides, wikipedia is not the place for debates, we aren't a forum. Also per first comment see below. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

IP editor from Colorado Springs, you seriously need to read the messages on your growing number of user talk pages (you should normally only have one of them). Unfortunately you probably don't even know where they are, and therefore can't read the messages left for you. This is just one of the many reasons why sock puppetry is not allowed here. You are most likely editing from a dynamic IP which changes. That creates a situation where you are in violation of our prohibition against sockpuppetry. The best solution is to create an account. It will give you more rights, more privacy, and much more respect. You have nothing to lose by doing so, and a lot to gain. Just choose a pseudonym.

Also remember to use edit summaries, read them, and read the history. As a registered user you'll also be able to follow along with what's happening in ways that unregistered users cannot do.

There are two things in what you say that need comment:

1. Offensiveness to anyone and bias in favor of anybody are not legitimate reasons for content decisions. Only when dealing with living persons do we take that into account, and even then only if the content is not properly sourced. If properly sourced, we include some pretty awful things in articles, and the subject of the matter has little recourse to get it removed. In fact, if they try to do it improperly, they are sometimes blocked from Misplaced Pages. I've seen it happen, so there is a proper way to do things here, and numerous improper ways.
2. Stating that a subject is considered pseudoscientific is not the same as saying that there is no debate or that the matter is settled. There are some subjects which are in a state of flux, but they are still seen as pseudoscientific by many. Depending on who those "many" are, we may or may not mention, state, or even go so far as to categorize a subject as pseudoscience. Sometimes the debate is within scientific circles, and then we don't usually categorize the matter as pseudoscience, even if we mention that it's considered so by some scientists. In other cases the debate is between certain members of the public and scientists, such as is the case with creationism and homeopathy, to provide another example. There is no serious debate in scientific circles about either of them, and they are both considered pseudoscientific beliefs, regardless of how much debate occurs in public. Therefore we categorize them as pseudoscience. All of this is because reliable sources say so, and we follow the sources.

Currently Intelligent design, Creation science, and Climate change denial are all categorized as pseudoscience by reliable sources. This has nothing to do with Darwinism or atheism, but because of the scientific evidence and the failure of believers to follow the scientific method when conducting research and making claims. That = pseudoscience.

You also need to carefully read the template at the top of this page. It describes how we deal with the subject of pseudoscience. Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. We document everything here, including the fact that some consider your favorite topics to be pseudoscience, and we also document what believers think about it. Do you want us to delete that too? I think not. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a running blog or discussion list, and this talk page is supposed to be used for improving this list, not promoting your religious beliefs. If you choose to continue this discussion as you have done, we will need to archive this discussion and possibly block your access here. Please don't make us do that. Take your religious battles somewhere else. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

To reply to User:128.198.218.30's earlier post:

• This is absolutely ridiculous. I am a major in chemistry, a field of science, -- Congratulations. But you evidently don't have a major in encyclopedia-writing - which is what's actually at issue here. We're not here to debate whether ID is right or wrong, true or false, scientific or pseudoscience. Misplaced Pages leaves that up to the reliable sources that we're required to use to establish what we may or may not write. There are plenty of references that Misplaced Pages considers reliable enough for us to use that most definitely state that ID is pseudoscience - and so far, we're unaware of any that meet Misplaced Pages's WP:SCHOLARSHIP criteria that say otherwise. By that standard, we can (and indeed must) say that "ID is characterized as pseudoscience" regardless of whether we personally believe it to be the case. If there are references that meet the standards of WP:RS for scientific subjects that say what you believe to be true - then you may write about that too. Otherwise, you may not - no matter your personal qualifications. Misplaced Pages's standard is verifiability in reliable sources - not "what a lot of people believe to be true" or "what a qualified editor claims to be true". So, in this case, by Misplaced Pages's standards - ID is most certainly considered to be pseudoscience because lots of second-party scholarly books and peer-reviewed articles in well-respected journals say precisely that.

• and for you to criticize me as being unscientific just because I don't accept Darwinism is appalling (although I can't say I'm surprised). - you are entirely incorrect. I did not criticize you for anything. I didn't even make a judgement about ID. I merely point out that we're writing what the reliable sources say. What you or I happen to believe is entirely irrelevant. That's how Misplaced Pages and all other good encyclopedias work.

• The problem is that many kids and young adults use Misplaced Pages on a regular basis and they are being told, flat out, that there is no God and that Darwinian evolution is fact leaving no room for debate. -- Misplaced Pages is indeed saying that evolution is categorically true. Yes - because our standards for saying that are fully met by the available literature. HOWEVER: You won't find us anywhere stating that "there is no God" because that has no backing whatever in reliable sources (basically because it's unfalsifiable). I personally, firmly disbelieve in God (because Occam's razor says that's the most likely working hypothesis). Yet I have personally removed several sections in Misplaced Pages articles over the past five years that erroneously said or implied that there is/are no God(s). If you find any article here that says that, just let me know and I'll work with you to expunge those too. That's because it doesn't matter what I believe - it only matters what the reliable sources say. This is why your qualifications (and mine) are entirely irrelevant to our editing of this encyclopedia. Similarly, despite your personal beliefs - you should encourage us to say "ID is pseudoscience" because (right or wrong) that's what the reliable sources tell us - and (right or wrong) that's what Misplaced Pages requires us to do. If you can't live by those standards (and I could certainly imagine you might not) - then Misplaced Pages is a bad place for you to be.

• I can find several sources that either present scientific evidence of I.D. or argue that Darwinian evolution is just as much a pseudoscience, but its going to take me a couple weeks since I don't have time to log on every day. -- That's fine. But please be sure that these sources of yours meet Misplaced Pages's strict criteria for "reliability" in regard of scientific matters - as explained in detail in WP:RS - and especially in WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

• Please leave this discussion open for a while -- There is no need to "leave discussions open". If you have reliable sources (within the rather strict bounds of WP:RS/WP:SCHOLARSHIP) then you can Be Bold and add the relevant information from those sources into whichever articles are in need of change.

• and please stop insulting me simply because I don't agree with you. -- Please explain where I insulted you. That was never my intention.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Like -- Brangifer (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There is another aspect to this too. This article is entitled "List of topics characterized as Pseudoscience"...and not "List of Pseudosciences". I wish it were otherwise - but my effort to change the name failed to get consensus.

The unfortunate consequence of that is that we don't even have to show that ID is actually a pseudoscience - we're not saying that it is. We're only saying that some notable source has said that it is.

That's important to our OP because to get ID off of this list, you'd have to show that no notable sources ever said it was a pseudoscience. Not that it actually isn't a pseudoscience...that nobody ever even incorrectly characterized it as one! That's essentially impossible to do because there is no doubt whatever that "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District" says that ID is pseudoscience - and so does "STATEMENT OF THE POSITION OF THE IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON PSEUDOSCIENCE". So those two sources most certainly are notable and that means that nobody can deny that ID has been characterized as a pseudoscience.

There is really no ducking out of it.

