Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Self-ref (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 4 September 2008 (→Pseudoscience Category Abuses: format). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pseudoscience Edit Protest Explanation

Could you explain your edits, please? You've been removing categories from articles in what appears to be an inappropriate manner. Those articles (and categories) are categorized that way because there are several reliable references indicating that they are pseudoscience. ... Hersfold 05:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i can explain my edits. I find that the Pseudoscience faction in Misplaced Pages is egregious in its abuse of the category to oppose paradigms with which it does not agree. I have no confidence that the serious damage that this is doing to the categories of its infringement will ever abate due to the aggregate momentum of the users assembled to efface what the pseudoskeptics abhor.

The "reliable references" to which you refer are merely biased faction supporters in a cultural war that seems to have engulfed Misplaced Pages to such an extent that its techniques and guidelines and customs now consistently enable the bludgeoning of topics which pseudoskeptics dislike.

I have indicated at least initially some of the problem areas of the Pseuodoscience category (subcats, pages) by my edits, and i will list them here for the interested, possibly reflecting this to a Talk page other than my own if i feel like it:

SUBCATS

• Astrology
• Divination
• New Age
• Numerology
• Orgone energy
• Paranormal
• Phrenology
• Psychic powers
• Reiki
• Remote Viewing
• Spiritualism

Good examples, otherwise, within these SUBCATS are "Creation Science", and "Intelligent Design", possibly but probably not including "Scientology", which is a religion that does sometimes try to give the impression of being scientific.

PAGES

• Astrology
• Aura (paranormal)
• Bigfoot
• Colon cleansing
• Divination
• Dowsing
• Graphology
• Numerology
• List of occultists
• Orgone
• Paranormal
• Reiki
• Remote viewing

In general the types of things being misplaced into the category of Pseudoscience are phenomena, principles, processes, techniques, and theories. By themselves these aren't pseudosciences even though some in the scientific community may seek to call them this. Typically they are divinatory or therapeutic techniques that may be based on questionable or disputed theoretical foundations, and this should never be considered pseudoscience by itself.

Feel free to quote or refer to this portion of my talk page, as it is likely going to be one of my few involvements in Misplaced Pages. The pseudoskeptical factions are way too strong for me (or many of my friends or family) to want to stay long, and the means by which things are changed here is so tedious that the best most of us will be able to do is put up a meek protest, explain it, and move on.

Thanks for your time.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Category Abuses

Removing the pseudoscience category from articles which so obviously concern subjects in that category is very likely to be seen as vandalism. You will note that all of your removals have been reverted. For Misplaced Pages's attitudes towards pseudoscience, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, specifically the section stating

16) 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.

--MediaMangler (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they don't obviously concern it. I protested and corrected the problem that you and others have allowed to continue due to your bias against the topics of your infringement. Your knowledge is floating on a cloud of consensus.

The arbitration to which you refer is merely a gang's victory against those who are attempting to repulse the pseudoskeptical assault on topics which aren't properly pseudosciences at all, but are targets of modern materialist science proponents who seek to use the term in this way.

Because some arbitration was agreed this does not mean that it is authoritative or that i must agree with it. I dispute it and would characterize it as a form of gang-warfare against an array of topics which you and others like you are effectively damaging Misplaced Pages's knowledge base concerning, by repeatedly infringing on these areas of knowledge and inserting pseudoskeptical viewpoints into them rather than to let them have their own zones to explain their methodologies and associated ideas in peace.

I gather that were i to continue to make these edits over and over again you would be within your rights and powers to issue to me some kind of warning. This is the means by which the culture war is carried out -- through the mechanism of the Wiki POLICE (Patrollers). Your Talk page itself indicates that your interest is Pseudoscience, and you have a vested interest in maintaining the intellectual boundaries which are in fact whittling away at the topics that the category of Pseudoscience is allowed to encompass, quite idiotically and biasedly.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add here that mine is not the first voice being raised in alarm at the abuses of the category (and terminological use) of 'pseudoscience'. during several arbitration incidents arguments have successively explained some of these problems, inclusive of that by Gleng in the immediately foregoing arbitration that

"Pseudoscience” is a word rarely used by scientists in the peer reviewed literature; it has no consistent and clear general meaning, although it may be used with a particular meaning in mind when used in a particular context. I think it should be avoided in general on WP because of its vagueness and derogatory implication, if something has been criticized as obscure, illogical, unfounded, false, or mystical, say that, and say why the source of the opinion is notable if it is not apparent, and make sure that the citation is accessible online so that the context can be seen.

Additionally, the text of Jim Butler is of some assistance excerpted from that same arbitration:

I agree with Gleng's comments. As he says below and elsewhere, the term "pseudoscience" isn't found much in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Accordingly, to the extent that we use the term, we should be clear about whose POV we're representing, and with which V RS's.

Editors concerned with highlighting what they believe are pseudoscientific topics rightly point to the NPOV FAQ's comments on pseudoscience, giving "equal validity", and making necessary assumptions. However, NPOV and VER go further than those passages, and if we rely too heavily on those passages at the expense of other aspects of NPOV and VER, we're missing the forest for the trees. For example, if WP:NPOVT#Categorisation means anything, it means that category:pseudoscience should be used sparingly. I've commented on this issue in some detail here. Thanks, Jim Butler 08:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (minor edits for clarity 05:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

As an example regarding categorization: Is the current inclusion of homeopathy in category:pseudoscience appropriate or necessary when a Pubmed search turns up a scant three citations of the terms "homeopathy" and "pseudoscience" together? Why doesn't it suffice simply to let the facts speak for themselves, as WP:NPOV says? I believe some editors (cf. User:FeloniousMonk's comment at Talk:Pseudoscience#Credible_sources) are tending to use the above-linked comments from the NPOV FAQ as a way to resurrect the deprecated WP:SPOV. It's as if so-labelled pseudoscientific topics have magically become exceptions to the NPOV and VER requirements that we use V RS's to say who says what and why. Editors such as FM are arguing that if authors who write for non-peer-reviewed popular journals such as Skeptical Inquirer designate a field as pseudoscience, that suffices for categorization --

* despite the fact that such sources don't meet RS for scientific sources;

* irrespective of whether we can prove the scientific community takes such a stance; and

* despite the NPOV problems with the category namespace that WP:CG mentions (i.e., it appears without annotations, so it can be used to advance one view over another rather than presenting competing views).