IMHO, this a cowardly way for us to title the article. It should be "List of Pseudoscience" so that it actually means something - even if the WP:RS requirements are tougher and the list much shorter as a result.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Steve, I understand your feelings, but (and I know you understand this, but for the sake of others....) the strict demands of the ArbCom decision would indeed leave us with a very small list, but that list could be made... That doesn't mean this list would disappear, because it still serves a purpose. It documents the POV of the scientific community and other notables who have stated their views in RS, and their POV is broader than the ArbCom's inclusion criteria for this encyclopedia's Category:Pseudoscience, and we would like to document those POV here. It's part of our mission to document the sum total of human knowledge, as found in RS. A limited list could be made for those subjects which do meet the ArbCom criteria in the template above. Another option would be to make a section here for those items. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to list evolution and climate change alongside I.D. and climate change denialism as "topics characterized as pseudosciences" since there are people who would argue that they are. However, I can see that none of you are willing to do that at this point in time. I'll be gathering sources to support this point, but I work 6 days out of the week so I can't do so quickly, so if you would be willing, please stop leaving me messages. By the way, if your interested in using scientific sources, then you can't sight Kitzmiller v. Dover because that is a legal issue, not a science issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.218.33 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

ID is a legal issue, not a science issue: it's religion in drag, pretending to be science for the purpose of trying to get religion into US science classrooms. Though cdesign proponentsists can be expected to deny it. . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which characterize Evolution and Climate Change as pseudoscience, then by all means feel free to include those subjects on this list. Again, inclusion doesn't mean that the topic is pseudoscientific; only that is has been characterized as such at some point in time. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. It also should be such that mentioning the characterisation in the main article would not be undue, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Undue meaning that a tiny minority of people hold such a view or a tiny minority of scientists hold such a view? The chart above seems to indicate that a significant amount of people hold the view that Evolution is not the best theory of the origin of human life. Right or wrong, clearly a lot of people don't believe in Evolution, and thus we are not dealing with a tiny minority here. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Biologists of course (and some other related fields). What the average yokel believes doesn't really matter, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please show us where in WP:UNDUE it says that this only applies to scientific opinion and we should pay no attention to general opinion. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

On articles we may mention the opinions of the general public i.e denial etc, but as a societal issue, not a scientific one, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@172.250.119.155: WP:UNDUE says it right here: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So in the case of this list, we are only needing a realizable source of what has been characterized as pseudoscience. Which brings me back to my original point above. If you can find reliable sources which characterize Evolution and Climate Change as pseudoscience, then by all means feel free to include those subjects on this list. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

By all means, if you can find such sources, they can be added to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@128.198.218.33: There you go. Find a reliable source where academics or researchers characterize(d) Evolution and/or Climate Change as pseudoscience and then you can add it to this list. While I don't agree with such a characterization, I certainly defend that it can be included in this list if a reliable source is provided. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ID "dissent from Darwinism" petition

Rather nauseating, but apparently there is at least one organization of academics and scholars who are skeptical of Evolution (Darwinism)...

• Home page
• List of signatories

So while the thoughts and theories of this skeptical society may not fall in line with the extraordinarily overwhelming scientific consensus, it does seem to qualify as a reliable source of there being some tiny percentage of academics and scholars who characterize Evolution as pseudoscience. As such, I have no objection to its inclusion in this list –- though it probably should be qualified that this characterization flies in the face of the wide majority of biological scientists. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Didn't you know that A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is an intelligent design creationist gimmick, organised by the Disco Tute? . . dave souza, talk 22:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should that matter for inclusion on this list? I see that some of the credentials of some of the signatories have been called into question, but regardless, these are academics/scholars who have characterized Darwinism as pseudoscience. (It disturbs me that I am defending this, but it's like NSPA v. Skokie, right? You might disagree with what they are saying, but you have to defend their right to say it. Given the rules of Misplaced Pages and the inclusion criteria which this list describes, I don't see any good reason to exclude an entry on Evolution or Darwinism to this list. Do you? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Dave beat me to the punch, but yeah. It's Discovery. An advocacy group for intelligent design. An advocacy group's website -- no matter how big the "PhD" font might be in its quotes -- is still an advocacy group's website and not a reliable source for these purposes (lists and quotes from scientists does not a scientific publication make). --Rhododendrites (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Why should this ** ahem ** skeptical society be treated differently here than any other skeptical society? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not reliable.

It's original research to say they claim evolution is pseudoscience.

Please if you want to change this article, please provide a source, please indicate what you want changed in the article, and please make it clear how the source actually supports the change that you want. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The signed petitions states that the signatories are skeptical that the theory of evolution (random mutation, natural selection) "are responsible for the complexity of life." So why is this source not reliable for this claim that the signatories have characterized Evolution as pseudoscience? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh? The petition states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Nothing there about "the theory of evolution", which you're conflating with natural selection. Any proponent of neutral theory could agree with the petition while continuing to agree with the modern synthesis. . dave souza, talk 05:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Because (again) it's not a reliable source (the site, not the person being quoted). No advocacy website would be, especially when it presents only the highlights (short quotes, vague generalizations that "these people are skeptical") which satisfy a particular agenda. That a website quotes someone with credentials does not make that website a reliable source. Find a reliable source/scholarly publication written by the person who is quoted which argues the same and there's something to talk about. --Rhododendrites (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am unclear why this site is not a reliable source in this instance where advocacy sites such as CFI (Center for Inquiry) are considered a reliable. Please explain the standard we are applying.

Not sure if I will spend the time to research whether a person who is a signatory on the Disco Tute (lol) petition has written any scholarly papers describing Darwinism as a pseudoscience, but as a thought experiment, let's say such a source existed. If Prof. Joe Blow of some accredited university wrote a paper that the university published where he pronounced his skeptical views of the science behind theory of Evolution, then in theory you would be totally okay with its inclusion in this article? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Extreme minority or fringe views carry little, if any, WP:WEIGHT. You could probably find a odd crank who characterizes just about anything as pseudoscience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately with Evolution we are not dealing with a tiny minority opinion when (according to the chart above), 48% of the U.S. population dispute Evolution (Very sad indeed). 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the part I said about it being undue. I suggest you re-read the comment I made above. We would only include a characterisation here, if it wouldn't be undue to have the characterisation in the main article. i.e pseudoscience advocates calling the mainstream pseudoscience doesn't cut the mustard, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't miss it and I even just re-read it and I still don't understand the standard you are applying. I would agree with you if this were a list of topics which are considered pseudoscience by scientific consensus. But that is not the case. This is a list of topics which merely have been characterized as pseudoscience. So if a scholar/researcher/skeptical group has made such a characterization about any topic, and the characterization can be verified in a reliable source, then per the criteria of Misplaced Pages, why shouldn't we include it in this list? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie has argued that this article is not a list of pseudoscience topics, but rather a list of characterized as pseudoscience. 172.250.119.155 has presented evidence that evolution has been characterized as pseudoscience. I don't think that this is a tolerable solution and we need to rethink what items actually belong on this list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is it being characterized as pseudoscience? Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I cannot find where it is characterized as such, and so I brought up WP:OR and WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• @A Quest For Knowledge. It's quite simple, would it be undue to mention the topics being characterized as pseudoscience in its main article? For evolution, global warming (imagining for a second that the sources exist) yes including that characterisation would be clearly undue, therefore it doesn't belong here either. Simple system. Now you can try and wikilawyer for a bit to fit your existing agenda which is to find a pretext to get rid of this list, but you'll find little scope for that in this direction, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• • @IRWolfie-: Excuse me? Existing agenda? Wikilawyer? Please don't cast aspirations against your fellow editors, especially without evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks as though I have stumbled into an old debate here. My endgame here would be to better define the standards being applied for inclusion on this list. Interesting enough, both articles IRWolfie cited (Evolution and Global Warming) each make reference to the debate about their scientific validity. However, I don't think that should be the standard for inclusion here as while I agree that WP:UNDUE would prohibit the article Evolution from giving too much weight to the beliefs of its deniers, I don't agree that the same standard should apply here... or at least not applied as IRWolfie has suggested. This is an article about topics which have been characterized as pseudoscience; it's about the characterizations and not the topics. I have shown that such a characterization has been made about Evolution from academics/researchers. This is the exact criteria which Misplaced Pages calls for as does this list in its opening statement: This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. I have given you a source which shows roughly 700 academics/researchers who doubt the very science behind the theory of evolution; which is to characterize the topic as pseudoscientific. And getting even more granular with the opening statement, we could include Evolution in the list on the grounds that it is a topic which at one point or another in its history was most certainly deemed pseudoscience by even, yes, the scientific community. I am not quite sure why some of you are resistant to including this well-known characterization in this list. Do you fear that some people might read it and believe that since it is on this list, it must be a pseudoscience? Because as I stated above, in its entry here, we should state quite plainly that the scientific consensus is that the theory is quite in fact wholly scientific and not at all pseudoscientific. In fact, that is where UNDUE comes into play. Not including a statement like that to balance the characterization that it is pseudoscientific would be giving too much weight to the deniers. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? Do you know what Darwinism means to every one of these roughly 700 academics/researchers? Note that the Disco Tute mischaracterises the very petition they circulated. This is a primary source of a creationist claim, a reliable secondary source is needed rather than your synthesis: the petition said nothing about pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 05:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The petition calls into question the science behind the theory of Evolution; therefore it is a perfectly good assumption that the signatories call into question the science behind the theory of Evolution. Admittedly, I don't know about any mischaracterizations the Disco Tute have made. I just learned of the organization yesterday. Certainly, if the mischaracterizations were deliberate and broad enough, that would call into question their reliability as a source. Otherwise, I don't see why we would be treating them differently than CFI or any other skeptical group's website used as a source on this list. Does a claim made on CFI require a secondary source? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not about agreeing or not, that is the inclusion criteria for the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought Misplaced Pages is about consensus building. If so, then isn't about agreeing or not? Besides, the very inclusion criteria you made – that the reference wouldn't be undue in the main article of the topic - would indicate that Evolution could be included in this list as in its article it discusses the denialism quite thoroughly. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to close this discussion: Seems the discussion is straying from the topic and now ignores the fact that no sources have been offered that actually verify the proposed change. If there's a side discussion that needs to take place, let's start a section to do so with a section title that makes clear the topic of discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. This definitely has strayed from the original topic. Please accept my apologies for wanting some clarification about the uneven standards being applied to the inclusion criteria of this article. I still don't feel that my questions have been adequately answered at this point, and most of the time they've been dodged and circumvented. I've opened a can of worms which the majority of regular editors of this article would prefer be closed because it so clearly illustrates that what they want this article to be and what Misplaced Pages's rules allow it to be are at odds with each other. As an outsider, I have to say that it is plainly obvious what's going on here. I believe my Skokie comparison was right on –- in an attempt to silence the ignorant, you are destroying the foundation on which all of us stand. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your failure to assume good faith does not serve you well, please accept that we are attempting to inform the ignorant. The "dissent" petition itself does no more than state the bleedin' obvious, that natural selection alone does not explain all the complexity of life. Nothing there about describing evolution as pseudoscience. You appear to have a vivid imagination, but accurate secondary sourcing is needed showing significance of any such claim. . dave souza, talk 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Grassé on evolution

I accept that you are attempting to inform the ignorant. Therefore, I don't understand why you are so willing to leave out factual information from this list. That Evolution has been characterized as pseudoscience is a fact. While I don't agree with such a characterization (neither does the vast majority of biologists), I do recognize that the characterization exists. The brazen disregard of the existence of this fact in the face of evidence is really off-putting especially from volunteers who are supposedly attempting to inform the ignorant. But since you asked for another source and for whatever reason the wall I am hitting here has ignited some passions in me, here is another source which characterizes Evolution as pseudoscience. It is from Professor Pierre-Paul Grassé, who in his book L'évolution du vivant: matériaux pour une nouvelle théorie transformiste plainly made the characterization. Please mind that the translation directly from his book but is based on Google Translate. With regards to Darwinism Grassé wrote: By means of hidden assumptions, reckless otherwise illegitimate pseudo-science is created and installed at the heart of biology. I guess this quote is a favorite of the creationist movement. Here's a larger translation quoted by Phillip E. Johnson (a well-known Creationist/AIDs denier): Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created.... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. Here's the bibliographic entry: Pierre P. Grasse L'Evolution du Vivant (1973), published in English translation as The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) . The review of the original French edition by Dobzhansky, titled "Darwinian or 'Oriented' Evolution?" appeared in Evolution, vol. 29 (June 1975). So there's another example of a scholar (Grassé ... not Johnson ... though Johnson does have an impressive educational background) characterizing Darwin's Theory of Evolution as pseudoscience. Are we ready to discuss how to word this entry in this list? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Two fringe views, by promoters of views characterised as pseudoscience: in Grassé's case, neo-Lamarckism, in Johnson's case intelligent design creationism and theistic science. Do you have any secondary sources discussing these assertions that evolution includes pseudoscience? . . dave souza, talk 19:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)→ On review, although the list includes Lysenkoism it doesn't include neo-Lamarckism, which is perhaps better characterised as obsolete science. Unlike Johnson's creationist claims. . dave souza, talk 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What should it matter if Grassé views are now considered pseudoscience. He was a notable biologist who characterized Darwinism as pseudoscience. And since the opening statement of this list states, This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers, we should also be able to thusly include entries which have been characterized as pseudoscience historically. As I mentioned above, the battle for the theory of Evolution to be promoted out of the realms of pseudoscience is a rather well-documented historical fact. In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem editors Pigliucci and Boudry wrote: For the first one hundred and fifty years evolution was -- and was seen to be -- a pseudoscience. That's a pretty explicit characterization. In its entry in the list, I think we should focus on this historical characterization, touch on the continued Creationist view, but alway qualify that the vast majority of biologists view the Theory of Evolution as solidly scientific and the deniers views are often considered pseudoscientific themselves. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is why we need secondary sources: to establish if this passing remark has any significance to the topic, and to clarify what Grassé meant: he clearly agreed with evolution, but opposed some aspect or other of natural selection. As for "the first one hundred and fifty years", from when? Evolution was solidly accepted in science by around 1870, and science itself was not fully developed in the 1820s (see William Whewell etc.). . dave souza, talk 19:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's quite a nice secondary source. Stephen Jay Gould smacks down Evolution critic Jeremy Rifkin who characterizes Evolution as a pseudoscience and invokes the words of Grassé. Rifkin then suggests that the entire field of evolution may be a pseudo science because the great French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé is so critical of Darwinism. This critique of Rifkin was published in Discover Magazine, January 1985. It's a fun read: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/bi430-fs430/Documents-2004/1A-INTRO/Gould_origin_specious_critics.pdf.