Since these disputes affect large numbers of articles, guidance from the ArbCom would be helpful. thanks, Jim Butler 08:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category as a weapon in the hegemonic culture wars

In Misplaced Pages, Pseudoscience is defined like this:

Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

This sentence contains an opening clause -- the "claimed to be or made to appear" clause -- and three dependent sub-clauses, the "does not adhere" sub-clause, the "lacks supporting evidence" sub-clause, and the "lacks scientific status" sub-clause.

The sub-clauses only function as agents upon the first clause ("claimed to be or made to appear scientific"). If this were not so, then anything in the world which "lacks scientific status" -- a cheeseburger, a dog, a piece of hand-woven cloth from Equador -- could be classified as a "Pseudoscience." Obviously this is not the case, because these items (and a million others), are never thought of as Pseudosciences because they were never "claimed to be or made to appear scientific."

The problem is that the pseudoskeptic group at Misplaced Pages treats these three sub-clauses as independent clauses. They do this despite that fact that adherents and practitioners of the subjects labelled "pseudoscience" are not always claiming a scientific basis for their beliefs or, if they are, they may be using the word "science" in its broadest sense, meaning "knowledge," and not in the narrow sense of "an approved academic curriculum of study of the material world that utilizes the 'scientific method' of investigation into physical phenomena".

Let us take Spiritualism, for an example. Spiritualism is a religion. There have been claims made for it of a scientific nature in the narrow sense of the word, mostly in the past, and mostly by a very small minority of adherents. However, this entire religion, consisting of many denominations (see List of Spiritualist organizations) is unfairly labelled a Pseudoscience at Misplaced Pages. This is grossly unfair and prejudicial to the religion of Spiritualism.

Then let us take New Age. This is an interfaith religio-cultural movement. Again, a small minority of adherents have made scientific claims, narrowly defined, for aspects of the movement, but the general woman-in-the-street adherent does not make scientific claims, merely thinking of herself as a "New Ager" or "New Age pracititoner." Labelling her beliefs a "Pseudoscience" is inaccurate, prejudicial, and discourteous.

Scientology is listed as "Pseudoscience" at Misplaced Pages, which makes some sense, as this religion does curently present itself as "science" based. But why is the religion of Thelema NOT labeled a "Pseudoscience" at Misplaced Pages, despite the fact that its motto is "The aim of religion, the method of science"? This is inconsistent, to say the least, and also a-historical, given the intertwined origins of the two religions.

Then we have Divination, in all its many branches. While some forms of divination are presented by some (but not all) adherents and practitioners as "scientific," others are virtually never given that appellation. In my 40-plus years of reading tea leaves, for instance, i have never heard Tasseography "claimed to be or made to appear scientific," yet it is still classified at Misplaced Pages as a "Pseudscience." WHY?

Why are the pseudoskeptics holding these topics hostage inside a category that exists only in the NEGATIVE, only to disrespect the items thus contained? Why is Misplaced Pages openly allowing a small coterie of editors to discredit and tarnish sincere religious and spiritual adherents?

It is my opinion that a pseudoskeptical faction of active and aggressive editors is waging a hegemonic culture war against small religions, folkloric customs, divination, mysticism, ccultism, and spirituality, that they are doing so by taking over and controlling the categories in which these diverse socio-cultural topics appear at Misplaced Pages, and that this is being done with the full knowledge and encouragement of Misplaced Pages administrators and bureaucrats.

If this were not so, the pseudoskeptics would allow members of these religions to absent their religions from the "Pseudoscience" category -- but they do not. They would allow practitioners and adherents of folkloric forms of divination to ask for independence from the "Pseudoscience" category -- but they do not.

WHY NOT?

As a Jew, i cannot help but note that this enforced classification of religions as "pseudo-somethings" is abhorrent and grossly offensive. Let me tell you how horrific it appears to me. Judaism is not "Pseudochristianity" and no one at Misplaced Pages would allow it to be listed as such -- but at the same time, Spiritualism and its attendent organizations like Universal Hagar's Spiritual Church and Pentecostal Spiritual Assemblies of Christ - International and Metropolitan Spiritual Churches of Christ -- which are not "Pseudoscience" and should never have been classified as "Pseudoscience" in the first place -- are thus listed, held captive to the mocking whim of pseudoskeptics who think that their connection to rich, powerful, White scientific atheists gives them the right to disrespect and malign any religion they choose.

That's what it looks like to me, and i invite anyone who doesn't have a closed mind to click on the links to those small, mostly African American, Spiritualist groups and tell me why -- WHY? -- they are placed in the "Pseudoscience" category. Can you justify it? Really? If you can, tell me why. Or better yet, tell THEM.

Please feel free to carry this material to any other discussion page at Misplaced Pages where it might be appropriate.

Thaks for reading. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Pseudoskeptic Target

I have nominated Category:Pseudoskeptic Target (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Gillyweed (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing that. I have referenced the above 3 Sections as part of the presentation there. Should i actually move these sections interior to that CfD discussion? or should i leave it here on my Talk page? I am concerned that if were deleted in the future there would be no way to fully understand that discussion and want it archived. thanks for any recommendations that any may be interested in providing.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)