As for the 150 year question, I was quoting directly from this source and I believe most of that sesquicentennial is allotted to pre-Darwinian acceptance. Interesting, that author (Michael Ruse - I mentioned the editors above, but forgot the rather notable author of that section of the book) invokes Gould quite a bit. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed text

• Evolution – Though generally regarded as science today, the theory of evolution was characterized as a pseudoscience for 150 years leading up to the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859. By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution. Today, there remains academics and researchers who still characterize evolution as pseudoscience; however, their competing theories are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community.

We have all of the citations needed for this entry. They are either listed above or found within the Evolution article. I just dropping in the "fact" tag for now while we work out the actual text. At this point, I am looking for your feedback before entering it into the list. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm failing to find a way to see this as a good faith proposal, given this ip's comments and the responses to those comments. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize. I've now been following the welcoming advice you left for me on my home page -- discussing article improvement. Other than personal comments, do you have any suggestions that might help me with the proposed text? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussions on the inclusion criteria, evolution will never be an entry in this article. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read the first sentence of this list and tell me how evolution does not qualify historically. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to continue this discussion further. I stand by my first comment: I fail to this as a good faith proposal based upon the previous comments by this ip and the replies to those comments. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, I cannot force you to continue this discussion, but please do personally accept my sincerest apology for any comment that I wrote which has offended you. Please know that I have made the above proposal in good faith -- the best of faith really. However, I completely respect and understand why you would want to duck out now. No hard feelings on this end. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the above proposed text with one minor change

• Evolution – Though generally regarded as science today, the theory of evolution was characterized as a pseudoscience for 150 years leading up to the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859. By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution. Today, there remains academics and researchers who still characterize evolution as pseudoscience . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.239.179 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 August 2013 (edit) (undo) (UTC)

@71.219.239.179, your feedback is appreciated. However, I don't understand your rationale for leave out the last phrase which describes the competing origin theories of the deniers of evolution are regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community. I have now add references. Please look them over and let us know if you still object to this passage and if so why. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So the term pseudoscience has been used for over 300 years? Pardon me for being a bit skeptical about this. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's not waste our time. No sources are offered, and the proposal violates our inclusion criteria, OR, NPOV, FRINGE, NOT, etc. Competence is required to edit Misplaced Pages, and I'm not seeing it with this proposal. --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Dougweller. Your skepticism is well-received and appreciated! I just went through and added all of the necessary (hopefully) references to the proposed text. The portion which you bring up can be verified in the Michael Ruse source, nearly word-for-word in the conclusion of his chapter on evolution of the cited book. On relevant side note, you may be interested to know that the usage of the word "pseudo-science" dates back at least to the 18th century! Do you have any notes on the proposed text for inclusion or concerns about any of the references?

@Ronz, again, I respect your desire to duck out of this conversation. However, I do take objection to you turning this discussion into a battleground by insulting my competence as an editor. Your opinion about the proposed text has been duly noted - though your policy objections are not fully explained and thus not comprehensible. If you would like to take the time to more clearly express why this proposal violates the "inclusion criteria, OR, NPOV, FRINGE, NOT, etc." -- just listing policy names is not helpful -- I would sincerely appreciate the education. If you don't wish to do this, that's fine too. Either way, I remain open to fact that this proposed text may very well be in violation of some or all of your list. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you need an education in our policies and guidelines. I always recommend that editors refrain from that are under sanctions, where breaches of policies can quickly lead to blocks or bans, which is not the norm for Misplaced Pages. See this excellent essay for a start. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, first, thank you so much for adding the reference list tag. That will make things so much easier as we move forward with this proposal. I hope that was your way of saying that you are willing to examine this proposal with an open mind. Second, I really don't want to bog down this discussion space with your criticisms of me as an editor. Please just use this space to discuss the proposal. If you have specific policy objections please do more than just list them. I understand that I may be at a disadvantage here, but if you would just take the time to write an explanation of your policy objections (Eg. This specific sentence of the proposed text violated NPOV because according to NPOV... or This entire proposal does not meet the inclusion criteria of this because as the inclusion criteria states...', etc.), I think it would better foster conversation here. Please recognize that I did a lot of hoop-jumping to satisfy the requests of fellow editors (finding reliable primary and secondary sources, crafting language which I believe satisfies both NPOV and the inclusion criteria of this list). If you could please reciprocate my efforts by explanation of your objections, I would greatly appreciate it. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Religious Groups: Opinions of Evolution, Pew Forum (conducted in 2007, released in 2008)
2. National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism. National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-10586-2.
3. Ruse, Michael (2013). "Evolution". In Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry (ed.). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 239–243. ISBN 022605182X. For the first one hundred and fifty years evolution was -- and was seen to be -- a pseudoscience.
4. Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-19-923084-6. In The Origin, Darwin provided an alternative hypothesis for the development, diversification, and design of life. Much of that book presents evidence that not only supports evolution but at the same time refutes creationism. In Darwin's day, the evidence for his theories was compelling but not completely decisive.
5. van Wyhe, John (2008). "Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist: A biographical sketch". Darwin Online. Retrieved 17 November 2008. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) van Wyhe, John (2008b). Darwin: The Story of the Man and His Theories of Evolution. London: Andre Deutsch Ltd (published 1 September 2008). ISBN 0-233-00251-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
6. Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.). University of California Press. pp. 178–179, 338, 347. ISBN 0-520-23693-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
7. Grassé, Pierre Paul (1973). L'évolution du vivant: matériaux pour une nouvelle théorie transformiste (in French). A. Michel. p. 21. Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created.... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.
8. edited by Mark Isaak (2005). "CA112: Many scientists find problems with evolution". TalkOrigins Archive. Archived from the original on 14 September 2008. Retrieved 28 August 2008. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
9. Eldredge, Niles; Eugenie C. Scott (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 215. ISBN 0-520-24650-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
10. S.J. Gould, "On the Origin of Specious Critics", Discover Magazine, January 1985
11. Gross PF, Forrest BC (2004). Creationism's Trojan horse: the wedge of intelligent design. Oxford : Oxford University Press. p. 172. ISBN 0-19-515742-7.

Thanks for providing sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! Thank you for the comprehensive feedback! 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

First proposed sentence: Please quote, with enough context so it is understandable, the information from "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" that verifies the information proposed. The proposed clause fails FRINGE and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I pulled this reference from the Evolution article in support of this statement: Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. I figured if it is good enough for that article, then it is good enough for this list. But to be honest, I have not review the actual source. That said, I am sure there are a myriad of sources which support the claim that evolution is generally regarded as science today. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're misreading Ruse 2013. Please quote more from the source so we can determine what we might possibly say, if anything. If we can't come to consensus on what we could possibly use that meets the inclusion criteria, then we can't have an entry at all. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is Ruse's conclusion in greater detail: Our story is told. The history of evolutionary thinking over the past three centuries falls naturally into three parts. For the first one hundred and fifty years evolution was—and was seen to be—a pseudoscience. It was a vision of the organic world that emerged simply because living things were viewed through the lens of an ideology about the cultural and social world. It was an epiphenomenon on the back of hopes of cultural and social progress. It made little or no pretense that it was doing the things that one expects of good quality, empirical enquiry. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species raised the status of evolutionary thinking. However, it did not do everything that the great naturalist had intended. Darwin had wanted his mechanism of evolution through natural selection to be the foundation of a new branch of professional science, the new branch of the life sciences devoted to organic change. This did not come about, primarily because Darwin's supporters—notably Thomas Henry Huxley—had other ends in mind. Thanks particularly to Huxley,,evolution was used as a kind of secular religion or what one might call a popular science.

Much of his conclusion is in reference to passages earlier on in his chapter of this book which discuss works such as "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" which pseudoscientifically discuss evolution as a process which began "from the frost patterns on windows in winter day, to the possibility that newly crowned Queen Victoria might represent a more highly evolved type of being."

All in all, this source certainly supports the statement that evolution was characterized as (and actually was) pseudoscientific for the 150 years leading up to the publication and eventual acceptance of Darwin's seminal work. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading. Keep it out. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What about it is misleading? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Second proposed sentence: Again, FRINGE and NPOV problems presenting the viewpoints of the scientific community together with those of the general public. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This text and its sources are directly lifted from the article Charles Darwin. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Third proposed sentence: Confuses evolution with natural selection. NPOV, FRINGE, NOT problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This text and its sources are directly lifted from the article Charles Darwin. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fourth sentence: Violates the inclusion criteria, NPOV, FRINGE, NOT. Evolution is modern science. We don't care how it's detractors currently characterize it as far as this article is concerned. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the story this entry tells -- the historical characterization of the theory of evolution as a pseudoscience -- I think a discussion of those who still hold onto this mis-characterization is fully warranted. Inclusion criteria applies to the entry as a whole. NPOV and FRINGE are satisfied by putting this minority opinion in its place -- as an opposing but not nearly an equal viewpoint. This is precisely what NPOV/FRINGE asks of us as editors. If anything, the sentence goes beyond that and belittles evolution denialism to the point of pejorative. Finally, in regards to your invocation of NOT, can you please specify which portion(s) of this policy you feel this fourth sentence violates? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, these views are so utterly on the very fringes that they deserve no mention at all, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• "the theory of evolution was characterized as a pseudoscience for 150 years leading up to the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859", doesn't make sense chronologically and isn't what the source says. "By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact." contradicts what the first source says. "However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution", is very vague and appears to confuse natural selection and evolution. "Today, there remains academics and researchers who still characterize evolution as pseudoscience", fringe POV push and some of the sources don't even mention pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Overview of all the topics in a Venn diagram

See here, we should make our own version of this. Count Iblis (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we should not. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Count Iblis's suggestion actually illustrates one of the problems with this article. This article is supposed to be about pseudoscience, yet the majority of topics on the diagram aren't pseudoscience (and that's assuming that the diagram is correct). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's NOT about pseudoscience - it's about claims that things are pseudosciences. Again, my pet hate about this list - but that's what it is. It doesn't matter a damn whether something is or is not an actual pseudoscience - only that someone said that it was in some notable source. SteveBaker (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a picture from a blog. Are you sure you want to extrapolate anything from that? This article is supposed to be about topics characterised as pseudoscience, fixed that for you. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@AQFK. Would you care to comment on the topics in the article rather tYhan the topics in the unimportant diagram? Roxy the dog (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a bizarre thing That's two bizarre things to say. AQFK (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

you started it !.Roxy the dog (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, someone else started this thread. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

King Tut's Curse

To the best of my knowledge, King Tut's curse is a belief in the supernatural, and has no actual pseudoscience in it. Should supernatural topics be included in a list about pseudoscience? It seems to me that this list is being treated as a List of Things that are Wrong, regardless of whether an individual item is pseudoscience or not. Looking at the article's history, this is a problem that has plagued this article for a long time now. I don't think the article should be deleted, but I do think that it should say focused on pseudoscience and not include items that aren't pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's given an entry in a book of pseudoscience, it's also used in research as a given pseudoscience . Case closed. Your OR is irrelevant, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The "encyclopedia of pseudoscience" never actually describes it as a pseudoscience. Reincarnation is also in that book. Would you suggest that belief in reincarnation should be listed here? How about we just add "religion" and "spirituality" to this "list of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and save everyone the trouble of pretending that these entries are being included based off a rational definition of pseudoscience?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: Your last two sources appear to be behind a paywall (or perhaps an account wall), so I can't read them. But based off your first source, I am not impressed. The source provides trivial coverage. I think we need to have higher standards here. Please remember that our purpose here as editors is to provide a high-quality, educational encyclopedia to our readers. By including non-pseudoscientific topics in this article we do our readers a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Without claiming to be very up on this topic in general, the pdf indicates that there is widespread belief that his is as factual as, say, Nessie, which we do cover. Clarification is needed about this understanding and how it relates to pseudoscience, presumably this could be cited to these additional sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Trivial coverage? Reliability does not matter about how trivial something is. Notability is not the criteria for inclusion. Featuring as an entry in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience is non-trivial anyway ... IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it matters. Reliability is not a binary on/off switch. Rather, it's a gradual continuum. You've seized upon a source that provides only bare, trivial coverage of the topic. You have not provided any significant coverage or evidence that this is a mainstream view within the scholarly community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Scant coverage? It has 2 pages in the skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopedia that is just a collection of articles from a magazine that were compiled together by the history of science major who runs said magazine. The article itself never likens belief in King Tut's curse to pseudoscience, but instead describes it as an urban legend.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, re "notability is not the criteria for inclusion" (and other iterations about what the criteria for inclusion are/are not on this page): What is the criteria for inclusion exactly? I don't have much of a history with this page. Was there a consensus at some point that you're basing it on? Is it, as below, along the lines of "if it's wp:due to call something pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here?" That would be easy enough to adhere to, I suppose, and would remove the need to debate about the inclusion of this or that here (e.g. if a given source was good enough to characterize as pseudoscience on an article page there's no point in questioning it here). There are already debates on the subject on those article talk pages, which this page has produced iterations of. Do I understand correctly? If so, is there consensus here such that this might be simply written at the top of the talk page? --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No quite, because almost nothing can be called pseudoscience on wikipedia, because people assume its POV even if all the sources say it. Generally articles say it has been characterised as pseudoscience (usually by scientists). "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here". Some topics, such as Psychoanalysis have been characterised as pseudoscience, but otherwise still have some academic support (not much amongst psychologists, but amongst psychiatrists), saying "It is pseudoscience", would not be a fair reading of the totality of the sources, but saying "it has been characterised as pseudoscience for reasons X etc" is neutral. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still unclear on the criteria for this page, then. If I'm reading your response correctly, it sounds like for the purposes of inclusion here you're saying the other article pages are effectively irrelevant. Or perhaps that pseudoscience mention in an article is sufficient but not absolutely required? For those instances that it's not required, what is the criteria for inclusion? It's clearly not simply "characterized as pseudoscience," so it must be based on the source of the pseudoscience allegation. Must be a scientist? Scientist or academic writing in a scholarly publication or peer-reviewed work of some kind? Multiple? Don't mean to be pedantic, but I think it being spelled out would avoid a lot of the effort on the talk page. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you've confused two points I was making together. I'll just repeat the first point. "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here", that is what I view the criteria for this page as. See the psychoanalysis page for an example, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: According to the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience's own publisher, the book also includes supernatural claims. BTW, it also includes conspiracy theories. This not an article about the supernatural or conspiracy theories. It's about pseudoscience. Please stop insisting that we include off-topic entries in this list, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary to frame everything as being personal? Now, if you read that linked page it says: "Finally, the volumes include five classic works in the history of science and pseudoscience, including ..." and then goes on to list the paranormal as being included. What it does say is "Includes over 100 entries about pseudoscientific subjects", which includes the Tut entry as well as all the others. Framing it as "pseudoscience and paranormal" (in fact something can be both as the publisher highlights) is not what that link says. To recap, It's in the encyclopedia of pseudoscience, and I have shown sources that refer to it as being pseudoscience.

Initially you said that you think its not pseudoscience ("the best of my knowledge, King Tut's curse is a belief in the supernatural, and has no actual pseudoscience in it"), but I have shown that these further sources indicate or treat it as obvious pseudoscience, yet you think these are too "trivial". Your initial opinion is incongruent with those sources. Those sources back up the pseudoscience encyclopaedia as well, which does establish due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie - So the inclusion criteria is "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterized as pseudoscience on its main article page." But just clicking on a few of the links here shows that several of them are not characterized as pseudoscience in the articles. Tutankhamun's curse, Séance, and Holocaust_Denial (3 of the 6 I clicked on and searched the page). They have references that are clearly about pseudoscience but there's no precedent for book titles in reference lists to be used for justification of claims by association. My point is, whether or not "it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterized as pseudoscience on its main article page" is a conversation that needs to happen at that article page first. To just claim WP:DUE here without gaining consensus on that page that it's WP:DUE seems problematic. Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding, though. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page", I said if it could be. It would not be undue for something to be included does not mean it has been included. The distinction is important. The actual content of the other article does not matter. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Except, of course, that nobody has yet to provide a single reliable source, let alone a general consensus of reliable sources, saying that this is a pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, the curse is listed under "Volume 1: Section 1: Important pseudoscientific concepts".

Feder's survey, the introduction says that it's testing "pseudoscientific archaeological claims" and "pseudoscience in archaeology". Feder also calls it "cult archaeology", a synonymous for Pseudoarchaeology, a sub-branch of pseudoscience.

Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, also by Feder.

Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public (I can't check the contents of this book)

Mind you, the amount of actual pseudoscience on this topic seems to be minuscule. Personally, I wouldn't mind if it was moved to Pseudoarchaeology#Examples. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is that it also covers supernatural claims and conspiracy theories,, and there is no clear delineation between which items are pseudoscience, which items are supernatural and which items are conspiracy theories. But even ignoring that, we should not be examining any individual source in isolation. What do other reliable sources say about this item? Hypothetically speaking, if we have 10 sources, and 9 do not describe an item as pseudoscience and one does, we shouldn't cite the oddball source that describes it as a pseudoscience. That's a WP:FRINGE view point and a violation of WP:NPOV to present fringe viewpoints as mainstream. I have no problem with putting this item in some other list. I know, for example, that we have a separate List of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If somebody was to boldly delete the King Tut stuff, and perhaps comment that if anybody has decent sources to back up re-instatement, bring them to Talk, I'd be happy. I think the source is weak. It isn't pseudoscience, it is an urban myth. --Roxy the dog (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we want the list to include topics that are no longer considered pseudoscience?

The inclusion criteria currently states that in order for an entry to be included, it need not be currently considered a pseudoscience. So, for example, plate tectonics would meet the article's inclusion criteria. Is this what we want? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about plate tectonics? Perhaps you're thinking of Wegener's Continental drift which is rather different, though don't know if that was actually characterised as pseudoscience. However, good point about historical allegations. . dave souza, talk 20:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant continental drift. Thanks for the correction. Yes, I believe it was at one time considered pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it strengthens and broadens the usefulness of the article to show the historical progression some subjects have taken...in both directions. Some have been met with skepticism and called "pseudoscience", only to later be proven correct and then accepted by mainstream science. Others have been accepted from ages old, before the concepts of "science{" (and therefore "pseudoscience") had much meaning. They have later been shown to be false and are now called "pseudoscience", and those who hold to them are called "pseudoscientific" and "pseudoscientists". There are some which have always been, and continue to be, considered pseudoscience: chiropractic's foundation and only justification for existence, vertebral subluxation, just like homeopathy, have still failed to prove their existence and are rightly called pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty much already in the article in the form of the Expanding Earth entry. To me I always think it's weird that so many articles call continental drift a theory, it's the observation, the mechanism is the theory and what's also interesting is about the reference to the glove not fitting in the linked article, Wegener proposed the match along the 200m isobath, and not along the coast, something his supporters and detractors both overlooked, but that is neither here nor there. I think the entry could be included if it is put into context Re: mechanisms and the later discovery of plate tectonics. It might be easier to tack it onto the expanding earth entry and add some context, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we want it. We don't want to create a separate article for List of topics previously characterized as pseudoscience. The current article provides better context. I think that people expect to find this stuff in the current article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Conflicts over the focus of this article and a suggestion for changing its name

On the one hand, we have some people arguing that this article should be defined narrowly as List of pseudoscience topics and exclude mention of creationism and supernatural subjects. Others are arguing that this article should be defined more broadly to include topics to which anyone has objected for any reason, such as psychiatry and evolution.

I would like to propose for consideration changing the article title to List of topics for which there is a general consensus as being pseudoscience, or some shorter version that conveys the same meaning. The lede would then be reworked to clarify what, exactly, is meant by the word "pseudoscience": I believe we can agree that the current lede is rather muddled.

Thoughts? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(this is connected to the ID thread above, of course) - it does seem like the language needs to be clarified. Getting rid of "which have at one point in history been characterized..." and adding something to the effect of what TechBear's renaming would accomplish (that pseudoscience is defined not by the coincidence of the words "pseudoscience" and e.g. "phrenology," but by the majority of scientists taking the position that phrenology is not a credible science -- would (a) dismiss the potential torrent of additions based on skeptics of every developing science in the past centuries and (b) current minority judgments of majority opinions (which, whether people like it or not, is generally how Misplaced Pages operates). --Rhododendrites (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need clearer inclusion criteria that helps this article avoid NPOV and FRINGE problems. Mixing historical and contemporary characterizations as we do now (or at least imply that it's allowed) doesn't appear to work. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between a list titled "List of pseudoscience topics" and one titled "List of topics for which there is a general consensus as being pseudoscience"? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We can find plenty of good quality references establishing the consensus view that, say, astrology is a pseudoscience. It is much more difficult to establish that astrology is a pseudoscience, as the definition of pseudoscience -- "a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status" -- would arguably require proving a negative. The result would be that a "list of pseudoscientific topics" would end up argued down to a blank page. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand the difference now. Thank you for the lucid explanation. I think your proposal is right on the money. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, which historical characterisations? I don't see what the issue is with what we have at the moment. Setting the criteria as "the characterisation has due weight to be mentioned in the parent article" is a simple criteria. I think you'll find that if you have a List of pseudoscience topics advocates will ensure there are next to no entries, and the topics which are famously characterised as pseudoscience would probably not be present, such as psychoanalysis and I would dare say many others, even clear pseudoscience. In fact I would wager that such an article would have a good chance of being deleted. You will know that even mentioning that something is commonly viewed as pseudoscience is difficult enough, and something being called pseudoscience in the wikipedia tone is indeed a rare event (I've seen articles where Jimbo himself has turned up to remove it from the lead without reading the sources or the rest of the article). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to concerns raised in the Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Please_erase_Intelligent_Design_from_the_list_of_topics and Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Do_we_want_the_list_to_include_topics_that_are_no_longer_considered_pseudoscience.3F. If it's not a problem, then nevermind. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@TechBear: I agree that the article should be List of topics for which there is a general consensus as being pseudoscience although I think we should explain this as part of the inclusion criteria, rather than the title. List of pseudoscience topics works for me. Whatever inclusion criteria we decide up, I'd like to see it result in the following:

• Astrology - Included. Classic example of a pseudoscience.
• Climate change - Excluded. Yes, it's been characterized as pseudoscience by detractors, but is the mainstream scientific opinion.
• Creationism - Excluded. It's a religious belief that doesn't purport to be a science.
• Evolution - Excluded. The same rationale as CC.
• Intelligent design - Included. Clearly a religious belief purporting to be a science.
• King Tut's curse - Excluded. Supernatural belief. Doesn't purport to be a science.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose your suggested name, for the same reasons I gave above: I believe that it is important not to make the claim or give the impression that the topics listed in the article are pseudoscience, but rather that the general consensus of scientists is that they are. As for Creationism, its promoters are pushing it as science. They are working very hard to get it taught as science. Not as history, not as religion, not as mathematics or PE. Science. That puts creationism very firmly and quite unambiguously into the category of pseudoscience. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You are using your own original research definition of what pseudoscience is, and an extreme one at that. It does not need to purport to be a science, it is enough that its claims overlap with scientific claims or in some way challenges the scientific viewpoint etc as creationism and others do. It is not for us to decide what is pseudoscience by the original research you are engaging in. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@TechBear: Well, perhaps someone else can come up with a better, but less wordy name. But if not, that's fine. Regarding creationism, I don't think anyone is pushing creationism anymore (at least not in the US). About 20 years ago, the emphasis was switched from creationism to intelligent design. I could be wrong on creationism not being pseudoscience. Twenty years ago is long time, we'd have to do some research on what reliable sources are saying about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: Nobody's engaging in OR. Stop making false accusations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Which source includes your criteria above, which you have explicitly laid out and rejects the items you have shown as not being pseudoscience as you have done. Me stating that I think a reasoning is OR is not an "accusation", false or otherwise. I think your reasoning is original research, and now you can demonstrate it is not original research by demonstrating a source which explicitly includes your criteria. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: First, it's up to us as Misplaced Pages editors to decide inclusion criteria. We don't need sources to decide inclusion criteria. Second, this is a talk page. There are no formal requirements that every single sentence we type on a talk page must have sources. But if required, it's fairly easy to find sources that say Astrology is a pseudoscience, that Climate change isn't, that Evolution isn't, that Intelligent design is. I'm not sure about Creationism; I'd have to look that up. As for King Tut's curse, I can't prove a negative. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria should be one such that we do defer to reliable sources for what to include i.e due weight in reliable sources for the characterisation etc. We don't decide first what we want to include and work backwards; To do so is to engage in original research. I've already shown a source that explicitly refers to the King Tut's curse as being pseudoscientific (you dismissed it as being too trivial, remember?) and it has an entry in an encyclopaedia of pseudoscience (I didn't check the others), I can show sources that call or refer to creationism, psychoanalysis, parapsychology etc etc pseudoscience. In fact this article consists of entries which have all been characterised in that fashion. Hence 'List of topics characterized as pseudoscience'. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: Please cite the specific Misplaced Pages policy or guideline which states that inclusion criteria must be found in reliable sources. How do you account for inclusion criteria that each entry meet Misplaced Pages's definition of notability? No, you provided one source with trivial coverage and another source which also covers supernatural claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources WP:LSC. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

When the inclusion criteria is not supported by reliable sources, the criteria and article is at risk of violating NPOV, NOT, and related policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Here, here! Well said, both of you. The current criteria and title is ambiguous, and I think it falls victim to Popper's infamous demarcation problem. Here are suggestions for a brief title: List of topics scientifically considered pseudoscience or List of topics generally considered pseudoscience. I think the phrasing of the second one would be ambiguous ("generally considered by whom?") if not for the banner I just found at the top of this top page which defines "considered by whom?" as the scientific community. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What about List of pseudoscience related topics? (Strictly speaking, List of pseudoscience topics serves the same purpose, because it is sufficiently vague to cover more material, as follows. It would have two(?) "major" sections, one for confirmed (including by the ArbCom decision) pseudoscientific subjects (by mainstream science), and one for everything else in the current list which doesn't fall under that umbrella (figure out some wording for that one). I'm suggesting a short title because a very long title is simply too unencyclopedic and unwieldy. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom can't decide article content. I'm not against List of pseudoscience related topics, it seems it would have pretty much the same inclusion criteria as the current one. Except it might be a little broader. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: Thanks for pointing me to that guideline. I'm not sure that's what it means, but it's certainly not what happens in practice. Consider, for example, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which uses selection criteria not part of selection criteria used by any reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" is a rather poor list, and the poor criteria has been discussed extensively in that articles archives. For some reason lists aren't given ratings by wikiprojects but it wouldn't get a particularly good one. The criteria for inclusion is essentially to use primary sources and in the authors own words to avoid BLP implications (not that I agree but that was the rationale as far as I understand it). Have a look at featured lists perhaps ... IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I like User:BullRangifer's suggestion of List of pseudoscience topics, but, to be grammatically correct, the title should be List of pseudoscientific topics or List of pseudoscientific concepts or List of pseudoscientific ideas or List of pseudoscientific proposals. Such a renaming would have the added benefit of keeping the inclusion criteria sensible. Just because something has been characterized as pseudoscience doesn't mean we should write about it. After all, in some more heated arguments commentators may be inclined to characterize certain ideas as "pseudoscientific" for rhetorical reasons rather than as a careful evaluation (the oft-trotted out creationist canard of "evolution is pseudoscience" is a classic example), and competent editors should be able to see the difference. The topics, concepts, ideas, and proposals listed here should be actual pseudoscience rather than accusations. jps (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What about say Psychoanalysis where I imagine the discussion of whether or not it is pseudoscience is itself probably notable (i.e an article could be written which would survive AfD)? How do we distinguish a characterisation of something as pseudoscience from it being actually pseudoscience without delving into original research? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to Misplaced Pages, there is no distinction between a characterization and a point-of-fact demarcation because Misplaced Pages simply reports on the basis of reliable sources. In that sense, any list that includes "characterization" is redundant because Misplaced Pages only deals in characterizations. The key is to look for which sources are reliable and move from there. Interestingly, in the case of psychoanalysis, it is pretty clear that its characterization as a pseudoscience is not disputed in a serious way by reliable sources. I'm not sure why there is controversy over this point. The sources which do dispute the characterization of psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience are generally psychoanalysts who explicitly acknowledge that they are not scientists nor equipped to decide whether an approach or an idea is scientific or not. They just object to the characterization on the basis of "misunderstanding" the goals or approach of psychoanalysis which may be a fair point, but doesn't contradict the facts outlined by those who indicate psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. This is much the same as any other pseudoscience on the list. Chiropractors, creationists, and even Gene Ray have their rejoinders, but are simply not equipped to be reliable or independent enough to show that the sources which indicate their pseudoscientific characteristics are wrong. jps (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with the title of the article than I am with it's content. Non-pseudoscientific items such as evolution and King Tut's Curse don't belong in this article. We need to fix this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Four lists

Here's a solution which relies on the partitions described in the banner at the top of this page. Why not create four lists?

• List of obvious pseudosciences
• List of generally considered pseudosciences
• List of questionable sciences
• List of alternative theoretical formulations

172.250.119.155 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are many sources we can use which actually make distinctions like this which would make the selection criteria for such almost impossible. The arbcom ruling itself ought to be vacated as being rather obtuse, IMHO. jps (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose me re removing that banner and replacing it with {{talk fringe}}. ArbCom can't make content decisions so what they say isn't relevant except to give a general idea of what editors thought 7 years ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I object. One of the biggest problems with this article is the fact that it includes off-topic entries. We need higher standards, ones that follow actual science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is an old one. The Demarcation problem is alive and well on Misplaced Pages, such that -- without any content guidance -- it would be impossible to factually label a topic as "pseudoscience". Psychoanalysis is the classic example. We can find reliable sources which positively identify it as a pseudoscience. Does that mean we should categorize it as an example? I don't believe this to be workable without guidance. I don't claim to know the history of the policy I've invoked above, but I believe it to be helpful at setting some kind of parameters for editors to positively identify junk as junk and to prevent questionable science from being called junk. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I too object to removing the ArbCom template above. While in the end it is the community which makes decisions, we have chosen to use the ArbCom to step in when intractable problems arise, and it's best to abide by their decision. In this case it involved a type of content decision, but one that does not override RS. It's more a method for preventing the chaos and abuse which was a serious problem. Using the four groupings is actually very wise and avoids problems. While the four groups aren't strictly "demarcations" in the Demarcation problem sense above, they are very closely correlated. For practical "encyclopedic format" purposes we can still use them for "categorization" or "no categorization" because RS is another matter entirely. We must use RS for ALL content anyway, regardless of group.

One thing really cool about this list has been how it could remain stable by avoiding getting into the demarcation problem, but just sticking to what RS say ("their" characterizations). If we change the delicate balance which has existed for several years, we open the Pandora's box which ArbCom closed and unleash some awful times of disruption for this list. "If it's not broken, don't fix it," and it's not really broken, when we understand its purpose.

Here comes a history lesson:

The list's purpose is not to deal with the demarcation problem. In fact, we deliberately avoid that and don't give a flying hoot about whether something "is" or "is not" pseudoscience. This list is here to deal with a problem which existed because of the strong demands of the ArbCom decision. The decision solved some big problems related to disruption, but we were left with a whole lot of opinions found in RS which we suddenly couldn't use. That situation violated one of the basic purposes of Misplaced Pages, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge. It left a huge "knowledge hole" which we didn't mention. It was like looking into a huge lava tube cave, and because of the ArbCom decision, we could only document the main tunnel, but must ignore numerous interesting side tunnels. This list allows us to document and explore those side tunnels using special types of RS which act as flashlights designed to see into those side tunnels. That means we no longer have that undocumented "knowledge hole" in our documentation of the sum total of human knowledge.

I understand how the itch to categorically state that some nonsense "is" pseudoscience demands to be scratched (I feel it too... ), but I think we need to resist that urge and keep things as they have been, avoiding anything close to solving the demarcation problem "in this list". We should not destabilize this list by playing with the title, wordings, or inclusion criteria. We can still deal with that itch for certain types of nonsense using groupings 1 & 2. We don't need this list for that purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the "history lesson"! That is very helpful. I think the imagery of a "knowledge hole" is very helpful -- as this list attempts to fill such a hole. Given that Misplaced Pages's goal is to document the sum of total human knowledge, I would like to know your opinion about including topics which has been historically characterized as pseudoscientific by the scientific community but are now accepted scientifically. Examples include the proposal to include Evolution above and now a call to include Continental Drift below. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any immediate problem with the idea, provided it is framed properly to show the progression from misunderstood and wrongly accused to now accepted and proven. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of the framing in the proposal above to include Evolution? I'd sure appreciate some more feedback. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Continental Drift

If you don't care about whether the topic is pseudoscience, then the article should include include a lot of legitimate science. The article starts with the definition "This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers." Smithsonian magazine has an article on "When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience" So that should be on the list. Roger (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that to be a wonderful secondary source which discusses the historical (mis)characterization. The topic could be included based on that source alone. Please craft some text for us to consider. Also, what do you think about the proposal to include Evolution to this list as another historical (mis)characterization? 172.250.119.155 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, provide some suggested wording, with some sources, and this might fly. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall if a heading has been suggested, but something along the lines of "Formerly considered pseudoscience" might work. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a duplicate thread of Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Do_we_want_the_list_to_include_topics_that_are_no_longer_considered_pseudoscience.3F. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• List-Class science articles
• Mid-importance science articles
• List-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• List-Class physics articles of High-importance
• List-Class paranormal articles
• Top-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• List-Class Skepticism articles
• Top-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• List-Class history of science articles
• Mid-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles
• List-Class Alternative medicine articles
• List-Class Creationism articles
• Mid-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• List-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles