Jump to content

Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Sources

A number of sources have been inserted in the "fields termed pseudoscience" section with only a short citation form. (Sarich & Miele 2005), (Hyman 1999:34-43; Kenny et al. 1988:698-704), and (Alexander et al., Select Press; 1st edition, 2005) popped out, but I may have missed one. These need proper, full citations in the references section. Deleuze 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, upon further consideration, a couple of those seem to be commented out of the main text - any reason why? Deleuze 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Why Eugenics should be removed from the list of pseudosciences and why Critical race theory should be included"

I argue for the removal of Eugenics from the list because Eugenics, put simply, is not a pseudoscience. In order for it to qualify as such it would need to be in the business of making unscientific claims - as it happens it does not. The most common manifestation of Eugenics is simply selective breeding involving Humans. When these techniques are applied to animals, with the aim off augmenting desirable physiological or psychological traits we call it Domestication (see Lynn 2001 and Pigliucci 2002), so there is nothing remotely pseudoscientific about the practice or claims of Eugenics. The real issue surrounding Eugenics is one of ethics, the debate in bioethics circles tends to be focussed on whether Eugenics is ever justifiable from a moral standpoint (eg. is using embryo selection to eliminate a genetic disease from a family moral/ethical or not). The fact that Eugenics is ethically tendentious does not make it scientifically so. I argue for the inclusion of Critical race theory because it, unlike Eugenics, is based on bad science, bad philosophy and bad statistics, and is highly ideological as opposed to objective in nature. Overwhelming numbers of Biologists believe the central claim of the Critical race theorists - namely that racial variations are not of a genetic nature but are the result of social conditioning - to be baseless (84% according to the most recent survey - see Lieberman et al 1985). The statistics first employed by Lewontin to suggest that racial genetic variation sums up to being less than individual variation have been thoroughly debunked (see Edwards 2003), indeed this is now known as Lewontin's Fallacy. Even Richard Dawkins has publically awknowledged the taxanomic validity of race and has abmonished the Critical race theorists (see Dawkins 2005). I cite Sarich & Miele's 2004 book - Race: The Reality of Human Differences - as evidence off the pseudoscientific nature of Critical race theory as this is essentially the conclusion that they come to after a very fair analysis of both sides to the argument.

From a scientific point of view this is indeed correct. The implementation of eugenics was pseudoscientifical, but the theory isn't. Jefffire 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
From the secion you are trying to edit: "Note that entries that appear below may not actually be pseudoscience, but that they have been cited as being allegedly pseudoscience." This is why we rely on secondary sources for claims. Provide a reliable source that specifically says critical race theory is a pseudoscience, and feel free to add it. Also, your statistical arguments are misleading. While only 16% of biologists disagreed that "there are biological races in the species Homo sapiens," nearly half of the anthropologists questioned disagreed. Also, they were not asked specifically if they agreed with a taxonomic or a population conception of it.
As an aside, I must admit to being amused by the claim that CRT is ideological but eugenics is not...a pretty ominous combination of edits, if you ask me ;) Deleuze 14:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll take a moment to elaborate on my points before I get taken for something that I am not. It is hypothetically possible to apply selective breeding to humans to select for heritable traits, but it would be completely unethical and the human cost would be immense. Jefffire 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think that's in question. That is not the entirety of what eugenics is, however. Deleuze 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Yea, I agree about Eugenics not being pseudoscience per se. Eugenics is just selective breeding of humans. There is nothing pseudoscientific about selective breeding. That says nothing about the moral question--which is pretty universally agreed upon when it comes to humans: i.e. that its not right).
I noticed this a long time ago, but neglected to say anything because I didn't want to get embroiled in a emotional argument. Obviously eugenics is immoral that doesn't mean it is pseudoscience. And the fact that eugenics proponents have used pseudoscience to justify it doesn't really make it pseudoscience either.
CRT on the other hand I don't know much about. I know there are good arguments to say that "race" is a muddled concept that really doesn't have much meaning except for its sociological effects. But I'm not sure thats what CRT is saying. Brentt 03:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Historically, eugenics has comprised much more than the basic statement that "selective breeding of humans is possible." That is a trivial statement. It has made use of pseudoscientific notions of racial stocks and body politics, and arcane ways of determining the fitness of individuals or races. They were even poor scientists in their own ideological pursuit of what happened to be the truth - even though Lamarckian genetics has been discredited, eugenists didn't support Mendelian genetics because of the research. They supported it because it was convenient. It's a rather interesting history, actually. Deleuze 03:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Touché good sir. Brentt 01:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

all interwiki where removed recently

Please check Revision as of 03:38, 5 July 2006 by FeloniousMonk - all interwiki where removed with a lot of other data. Gveret Tered 19:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"FeloniousMonk" -- That's good! ;-) Would that be like the rogue Shaolin priest who... Excuse me; I digress. --71.131.9.209 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, my login timed out. The above is me. --Chris 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific practices?

I'm preparing to post a list of suggested changes. Meanwhile, reading the discussion here triggered a thought: can a practice properly be considered pseudoscientific? Chiropractic has already come up for a lot of discussion, and I think the consensus here is that it does work (at least in part). So if someone applies the techniques of chiropractic, and they alleviate a medical problem, that confirms the validity of those techniques, does it not?

IOW, the techniques of chiropractic are both testable and falsifiable. In fact, they have undergone a century of experimental testing. Reportedly, some work and some don't. (Of course, the procedures of conventional medicine are not 100% effective either.)

Clearly these techniques can be considered separately from any theoretical basis of chiropractic, which may well be pseudoscientific. (I know too little about the field to say one way or the other.)

Another example might be psychic surgery (so ably debunked by James Randi.) As far as I'm aware, it has no claimed theoretical basis: a "psychic surgeon" merely makes passes over the patient's body, holds up some allegedly removed tissue, and assures them they are cured. And pockets a hefty fee. It is nothing but a scam.

So my point is that we might want to delete practices from the article, or at least treat them in a short separate section, while keeping the emphasis on theories and beliefs. --71.131.9.209 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, my login timed out. The above is me. --Chris 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. The reason for putting pseudoscientific practices into the article is to help the reader. They are concrete and recognizable. The theories also are not clearly distinguishable from the practices. Also, for a practice to be ethically applied, it's theories should undergo proper testing. This is all related to realism and judging the merits of a medicine, therapy, or educational intervention according to reality. Properly tested theory makes the practice tenable. In many papers, it will state something like: Neurolinguistic programming theory has been falsified according to scientific reviews. Then they will conclude that NLP has all the characteristics of a pseudoscience, and should not be promoted in psychology bodies etc. It is not appropriate to remove practice from theory, and it will be a disservice to the reader to remove clear concrete examples. atb KrishnaVindaloo 09:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Blob Theory

Whoever added Blob Theory, you should really look into it a bit more before adding things like that. For one thing it is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical theory, specifically a epistemological theory (and perhaps ontological depending on how far one is inclined to take it). And its probably not even bad philosophy at that. If W.V.O. Quine, a well respected logician and philosopher (a respect well-earned), takes it seriously (as the article says, but who knows its wikipedia after-all, and I don't know that much about the theory, admittedly I've never seen him talk about it), its probably worth looking into what the theory is saying if your interested in epistemology. The nature of "properties" is a very deep question in epistemology. The Blob Theory approach to the question may be an odd approach, but there really is nothing wrong, philosophically, with the approach, aside from the fact that it might not be a very fruitful line of questioning (but, then again, it might be fruitful). Brentt 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

SRAM and SRMHP

Hello again. These are two very good and clarifying references for anyone who wants to delve further into pseudoscience in psychology. It bridges over to medicine, and education also. Here are the links:

  • This is an excellent rationale from the perspective of science over pseudoscience in general: [1]. It shows that although some therapies are promoted by various bodies, there is a lot of scientific criticism of that promotion. This is a crucial point and will impact on this article and all the related articles on the list that are mentioned in the publications.
  • Also, an older but still excellent publication: Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (SRAM) [2].

Some of it is online, and a some will need ordering or discovering from libraries/databases. atb KrishnaVindaloo 05:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghost_hunting

I feel this qualifies for definition as a pseudoscience. Ghost_hunting is a growing phenomenon practiced by many part-time paranormal researchers "in the name of science". These folks subscribe to the methodology and protocols used by other part-time paranormal researchers before them: lights-out investigation, EMF detectors to measure "spirits", IR thermometers to measure "cold spots" in ambient air temperature, video to capture "orbs" and audio to capture "electronic voice phenomenona" (i.e. spirit voices).

Due to the popularity of a hit TV show Ghost_Hunters, many casual viewers are convinced they are seeing proof of the afterlife (or at least the paranormal) on TV. The TV show carries no disclaimer. The investigators on TV (The_Atlantic_Paranormal_Society) claim they are skeptics following "scientific procedure" while informing the audience of the nature of 'demons' and 'entities' found in 'hauntings'.

What is the criteria for nominating these pages to carry a pseudoscience tag? I invite examination and comment on these wiki entries. LuckyLouie 17:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The criteria is a little fuzzy. But I'd say this is a pretty safe addition. Brentt 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
How does one proceed? Is there discussion? Vote? LuckyLouie 06:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on list.

Rather than revert warring, I suggest HGilbert discuss their proposed changes. Basicaly this looks very much like WP:Point to me. Can't get rid of list? Then disrupt it instead. The list has numerous references from sources other than Williams. The inclusion of the scientific fields Williams mentions as being once consider pseudoscience has been discussed and they were removed. Jefffire 12:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, inclusion in the Encyclopedia is the sole criterion for many current topics on the list. It would be more honest either to make a list of all topics he includes, or only to include topics that his authors actually criticize as pseudoscientific. In other words, if we do not wish to take the first course, we should take off some presently cited themes that are not actually called pseudoscientific (or the equivalent) by the articles cited. Hgilbert 12:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations from Williams

I have finally obtained a copy of Williams' Encyclopedia. I find the inclusion of him as source for individual topics misleading. First of all, he did not write the articles; unnamed authors did. His name should not be used, just the Encyclopedia title. Second of all, many of the articles actually do not imply that the topic is pseudoscientific; only their inclusion in the Encyclopedia does this. But he also includes many topics that are clearly not pseudoscientific. A more differentiated approach would improve things...could we not aim for at least one quote per topic demonstrating the character of the critique? Hgilbert 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Topics removed for improvement

I have removed the following topics from the list. They either have no citations (after a long period when these were requested) or the citations do not support their inclusion here.

Well, there are refs for each one according to my readings: eg in a review and further experiment by, Streitberger et al 2004:149 to identify the placebo effect of acupuncture. (accordint to them accupuncture is pseudoscientific in theory and as a practice in eastern and western countries).
Streitberger K, Diefenbacher M, Bauer A, Conradi R, Bardenheuer H, Martin E, Schneider A, Unnebrink K. Acupuncture compared to placebo-acupuncture for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Anaes. 2004;59:142-149.

This article shows effectiveness of acupuncture for certain treatments; for another treatment, efficacy near placebo level. It suggests as a hypothesis that acupuncture operates through conscious suggestion and then says that this hypothesis is actually discounted by the results (acupuncture under anaesthesia is more effective, counter to expectations). There is no suggestion of a pseudoscientific nature.

Please note that a study showing that a particular treatment is not effective for a particular illness (under a particular testing regime) is not evidence for calling the treatment pseudoscience. Many medicines are found uneffective in the normal course of scientific study.

Both palmistry and rving are pseudoscientific according to many sources. The EOP is actually very clear on both of them. Removal from the article is quite absurd. Editors here are working on a large body of pseudoscience. Collecting references will take time. KrishnaVindaloo 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We have time; there is no reason to rush into categorizing items for which there are no known sources. Better to maintain a high standard here. Hgilbert 11:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And the addition of birth control to the list of pseudosciences. Was that "maintaining high standards"? Criticise if you must but please -do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point-. Jefffire 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Let's insure that no spurious entries occur, however, not merely the glaringly spurious ones. Hgilbert 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Focus on findings, not speculative discussion

Hi all. The findings and statements of scientists are what is needed here. Not selective editing of speculation or discussion. It is almost impossible to prove something doesn't work. If a subject is stated to be pseudoscientific then it deserves mention or listing. If someone speculates that we may find a way to verify it, that is speculation. Pigs may find a way to fly in future. It is pure speculation. The finding: There is no evidence that pigs can fly. KrishnaVindaloo 06:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi KV. Hypotheticals can be illustratively useful. In the case of the paragraph mentioning acupuncture, it's more than hypothetical, since there is actually evidence for acu. The section makes a distinction between acu's prescientific theoretical basis and the verifiability of its empirical claims. Acu's claims are taken seriously enough by scientists to have been the subject of hundreds of RCT's and a couple dozen evidence-based medicine reviews, a few of which have found evidence for efficacy, a few of which find pretty clear evidence of acu being no better than a placebo, and the large majority of which conclude that better studies are needed in order to determine efficacy. (Thus, the protoscience label makes sense. See Acupuncture#Scientific_research.) TCM theory may thus be seen as a system of metaphors guiding effective clinical application, and its predictions are testable. Acupuncture is thus a good example to mention.
I agree that if someone has said a subject is pseudoscientific, we can mention that view under NPOV. Use of category:pseudoscience may not be appropriate in cases where there are also good arguments, e.g. scientific evidence of efficacy, that something isn't pseudoscientific. WP:CG discusses this. You've in the past expressed concerns that the cat should be broadened for the sake of indexing, and I've pointed out that "what links here" is useful for that and doesn't endorse POV's the way the cat does. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

When I say speculation, I mean if a subject is considered pseudoscience but the same author says "well we don't know what's around the corner", it still means that it is considered pseudoscientific. Otherwise, you could make astrology a science. Lets keep it clear and according to NPOV citation policy. KrishnaVindaloo 09:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Considered pseudoscientific by whom? If by scientific consensus, then need to source that, not Carroll. If sig views say chiro is scientific, then we clarify that. In the chiro article, and to some degree on this list on this page, we can do that. With cat's, we can't. To be clear -- do you disagree with WP:CG? thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Has there been a credible study on astrology in the scientific community that concludes that the consensus is that astrology is pseudoscience? I doubt it. We could only determine consensus by original research. That is against NPOV policy. So if a reliable scientific source considers a subject to be pseudoscientific, then according to NPOV policy it gets included so that science can say how it has received pseudoscientific ideas. Categories are there to help the reader compare subjects for the sake of explanation. It is useful to compare chiropractic with, for example, astrology and Scientology. Remember that cat does not compare chiropractic with brain surgery. I think you will have to admit, that will help the reader. It will also allow the reader to see the credible aspects of any of those subjects. We are talking about explanations and clarifications here. If you want to defend your subject, just make sure the credible aspects are presented and maintained in that article. I am sure there are enough editors here who simply want to explain pseudoscientific subjects as neutrally as possible. That does require editors actually getting to compare, explain, and clarify. Censoring related subjects will be unhelpful. I doubt it is your intention to un-clarify. So lets just get on with making sure that if there are any credibly scientifically supported aspects to a subject, they are clarified in the specific article, and if there are any pseudoscientific aspects, they are also clear and comparable to other pseudocientific subjects. KrishnaVindaloo 06:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
For astrology, I think Wp:npov#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves says it well. There is virtually no scientific support (except for that disputed Mars effect thing). We say that. We say that consensus is that astrology isn't valid, because our peer-reviewed sources, per WP:RS, support that. We can also cite notable critics who says it's pseudoscience. I'm all for having the information on WP, cf, my comments below; I just believe (following WP:CG that an annotated list is more NPOV than the unannotated category namespace. Hope that makes sense. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 06:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraphs

I've removed the following paragraph from the end of the section on Pseudoscience#Pseudoscience_contrasted_with_protoscience for analysis and reconsideration of its content and placement. ... Kenosis 03:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • "Ultimately, whether something is pseudoscience or not has less to do with the ideas under study than the approach used to study or justify them. Acupuncture, for instance, while it involves a prescientific system, is not inherently pseudoscientific. This is because most of its claims can be tested scientifically, so to the degree its claims have not yet been verified, acupuncture could be viewed as a protoscience. (There is some scientific evidence for certain claims of acupuncture.) Of course, scientific investigation might fail to support other claims. In the presence of a number of tests that successfully falsify a particular claim, insisting that the claim is still scientifically supported becomes pseudoscience." ... 03:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I just removed this from the beginning of the section on Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudoscience. The first sentence is frequently true of explanations of genuine scientific work to the public. The second sentence is a speculation which may well be true, but which is nonetheless quite speculative. ... Kenosis 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • "Popular pseudoscientific theories tend to be liberally simplified and/or emotionally appealing, more in line with fact-based storytelling than actual science. This is arguably fueled by the common misconception of science simply being the search for truth, as opposed to the carefully refined methodology that it is." ... 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Technical Analysis as Pseudoscience?

I'm just wondering if classifing Technical Analysis as a pseudoscience is accurate anymore. As a whole, I would agree, but there are scientifically verifiable results from using neural networks to produce a greater than average return from a market. So while a human may not be able to analyze technical factors to obtain a profit, neural networks can. Seems to me that this is reasonably arguable that it should be left off the list. Any other thoughts? Timbatron 07:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. -- Fyslee 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic: WHAT is it?

The debate about the inclusion of chiropractic is likely to continue on endlessly, unless we clarify what we're talking about. The following sums up a fallacious argument we've heard before:

"You have presented people that say chiropractic is pseudoscince. I have presented people that say chiropractic is science. Levine2112 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)" [3]

Now just what is wrong with that statement? It treats "chiropractic" as an object that is either/or, instead of both/and. That is a rather rare situation when dealing with people or professions. Most are blended. Most deceptive ideas - and especially the "best" ones - are composed of both truth and falsehood. The better the deception, the more truth it contains. That's what makes it so deceptive. The existence of a truth in a scam doesn't make it any less of a scam, on the contrary, it makes it a more dangerous scam. So it is with a profession like chiropractic, it is made up of many elements, some true, some false, and some of little consequence in this matter. (I am not saying that chiropractic as a whole is a "scam," I just used that as an example of a deceptively blended subject.)

So what are the decisive factors that weigh heavily in the balance for or against inclusion in the pseudoscience category? I'd say that multiple key elements that are important and fundamental for a profession, method, theory, or system, are what determines inclusion, not single elements. Just because we can easily point to a potentially scientific element that is included in chiropractic, does not negate the fact that the foundation of the profession, as well as many of its ideas and practices, are unscientific and unethical.

According to the quote above, some people say it's pseudoscience and some say it's science. Well, they are talking about different aspects, so fallacious reasoning is being used in that sentence. Chiropractors point to one potentially scientific aspect (manipulation) and call "chiropractic" (as a whole) science, while scientists and skeptics point to all the factors that are fundamental to, and/or characteristic for, chiropractic, which are unscientific and unethical, and call chiropractic pseudoscience. They don't consider something that isn't even unique for chiropractic (manipulation), to be significant enough to outweigh the negative factors.

So WHAT is chiropractic? It is the sum of its parts, and some of the most fundamental ones are pseudoscientific. Chiropractic is not solely manipulation. Manipulation is not chiropractic. Chiropractic is characterized by its reasons for using manipulation, and those reasons are the pseudoscientific fundament of the profession. Hence calling chiropractic "pseudoscientific" is justified.

Resources for studying this subject:

"Many people go to chiropractors for relief of back pain. But there is reason for caution. Much of what chiropractors do is nonsense, and they often misinform their patients."
"Survival of a Pseudoscience
The illusionary "subluxation" not only is the theoretical basis for chiropractic but constitutes its legal basis as well. Many state laws describe chiropractic as the finding and removal of subluxations. It is enigmatic that such a system thrives late in the twentieth century, which has seen such progress in the biological sciences and health care. While biological scientists have unraveled the genetic double-helix, chiropractors have failed to scientifically define their theory or scope of practice, or to justify their very existence as primary health-care providers.
Chiropractic's survival and success is undoubtedly due to the reality that healthcare delivery involves much more than science. Politics, business considerations, and the clinical art often take precedence. Although it is the scientific validity of the methods employed that justifies modern health-care, in practical terms of survival in the marketplace, chiropractic demonstrates daily that the scientific aspects of health care are of least importance and in greatest need of protection."
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Louisville School of Medicine
ON-LINE READING FOR JANUARY 10, 2006
CHIROPRACTIC, OSTEOPATHY, MASSAGE, ANTI-VACCINATION MOVEMENT
"Chiropractic is a pseudoscience. The thinking behind it has no basis in fact, and even after more than a century, its core belief, the subluxation, cannot be shown to exist; even though it is a scientifically testable theory.
Some of the beliefs, such as the anti-vaccination stance, actually go against scientific evidence, medical opinion and government policy. Opposing germ theory exposes the 19th century thinking that Chiropractic is based upon.
Chiropractic is not one technique that can treat one class of illness or disease. It is promoted as a panacea and an all-encompassing preventative measure to be used from the moment we are born onwards.
A healing system that is based on a mystical life-force that gets blocked by imaginary subluxations, and that relies on anecdotal evidence; special pleading; the placebo effect; and subjective diagnoses is clearly an irrational concept: no matter how much credence is given to it with qualifications and self-regulation."

-- Fyslee 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Several of the following replies to my entry above should be read in light of an obvious misunderstanding(?) of my message, and the perpetuation of the fallacious argument which I pointed out. The mistake is to confuse manipulation for chiropractic.
The fallacious statement again:
"You have presented people that say chiropractic is pseudoscince. I have presented people that say chiropractic is science. Levine2112 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)" [4]
The key elements without the fallacious reasoning:
Some people say that "chiropractic" is pseudoscience. Some people say that "manipulation" is backed by scientific data, which happens to be disputed, but some of it does seem to show positive results.
  • The word "science" applies to manipulation, not chiropractic.
  • The word "pseudoscience" applies to chiropractic, not manipulation.
Scientific research has focused on manipulation, not chiropractic.
Chiropractic is not manipulation. Chiropractic is accused of containing and being based on pseudoscientific ideas. Manipulation does not suffer that fate, although it suffers under the pseudoscientific reasons used by chiropractic to justify its use. -- Fyslee 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Replies

You are making a fallacious argument. This isn't about scientist vs. chiropractors. This is about scientists vs. scientists. Some scientists say chiropractic is pseudoscientific. Some say it is not. So which scientists' POV does this article represent? Seemingly just the ones that you agree with.
The following is the result of a few minutes of Google research. As you well know, this is but a small percentage of the work that is out there that goes to say that chiropractic is a science. So you have your sources, and I have mine. With this much contention, I don't see how we can keep listing chiropractic factually as an example of a pseudoscience. I see no consensus in the scientific community that says it is. All I see is propaganda left over from a time before the AMA was sued and was found guilty of a huge conspiracy to cover up the results of chiropractic research in order to protect the wallets of the AMA members. Guilty of anti-trust, the AMA continues its reign of anti-chiropractic propaganda through other avenues, feeding it to you, hoping you'll believe it and perpetuate their myth that chiropractic is pseudoscience. Fyslee, how does the Kool Aid taste?
  • Right now chiropractors can go before any audience and say that there is sufficient science to discuss the neurological and clinical effects of the adjustment. It is no longer credible for anyone to state that "there is no scientific basis for spinal manipulation or the chiropractic adjustment." THE EVOLUTION OF CHIROPRACTIC — SCIENCE & THEORY by Scott Haldeman, D.C., M.D., Ph.D.
  • Leading edge research in cellular and molecular biology is currently offering a radically new understanding of the mechanisms that "control" life and evolution. These new findings will inevitably integrate and unify the truths of both biomedical scientists and chiropractors. [deprecated source?] The Evolving Science of Chiropractic Philosophy] by Bruce Lipton, PhD.
  • In their extensive review of the literature, Manga et al (34) published in 1993 that chiropractic management of low-back pain is superior to allopathic medical management in terms of greater safety, greater effectiveness and reduced cost. [deprecated source?] The Science of Chiropractic and Spinal Manipulation] by Alex Vasquez, DC, ND
  • To date, most of the published research relative to chiropractic relates to effectiveness studies for spinal manipulation. The randomized clinical trial is the gold standard of research designs and more than 50 such trials have been conducted on spinal manipulation. In short, the effectiveness of this procedure for certain kinds of back, neck, and head pain has been so well established that it has been included as a recommended treatment for low-back pain by independently developed, evidence-based government guidelines in the U.S., Britain, and Denmark. The Chiropractic Profession and Its Research and Education Programs
  • One of the most exciting developments is in basic science approaches to chiropractic theory, especially the interface between spinal biomechanics and neuroscience. There are now enough experts in different locations around the globe to tackle different aspects of this area, and we are now starting to see how all this research can dovetail together. Believe It or Not, Chiropractic Science Is Evolving! by William Meeker, DC, MPH, FICC
  • Chiropractic science is an approach to human health that was developed through extensive anatomical study in which the elements of the human system, particularly the spine and nervous system continue to be examined in an effort to understand the relationship between the state of those anatomical elements and optimal human health. CHIROPRACTIC SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
  • For the first time in chiropractic history, a research journal specifically dedicated to the science of subluxation is making sure that everyone -- D.C.s, patients, M.D.s, insurance reviewers, attorneys, lawmakers, and the general public -- has access to valuable research information that explores all aspects of the vertebral subluxation. JVSR brings chiropractic science to patients and the media
Levine2112 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you possibly find more biased cites? Of course chiropractic sites are going to declare chiropractics is a science. •Jim62sch• 22:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that is fair. All of the sites that Fyslee and others have found that declare chiropractic is pseudoscience could be characterized similarly. For instance, Fyslee cites his own website when it is clear that he is extremely biased against chiropractic. Anyhow, some of the references that I have posted above come from outside the chiropractic community, but happen to be reposted on chiropractic sites. Some are from MDs and some are from PhDs. Dr. Mercola's site for instance is certainly extremely notable both inside and outside of the alternative medicine world. Actually, I think the most interesting points about chiropractic being a science comes from the Florida State University website's posting made by a team of independent researchers (see the The Chiropractic Profession and Its Research and Education Programs link above). Levine2112 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Radical anti-chiropractic fundamentalist extremists are NOT scientists

I think I see the error in Fyslee’s reasoning as to the debate here.

He is confusing radical anti-chiropractic fundamentalist extremists with ‘scientists’. Most in the list he posted above are connected in some way with Stephen Barrett the self-appointed World Headmaster of Chiropractic hatred in charge of the Chiropractic problem and Final Solution. These authors are in no way shape or form, scientists by any stretch of the imagination. They all use their academic credentials to add an air of legitimacy to their musings, sanctioned by SB (didn’t he fail his psych boards) and then quoted endlessly by the marketing/propaganda arm of Stephen Barrett Enterprises. The more you say something and link it to their websites so Google can find it, then the truer it must be. Right? Not! In reality, they are just biased, extremely bigoted opinions. They are passing off their views, not only as truth (far from it), but also as ‘everyone’s’ view on the subject.

Levine has provided hundreds of perfectly good references and they are ignored. But much ballyhoo is accorded references from known anti-chiropractic extremists. If medicine quotes medical journals, no problem. But if chiropractic quotes chiropractic journals - - FOUL!

Smoke and mirrors work wonders when one is trying to pass off the ‘reality’ of a physical therapist as the ‘real’ reality when it certainly isn’t. You really have to focus and concentrate to keep things straight when reading this so-called ‘debate’. Steth 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Above is yet another typical non-reply from Steth.
All straw man attack using ad hominem logical fallacies to divert attention from the contents of my message. He repeats the misunderstanding made by Levine2112 by mentioning scientific research that applies primarily to manipulation, not to chiropractic.
A clear violation of No Personal Attacks and failure to assume good faith. Also a failure to reply to the message, while attacking the messenger. Pretty poor behavior for a Wikipedia editor. I assume other editors can see through what he's up to. -- Fyslee 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And I assume the other editors can see through what you are up to as well. You are manipulating this discussion page just as you manipulate facts. To best suit your needs. The fact is that you are a true believer of the anti-chiropractic movement and are blinded to open rational discussion. You have had a clear agenda ever since you came to Wikipedia last year that hasn't waivered to date.
Steth has made some valid criticism of your debating tactics. That was fully warranted. He is attempting to show your logical fallacies just as you have attempted to do to his and mine. I think the phrase "Don't dish it out if you can't take it" rigorously applies to you here. Levine2112 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You assume incorrectly. He did not discuss the content of my message, which is in keeping with the subject matter for this article. He directly attacked me, sources, etc. He attempts to poison the well. He attacks the man, instead of calmly and professionally using well-reasoned arguments to deal with the content of the message. This has been his consistent pattern, unlike yourself. You can do that when you want to. -- Fyslee 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, I think your comments about chiropractic having aspects of pseudoscience are right on the money, and much more intellgent than the tired debate of "yes/no, is it pseudoscientific or not". Steth, what Fyslee says and cites isn't some sort of fringe/hateful view that must be suppressed. It's a significant view. I don't share Fyslee's opinion that the mix necessarily makes it more pernicious, but a mix indeed it is, just as with many alt-med things. I prefer to see the mix as a baby/bathwater thing, and that there is value in these fields, and valid criticism does us all a favor.
Anyway, these skeptical POV's are significant, not to be marginalized as fringe views, and not to be extrapololated as scientific consensus either. By WP:RS we look to peer-reviewed journals for scientific consensus. For some topics like creationism and flat-earthism, it's obvious what the majority scientific view is. For stuff like chiropractic or acupuncture, it's more complex. It's clear that much of the underlying theory (vertebral subluxation, yin/yang) does not have a scientific basis, but the question of efficacy is taken seriously, and we can report that accordingly. Efficacy of acu and chiro for many conditions remains an open question. There's no evident consensus either way (cf. Cochrane's comments under EBM at acupuncture). But critics also argue that acu and chiro, et. al., are overpromoted, so we can report that too. For many fields, the questions of science and pseudoscience are complex enough to require more than just the category namespace to handle properly. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 05:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Use of WP as a soapbox by adding hate-centric edits to marginalize chiropractic and denigrate editors who are chiropractors is a clear violation

Gentlemen, I was merely pointing out chiropractic historian Fyslee's misguided 'reasoning' that the opinions of those who actively engage in anti-chiropractic fundamentalist extremism are not the same thing as what scientists think. Practically all of his 'sources' have been given the good hate-keeping seal of approval by Stephen Barrett Enterprises, you know, the one who failed the psych boards (fact). SB and his friends, and he counts Fyslee among them, regularly engage in activities that are meant to damage chiropractic and dehumanize chiropractors.

This hate-centric mentality is the basis behind the so-called 'sources' that Fyslee digs out of his sandbox and constantly bombards us with as 'proof' that chiropractic is pseudoscience. This is the reality of an anti-chiropractic physical therapist and I am getting sick and tired of it being forced down our throats by Fyslee as the gospel truth. He is passing off his 'opinion' as fact and trying to convince us that it is also the opinion of scientists when it clearly is not.

Using WP as a soapbox is a clear violation. Adding opinion that only serves to marginalize chiropractic and denigrates the chiropractic editors such as Levine, Dematt and Hughr among others. This hate-centric POV must stop. Steth 02:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Why not look it up in a notable science journal. granted both sides of the argument are biased, think of what makes it scientific and look up those facts. I just see a revert war insuing. Somerset219 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That is an excellent idea, the problem is that notable science journals have published both viewpoints; that chiropractic is science and that chiropractic is rooted in pseudoscience. My main contention is that a lot of the pseudoscience claims are reminents of a time when the AMA was actively engaging in a conspiracy to surpress chiropractic research. U.S. courts found and held that the AMA engaged in such a conspiracy purely for financial reasons; protecting themselves from the competition they knew chiropractic would offer. (And I know what people think when they start hearing the word "conspiracy" thrown around, but this conspiracy was more than a theory I assure you. See Wilk v. American Medical Association to learn all about the shocking reality.) The conspiracy and anti-chiro propaganda continues today, with anti-chiro organization taking out advertisements on billboards and buses claiming that chiropractic is dangerous... even though the most conservative studies show that serious complications from a chiropractic adjustment are virtually non-existent. It has been shown that "researchers" claiming that chiropractic is dangerous derived their figures by deceptively factoring in more than chiropractic adjustments into their analysis pool. They have included manipulations performed by less skilled practitioners including massage therapist and some sort of Kung Fu guy. I know it sounds unreal but check this out: According to "a research report in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, "manipulations" administered by a Kung Fu practitioner, GPs, osteopaths, physiotherapists, a wife, a blind masseur, and an Indian barber had been incorrectly attributed to chiropractors." The report goes on to say, "The words chiropractic and chiropractor have been incorrectly used in numerous publications dealing with SMT injury by medical authors, respected medical journals and medical organizations. In many cases, this is not accidental; the authors had access to original reports that identified the practitioner involved as a non-chiropractor. The true incidence of such reporting cannot be determined. Such reporting adversely affects the reader's opinion of chiropractic and chiropractors." (Terrett AGJ: Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury. JMPT 1995;18:203) Anyhow, we can continue these lies here on Wikipedia or we can do our due diligence and try to publish the truth. Forgive our frustration, but this nonsense has gone on long enough. Levine2112 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this help? "Numerous studies and expert panel reviews have supported the use of chiropractic and manipulation for these complaints. Satisfaction with chiropractic care for low back pain typically is good. Chiropractic, in general, offers safe and cost-effective procedures for selected musculoskeletal problems" PubMed--Hughgr 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Several of the replies above should be read in light of an obvious misunderstanding(?) of my message, and a perpetuation of the fallacious argument which I pointed out. The mistake is to confuse manipulation for chiropractic.
The fallacious statement again:
"You have presented people that say chiropractic is pseudoscince. I have presented people that say chiropractic is science. Levine2112 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)" [5]
The key elements without the fallacious reasoning:
Some people say that "chiropractic" is pseudoscience. Some people say that "manipulation" is backed by scientific data, which happens to be disputed, but some of it does seem to show positive results.
  • The word "science" applies to manipulation, not chiropractic.
  • The word "pseudoscience" applies to chiropractic, not manipulation.
Scientific research has focused on manipulation, not chiropractic.
Chiropractic is not manipulation. Chiropractic is accused of containing and being based on pseudoscientific ideas. Manipulation does not suffer that fate, although it suffers under the pseudoscientific reasons used by chiropractic to justify its use. -- Fyslee 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting me. I want to be clear on this. There are studies that show manipulation - specifically the chiropractic adjustment - is scientifically effective. Therefore, I say again that while some scientists claim that chiropractic is pseudoscientific, there are also some that say chiropractic is scientific. Please refrain from twisting my logic which says the word science applies to chiropractic. And stop using Wikipedia as a soapbaox to push your anti-chiropractic agenda. The most fallacious point made here is by you: Scientific research has focused on manipulation, not chiropractic. Huh? Do you truly believe this to be true? Have you completely ignored every bit of chiropractic research that I have pointed you to? Or are you writing those off because it doesn't fit into the world you have constructed? Either way, much scientific research exists that support chiropractic (especially considering there has only been 20 or so years where chiropractic was free to be researched without scared goliaths such as the AMA surpressing their findings. Levine2112 19:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


I am not misunderstanding you at all. I understand you perfectly well, and point out that you are using flawed logic in your wording. The scientific research has been concerned primarily with manipulation, not so much with chiropractic.

Chiropractic is about much more than manipulation, and many of the aspects of chiropractic that identify it have not been the subjects of scientific research because they are unscientific, pseudoscientific, anti-scientific, anti-medical, etc..

It is these dubious aspects that are being referred to when chiropractic is labeled pseudoscientific. It is not manipulation that is being labeled pseudoscientific, although the reasons used by chiropractic to justify its use are so labeled.

Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD, chiropractic historian and professor, uses the following words to describe many dubious aspects of the profession when he analyzes chiropractic, its research, thinking, practices, and journals:

  • a continuing enigma
  • science
  • antiscience
  • pseudoscience
  • quackery
  • anti-intellectual traditions
  • unscientific
  • irrational
  • confusion
  • antiscientific mindset
  • cult
  • chiropractic's foibles
  • religious overtones
  • humbug
  • uncritical dogma
  • circus
  • showmanship
  • marketing
  • unsubstantiated claims
  • pseudoscience journals
  • uncritical rationalism
  • uncritical empiricism
  • fuzzy thinkers
  • health fraud
  • student loan defaults
  • paranoia
  • xenophobia
  • nonskeptical attitudes
  • "anti-intellectual" traditions

He writes:

"After thirteen years of teaching and research at several chiropractic colleges, I can say with confidence that chiropractic is both science and antiscience. Yes, there is a meaningful science of chiropractic, but just as surely there is an antiscientific mindset and even a cult within chiropractic (for example, the cult of B. J. Palmer, son of the founder of chiropractic). Moreover, if University of Connecticut sociologist Walter Wardwell is correct (Wardwell 1992), the belief systems of a majority of DCs lie somewhere between these two poles: chiropractic as science versus chiropractic as unscientific, uncritical dogma and circus. Perhaps a consideration of the nature of science will aid in understanding how the chiropractic profession does and does not approximate the rigors of science."
"In recent years this combination of uncritical rationalism and uncritical empiricism has been bolstered by the proliferation of pseudoscience journals of chiropractic wherein poor quality research and exuberant overinterpretation of results masquerade as science and provide false confidence about the value of various chiropractic techniques. These periodicals expand on the uncritical attitudes and unproven claims for chiropractic that have long been made in the magazines published by the national membership societies of chiropractors in the United States. It is practically impossible to read any of the trade publications within chiropractic without encountering unsubstantiated claims."
"Coexisting with the obvious and ubiquitous antiscientific and pseudoscientific reasoning and rhetoric in chiropractic (Skrabanek 1988) are the genuinely critical, skeptical attitudes of the still quite embryonic research community in this profession."
"The conflict between medical doctors and DCs has also produced a penchant for marketing slogans in lieu of scientifically testable propositions. The classic example of this is the mindless reiteration that "chiropractic works," a vacuous claim which lacks specificity and is not amenable to experimental testing. However, confronted by charges that chiropractic is quackery, chiropractors have responded by insisting that "Chiropractic Works!" and have rallied satisfied patients to convince legislators and policy makers of the validity of their methods and the justness of their cause. Slogans like this are endlessly repeated not only to the public, but among DCs themselves (and to chiropractic students). To challenge the notion that "chiropractic works" is considered heresy in most corners of the profession. Rather than skepticism and critical thinking, traditional chiropractic education has sought to instill strong belief in chiropractic (Quigley 1981) among successive generations of students. In so doing the schools have strengthened the "anti-intellectual" (Coulter 1990) traditions in the profession."
-- Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side

-- Fyslee 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Fyslee, You cannot separate manipulation from chiropractic, take the good parts and leave the rest. Manipulation would not be practiced in a healthcare setting if it weren't for the chiropractor. Their original claims included back and neck pain and rheumatism and arthritis and all those things that medicine renounced as well. You can't take the good effects of manipulation and claim them as your own, and leave the unproven parts to the cultists. That would be unethical. If science does eventually prove a relationship for vertebral subluxation and high blood pressure, or anything else health wise are they going to claim that as their own as well? --Dematt 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that in many ways they do belong together, but it is primarily the reasoning behind its use, not manipulation itself, that is directly "chiropractic."
That reasoning is considered to be tainted with pseudoscientific thinking. Much of the research on manipulation has not even been performed by chiropractors or mentioned chiropractic. That research (when favorable) has often been misapplied by chiropractors to chiropractic as a profession, and to the chiropractic adjustment. But when the research has been unfavorable, especially when pointing out dangers, suddenly the research gets disavowed as being about non-chiropractic "manipulation," and not applicable to chiropractic or the chiropractic "adjustment." Go figure. -- Fyslee 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Research performed with public funding is everybody's research. Medicine cannot claim what PhD's perform in the name of science for themselves. Chiropractic does not receive the billions in funding to conduct the studies you are asking of it. When the research does support their claims, they should be happy. When it refutes something, they have every right to be critical of it (need I say Vioxx). Isn't that what scientists do? Isn't that what you are doing? It seems to me that they are behaving as a science, not a pseudoscience. --Dematt 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic is a DRAW?

Wow, looks like a tie. What do you do with a tie? Either you have to put both POVs in or take them both out. I suggest the section that includes the list be opened to allow for rebuttal or get rid of it. If you do it for one on the list, you have to allow it for all. Or the there is always the dreaded controversy template:). Or, I suppose you could just take the ones that are a tie off the list. I'll try the rebuttal option just to see what it looks like(Oops, somebody else got there first:). You can take it from there. --Dematt 02:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dematt. No there is no tie. Pseudoscience is not the opposite of science. Just as a scarecrow is not the opposite of a farmer with a shotgun. But one of your suggestions holds well for both the article on pseudoscience. Pseudoscientific subjects are never completely pseudoscientific. EG, the Dianetics e-meter is scientifically supported as a basic galvanometer, but is not useful in the practice of removing "engrams". Chiropractic is pseudoscientific and has some support for a few of its interventions. This is completely consistent with pseudoscientific subjects, it is consistent with the chiropractic article, and shows nuance enough to improve this article. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

KV, I changed your qualifier for chiro back to the one I had before because I thought it was more specific. I think Fyslee's comments above are right on the money, re some aspects being pseudoscience and some not. NPOV is about representing debates fairly, so we should be specific about which aspects of a topic have been called pseudoscientific and by whom. I think the criticisms of chiro are notable enough to be cited, and don't represent a tiny minority. However, we need to be careful about overstating what references are really saying, and who they speak for. Agree with Kenosis and FM on "significant part" of the scientific community being a good compromise.
And again: the category namespace is unique in that it's an on/off condition, hence WP:CG's cautions about overpopulating categories. I'd prefer to see an annotated list than an unannotated category. Not all pseudosciences are "created equal". Annotation allows us to say which aspects are criticized as pseudoscientific and by whom. For this reason I placed Template:cleancat on category:pseudoscience in order to attract edits and help resolve the issue. Discussion here and on Category_talk:Pseudoscience shows pretty clearly that such consensus hasn't been reached, IMO. Unfortunately, a couple of editors who believe the cat is fine as is keep removing the tag. Am I the only one who finds this behavior contrary to WP's standards of consensus-building and dispute-resolution? cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim Butler. It may be specific to write subluxation, but its also too narrow. There are a lot more pseudoscientific elements to chiropractic than that in the literature. Regarding fairness, there is no debate. If a reliable source says pseudo then that is their view, and any views around that can continue on the article in question. Regarding "significant part". According to Wikipedia that shoudl be simply a reliable source. If its a reliable source, then it is significant. Otherwise, we get into OR. Concerning On OFF, yes, I agree. Pseudos are not equal, and this should in fact be reiterated in the article, and perhaps also the section in question. I am all for clear explanation of pseudoscientific subjects. It is extremely important for contemporary thinking and clear encyclopedic factual entries. KrishnaVindaloo 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

KV, I don't think you understand the specific issues relevant to the category namespace that WP:CG raises. We do agree it's good to have some summary. I think subluxation theory is the crux of it all; your point is valid, but generic. I'll try putting it in the opening paragraph. Strike that, I would, but looks like it's gonna be edit warring for awhile. A shame. It's not that hard to just say "who says what and why". The problem IMO is that some editors keep wanting to overreach, and that causes a backlash of others wanting to suppress. I think the proper balance is being approached with FM's "significant portion" bit, and including chiro on the list with some qualifier. And to all a good night. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 05:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be ok to write : "For example, subluxation theory". Because that is brief and clearer. But chiropractic has been following the pseudoscientific line for over a century. Eg, Dogma in place of healthy skepticism, the blanket insistence that "it works", the emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation, the creation of granfalloons and cults etc. In the case of the list, we have no choice but to be vague. The link takes the reader straight to the article so it can be read. This is an electronic medium. Lets make at least some use of the facilities. KrishnaVindaloo 05:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

KV, you keep saying chiropractic is a pseudoscience. Why do you believe this? What's this insinuation about cults? What? Where's your evidence? Pardon me, but I don't think you have demonstrated enough knowledge of the subject to condemn it. By the way, certainly no one has shown that a significant portion of the scientific community (WTF does that mean anyway?) believes chiropractic to be pseudoscientific. If anything, we have shown that a larger part of the scientific community supports chiropractic as a science. I have to agree with Dematt above. At the very best, this is a tie. Either we put a caveat with chiropractic's inclusion or we delete it. I'm in favor of deleting it. Clearly, it is not a good example of a pseudoscience and thus does not help the reader in any way other than add to the confusion. I think users such as Fyslee are trying to include it here to do a little soapboxing for his anti-chiro cause. He loves you right now because you are doing his work for him. Levine2112 05:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112. I never said chiropractic is a pseudoscience. I said reliable sources state that chiropractic is pseudoscientific. I am referring constantly to the literature on pseudoscientific subjects and the literature on chiropractic. There is no insinuation about cults. This comes from the Shermer, Keating and others. I am not condemning chiropractic. Nobody is. The sources being used here are showing a scientific view that chiropractic is pseudocientific because it displays pseudoscientific characteristics such as those I mentioned above. Chiropractic is such a good example of a pseudoscientific subject because there are traditionalists who group together to sell all kinds of pseudoscientific ideas together with some scientifically verified ideas. It does not matter who is on my side. I am not at all on a soapbox. The pseudoscience article is to neutrally explain pseudoscientific subjects to the reader. That is what I am doing. Censoring pseudoscientific subjects from the article is entirely unhelpful, and betrays a desire to remove neutral and scientifically sourced views that go against the soapbox promotion of a subject. I understand that some will want to promote chiropractic. If so, stick with the chiro article and make sure the reformer views are properly maintaned and well explained. It needs emphasizing. If you focus on that endevour, you can (as reformers have) state the pseudoscientific aspects of chiro as clearly as possible, and clarify the reform recommendations. That is a win win. If it is your objective to promote the use of chiro with other pseudoscientific elements, then I believe you have an uphill battle. I maintain that you have the integrity to follow the science-savvy reformer path. KrishnaVindaloo 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we could easily include chiro on the list if we backed off a little on assuming that Carroll et. al. speak for the scientific community. They don't meet WP:RS for scientific articles. The assumption that they speak for a "significant part" of the scientific community is IMO almost certainly true, which is why I supported it. But it's still an assumption, not supported by the sources, not really OK per WP:V, and "significant part" is kind of weaselly anyway. "Pseudoscience" is primarily a popular and a political term, barely verging on social science in the same sense that "cult" is. It's not a term most scientists use in the peer-reviewed literature, and isn't a valid scientific category. Better IMO to stop overreaching, just say who's making the criticisms and why, and also clearly present the scientific view, which includes (a) they don't buy subluxation theory, and (b) per evidence-based medicine there is perhaps some but not a lot of evidence for efficacy. That ought to be encylopedic enough. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jim, we are heading in the right direction. Though pseudoscience is not at all primarilly political or social. There are many tomes and peer reviewed papers written on pseudoscience by very neutral and science minded sources. Carroll is one pretty good source, and there are better. Williams et al are pretty much rock solid. Of course, peer reviewed sources are always better. Sure Signifiant part is really to weasel. I can put my hand on a multitude of peer-reviewed papers that use the term pseudoscientific. Sure, specific explanations are the order of the day, but lets make the most of the hyperlinks also. KrishnaVindaloo 06:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
KV, yes, inclusion is good! With proper citation! Hope we're getting there. Take care, Jim Butler(talk) 06:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
But chiropractic isn't pseudoscientific. So how can it be a good example? Are we only here to say what people wrongly consider to be pseudoscience. That's terrible. How is that encyclopedic? Levine2112 06:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
To paraphrase part of the section's opening paragraph, "a notable part of the scientific community" says that it is. The sources cited above in this regard are certainly notable and otherwise fulfil the list's criteria. To exclude it from the list as defined in this way would self-evidently be erroneous and misleading. And Jim Butler's proposed solution to this debate, that acknowledges evidence chiropractic's efficacy in certain circumstances while maintaining the necessity of its inclusion on the list, is to be greatly applauded. --Dorado 07:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I just added a few disciplines to the list. I have found lots of support out there for these, and while I don't neccessarily agree with this POV, there is certainly a notable part of the scientific community that agrees with these. Levine2112 07:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Your sources are not verifiable as they stand, being to people and not published works. The fields you have added should not be on the list until verifiables citations are provided. --Dorado 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Give me a second. Will you? I'm doing just that. Levine2112 07:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I take it that, by adding new fields and leaving chiropractic in the list, Levine2112 now acknowledges the appropriateness of chiropractic's inclusion? --Dorado 07:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Dorado. I believe we should try hard to assume good faith here. Levine2112 seems to be working towards agreement, at least in a few of the latest edits. I would also be inclined to be inclusive rather than exclusive as regards the list. Notability is important. That is probably the best way to help readers compare the various pseudoscientific subjects. If they have heard of the subject before, then it is easier for them to build knowledge upon those known subjects and to compare the related issues. If a subject is truly an unnotable pseudoscientific subject then it can be excluded. But also, it will help if the subject has its pseudoscientific elements explained in the article in question. That can be ongoing. KrishnaVindaloo 08:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
PS, I have noticed that there are subjects that chiropractic proponents claim are pseudoscience, and they are criticised for this in the literature. For example, innoculation is slated as pseudoscience by some chiropractors in their defense of the use of homeopathy and acupuncture/power therapies etc. Its fine to watch out for the inclusion of that or immunization into the list. It only shows the more pseudoscientific activities of chiropractic proponents within Wikipedia. Lets keep agendas out of this. KrishnaVindaloo 08:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
KrishnaVindaloo - I agree entirely that agendas have no place in this discussion; however, with this in mind, yours is an interesting interpretation of Levine2112's latest edits. Provocatively adding fields of endeavour to the list with obviously inadequate citations does not suggest a great deal of good faith (or the absence of an agenda) on Levine2112's part.
Further to your second point, I would suggest that anti-vaccinationism is an appropriate subject for inclusion on the list. --Dorado 09:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I don't neccessarily agree with these additions, but I found a notable amount of support for their inclusion on this list. I think if we try hard enough we will find that both immunization and anti-immunization belong on this list as there is notable support in the scientific community that each is a pseudoscience. Certainly if you agree that a large portion of the alternative medicine world believes in innoculation to be pseudoscience, then the justification for its inclusion on the list is readily apparent. My only agenda here is equality. This list is highly in favor of an anti-alternative medicine POV. It is also coming from a pure scientific skeptical POV... which is NOT the same as the scientific POV and certainly not the truth. Since you won't allow anyone to delete entries from the list, the only alternative is to add to the list from a different POV. I think in the end, we'll see that given the options your policing has left, 1) this is a fair "Wiki" way to handle this and 2) in our world on infinite opinions, pretty much everything has a notable amount of scientific support to be labelled pseudoscience. Gosh, and to think all I wanted to do when I came to this article was to remove a poor example to give the reader of a pseudoscience. Now - thanks to your guidance - I will be giving the reader so much more. Levine2112 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. Facts are facts. That's what this is all about. Just make sure you have them referenced with reputable sources. --Dematt 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Section on "Fields considered pseudoscience..."

I've just changed the section title to "Fields considered pseudoscience by a significant portion of the scientific community". My actual preference would be to call it simply "Fields considered pseudoscience", with a brief paragraph explaining what is meant by that. There are enough astute editors here to argue these impossible-to-precisely-pin-down points. "Significant" is already a term of art in science, and if there's much dispute about it we can add up the number of verifiable (WP:VER) scientists in the world and divide if by the verifiable (WP:VER) number of professional scientists (as opposed to sideline commentators) who have published arguments that a particular field is pseudoscientific. This, while always arguable, might at least have the potential to bring the debates into a range that makes a bit more sense than what's been repeatedly going back and forth recently with respect to this article. "Significant" could readily be negotiated to mean, say, 5% or more of the scientific community worldwide. (We'd of course not only need to roughly count up the approximate number of professional scientists in the world, but also the approximate number subscribing to organizations in a particular area of relevance--no doubt another inevitable point of argment, but at least a criterion to argue about.) Exceptions could be argued for fields that involve specific areas of expertise that have a much smaller pool of professional scientists capable of reasonably "commentating" on these various accusations that come across this page.
The concept of "notable" (which I edited into the first sentence of this section) has become standard on the Wiki. I know it's highly debatable and flexible, but at least it's a standard that has already been worked on by others independently of this article and is acknowledged to be applicable to the way business is done in Wikipedia with the perhaps-idealistic goal of reasonably presenting information to readers.
I fully recognize this is a highly imperfect "science", but folks, I think it's time we bring the standards up to a "higher" or more objective level of argument here. Understanding I may be totally wrong about the particular approach I just proposed, I nonetheless think it's time to use the consensus process to arrive at some more reasonable criteria than we've been using to date. ... Kenosis 04:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kenosis. The recent research on pseudoscience in general examines pseudoscientific ideas and aspects of various fields. It doesn't generally state a particular subject is "a pseudoscience". Rather there tends to be a statement that a subject is pseudocientific. This is because there are degrees of pseudoscientificness, and there are elements of science and pseudocience in certain fields. For example, Dianetics contains some scientifically credible ideas among the pseudoscientific ideas. There are reliable sources to say that Dianetics is pseudoscientific. I believe, in accordance with the more recent research, this is more appropriate for that section heading. I'll not change it myself, but I propose:

"Subjects considered pseudocientific according to reliable scientific sources"

This is basically how editors are compiling the list, it is helpful for the reader, and it does infer that there can be credible aspects to pseudoscientific subjects. You could say it is a way of softening, but more imporantly it is a move towards clearer explanation of pseudoscientific subjects. KrishnaVindaloo 07:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of the citations are not of scientists, but of philosophers (such as Williams and Carroll). This is natural, for this is more of a "philosophy of science" distinction in many ways. Science will test the validity of an idea, but invalid ideas are not necessarily pseudoscientific, they are merely false hypotheses. Philosophy distinguishes betweeen modes of experience, and modes of science, and philosophers tend to talk most clearly about how to determine what is pseudoscience. (See the text of the article: how many scientists are quoted there?)

In addition, as we have noted before, there is no pretense in any of the cases of showing consensus amongst scientists. The earlier wording, "...according to some critics" is more accurate, though I'd welcome an improvement on this that doesn't falsify the nature of the actual sources we are using. Hgilbert 03:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We are facing a serious question that keeps being pushed away. Are we including anything ever criticized as pseudoscience on this list (in which case one citation is sufficient), or are we trying to show that the bulk of scientific thought is that a field is pseudo-? I would suggest that the current discussion offers strong support for the latter approach. But then we will indeed have to go through case by case and evaluate the evidence in some sort of balanced way, a huge undertaking. I happen to feel that it is the only responsible course (the analogy would be including a variety of names on a list of idiots, based solely upon who has ever been called an idiot). Hgilbert 03:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert et al: I just reverted to the most recent variation of using the scientific community as a parameter, recently proposed by FeloniousMonk and apparently also supported by several other editors. It may not be perfect, but we absolutely need to consensus a more reasonably objective set of criteria for this list. Whatever that turns out to be, I totally dispute the weasel-word approach of "by some critics". The collection of editors here is intelligent enough to hash this out and iron this out. Please let's proceed to do this. FM's proposal is the first reasonable one I've seen here in a long time. ... Kenosis 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the new title, as long as we remove any fields for which there are no citations from scientists (this would include the bulk of them). The title "...according to reliable scientific sources" is very impressive but totally misrepresents the current state of citation. Do you wish for it to be so?

If I understand you rightly, you'd like the list to show items for which a consensus of scientific opinion exists. We agree on this. But it is presently not the list's reality, and the present title should reflect this. Hgilbert 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's at least let's find a more objective set of criteria to argue over. Certain guidelines have been established by numerous other editors of WP independently of this article, which can be a reasonable source of objectivity here. We might start there, and if we choose by consensus to do that, the criterion of "notable" is immediately in the mix and we can continue the various arguments on some basis that isn't made up on a darned day-by-day and POV-by-POV basis.
Same with the idea of a "significant" portion of the scientific community. With not too much actual work around here, this can be fairly readily established and argued on the merits of each particular case. For whatever it's worth, the number of scientists in the world is fairly easy to approximate by referencing the various scientific organizations in the world, and just adding them up and rounding off to the nearest whatever. And of course it involves further arguing about that, but at least it's something more rational to argue about than the concept of "some critics", which basically means "if I can find two, I'm in there as a critic of some field I hate."
Anyway, I am positive that the fine minds that get involved in this article can work this out in a comparatively more stable and objective way than has recently been evident. . ... Kenosis 05:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kenosis. Again, there is no way to prove significant portions etc. There is no need for argument whatsoever. If a reliable source states a subject is pseudoscientific, then it can be included if it is notable. It would help to have several sources, as that would help to prove notability. Remember that this article on pseudoscience takes the title - pseudoscience and clarifies it. This means listing the attributes of pseudocientific subjects and explaining them. There are many elements of pseudoscientific subjects already there, and some to be added. But there seems to be a stubborn insistence on showing papers that support a particular intervention to negate the view that a subject is pseudoscience. This is unhelpful and a waste of time. It doesn't matter how much OR we do, it will not change the fact that a subject is considered pseudoscientific by a reliable source. We do need to add more characteristics of pseudoscience in the article. I will provide at least some of that. But it would help if editors started becoming more aware of the nature of pseudoscientific subjects. In fact, the list of pseudoscientific subjects should simply be called that: A list of pseudoscientific subjects. Below that title can be written: This is a list of subjects that are pseudoscientific according to reliable sources. It really is as simple as that. This follows NPOV policy on inclusion of views. KrishnaVindaloo 05:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there would be very little problem if you changed the name of the section to "Fields with pseudoscientific elements". Then allow one sentence of why and one sentence of why not for each. --Dematt 13:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw Dematt's comment after I changed the section title from "with pseudoscientific elements" to "claimed to be pseudoscientific" (no change in current text which is still somewhat rational at present). I don't expect my change to stick for long.
I believe we should continue to argue these points and seek to lay out a framework that will be properly representative of the level of intelligence of the participants in this article. It'll take awhile no doubt, but it's doable. We will need to lay out the criteria for method, properly sourced, organize it so it can be referenced in the future, learn what all the important arguments are including several standard descriptions of the criteria of method, along with Popper, Kuhn, Lacatos, Thagard and Feyerabend, know how and why psychology and sociology can fit in, and so forth. It'll be some work, but more productive in the end than going back and forth on a POV-by-POV basis. ... Kenosis 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple title, with caveats below

Hi I created this section because I feel it is important and encyclopedic to have a simple title for the section, but with more extensive clarifications below. It is never the case that a field is "a pseudoscience". Some sources may state that, but it requires clarification in this Wikipedia article. It is always more accurate to talk of a subject in terms of its pseudoscientificness. It will also be a good opportunity to explain the variable nature of pseudoscientific subjects and issues. KrishnaVindaloo 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Immunology was listed

I'm recommending that it doesn't get relisted, unless someone can explain to me why being used in a fashion some consider dangerous is pseudoscientific. i kan reed 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Many scientific researchers and doctors have said for years that there is no credible scientific evidence that exists that shows vaccines have caused diseases such as polio to disappear, yet they are tauted to do just that. Seems like a pseudoscientific slam dunk. Whether or not we (the wiki-editors) agree that immuinzation is a pseudoscience is irrelevant. There are notable scienitsts and doctors who can be cited who say it is and therefore by the rules dictated to me on this talk page, immunization certainly has a spot on the list. Levine2112 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There may be a dispute within the scientific community about something, but that doesn't qualify it to be listed as pseudoscience.

The section in question says:

The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which critics have argued are pseudoscientific, and which a notable part of the scientific community faults as showing characteristics of pseudoscience such as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another.

Perhaps we need another section for immunization and modern medicine. I don't want to see criticism of these fields excluded, but we can't say a notable part of the scientific community faults them, as they represent such a small minority. We may as well add Global warming theory to the list, just because a handful of scientists disagree with the mainstream. --Uncle Ed 16:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We are dealing with more than just a handful of scientists that disagree with Immunology and Modern Medicine. I think we are getting very Western-centric here and are disregarding the POV of the other half of the world of healthcare. Additionally, think of all the alternative medicine practitioners out there who consider Immunology and Modern Medicine to be pseudoscientific. Yet, I have purposefully only sourced MDs to show that this POV exists in the "mainstream" medicine world. I think there is just as much of a notable part of the scientific community that feels these disciplines are or contain elements of pseudoscience as there are who feel this way about chiropractic. I am currently looking for more fine examples to help balance the POV in this section. Levine2112 17:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe Robert Mendlesohn was a pediatrician. He obviously would be considered an expeert in this field if it were a legal question.
I guess there are lots of questionable procedures used in medicine as well. Using antibiotics for childhood ear infections has been controversial for awhile. I suppose the list is long, too. I hate to see immunizations, medicine, and chiropractic on this list, because they all have similar qualities. Perhaps we should limit the list to those that are not controversial and all notable scientists consider pseudoscientific. --Dematt 17:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Seconded (Uncle Ed's point). Can you (Levine2112) provide evidence that a "notable" section of the scientific community is holding out against immunisation? I think your source earlier was a 1984 article - is that it? There may have be (and possibly continue to be) mis-steps along the way with vaccines, but are you seriously suggesting that vaccination doesn't explain the decline in, for example, global polio cases? There's never universal acceptance of any scientific idea (not least since all are provisional and subject to revision), but it'd be wrong to mislead non-technical readers of WP by equating a tiny minority of scientists with active dissent against vaccination within medicine (and, for that matter, irresponsible to a degree given the trouble in the UK regarding MMR). --Plumbago 17:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting anything. I have only cited three different, well-respected MDs who say that Immunology is or contains elements of pseudoscience. Can I provide evidence that "notable" section of the scientifc community shares in this belief? Well, what do you define as "notable"? Certainly, a great deal of the scientific world are proponents of alternative medicine; many of whom agree with the Mendelsohn's assessments. As for misleading non-technical readers of WP - well, I and many other editors here feel it is just as irresponsible to include chiropractic on this list given the trouble of over-medication and unneccessary risky surgeries in the UK (and the rest of the world for that matter). Levine2112 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
in that case see WP:POINT. i kan reed 17:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I hear you. I do. But I'm not doing this to make a point. (But if one is made as a consequence, so be it.) I just want to make sure that this article becomes more NPOV. As it was, it was very Western-centric as well as only representing the viewpoints of the "scientific skeptical" community... as basically all references prior to my additions came from the works of people whom the scientific skeptic community sides with. Levine2112 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoever said we had to make a list anyway. Why don't we just get rid of the whole section? Or maybe we could just call the list "Examples of pseudoscience" and list the obvious ones and take off the controversial ones like chiropractic and acupuncture and whatever else has some notable support. Let the reader decide on their own. --Dematt 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Reading the section again there's a real mixture of ideas covering the range from complete gibberish that's clearly pseudoscience (modern geocentrism, astrology) all the way through to items such as chiropractice and acupuncture that have pseudoscientific elements, but cannot be dismissed as pure pseudoscience. I still would completely dispute Levine2112's inclusion of immunisation (together with its dubious non-peer reviewed sources), but I can't see how it makes sense for chiropractice to be bundled in with nonsense-on-stilts like pyramidology. To this end, Dematt has a point about ditching the section, but I think it'd be unwise to let nonsense escape appropriate labelling. Cheers, --Plumbago 21:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific disputes would be a good article for this stuff, or perhaps initially List of scientific disputes. There are dozens of fields in which the mainstream of scientific opinion is being challenged by minority ideas. It's hard for us laymen at Wikipedia to distinguish whether the new idea is proto-science or pseudoscience. --Uncle Ed 15:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ed Poor. I don't think anyone here should be deciding whether a subject is proto or pseudo. If a reliable author/s says one or the other or both, then the problem is solved. If it is mentioned according to a well known agenda that is different tho. Cheers Harristweed 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

IKanReed's bold edit

If this is going to work, we are going to have to limit this list to only the most obvious, well-known and clear-cut examples. I have to admit, IKanReed has found a viable solution which I never thought of. Way to think outside the box! Now we are providing the reader with useful examples and are not trying to push any POV's agenda that will just confuse the reader. I see astrology and phrenology and I think, okay, now I'm understanding what pseudoscience is all about. Levine2112 22:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, this is good. I think that having this sort of list, with appropriate qualifiers, is much better than having a broadly-populated category:pseudoscience in which no annotations appear. Dematt, I do agree with your cautions about populating this list, and if those cautions are important here, then all the moreso with the category.
But I agree with KV that inclusion is good, if properly qualified. We just have to be clear that it's generally particular critics who deem something a pseudoscience, and the scientific community who comments on evidence, or lack thereof. IMO, it would be OK to compile a list of "alleged pseudosciences", i.e. anything that's been called pseudoscientific by a notable source, as long as we don't overreach and assert that POV by categorization or title. We can just say who the source is, given their reason in a nutshell, and say or link to the scientific majority and significant minority views for each topic. And then be sure not to POV-push by retrofitting the lists's title to something less qualified.  ;-) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
But then aren't we just right back where we started? Technically, even Astrology is only an "alleged" pseudoscience. It's just more widely alleged to be pseudoscience than most. Therefore it is a great example. Pseudoscience is a grey term. Not a clear black-or-white matter. If black is science and white is pseudoscience, let's all try to only list items that are so obviously close to white that most people would swear them to be so. Too much grey confuses the issue, and we are trying to make this very technical article as least confusing as possible. Yes? Levine2112 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
the point is we keep the list to things people might well understand why they are scientific without doing a ton of research, and cases that pseudoscience is often taught side by side with. Namly UFOlogy, Astrology, and phrenology
and by that I mean, anything where the general public knowledge of the lack of (opinions about) scientific credentials is lacking it should be excluded as a bad example, save face twicei kan reed 01:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree re keeping the list in this article narrow; I just mean we should have an expanded list someplace on WP. In fact as of now we do, sort of: it's called category:pseudoscience. But it's deeply flawed for the very same black-grey-white reasons about which Levine, I and others have expressed concern. This is what WP:CG and other category guideline pages are talking about: there is no annotation in categories. It's not appropriate to assume that Carroll, or Shermer, or Barrett, speak for all scientists. Scientists may have consensus about evidence for a field or lack thereof, but that doesn't mean they necessarily agree with use of the popular-political-pejorative term "pseudoscience". Again, it's the skeptics overreaching that cause other editors to want to remove information. We should just include it, but annotate it properly.
I'd rather see category:pseudoscience turned into a list, with an appropriately NPOV title like "alleged pseudosciences", citing what the specific critics say and why, and then referring readers to the individual topic pages for more information. That's much more informative: Intelligent design is shot through with just about every pseudoscientific fallacy one can imagine, and we can cite that. Chiropractic has certain pseudoscientific elements, but no way is in the same ballpark as ID. A list could be a more NPOV and informative way to compile this information. For comparison of lists and categories, see WP:CLS. Just a thought. Otherwise we should depopulate the cat as we have the list on this page, but I don't think "skeptical" editors would go for that. Why not just go the NPOV route, err on the side of inclusion, but not overreach? As WP:NPOV says, we can present ideas but not assert them. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 01:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Makes sense to me. --Dematt 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this is adequate. The section title is now extremely subjective, ambiguous and unscientific, since the only criteria for the list is that a field is well known as such. For example, does the fact that "...more than 500 professors, including the university's two Nobel laureates, have signed a petition opposing the (chiropractic) school and a handful have even threatened to resign rather than teach alongside what they consider a "pseudoscience."" mean that chiropractic is "well known" as a pseudoscience?

In addition, the article now fails to mention subjects such as accupuncture and chiropractic where credible allegations of pseudoscientific principles or practices exist, notwithstanding the existence of evidence to the contrary. In an article concerning pseudoscience, readers are entitled to be informed where such credible and sourceable allegations exist.

I propose there be two lists. The first list, the "obvious" list, which include those subjects where no credible citations can be provided to support their removal. The second list, the "alleged" list, where credible citations can be provided supporting the subject's inclusion, but with disclosure given where, say, some evidence of efficacy exists. As examples I would suggest a subject such as astrology would be on the first list, and accupuncture and chiropractic would be on the second list.

I emphasise again, the second list is for subjects where there are allegations of pseudoscientific principles or practices that are supported by credible sources, but for which other credible sources exist to justify a significant qualification of the subject's inclusion in the list.

The definitional criteria for the lists as set out above are able to be set out objectively, based on the availability (or lack) of credible citations in each case. --Dorado 02:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dorado. If you have a source for the 500 profs statement, it may do very well on the new pseudoscientific characteristics section of the chiropractic article. KrishnaVindaloo 05:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The FSU case that you are referring to was clearly a railroading act helmed by an anti-chiropractic organization coming in and stirring up the pot. I have pointed to the actual recommendation of an independant consultant for FSU who said that chiropractic is scientific but suffers from a bad reputation held over from a time when the AMA conpsired to crush their competition. The report goes on to recommend a chiropractic program to the school. But, if what you're seeing here is a sign, you can imagine what the efforts of the embittered anti-chiropractic groups were like at the school. I saw some of the propaganda that they spread. It was quite reprehensible. What I find most ironic is that the school's championship football team has one or two chiropractors on staff.
Anyhow, back to the topic at hand - this article and its list of examples. Tell me, what will having this proposed second list accomplish? Is it really to help the reader understand pseudoscience any better or is it to satisfy something within you that feels compelled to point fingers and label things that you don't like? I'm serious. Take a moment to think about it. On countless other articles throughout Wikipedia, the article go into great depth describing the nature of the subject then provides one list of clearcut examples to help the reader better understand the topic. That's the only function that the one and only list on this article should serve. Anything else is just confusing, ambiguous and thus only creates arguments and edit wars. Keep the peace. Levine2112 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Makes total sense to me, cf. above. The second, "alleged" list is what I think category:pseudoscience should be turned into. Seems like a good compromise to me. The arguments of folks like Carroll can be retained, but properly cited. We also still say what scientists say. I'm most familiar with acupuncture and I think that's a good example of all sides being presented fairly. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My explanation above as to the intention of the additional list seems reasonably clear, but I will attempt to explain it again. In an article concerning pseudoscience, failing to inform the reader where credible citations exist that suggest a field has pseudoscientific elements is disengenuous and inadequate. The additional list is a mechanism by which readers can be informed of these credible citations, while at the same time acknowledging the existence of contradictory citations and associated controversy. If anything, this would provide additional clarity to the article, reduce ambiguity and provide readers with a better understanding of what is, by its nature, a controversial subject. --Dorado 03:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But this will only lead to having huge list as pretty much every field out there has some credible citation suggesting that it contains at least some elements of pseudoscience. Why confuse the reader with nit-picking over grey-area opinions. Instead, let's provide the clearest, most notable examples and be done with it. It's not disengenuous nor inadequate. It is succinct and clear. I'm sure there are other places to put those credible citations where they make more sense and don't confuse the article's issue. Levine2112 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions about FSU/Chiropractic school

Hi Dorado, I have to agree with Jim Butler in that the opinons of anti-chiropractic fundamentalist extremists are not the same as what real scientists think. Please see my post above.
As usual, Levine demonstrates spectacular clarity of vision and professional demeanor.
Just as an FYI, FSU had submitted a 100 page proposal for the program that spelled out the state's need for a chiropractic program, how it fit the state's higher-education mission and how it would be implemented.
The board of FSU did not like the fact a school was voted on and approved by the state legislature and funding was allocated before approval was given by the board of trustees. The signatures and hate-frenzy was stirred up some radical anti-chiropractic extremists under the auspicies of Stephen Barrett (surprise!) and his collaborators including MDs Bellamy and Kinsinger from Oklahoma and others including some who post here at WP. This was to take advantage of the photo-op, stir up emotions, create sensational so-called 'newspaper headlines' which were designed to add fuel to the fire and now claim, like you are doing, that it was defeated because they didn't want to teach alongside the ‘inhuman’ chiropractors. In fact, many of the faculty of FSU were the ones who would be teaching at the chiropractic school. There were many faculty and board members that were OK with the idea of a school. They just didn't like that the legislature was using an end-run around them to do it.
So yours is another example of passing off an opinion as 'fact' so it therefore, it must be pseudoscience. Unfortunately ‘skepticism’ has been hijacked and is now a euphemism for hate-centric bigotry.

BTW, onto which list should I add psychiatry? Steth 03:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Difficulty

I think you will find that it is far harder than you think to objectively agree upon what is pseudoscience than you think. It is far easier to identify characteristic cases of pseudoscience that add breadth to the understanding of the idea(not a complete list). What you get out of trying to get everything, is far far far far too many things. Consider String theory practical physicists and those investigating traditional quantum and relativity theories are quite prone to declaring the idea bunk, but it's pretty outrageous to let it be listed as pseudoscience at this point, as a lot of research, and even basic planning for research, still needs to be done. And you all saw how immunology got added to the list. It's very hard to apply an objective test for pseudoscience to a field without intamately understanding the understanding the principals and central hypotheses of the concept. Well recognized ideas, like astrology, will help establish the guidelines modern science uses to determine validity, and demonstrate how things may fail them. This is not a case where "an expert's" opinion is enough to realisically decry something as pseudoscience. NPOV calls or us to include all views, however minor, so any section which is fundementally dependent on what people think, will result in every branch of science being listed, including things like astrophysics(the creationist people), quantum mechanics(think einstein), etc. It's unmaintainable, and in the end, WRONG. criticisms of types of science should really be left to the article about that type of science, and this article should address the fundemental idea of pseudoscience, thus a list of well known pseudosciences and how they fail the test, should be discussed. i kan reed 03:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria I have proposed for including an "agreed" and an "alleged" list are both objective and verifiable, based on the availability of citeable sources. I maintain that including specific reference to notable and controversial subjects where reliable sources can be cited is highly important to a reader's understanding of this subject. Limiting the list only to "agreed" subjects does nothing to explain through example the controversial nature of the subject. Much of the criticism of this proposed way forward with two lists is based on predictions as to how unworkable it will be. In the best traditions of Wikipedia, I propose establishing both lists and allowing editors to decide whether or not it is unworkable. --Dorado 04:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ikanreed. It is imperative that pseudoscientific subjects are explained at least to some extent on the pseudoscience article. So removing them altogether is impractical and against WP inclusion of views. The only alternative to a list I can see is to integrate subjects considered to be pseudoscientific into the text of the article. Of course it would be far easier and briefer to write a list, and put a note next to each entry. But I also guess it would be fine to clarify each characteristic of pseudoscience with examples next to them. Eg: Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results (eg, Chiropractic, etc). In the meantime, I believe we can simply be inclusive (as all good books of pseudoscience are, and make a nice simple list. I'll restore the previous list. There is no way we can determine whether a pseudoscience is well known. As before, if a subject is considered pseudoscientific by reliable sources, then it can be included. We are here to explain pseudoscientific subjects. When there is literature on the pseudoscientific elements of a subject, and it helps the reader, then it can be included. The purpose of this article: to explain pseudoscientific issues and subjects. KrishnaVindaloo 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
How about just keeping the shorter list in this article and linking to the longer, "alleged" list which would be a separate article? We're not saying there are "objective" criteria for pseudoscience by doing so. We're just compiling notable sources, saying what they say and why -- the key being, I hope, that we agree NOT to assert the idea by calling it "list of pseudosciences", but presenting the idea by calling it "list of alleged pseudosciences", or something like that. Again, category:pseudoscience as it now stands errs very much toward "asserting" skeptical POV. I'd like to see it morph into the "alleged" list we're discussing. There's got to be a way to make these skeptical opinions (which are significant) available without being so over the top in asserting them as speaking for all science. Anyway, glad to see we're kicking it around civilly. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, now (or else continue a reversion war) it seems the only option is to make the issues more concrete and recognizable to the reader by integrating examples of pseudoscientific subjects into the article text. KrishnaVindaloo 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I must say that I Kan Reed has offer the best, most fair solution. Maintain a list of the obvious and only use these as the examples. That will make it infinitely easier to explains the precepts of pseudoscience to the non-technical reader (though sometimes I wonder if the only one's reading this are those discussing it here).
KrishnaVindaloo, I love your intentions. I know you want to make this article as strong as possible. But strength comes from clarity. And if you have people reading this article and you are giving them examples that they can't understand, then where's the strength in that?
And for your examples about Chiropractic, KrishnaVindaloo. I think this shows that you are egregiously misinformed, with all due respect. You state that a tenet of pseudoscience is an assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results... and then you cite Chiropractic as a prime example of this. But in reality, factually, chiropractic is a poor example of this. You couldn't have picked a worse example. Read Wilk v. American Medical Association and you'll see that the conspiracy is a lot more than a theory... the U.S. court system found and holds that it was a reality. For decades, the AMA - out of fear of competition - was surpressing evidence of chiropractic effectiveness. And though this trial started in the 1970's, the AMA was appealling the decision and losing until 1990. So you citing chiropractic as an example of a discipline that claims conspiracy is not entirely ture. It would be more factual to say that chiropractic claimed a conspiracy and it was claim that actual wound up being 100% true.
To sum up, let's stick to the obvious pseudosciences for our examples. It will result in greater reader clarity and less chances for us editors egregious oversights. Levine2112 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The present state of the list is unacceptable according to NPOV policy. Firstly there is no way of saying which is better known. Secondly, the whole reason for the pseudoscience article is to explain what pseudoscientific issues are about. We cannot do that sufficiently if there is no reference to subjects that are considered pseudoscientific. I will not spend every day warring with those editors who are bent on censoring and reducing the explanation power of this article. Therefore, I will focus on clearing up and properly explaining characteristics of pseudoscience, with the addition of clarifying examples. As it is perfectly NPOV policy to add items that are considered pseudoscientific by reliable sources, a proper inclusive list will probably reappear very quickly. There is nothing we can do about NPOV policy in this matter. Wikipedia is here to explain things, not to limit or blinker the reader just because some proponents are dissonant, desperate, and intent on keeping scientific views out of their articles. KrishnaVindaloo 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems evident that the two-list suggestion is the only productive way forward; it allows us to include all the fields people wish to include while differentiating between (nearly) clear cases and (more) disputed ones. Questions:
  • Does the second list (fields with pseudoscientific elements) follow the first in this article? Or is it a second article? In any case, it should be made clear in this list what aspects of each field are clearly pseudoscientific (e.g. chiropractic's theory of subluxations, as far as I can tell, belongs here).
  • Do we need a third list (disputed fields) to distinguish: clear cases, cases with clear pseudoscientific elements, cases under dispute? Hgilbert 10:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Krishna Vindaloo seems to be having many editors spend a lot of time and energy and go through multiple gyrations and it seems that his main goal is to ensure that chiropractic is placed in the pseudoscience article, despite objections and evidence to the contrary. Are you anti-chiropractic KV? Why the deceidly anti-chiropractic fundamentalistic extremist slant to all of your posting and energies?

Also can you tell me where the field of psychiatry should be added to the pseudoscience page? Thanks Steth 12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Making personal attacks and an incivil tone is unbecoming of an editor Steth, cool it off. Hgilbert's proposal seems unnessassery and a POV-fork. The fields listed as pseudoscience here are all uncontroversial and there is very no serious scientific objection. The simple method is the best here. Jefffire 12:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Um..Jefffire...have you been reading any of the above discussion? We are coming to a consensus, I believe, that the present short list is indeed uncontroversial. There have been several mentions of how to deal with the more controversial topics. Are you suggesting that we should have no list that includes, or indeed any mention of controversial topics (such as chiropractics)? This is one way to go; I just want to be clear on what you are proposing. Hgilbert 14:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive

You guys might want to consider archiving some of this. The page is getting rather enormous. --DanielCD 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I added the Devilly 2005 information to the article. After looking it up, it turned out to be very useful for this article I think. Harristweed 03:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research

The shear volume of original research I have just removed from the article is astounding. This is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for personal musings. Original research gets removed, it's as simple as that. Don't do it. Jefffire 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jefffire! This is much better. --Dematt 13:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Keating comment

Hey KV, I noticed your note about chiro and imunology;

  • "The term "pseudoscience" may by used by adherents of fields considered pseudoscientific to criticize their mainstream critics, for example, immunology is called pseudoscience by some chiropractic proponents, who's subject is also called pseudoscientific (Keating 1997). "

The way that it is written sounds as though Keating was saying that chiros were critisizing immuno as a form of self-defense. Did he actually say that or did he just say chiro was behaving pseudoscientific. All I can find is the article where he compares and contrasts chiropractor activities as scientific, pseudoscientific and anti-scientific. I don't think he was saying that chiros were calling immunology pseudoscience, only that some of them had an antivaccination stance making chiros anti-scientific. That is certainly a different statement and I don't think Keating would consider it accurate. The sentence can probably be rewritten to be more accurate and still get your point across that chiropractic has pseudoscientific elements without adding conjecture. I'll try and if you don't like it, or if you find the place he said that, you can change it back. Thanks. --Dematt 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems largely unimportant I would be inclined to leave it out. Jefffire 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I made a change to the sentence above. I think it still says what KV intended about chiropractic while being a more accurate assessment of what Keating said. If I've misinterpreted, you can change it back or just delete the whole thing. --Dematt 13:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I had to read keating for my philosophy of science class, which was pretty much about how to distinguish science from non-science, and pseudoscience from beliefs. Keating was a pretty good writer. At any rate, I began addressing why astrology is considered pseudoscience to try and expand on the notion i mentioned before, and use well known examples of pseudoscience to demonstrate points. i kan reed 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not the place for personal essays expanding a single subject. This article is about pseudoscience as a whole, take it to Astrology if you want to write more. Jefffire 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. that wasn't a personal essay, it was the only non-frame link to an academic discussion on the subject by a proffesor of the same area, specifically FOR a class on the same area. I mentioned this on your talk page, but the formal webpage for the course uses frames, and a host of non-accessable features, which are against wikipedia policy.
  2. my intention was not to limit the address to astrology, which has the dubious distinction of being the best known pseudoscience(for being pseudoscience). I just make small edits at a time usually. Mentioning why something is pseudoscience helps the article expound the notion. it's not frivoulous nonesense. I hope I've addressed your concerns, but nonetheless, I appreciate your attempts to improve wikipedia. I'll withhold on remaking the change, unless someone agrees with me here. i kan reed 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You could expand on the subject in Astrology, but this page is too generalistic to devote paragraphs to individual subjects. Jefffire 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This wasn't meant as a criticism of astrology it was meant as an example of how the rules for determining pseudoscience, mentioned in this article, are actually applied to determine astrology's pseudoscientific nature. I'm sure every reasonable criticism of astrology is already in that article. Again, this is meant to improve this article's explaination of how pseudoscience is determined. Maybe examples aren't encyclopedic. There's nothing either way in the policy. i kan reed 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed material

Removed material from Demarcation problem and criticisms section, for further analysis and consideration of its content and placement in the article: ... Kenosis 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience, and "real" science are often unclear to non-specialist observers and sometimes even to experts. Especially where there is a significant cultural or historical distance (as, for example, modern chemistry reflecting on alchemy), protosciences can be misinterpreted as pseudoscientific. Many people have tried to offer objective distinctions, with mixed success. Often the term pseudoscience is used simply as a pejorative to express the speaker's low opinion of a given field, regardless of any objective measures.
  • If the claims of a given field can be experimentally tested and methodological standards are upheld, it is real scientific work, however odd, astonishing, or counter-intuitive. If claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, but the methodology is sound, caution should be used; much of science consists of testing hypotheses that turn out to be false. In such a case, the work may be better described as as yet unproven or research in progress. Conversely, if the claims of any given "science" cannot be experimentally tested or scientific standards are not upheld in these tests, it fails to meet the modern criteria for a science. ... 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This just removed from the same section, first paragraph, now returned to an earlier form. I recognize this section can still be improved, but this material here is highly questionable in an opening paragraph to the section. ... Kenosis 16:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Demarcation is primarily problematic in cases where standard scientific ways (experiments, logic, etc.) of assessing a theory or a hypothesis cannot be applied for some reason. An example would be of differentiating between the scientific status of metereology or medicine, on the one hand, and astrology, on the other; all these fields repeatedly fail to accurately predict what they claim to be able to predict, and all are able to explain the regular failure of their predictions.[6] ... 16:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This also removed, from the characteristics of pseudoscience section: ... Kenosis 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • “Characteristics of pseudoscience relate to scientific falsifiability and to the actions and activities of the proponents of pseudoscientific subjects. For example, subjects are often considered pseudoscientific if ...” 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. The matter of WP:NPOV#Undue weight is the issue. Much of this discussion would be unnecessary if all contributor here became more familiar with and adhere to WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience and WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. FeloniousMonk 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well known examples of pseudoscience

I changed this subhead to "Well known allegations of pseudoscience". No matter how many citations there are, and no matter how people believe the examples may be pseudoscience, it does not make them pseudoscience. The original subhead may be accurate... or inaccurate; but the new subhead is verifiable. --Iantresman 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored to " Fields considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" and the long-standing and properly-sourced list that it contained. Per WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience and WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22, the only issue here is whether a citable portion within the scientific community says an issue is pseudoscience. FeloniousMonk 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed "by the scientific community" since there is no such entity that judges with one mind and speaks with one voice. There are dozen of peer-reviwed papers published on mainstream subjects which are not proven; this is not the same as being disproved, and the same must apply to subjects considered pseudoscience. --Iantresman 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Bull. Read scientific consensus and scientific community. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Scientific consensus is not the same as the scientific community; one is a significant subset of the other. --Iantresman 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
All of which is beside the point. By our policies all that is necessary for a topic to described as pseudoscience here is whether a notable source per WP:V in the scientific community is available per WP:RS that says a topic is pseudoscience, per WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. The significance of the source will dictate if any additional supporting sources are necessary. FeloniousMonk 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If we suggest that the scientific community considers a field to be pseudoscience, then at the very least, we should provide a scientific source, not sources from a popular book, and a Web site. And even if we have those scientific sources, that does not imply that the whole scientific community concurs with the source --Iantresman 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Vertebral subluxation

I took out VS because it really goes with chiropractic. I assume that is why chiropractic is there and VS is not really the field like the section title says. --Dematt 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense if chiropractic had been list here at the time too, but it wasn't: [6] FeloniousMonk 18:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic again

I added the Pseudoscientific elements, some recent verification to the chiropractic listing. I think that is an accurate assessment, considering the Innate intelligence part and recent scientific evaluation going on (though, that might be considered scientific rather than pseudoscientific). Anyway, Keating seems to agree with that.--Dematt 19:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the chiropractic concept of an "innate intelligence" fall under the catagory of philosophy?--Hughgr 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. If we are going to include every discipline which contains elements of pseudoscience, then we are going to have a long, long list that includes Modern Medicine, Immunology, and Psychology. Shall I re-insert these or can we agree (as we seemingly had done before) that this list should only include the best, clearest, well-known examples of pseudoscience. Levine2112 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed. If it were philosophy alone, this wouldn't even be a subject for discussion here. It is when philosophy, metaphysics, or religion are connected with scientifically verifiable subjects, IOW falsifiable matters, that things get muddy. The connection is with the concept of the chiropractic vertebral subluxation, a claimed anatomic lesion or condition, exclusively diagnosed and treated by chiropractors. No one else can do it, since no one else is trained to do it.
If religion sticks to religion, and makes no falsifiable claims, it can't be accused of being pseudoscientific, and is relegated to the religious arena for discussion among theologians. Chiropractic, especially historically, but even now with some modern chiropractors, combines anatomical, pathological, philosophical, and metaphysical elements, thus qualifying for scrutiny as a possibly pseudoscientific subject. That's what makes it so interesting. It isn't an either/or thing, but a both/and thing. Everyone can jump into the fray when it comes to analyzing it, including people concerned with science, medicine, philosophy, theology, ethics, etc.. Never a boring minute! -- Fyslee 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


I have just removed chiropractic from the list, because the provided citation does not support the assertion that the scientific community or a relevant portion thereof regards it as pseudoscience, but instead is quite inconclusive. Here is what I removed: ... Kenosis 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Chiropractic (Keating) <ref name="Keating_pseudoscience">Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD. ''Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side'' [http://www.dynomind.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n4_v21/ai_19727577]</ref> ... 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The link in the previously provided footnote is [7] ... Kenosis 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Skeptic Dictionary on Chiropractic

I checked Robert Carroll's Skeptic dictionary and didn't find anything about chiropractic and pseudoscience. I did find this though:

  • "For years chiropractors relied more on faith than on empirical evidence in the form of control studies to back up their claims about the wonders of nerve manipulation. This is changing and to some extent so is the relationship between the medical profession and chiropractic. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that chiropractic is effective in the treatment of many lower back ailments and neck injuries. There is some evidence that chiropractic is effective for the treatment of certain kinds of headaches and other pains."

Can you believe it, he even said this:

  • "The AMA, of course, is partly responsible for chiropractic's reputation as quackery. For years, the AMA made no bones about their disapproval of chiropractic, which was featured in their Committee on Quackery. But the chiropractors fought back and won a significant lawsuit against the AMA in 1976 for restraint of trade. Today, the American College of Surgeons has issued a position paper on chiropractic which sees the two professions as working together."

There was a lot of valid points about some of the metaphysical parts of chiropractic, but he overall seemed to hint that there is a difference between old and new chiropractic.

Guys, I think we really have to re-think the chiropractic thing. IF this is what Robert Carroll (the PhD skeptic name listed at the top of the section) wrote. Levine may be right. I think we have to take it off until we can find better support. --Dematt 21:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

ED, I reverted because it looks like chiropractic is controversial, not pseudoscientific. To find any other way to categorize it is just weaseling. We need to prove it or leave it out of the list. --Dematt 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He goes on to call it into question again further down. That strikes me as a selective reading of a single source and concluding it is definitive. It's not by Wikipedia standards. You can't just reply on one source here by our policies, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. AMA is an acceptable source per WP:RS and WP:V. Any source that meets the bar set by these two policies returns chiropractic to the article once again, and do you think we won't come up with those cites? Our goal here is to write a complete article on pseudoscience, not protect dearly held personal beliefs. FeloniousMonk 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the last part: not protect dearly held personal beliefs. I've grown tremendously as a writer by taking to heart all your preaching, Mr. Monk.
BTW, I created a subsection for pseudoscience which not everyone agrees is pseudoscience. Just so it's there, not to condemn it. Chiropractic is controversial, for example. --Uncle Ed 22:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
He makes the same mistake that Levine2112 made above. He uses the word "chiropractic," instead of "manipulation." If you substitute the words, then what he says is true. Since so many people equate the two, then the mistake is easy to make.
"There is a growing body of scientific evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective in the treatment of many lower back ailments and neck injuries. There is some evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective for the treatment of certain kinds of headaches and other pains."
Especially since much, if not most, of the research is made by non-chiropractors about regular manipulation, not "adjustments," could it be any plainer that the words are being improperly exchanged as synonymous?
Since manipulation is not the aspect of chiropractic that is being discussed in relation to possibly being pseudoscientific, then we must correct his error here in the article (and possibly on the chiropractic article). The two are associated, but not exclusively, and not as equals in relation to the subject of pseudoscience.
The aspects of relevance here, which are still significant aspects in chiropractic, are its reasons for using manipulation (using "adjustments" to remove blockages of Universal Intelligence), extravagant claims for the effects of subluxations, lifelong adjustments of asymptomatic individuals, unethical marketing and practice building practices, widespread use of quack gadgets and "brand name" techniques of unproven value or efficacy, etc.. The list could go on and on. It is these elements of chiropractic, which are not connected with manipulation when used by other professions, that make chiropractic vulnerable to accusations of being pseudoscientific.
Let's not continue to perpetuate this error in logic. Carroll should be ashamed of himself. The careless use of the word "chiropractic" only muddies the waters. When we're actually talking about chiropractic's key service, manipulation, let's use the word "manipulation," a service offered by others (without the mumbo jumbo and smoke and mirrors magic of metaphysical "adjustments"). When we're talking about the profession as it actually performs in the field, with all its myriad facets and uniquely pseudoscientific foibles, then let's call it "chiropractic." And while we're at it, let's face the fact that there are chiropractors who do not practice in this way, who don't use smoke and mirrors to keep their patients dazzled. These chiros practice sensibly, helping people all they can. Unfortunately it's not these chiros who earn the most money and get honored with "chiropractor of the year" awards.
This misuse of Carroll's citation is extremely similar, in principle, to the widespread misuse of Paul Shekelle's work. He was forced to write a scathing rebuke to the profession:
The RAND report has been misused by chiropractors who have claimed that the RAND finding of SMT to be beneficial endorses Chiropractic itself. This is not the case. RAND spokesman, Dr. Paul Shekelle, released this statement in 1993:
"...we have become aware of numerous instances where our results have been seriously misrepresented by chiropractors writing for their local paper or writing letters to the editor....RAND's studies were about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic, and dealt with appropriateness, which is a measure of net benefit and harms. Comparative efficacy of chiropractic and other treatments was not explicitly dealt with." [8]
-- Fyslee 22:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You have it backwards, Fyslee. Again, twisting the facts to sell your point. The confusion between manipulation and the chiropractic adjustment has been used more to purposefully hurt chiroprctic science than to help it. For instance, there has been a bogus anti-chiropracitc movement that tries to scare people from getting adjusted by telling them that it can cause a stroke even though the best studies have shown five million chiropractic adjustments without one single occurence. Yet, the studies that you and the anti-chiros site go as far as saying that the "true" occurence is 1 our of 800,000 cervical adjustments. However it has been show that few studies that deal with the stroke issue and cervical manipulation take into account the difference between "manipulation" and the "chiropractic adjustment". According to "a research report in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, "manipulations" administered by a Kung Fu practitioner, GPs, osteopaths, physiotherapists, a wife, a blind masseur, and an Indian barber had been incorrectly attributed to chiropractors." "The words chiropractic and chiropractor have been incorrectly used in numerous publications dealing with SMT injury by medical authors, respected medical journals and medical organizations. In many cases, this is not accidental; the authors had access to original reports that identified the practitioner involved as a non-chiropractor. The true incidence of such reporting cannot be determined. Such reporting adversely affects the reader's opinion of chiropractic and chiropractors." (Terrett AGJ: Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury. JMPT 1995;18:203) Levine2112 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a lot to change my mind. Controversy does not make it pseudoscience. Why don't we just say Pseudoscience is a controversial and pejorative term meant to cause perfectly rational people to fight over perfectly silly stuff. Science expands in all directions. The role of the skeptic is to question the scientist and inspire rational thought. This is not skepticism. Robert Carroll is a skeptic. I haven't seen anything that I would recognize as a reason to keep chiropractic on any list.--Dematt 23:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The 'special section' in the chiropractic article needs severe and immediate dismantling, too. The term 'skeptic' has been hijacked to mean that you state a hate-based opinion and others can use it as so-called 'proof' and as a bonus you get to have six links on your website to Stephen Barrett Enterprises to increase his donations (cash flow),
BTW Levine, there has never been a single human study that demonstrates any link between cervical manipulation and stroke. Steth 23:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I can't believe that people are grouping chiropractic with telepathy and UFOs. That's completely ridiculous. Levine2112 00:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I pulled chiropractic from the list awhile ago asking for a suitable citation for it, ideally multiple citations. I see lots of arguments but no cites. The cite previously provided (shown in the talk section above this) is quite inconclusive. Further, one of the major commentators on the subject of chiropractic is the AMA, a business competitor, and I think an extra measure of caution should be used when citing to its commentaries, unless clearly grounded in thorough empirical studies of their own. But either way, I think it's time to provide thorough and proper citations for something as widespread as chiropractic. ... Kenosis 00:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience on Chiropractic

The EOP entry on chiropractic simply describes the history and concludes "Mainstream physicians who accept the validity of c. treatment will refer patients who need relief from lower back pain." There is absolutely no reference to any pseudoscientific nature of the field, or even any critique of (or claim for) its effectiveness. I would suggest that if these two sources, not known for their reticence, are so noncommittal, it doesn't belong in the article's list. Hgilbert 13:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Books on pseudoscience are often non-committal. That is a good way to handle such subjects. That is the way this article can handle the subject: Show the pseudoscientific character of the subject, and mention any validated aspects if any, and let the reader come to their own conclusions. KrishnaVindaloo 02:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Impasse

It seems we are at another impasse. Revert wars aren't going to fix anything. The list is the only problem. The problem may be the fact that the list treats everybody on it the same and demands that everyone call it pseudoscience. If we want to put chiropractic in the pseudoscience article for some reason, then it is only fair to take it off the list and put it in the article where it can be subject to NPOV editing. The list form doesn't work. The other choice is to return to the easy list. --Dematt 23:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't do as KrishnaVindaloo suggested this morning. There is nothing wrong with discussing how something can be considered pseudoscientific point by point and allowing other POV to contribute. The problem is that the list does not allow other POVs. It's not WP:like(that's a new one:) --Dematt 00:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The list claims that "mainstream science" considers certain subjects to be pseudoscience, yet provides no scientific sources. That could be construed as misleading.
  • I think the list should show subjects that either
  • "have been considered" pseudoscientific", or
  • "have been considered pseudoscientific by certain commentators",
  • If we want to add chiropractic to the list, we need only find a reputable source, and credit the source, and not assume this is the voice of all scientists. --Iantresman 01:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the point of having a list that is all conjecture and opinions? How does that help this article? We will just be where we started ,listing everything under the moon that has commentators who have labelled them (correctly or incorrectly) as pseudoscience. Doesn't it just make a whole lot more sense to have one list of strong, clear, and obvious examples of pseudosciences? Levine2112 01:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I can't see any impasse. NPOV policy seems to be very well suited to solving this automatically. Harristweed 03:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Added Lilienfeld and Ruscio with explanation for the reader

Hi. I've added some more characteristics. If they overlap with the prior ones, then lets merge them somehow. I noticed a lot of the prior list were a bit obscure for most readers and require explanations and clarifications. There was also that bit about Devilly I posted yesterday. Well it got removed, and I reckon because it was a bit hot yesterday. Its well sourced and complies with NPOV policy. I think we can put it in the characteristics section though rather than having its own section. I see no problem with merging things but cutting is a little silly as there is certainly some clarification to be done on this article. Cheers Harristweed 03:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

More removed material

This material just removed from "Identifying pseudoscience" section for further analysis and consideration. The material is accusatory, highly speculative, and not focused on objectivity in the slightest but rather on mockery of presumed motive and unverifiable hidden psychological processes. ... Kenosis 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • According to Devilly (2005:440), there are several ways pseudoscientific subjects are promoted, and these can also be considered characteristics of pseudoscientific subjects:
  • Create a phantom: By creating an unavailable goal that looks real and possible; it looks as if it might be obtained with just the right effort, just the right belief.
  • Set a Rationalization Trap: The rationalization trap is based on the premise: Get the person committed to the cause as soon as possible. Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. They seek confirmation of efficacy. (Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance theory 1957)
  • Manufacture Source Credibility and Sincerity: Manufacture source credibility and sincerity. In other words, create a guru, leader, mystic, lord, or other generally likable and powerful authority (psychological authority). A leader with qualifications in similar areas also creates authority (Evans 1990:84).
  • Establish a Granfalloon: Establish what Kurt Vonnegut terms a "granfalloon," a proud and meaningless association of human beings using in house jargon and beliefs, shared goals, shared feelings, specialized information, enemies (e.g., alternative medicine opposing the AMA and the FDA). The setting up of enemies trains the proponents and newly recruited to form arguments against those exercising scientific skepticism (Rucker and Pratkanis 2001:1501).
  • Frequently Use Heuristics and Commonplaces: Heuristics are simple if-then rules or norms that are widely accepted; for example, if it costs more it must be more valuable.

... 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We also need proper citations for Harristweed's numerous other additions to the section, which I left unretouched despite lack of citations that can be tracked down at present. I presume Lilianfeld 2005 refers to Scott O. Lilienfeld (2005): "Teaching Psychology Students to Distinguish Science from Pseudoscience: Pitfalls and Rewards" which can be found at [9] . We need a confirmation of this with the work placed in the References section, and we'll help integrate it into footnotes, which are the convention here. We need the proper citation for Ruscio and any others as well, please. We'll work those in as well, but please provide the sourcing on this.
Some of the just-added material is excessively wordy, and presumably it can be chopped down a bit without losing the basic thrust. There are a few grammatical errors (as of the last time I checked), and a couple of redundancies. In general, though, thanks for the contributions to the article, Harristweed. Good regards to you... Kenosis 04:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kenosis. Thanks for moving rather than just deleting out of hand. The Devilly paper is published in a peer reviewed academic journal, so I don't see how it can be refused completely in one form or another. Accusatory? Well its based upon both the philosophy of science (Popper) and upon established social psychology (Evans - Rucker and Pratkanis - Festinger below). The Devilly paper has over 50 references related to this as one would expect from a peer reviewed science based journal paper. The psychological processes are scientific (falsifiable) and thus testable and they are confirmed in similar fields.

Evans JS. (1990) Bias in human reasoning; causes and consequences, pub Hove. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rucker DD and Pratkanis A 2001. Projection as an interpersonal influence tactic. The effect of the pot calling the kettle black. Personality and social psychology bulletin. 27-1494-1507

Festinger, 1957 A Theory of Cognitiive dissonance. Stanford CA. Stanford university press

Lilienfeld, 2004 Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology New York


Devilly himself is a professor of psychology. Considering the PS article concerns a social phenomenon and this is based upon soc psych I believe it to be very useful. It goes some way to answering certain questions that the reader may have in mind, such as "Why do people start to believe weird stuff"?? "How and why pseudoscientific groups maintain their group?" or "Why do people keep retaining pseudoscientific ideas against all the evidence to the contrary?" The article needs more of these kind of explanations, rather than "objective stepwise recommendations for doing original research to include or exclude subjects from the PS category" There is more I could add to make it look less "accusatory" (add some caveats and examples that are in the article, with the relevant refs).

I am not completely wed to the idea of placing the facts where they were. I guess they could be put together in another section entitled something to the effect of "Why do people believe and maintain PS ideas/activities?" I saw something by other authors a while back talking about confirmation bias, and cog dissonance also. We can also have facts about whether people think it is deliberate or whether PSists are mostly just misguided. All done in the best possible taste!

The Ruscio ref is: Ruscio, J. (2001). Clear thinking with psychology: Separating sense from nonsense. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth.

The Lilienfeld ref was 2004 as above, not 2005.

The article still needs a lot of work to explain PS issues more clearly. Cheers Harristweed 03:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes its useful information. I have refs by Beyerstein that explain why people believe pseudoscientific subjects, and there is even a book by Shermer on the subject. KrishnaVindaloo 02:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Acupuncture

I am removing acupuncture as it is not a clear case: both the cited source and the EOP, for example, call the yin/yang theory pseudoscience but attribute valuable results to the actual use of acupuncture. If anything from this is included, it should be "Yin/yang theory", not acupuncture itself. Hgilbert 18:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The EOP says in the introduction that it includes all subjects that relate to pseudosience. There are many sources that say acupuncture is pseudoscientific. Acupuncture is a subject considered pseudoscientific. It is well known as such. Removal is quite unreasonable, as all that is required is a simple citation. KrishnaVindaloo 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it is not yet clear whether or not acupuncture works, it is clear that it has many pseudoscientific elements, with talk of "energies" and "meridians" or what not. That said a reference other than Williams is very much preferable to reduce the Williams obsession of the article. Jefffire 11:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not for us to decide whether acupuncture, or any aspects of it, are pseudoscience or not. However, if there are verifiable credible sources which have considered acupuncture to be pseudoscience, that's all that we need.
  • It would also seem fair, that if there are peer-reviewed papers supported alledged pseudoscientific subjects, that we mention that too. That gives the read sufficient information to find out for themselves. --Iantresman 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Very much so. That is what the article Acupuncture is for, is it not? Jefffire 13:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't a field have to assert itself as being science before it is considered a pseudoscience? Does acupuncture call itself a science? Certainly science has been investigating it and it has elements that pseudosciences use, but does it call itself science. If not, if we say acupuncture has pseudoscientific elements, we have to say christianity has pseudoscientific elements?
Simply put, no, a field doesn't have to call itself a science to be a pseudoscience. Jefffire 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jefffire, I know some of these are stupid questions, but I'm asking because the old definition that we were using stated that it did. Now that KV is here, it seems it has changed, and hopefully for the good, but I need to understand the concept better from the new definition, so I can be helpful. I guess the next stupid question is, what is it that keeps us from putting christianity on the list? --Dematt 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
That is a good question. Because the central claims (in general) aren't scientificialy testable (eg. A transcendant God), Christianity is religious rather than pseudoscientific. Young Earth Creationism however is testable, so that is a pseudoscience. Jefffire 13:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Christianity has never portrayed itself as a science. --Iantresman 14:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
That's where I get confused. Maybe that's why we need to get this PS thing cleared up. As much as I have read, I keep going back and forth on this. Thanks! --Dematt 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the confusion is that a subject does not have to say that it is scientific, but either (a) gives the impression that it is, or (b) critics are under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that it is.
  • I think this leads to situations where some subjects are probably wrongly accused of being pseudoscience as a result of pseudoskepticism --Iantresman 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"Christianity has never portrayed itself as a science." Tell Gallileo that... FeloniousMonk 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Had it never done so, Galileo would never have had to utter the immortal words, "Eppur si muove". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed try telling that to the average person in Dover, Pennsylvania. ... Kenosis 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Or, if we could "resurrect" them, to the "witches" who were burned at the stake because they had a birthmark, or showed fear under questioning, or who didn't cry under torture, etc. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was thinking;)... Thanks:) --Dematt 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well there are elements of Christianity that have been called PS - eg, prayer. So, again, anything verifiable that helps explain will be useful. KrishnaVindaloo 04:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Types of pseudoscience

According to Williams et al (2000:ix) there are several categories of pseudoscience.

  • Claims for scientific status: Groups claiming that their idea has scientific status without submitting it for critical and skeptical inspection
  • Mistaken theories: Theories examined and found wanting by critical examination
  • Ideological preemption: Ideology or religious text is held to overrule scientific analysis
  • Superstitions
  • Frauds and hoaxes

Hi all. I posted this on the article last week and it was probably quite rightly removed by Jefffire. I have placed it here just in case anyone else here has information on the different types of pseudoscience. We can think of typing them in various ways. Anyway, the one above may be useful somewhere, perhaps in single sentence form. Feedback is welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 09:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to remove it but I was tired of this article's obsession with Williams, which has resulted in such gaffes as placing birth control under the list of pseudosciences. Surely he is not the only person writing on the subject? The article should be more than a list of a single person's opinions on pseudoscience. Jefffire 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, one person's word is not law. But if he is credible enough to name some subjects as pseudoscience, then he should be credible enough for other subjects.
  • Speculating, perhaps Williams considers birth control as pseudoscience, because he was considering the rhythm method?
  • I think this all goes to demonstrate that there is more to alledging subjects as pseudoscience, and that a level of substantitation should be included. ie. "Williams considers birth control as pseudoscience because..." --Iantresman 13:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem Jefffire. Your edits last week were helpful as there was a huge amount of editorializing you removed that I hadn't picked up on. Also, as there is only one source in the section, it is better to add to it here rather than on the article itself. KrishnaVindaloo 10:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure Iantresman. Williams et al obviously didn't want to write "therefore, this subject is psuedoscientific" at the end of each entry in their encyclopedia. Its mentioned in the introduction and the issues of pseudoscience are covered throughout. Again, its pretty much left up to the reader to decide, just as this PS article, category, and related pages should. KrishnaVindaloo 10:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This I have to object to, that kind of approach gives people a terrible idea of what pseudoscience is. We're just going to get back to the point where someone is adding "Immunology", which is generally considered one of the first amazing successes of the scientific method(i.e. observation: milkmaids exposed to cowpox don't seem to get smallpox, hypothesis: cowpox creates resistance to smallpox, test: give cowpox to a select group of people and not another group and see which gets more smallpox), to the list again this way. The fact that some, even educated, people have objections to a science, is not enough to make it pseudoscience, and telling the reader it probably is will completly fail to make this an encyclopedia. A comparable example would be if somone famous called an actress a "whore" to then put them on a list of famous prostitutes. The term is frequently misused by those who don't like something. We owe the reader an explanation that informs them. I'm aware that NPOV is non-negotiable, so I submit that the section on "things claimed to be pseudoscience" at the very least be dropped, because it's either going to result in an NPOV failure, or it's going to result in misinforming the reader. The reader is who this article is for, not for we, the editors, to soapbox from. Thanks for your attention. i kan reed 14:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ikanreed. If there is a pseudoscience issue, well explained and cited in the immunology article then I'm sure it'll be a help to have it in the cat. I doubt immunologists would have a problem with that. I know there are some subjects where proponents are trained to deny the pseudoscience label. But those subjects are usually highly based/argued on flimflam and babble. If scientists are ok to have a pseudoscientific bit of their subject expained well in their article its ok. I'm a biologist myself, and pseudoscience is discussed in the biology field with no problem at all (I'll see if I can get hold of encyclopedic info on this). I think the soapbox/advertisement issue is the only issue here. Though this is not such a problem because at least this way we can identify who is soapboxing and who's not. If immunology is added to the cat, it does not mean Wikipedia says it is PS. As mentioned by others, its up to the reader. Harristweed 02:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, any verifiable info about PS in specific areas of biology'd be grand. KrishnaVindaloo 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Well I found nothing on immunology. The EOP doesn't have it listed, and I found nothing on Proquest. Any sources from anyone esle? KrishnaVindaloo 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fields regarded as pseudoscience

  • Regarding pseudoscience fields, the text notes: "a significant portion of the scientific community faults " If I suggested that it should read "an insignificnat portion", citations would be demanded. Likewise the statement as it stands requires citations, for each field. --Iantresman 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I know its only a minor point, but I still consider the term "pseudoscientific" to be more appropriate in this case. Otherwise, it is also appropriate to say "contains pseudoscience" or "involves pseudoscience". KrishnaVindaloo 05:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In which case, we should identify what part of a field is considered pseudoscience, the reason why, and a citation. --Iantresman 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that is our long term objective. There is no way we can keep that complex set of information on the list itself though. The relevant information is linked directly to the article in question. It is easy for the reader to click the link and read the article. That is what hyperlinks are for, after all. KrishnaVindaloo 06:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Primary characteristic: falsifiability

I made a major demarkation between falsifiability, and other characteristics of pseudoscience. I think it is fairly self explanatory. --Iantresman 17:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is ultimately unworkable to put falsifiability as a primary criterion and the others as secondary, Ian. Reason is, falsifiability is not universally agreed to be a primary characteristic of a scientific theory. Popper himself abandoned it in favor of modus tollens in his later life. It is safe to say that in the most technical sense of the term, falisifiability is a preferred criterion that was rejected by some because there were some theories agreed to be scienfically valid but technically unfalsifiable (can't cite specifics for you right now). Verfiability, reproducibility, and measurability, along with a few others perhaps, are equally applicable as primary criteria. ... Kenosis 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. But surely very little is universally agreed upon, and a general consensus is sufficent; there are exceptions to most example. Wouldn't most people consider non-falsifiability to be a prime characteristic of pseudoscience. And I would guess that most people have never heard for modus tollens, especially in relation to pseudoscience, and indeed, it is not even mentioned in the article.
  • Would it be better to moderate the example of falsifiability, noting it as a good generality (accepted by conconsensus), noting some exceptions, and noting modus tollens? --Iantresman 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The only universal distinguishing characteristic of pseudoscience is a failure to follow the scientific method, of which falsifiability is but one part, and even then not universally agreed upon. This is more wasted effort and time, as you already know our job as editors here is not to determine whether a topic is actually pseudoscience, only to cite reliable sources who have. FeloniousMonk 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouragement on my "wasted effort", but I made no attempt to determine whether any specific topic was pseudoscience. And sorry, I though that Popper was an acceptable and reliable source --Iantresman 21:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Having just read up on modus tollens:

  • FeloniousMonk says that "The only universal distinguishing characteristic of pseudoscience is a failure to follow the scientific method, of which falsifiability is but one part,"
  • Kenosis says that "there were some theories agreed to be scienfically valid but technically unfalsifiable"
  • Modus tollens concludes that "some science is actually pseudoscience"? --Iantresman 21:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Corollary: Consensus determines science and pseudoscience, not the scientific method. --Iantresman 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ian, as I read my hasty comment above, I realize I did not express it quite accurately. I now have a bit of time to spend on the issue. Theories and hypotheses may be unfalsifiable to the degree that adaptations to them can continue to be made as the earlier hypotheses become falsified. This sometimes gives the appearance of being progressive (learning from experiment), but is also avoiding falsification. At such a juncture, Occam's razor may come increasingly into play (which is in part why it's mentioned in the same paragraph as Popper in the Introduction). This "complication" is among the numerous reasons why today it is much better understood that a mere falsification does not eliminate a valid hypothesis or theory from contention. Instead, today, with better statistical methods than there were when Popper first proposed falisifiability in the 1930s, a degree of confidence can be established with respect to a properly formed hypothesis. And it is these confidence intervals, margins of error, etc. that allow us to have a degree of confidence in a scientific proposition based on a well-conducted statistical analysis of the evidence. So, yes, falsifiability can be considerd a requisite, one of a number that must be viewed in balance with one another. FeloniousMonk's summary that you quoted just above says it quite well. ... Kenosis 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I've restored back to the original text. But it does seems that some criteria are more significant than others.
  • Perhaps it's worth listing those critieria that are part of the scientific method first, and list others last; for example, the "The mantra of holism" is clearly less significant that falsifiability. --Iantresman 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me there's still room for improvement in the article. May I suggest the following? The article on scientific method has two callout boxes, the first of which lists basic demarcation criteria. That same article also has a fairly good section on Problem_of_demarcation that is worth checking. The article on Demarcation problem has an equivalently good version, a bit less technical in language than the one in Scientific method article. As well, the article on Intelligent design has a good description of the demarcation problem in the section on Intelligent design#Defining_intelligent_design_as_science. Perhaps a well-thought-out synthesis of these approaches with appropriate sourcing would ultimately help to better prioritize the criteria in Identifying pseudoscience. I'd like to suggest, though, that at this stage of the article's development it should first be extensively worked through to a consensus on this talk page. Or, we could just continue to play around with the order of presentation of what's already there. I'm really not opposed to ultimately breaking it up into primary and secondary characteristics, but would fully expect some hearty arguments about what belongs in which group... Kenosis 23:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FeloniousMonk , you correctly pointed out that "our job as editors here is not to determine whether a topic is actually pseudoscience, only to cite reliable sources who have".
  • In "Fields regarded as pseudoscience", the text says that "a significant portion of the scientific community faults as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another."
  • I suggest that there are no peer-reviewed citations that support this, for the fields mentioned. I believe at most, you will find a few citations, criticising certain aspects, of some of the fields, which is far from the statement included in the text. --Iantresman 23:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Iantresman. You said your statement (the title I guess) was self explanatory. Clearly it is not as people are confused. Did you want to say that falsifiability is a primary characteristic of a pseudoscience or science? Did you mean it is THE prime characteristic? Did you mean that we are to include or exclude from lists and cats depending on statements about falsifiability? I guess you need to explain more about your intention to create this section. So far I don't see its purpose. KrishnaVindaloo 06:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The title referred to text that I placed into the main article, which was self-explanatory. It has now been removed,[10] hence the confusion now. --Iantresman 09:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Theology

I see there's been a lot of debate on what goes in the list, but can I ask why Theology is in it?
1) There is no reference it
2) I don't think theology even counts as a pseudoscience
3) In agreement with #2, we have the section "Non-scientific fields that are not pseudoscience", which directly lists theology as something that isn't a pseudoscience on the grounds that it doesn't try and pave over existing scientific work, and is concerened only with spiritual stuff

I think it should be removed. If I'm wrong, than the condtradictory statement in this article should be removed instead. Any ideas?--JakeParker 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done took it out :-) - Unless there are some claiming it to be a science? In which case we'd need some super refs. Personally don't know much about it though. Vsmith 02:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sensible. I don't think we can include all subjects with "ology" in the title:) KrishnaVindaloo 06:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Significant portion of the scientific community

Since no citations are forthcoming, I removed the following statement from the section ""Fields regarded as pseudoscience":

"a significant portion of the scientific community faults as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another."
  • I have searched the scientific literature for validation, and while there are sometimes references to subjects such as "Vedic"[11], "Spiritualism"[12], many of the fields listed do not appear to be mentioned, and those that are, make no suggestion about scientific standards.
  • The most critical citation I could find, in relation to "UFOlogy"[13], notes that ".. it is difficult to see how UFOlogy could be adapted to the tradiational scientific method while it lacks coherent predictive theories"[14]. But since this is a book review in which the authors are trying to make the case the UFOlogy is worthy of scientific study, this appears to be a tacit acknowledgement that the subject is not scientific, hence it is not potrayed as scientific, and hence can not be classed a pseudoscience, in this example --Iantresman 09:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, again, pseudoscientific is enough. Pseudoscience is inaccurate in some cases. Pseudoscientific is accurate in all cases. KrishnaVindaloo 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the majority of scientific community have

I remove this statement from the section ""Fields regarded as pseudoscience" for exactly the same reasons as I gave above in "Significant portion of the scientific community". I find no verifiable citations to support this statement. --Iantresman 15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of them in the article, and next to the article names. If a few are lacking, then the logical course is to find them, as it is quite clear that there subjects are pseudoscience. Jefffire 15:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the references in the article are citations for all kinds of statements, but not the ascertion that any of these SPECIFIC fields are considered pseudoscientific by the majority of the scientific community. Even if you find ONE citations which supports the statement for ONE field, this does not automatically apply to all the other fields. Can you find ANY verifiable citations? --Iantresman 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I have removed this statement, there are no citations that support this. There might be many examples of peer reviewed statement suggesting that various subjects are pseudoscience, but a couple of such sources is not the same as "the majority of the scientific community", and does not imply a consensus. --Iantresman 15:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewed scientific statements can well be taken to represent scientific opinion on the matter. Or are you seriously proposing that one or more of the topics listed are not considered pseudoscientific my the community? So far your actions just look like a violation of WP:Point to me. Jefffire 15:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Peer reviewed scientific statements can well be taken to represent scientific opinion on the matter." -- that is not necessarily so; see WP:RS. We can say that little or no evidence exists for something, but I agree with Dematt and Iantresman that we shouldn't assume that scientists would agree with use the epithet "pseudoscience". cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I contend that the majority of the scientific community have never heard of, for example, "Morphic resonance", "Personology", and "Radionics", let alone have commented on the subjects, let alone deemed them pseudoscientific.
  • That's not to say that IF the scientific community had read about the subjects, and considered all the facts, that they may indeed consider them pseudoscientific. Equally, the MIGHT considered them adequate fields, in which the conclusions are wrong, or just poor theories.
  • To claim any of these statements requires verifiable citations.
  • There may well be half a dozen verifiable citations suggesting each field is pseudoscience, and I would be delighted to include that in the article. But to speak for the "majority of the scientific community" looks like "weasel words" at best, pseudoscience at worse. --Iantresman 16:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Iantresman makes some good points. The fact probably is, though I don't know for sure, that virtually none of the things listed as pseudoscience will have been properly investigated by scientists nor have received much attention at all, if any, in peer-review scientific literature. What I think will be the case is that a few scientists, some perhaps associated with sceptical organisations, will have pronounced them pseudoscientific in general interest publications and/or books. In many cases those scientists will be writing outside of their field of expertise and so it is also unclear how much credence we should give, for example, to a geologist who rubbishes telepathy.Davkal 16:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the article as a whole is an excellent example of pseudoscience. It throws about jargon such as "double-blind trials" without explanation and which have no obvious connection to many of the subjects listed (what would a "double-blind" trial in ufology look like). Non-scientific sources (Carroll) are cited as if they were the most highly regarded sources to be found, while others (Midgley) are relegated to the "file-drawer". The best is probably the section on identifying pseudoscience itself, which is so impenetrable and full of unexplained jargon that it could probably be used to pseudoscientificize anything or nothing.Davkal 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Yet again, I've removed the statement concerning the "significant portion of the scientific community" as there are no reliable sources supporting this. The main source are Carroll and Williams (who are not scientific sources).
  • The only other scientific sources appear to be attached to "morphic resonance", but again, there is no indications that (a) they state that "morphic resonance" is pseudoscience (b) that they suggest that the majority of the scientific community support this view.
  • Weasel words tells us to avoid the term "The (mainstream) scientific community", and presumably Verification make the statement doubly objectionable.

--Iantresman 10:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Williams is a scientific source. Williams (PhD) is only the editor. The contributors are numerous, and 80 percent of them are professors of various sciences. They wrote the book together. Carroll (PhD) and prof, is a reliable source. He does not have to be a scientist to use scientific thinking. As a PhD in philosophy, and a teacher in critical thinking at university level, he is eminently quotable for scientific viewpoints on subjects of pseudoscience. Of course, more and various sources will be added in time. In the meantime, lets avoid the silly snatch-and-grab editing. Most subjects are clearly pseudoscientific as can be seen in the articles in question. KrishnaVindaloo 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifiication. However, Carroll's book is primarily on skepticism, not pseudoscience, so we need a specific quote damming a subject, and ideally a reason. --Iantresman 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Majority of sci community. Again it is not necessary or even possible to provide statements to this claim. A reliable scientific source will do. Lets not confuse people by claiming it. It is pretty self evident that certain subjects that are known to many will be considered PS. KrishnaVindaloo 05:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In which case, such an unsupported statement should not be included. One or two reliable scientific sources, does not make a majority, nor a consensus. And the text should say: "Some scientific sources..." (as long as we have them). --Iantresman 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The criterion should not be adapted to fit current content. FeloniousMonk has long experience with these types of controversial subjects, and his recent move to establish a criterion such as "by the scientific community" has a great deal of merit. Problem is, we can find one or two sources for just about anything. At this stage of the article's development, it seems to me it makes more sense to invest some time and energy to collect and examine the sources for each claim of a pseudoscience that is under consideration for the list. Even though it is true that the scientific cummunity will tend to use words like "not scientifically based", "unscientific", "not consistent with current empirical research", and other such phrases, the definition of pseudoscience nonetheless allows the editors of WP to objectively examine the claims of critics that a particular field is pseudoscientific. If a field holds itself out as scientific, and has been termed unscientific by the scientific community or relevant portion thereof, that field may now be reasonably included on the list. Otherwise, the list will be a mile long again, and we'all are right back to where we were the last few months. ... Kenosis 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree, "by the scientific community" has little merit because (1) the "scientific community" counts as a Weasel word (2) There are insufficient verifiable scientific citations to back it up. (3) We can re-word the phrase to make it acceptable to everybody, and verifiable. --Iantresman 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with teh weasel words. Also, keep in mind that just because it is unscientific, or not scientifically based does not mean it is pseudoscientific. I believe scientists choose their words carefully here. I also think it is not up to WP editors to use WP:OR to decide if that is what some author is saying. IOW, just because the "field of endeavor" makes a claim before it is thoroughly tested (which is on the list of reasons), we at WP need an outside source to explicitly say it is pseudoscience or that it even has pseudoscientific characteristics in order for us to put it on any list that even insinuates that it is. So, if Intelligent Design has an acceptable author who states it has characteristics, we could include it in the appropriate list, but if no-one out there is saying anything about whether astrology(e.g) is pseudoscience, then in this case we cannot add it, even if we know it is. Bottom line, no OR. --Dematt 17:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If this effort to change the criteria succeeds, the next time around I'll need to vigorously defend the inclusion of chiropractic on the list of pseudosciences. After all, I do respect consensus. ... Kenosis 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is about changing the criteria, it's about describing the soruces. If there are reliable sources that say that chiropractic has been considered a pseudoscience, then by all means include it. But this is not the same as implying that the majority of the scientific community believes that chiropractic is pseudoscience. --Iantresman 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing is that most of the scientific community don't pay any attention to pseudoscience. They have real research to do instead of wasting their time with cranks and their followers. The formulation comes therefore whether representatives of the scientific community have identified something as such, whether it has been accepted in any way by the scientific community as science, yet despite this lack of recognition nevertheless claims to be science, and whether if you gave a room of scientists information about said pseudoscience and asked them whether they thought it was scientific, they would say no. In other words, a sociological definition. — Dunc|☺ 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If the scientific community don't pay any attention to pseudoscience, then the majority don't label certain subjects as such. If certain individuals identify a field a pseudoscience, then we say so, attributed to the individual(s). --Iantresman 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
As reliable sources will often conflict, just as reasonable people will often disagree, the issue for the editors is about a preponderance of reliable sources representing the summaries of the relevant scientific community. No other "community" is demonstrably able to make these kinds of judgments in keeping with WP:VER and WP:RS. Otherwise the list gets a mile long, a bunch of POV's plus a pile of "cite to sources making the allegation of pseudoscience", then another pile of "cite to sources defending scientific validity of the field's research", etc. ... Kenosis 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely it's not for editors to decide which pile of veriable reliable sources is the right one. It's up to editors to describe both piles... which again seems far from the statement that "the majority of scientific sources..." --Iantresman 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Eppur si muove &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Everyone speeds on the roads, but it doesn't make it right. --Iantresman 21:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
And that follows, how? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ian, my point just above is that I think sticking with judgments of the scientific community avoids the dilemma you're talking about just above. Without referring to the only community capable of making these judgments, the relevant scientific community, I think we're on thin ice making the judgments this section makes about what is legitimately on the list. ... Kenosis 21:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
My point is "the scientific community" doesn't make judgements. Carroll and Williams have, but we have no idea what other scientists might say; perhaps they would agree, perhaps they would be less judgemental. --Iantresman 21:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ian, the typical researcher may not participate in such judgments, but science professors and teachers make them all the time. Scientific organizations weigh in on such matters when they believe it appropriate as well. An example of this is the resounding response in the recent "intelligent design" flap. ... Kenosis 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, intelligent design is a popular example. But I doubt whether morphic resonance is as well know. I still content that most scientists have never heard of morphic resonance, let alone commented on it, let alone deemed it pseudoscience. This is not to say that IF morphic resonance was described to them, they would judge it so. --Iantresman 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So you seem to be saying that scientists, unlike us common folk, are oblivious to ideas claiming to be scientific. Bullocks. If anything, they are more acutely aware of such bullshit than the average person. And BTW, while I find reliance on Google results to be overused, morphic resonance does generate in the neighborhood of 65K hits, so it seems a bit foolhardy to assume that this concept has slipped under the science community's radar. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is usually very easy to tell which sources are reliable. Which, specifically, don't you like? — Dunc|☺ 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources support the statement that "the majority of the scientific community .. consider [insert field here] to be pseudoscience". Some of the fields listed as considered pseudoscientific by either Williams, or, Carroll show no conensus between them. --Iantresman 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Possibly because you wish sources to specifically say "pseudoscience": however, "not scientifically based", "unscientific", "not consistent with current empirical research", all mean the same thing. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No...not consistent with current empirical research is not the same as pseudoscientific!! Far from it. We have various philosophical, sociological and occasionally scientific writers, a random and motley collection that in no way can be considered to represent scientific consensus. Simple accuracy is what is demanded here; we can say who says what about what. Basta. Anything more is a fish tale. Hgilbert 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to be gentle, "not consistent with current empirical research" is called a euphemism, a nice way of saying a theory is, well, bullshit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit also does not necessarily imply pseudoscience. There are many valid theories that have been demonstrated to be incorrect, showing the scientific method to be working well.--Iantresman 00:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If you mean "valid" in the sense of being formulated and presented according to the "scientific method", you are correct. However, disproving a theory is essentially the same as invalidating it. Thus while the structure was valid, the hypothesis(es) was(were) not. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall saying it did; do you recall me saying that, or did you apply your own inference to what I actually wrote? Note that my initial point regarded a euphemism. Note too, that I never equated bullshit with a disproven theory. Note as well, that "not consistent with current empirical research" would not be how scientists would phrase an issue regarding a disproven theory, rather, they would simply say it had been disproven. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of bullshit, Penn and Teller's so-named TV show "debunked" global warming a couple of years ago[15]. Not exactly scientific consensus, that. Carroll himself casts a fairly wide net, in some cases unfairly lumping together scientific minorities with crank views. So we shouldn't take his, or anyone's, every example as gospel (that wouldn't befit good skeptics, right?). I think Kenosis is on the right track here: we have to look to scientific literature so that we can distinguish minority scientific views from crank views and get past the implication that "pseudoscience" is merely an epithet. Cranks generally don't get their stuff through legitimate peer review. That's an important criterion, imo. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jim Butler. Crank is usually a term applied to those selling unvalidated treatments such as homeopathy, acupressure, and anything else with quasi-spiritual/vitalist tendencies. The burden of proof is upon the claimant to provide evidence for the claim rather than the critic to prove something doesn't work. So the term crank may be applied to the proponents of a pseudoscience who states that empirically supported medicine is pseudoscience. KrishnaVindaloo 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough re the definition of "crank". Please substitute "pseudoscientific" or "pseudoscientists" as needed for "crank" in my "Speaking of bullshit..." reply above. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Setting the bar

There's a significant issue with where the bar for inclusion as pseudoscience has been set for this article, and it's reflected in the section title "Fields termed pseudoscience by one or more critics."

Setting the bar at "one or more critics" directly conflicts with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight which says "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." I know you're all a smart bunch here and immediately see the issue: "Fields termed pseudoscience by one or more critics." vs "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." This will need to change in the article, making the question "Where to set the bar"?

Again, WP:NPOV provides the answer: The WP:NPOV policy has a specific clause dealing with pseudoscience, NPOV: Pseudoscience which states "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." So the bar for what is to be included as pseudoscience in this article is the scientific community's opinion, not one or more critics. I'm changing the section title to reflect this and subjects included here not supported cites that reflect a significant opinion within the scientific community should be removed until proper sources and cites are provided. FeloniousMonk 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think we have a problem in that the two chiefly cited sources in this section, Carroll and Williams, are not the scientifc community. Even a source from a scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal, does not represent the view of the scientific communitity.
  • See the WP:NPOV section "Attributing and substantiating biased statements"[16] where blanket statement involving "many people" and presumably the unsubstantiated "scietific communitiy" are considered weasel words, and that "By attributing the claim to a known authority..." is the way to go.
  • We already attribute to Carroll and Williams, but they are not the scientific community. --Iantresman 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of other sources, the trouble is that they are not being sought out. Sagan could be quite useful here. Jefffire 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Either way, there is no "scientific community" that speaks with one voice. And were Sagan's views peer-reviewed? --Iantresman 13:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Please. When a viewpoint is repeated by a significant number of individual scientists, or when notable and credible scientific professional organizations issue policy statements, or when the National Academies of Science issue a policy statement, then one can safely say the majority viewpoint of the scientific community is thus. FeloniousMonk 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It's more accurate to say that, for example, "the National Academies of Science issued a policy statement..." which is completely unambiguous. --Iantresman 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we should be doing that. We shouldn't be assuming Carroll speaks for scientific consensus. -Jim Butler(talk) 09:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take a shotgun approach to references and throw in a moderate number that appear reasonably notable. Obviously some will be better than others so once it's done I suggest we sort out the better ones. Help would be appreciated as finding references is a real pain :) . Jefffire 12:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Think you could move the deleted references to a subpage or a section here so that we can more readily see whether some others should be included? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jefffire. Your suggestion is constructive. I believe it'll take a bit of doing though. I will help out as much as I am able to (struggling with a full time job right now). I believe adding more specific citations to the article will take a while. Though certainly in my readings of pseudoscience literature, the lists and facts presented are very well supported in the literature. I encourage others here also to find more reliable references on the various views covered. Lets cooperatively make a well researched article long term. ATB KrishnaVindaloo 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found what may be a useful reference, trouble is, it's in French, a book, and not online. It's called "L'Imposture Scientifique en Dix Lecons" and there is a review [17], which tells us a little about it. Jefffire 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no way of demonstrating any sort of scientific consensus for at least the great majority of the topics listed, and possibly this is true of all of them. Many of them still do not even have a single reference to back up their inclusion! Right now their inclusion simply represents the fact that some critic (in some cases, apparently just an editor of this article!) has deemed them worthy of this title. The section title should accurately represent this. Better to say honestly that these topics are criticised by some author or another than to claim that there is consensus on such a wide range of themes.Hgilbert 12:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is no way of proving consensus unless you do your own OR and give a survey to a representative portion of the scientific community. Subjects are considered pseudoscientific for various reasons including the behaviour and claims of the proponents/promoters. Presently the list of pseudoscientific subjects is not just by some author or another. Carroll is a professor who teaches about ethics and the nature of pseudoscience. Williams et al are all professors or specific experts on the subject and they handle pseudoscientific subjects properly. Beyond that, there are other references placing the subjects there. They are all notable pseudoscientific subjects as far as I see. The sources are good and so the subjects can be included according to NPOV policies on this matter. KrishnaVindaloo 09:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, for most topics we can't prove sci consensus that they are pseudoscience. All the more reason in those cases to present arg's in article body, and use lists on this page with a lower threshold (i.e. Carroll is fine), and NOT to use the cat. That certainly appears to follow NPOV per WP:CG and Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people. We should reserve the cat for those cases where we reallt can document scientific consensus per WP:RS, e.g. "creation science", flat-earthism, certain forms of global-warming debunking, etc. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, we don't need to "prove sci consensus that [topics] are pseudoscience"; we only need to show that a number of scientists say a topic is pseudoscience, that is all. And WP:NPOV applies to categories as well; what you propose is a form of POV fork, which are specifically proscribed by the same policy. Also read NPOV: Pseudoscience "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." FeloniousMonk 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Your silence on the guidelines WP:CG and Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people continues, and doesn't escape the notice of other editors. These guidelines are very clear on how to apply WP:NPOV to the category namespace. That namespace is unique because categories appear without annotations. I disagree that judicious use of categories represents a POV fork. On the contrary, it's a way of making sure that (per NPOV) "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." That's easy enough in the article namespace, but with controversial categorizations, NPOV and WP:V dictate judiciousness.
Your threshold for applying this category is wildly low. Would you suggest the same for other cats? For example, if a few historians say G.W. Bush is a fascist, then he should go in category:fascists? And how on earth is Robert Carroll, a philosopher of science, a reliable source for what "some" or "a significant portion" or whatever of scientists say? Are all things designated as pseudosciences equally pseudoscientific? Is intelligent design just as pseudoscientific, in terms of across-the-board violation of the scientific method and broad consensus among scientists, as chiropractic or acupuncture? Of course not. Chiro and acu make falsifiable claims, are taken seriously by mainstream researchers, and have a body of research supporting them. Shades of grey do exist here, which is the whole point of WP:CG's suggestion of setting the bar higher.
Sorry if I sound a little steamed here, but I've addressed your points before and I believe your continued refusal to reply, while nonetheless editing according to your POV, is both uncivil and counter to WP:DR. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 06:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No I think, to the contrary, "intelligent design" is more clearly pseudoscience than chiropractic or acupuncture. "Intelligent design" ignores universally accepted scientific fact in order to defend religious beliefs and attempts to pass off religion as science. Chiropractic and acupuncture are more like 19th century medicine that had no other agenda than to find truth (and make money) but whose standards were not as rigorous as those of physical science or of more modern (evolution based) biology. I do not think that the main justification of acupuncture is pretended to be science. It is more of a folk medicine. (And I am for including George W. Bush in category fascist too. His pretense of accepting intelligent design as science supports that.) David R. Ingham 07:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Credible sources

Before considering a subject as pseudoscience, shouldn't we provide peer-reviewed sources noting that evidence is consistent, or not consistent with a subject? For example, I have no idea, whether there is evidence supporting or not supporting "phrenology" --Iantresman 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd direct you to read WP:RS, but I know you already have. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure. But presumably we have some peer-reviewed sources providing evidence that is inconsistent with the aims of phrenology... I guess we're not out to PROVE the veracity, of the fields of study, just indicate whether field doesn't meet the rigours of the scientific method.
  • If someone takes the claims of phenology, and does a scientific study, following the scientific method to the letter, does the subject remain pseudoscientific? --Iantresman 18:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please show us exactly where WP:RS and WP:V require sources to be peer reviewed for inclusion here. I know you know that they don't, so please stop trying to set your own criteria for inclusion here.
WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience tells us "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. . . . pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article."
WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 says "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..."
So the only criteria for a topic to be included here is whether a notable source per WP:V in the scientific community is available per WP:RS that says a topic is pseudoscience. Period. And the more the merrier. FeloniousMonk 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we talking about the scientific community.--Dematt 21:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Keating or Homola fit the scientist description.--Dematt 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Journalists and authors who cover science are perfectly acceptable secondary sources, and secondary sources are generally preferable to primary sources at Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 21:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
So if I can find some secondary sources, based on primary sources, that suggest that alledged pseudoscientific fields are not not pseudscience, then you'd be happy to include them for balance? --Iantresman 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk is way off the charts in assuming who speaks for "the scientific community". Remember, under NPOV we report who says what, and why. Carroll et. al. do not meet WP:RS for scientific consensus. WP:RS says:

Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but fortunately there is an easier way. The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs.
There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.)
Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.

So, let's go ahead and state scientific consensus about evidence (or lack thereof) for a field, but refrain from assuming that the scientific community's would necessarily use the term "pseudoscience" whenever the skeptics do. Instead, we just say who calls a field pseudoscientfic. No overreaching, please, per NPOV and WP:V. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've missed a crucial distinction: WP:NPOV is official policy, WP:RS is merely a guideline. Policy always trumps guideline here. Furthermore, WP:NPOV clearly says "These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." The policy says "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." So who is it who is "way off the charts"? FeloniousMonk 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply; I missed your response. Still a hot topic though. FM, I think your selective quoting of certain parts of NPOV misses the forest for the trees. NPOV is much more than the portions specifically mentioning pseudoscience. For instance, there's WP:NPOVT#Categorisation, which says specifically to be careful of overpopulating "sensitive" categories. Then there's the first paragraph of the body of the article on NPOV, which says "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."
So maybe you could clarify your view here, FM. Are you saying NPOV trumps itself? :-)
Your persistent argument that policies trump guidelines is legalistic, and in any case falls apart when policy pages themselves argue against your approach. The guidelines are there to help apply the policies. We're supposed to use some common sense here. Designating entire fields as pseudoscience because Carroll or Shermer said so is NOT representing "all significant views fairly and without bias". Here, we need to differentiate adequately between what scientists say about evidence and what some scientists and non-scientists say about psuedoscience. That's NPOV 101, not to mention WP:VER: saying who says what, and why. Cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution as pseudoscience??

Evolution was added to the section "Fields regarded as pseudoscience" citing, as only source, a non-scientific publication: Tradition - ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM. This entry must be removed. Dermeister 14:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Killed it dead. Blatent POV. Jefffire 14:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What makes this POV-pushing, and not say "Morphic resonance"? Both use a Web site as a source? Neither push one view at the detriment of any others --Iantresman 15:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Because Morphic resonance was criticised as pseudoscientific by reliable, scientific sources. Take a look at WP:RS. Jefffire 15:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hard for me to believe there's even a question about this. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It's WP:Point, Jim. Jefffire 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If you're referring to the article by David F. Marks and John Colwell [18], I can find no suggestion that they consider "Morphic resonance" to be pseudoscience; "An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization" is how they describe it. And surely skepticism does not equate with pseudoscience? --Iantresman 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the references used in the article itself, and ignoring the consensus agreement that statement from a scientific source that the field is demonstrably untrue yet work continues is sufficient for the category of pseudoscience to be applied. Jefffire 15:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The references just support the various statements and data in the article. They DO NOT say that "morphic resonance" is pseudoscientific. Can you find ANY quote in ANY of the articles or references, which effectively say that the subject is considered pseudoscience. Criticism is not pseudoscience. --Iantresman 15:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted two more, found in the article on Rupert. You should have researched such things before begining such a crusade. Jefffire 15:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, which quotes in each citation claim say that "morphic resonance" is pseudoscience? --Iantresman 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A serious treatment of the psudoscientific aspects of evolution can be found in the philosopher Mary Midgley's book, Evolution as a Religion. Similar points, dealing with physics (particularly cosmology) and AI can also be found in her book Science as Salvation. Maybe all these subjects can be added or perhaps a section dealing with/mentioning this particular aspect of the traditional sciences should be included.Davkal 15:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the crux of the matter, that is not a scientific criticism, it's a pseudointellectual one. It would make as much sense to reference the AiG. Jefffire 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can label anyone who disagrees with you as psuedointellectual and expect that to be the end of it. The fact is that Midgley (a respected academic) has put forward various reasons for identifying aspects of those theories as psuedoscientific.Davkal 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a better criticism, your saying that one source is more reliable than the other. --Iantresman 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS, read it. Jefffire 16:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
And presumably you'd expect the same standard of reliable sources for all citations? So if as Davkal suggests, Midgley is a qualified academic, but Carroll who does the Skeptics Dictionary is less qualified, then presumably you wouldn't accept any of Carroll's citatation? --Iantresman 16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, mes amis, virtually all of the critiques of fields as pseudoscientific cited in this article stem from philosophers, not scientists; in fact, the whole topic of pseudoscience is one chiefly treated by philosophers of science, not scientists (Popper, Kuhn, Williams, Carroll). We are having parallel discussions on the Category:Pseudoscience page. Both historically and in contemporary discussions, it is not a scientific distinction, but a philosophical one, hard as that is for some of you folks to believe. (Oh, yes...sociologists sometimes write about it, too.) Hgilbert 21:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
And furthermore, the main sources used to categorise certain fields, eg. Carroll and Williams, do not appear to be either scientists or philosophers, but skeptics. --Iantresman 09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The rub with alt-med

Read this scenario and decide:

  • Goofus the alt-med dude develops "holistic foo-ology" treatments which involve sessions of sequential hot-tub soaks, massage and yoga postures, while listening to side 2 of Abbey Road repeatedly.
  • Goofus states (with abundant testimonial evidence) that patients enjoy his treatments and find them refreshing, and goes so far as to say that "holistic foo-ology treatments use ths ancient science of yoga to heal the core essence of the human spirit at a deep level", and republishes that remark on the holistic foo-ology website.
  • Gallant, the ever-vigilant adjunct professor of the philosophy of the history of the philosophy of science, pounces on the "science" thing, and says that to the degree Goofus is making unverified empirical claims with holistic foo-ology, that field is a pseudoscience!
  • Gallant also points out that no evidence exists suggesting that holistic foo-ology treatments are effective beyond a placebo, and astutely notes that "no scientific experiment has ever verified the existence of a 'spirit' with a 'core essence' that can be 'healed' on a 'deep level'". Gallant says you would have to be a "holistic FOOL" to believe this stuff, and that zinger earns him a byline in Smirktical Dismisser magazine! His career as a Smirktic is launched!
  • Goofus responds to Gallant by saying that "well-being" is a subjective, not an empirical claim, that "science of yoga" just means yoga is systematic, that he is speaking metaphorically with the spirit business, and that Gallant needs to loosen up (and he knows just the ticket).

Is holistic foo-ology a pseudoscience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Butler (talk • contribs)

Goofus and Gallant? Ugh, reminds me of trips to the dentist's office when I was a kid -- he had a massive supply of Highlight mags in his office. I owe you one now, Jim Butler, for the mental pain you've inflicted. Maybe I'll go listen to side two of Abbey Road. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)
I personally would be satisfied to see evidence of Gallant's degree in "philosophy of the history of the philosophy of science" -- well, maybe he's published a book on the subject and we can cite to him in the article on pseudoscience. ... Kenosis 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll start an online diploma mill offering such degrees.  ;-) The requirements will be $500 and a 200-word essay on whether claims of affecting "health and/or well-being" are necessarily empirical in nature. Beautifully framed and guaranteed to make, um, an impression of some sort. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
How about that. Let's see, $500 times, say, 2000 people. A million bucks? (USD of course--uhh, better yet, make it Euros). Cheers indeed. ... Kenosis 06:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kenosis. Chiropractic is considered pseudoscientific by many reliable authors. Just because there is an aspect that is supported, that does not mean it is not a pseudoscientific subject. It is considered PS because; The theory is total pseudoscience, chiropractors tend to use a wide variety of other PS subjects in conjunction with "core" chiro, including acupressure, homeopathy, bogus vitamin therapies, etc, in practice it is used as a panacea (eg, for dyslexia, psychological problems, depression) and the beliefs and activities of the proponents are pseudoscientific (eg belief in vitalism, anti-science advocacy, etc. Its all in the article. KrishnaVindaloo 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd hold up on chiropractic as a whole (and this coming from someone who thinks chiro is bullocks). Yes, it contains elements of pseudoscience, but it contains elements of "things that work" (or at least appear to in the minds of the patients/clients). Whether these things are scientific is debatable, but as there is still debate it might be best to hold off judgment. On the other hand, homeopathy and vitamin therapies, which have shown to have the same level of efficacy as placebo effects, might warrant inclusion if you can find supporting sources. Vitalism is really more a philosophy (a silly one, but that's neither here nor there) as is any anti-science advocacy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, in the AMA antitrust case, there were some government-sponsored studies entered into evidence, empirical research showing a strong correlation between treatment and effective results, so it's not just in the minds of patients. From Wilk, et al vs. the AMA, et al ND Ill. and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1990, certiorari denied
"data from Workmen's Compensation Bureau studies comparing chiropractic care to care by a medical physician were presented which showed that chiropractors were “twice as effective as medical physicians, for comparable injuries, in returning injured workers to work at every level of injury severity.”
This is just a small part of an increasingly large body of empirical evidence related to chiropractic today. ... Kenosis 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and the kicker here in this whole wrangle about chiropractic is that is does not hold itself out as scientific, one of the two basic components of the definition of pseudoscience. ... Kenosis 02:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC) ... On the other hand, maybe I'll take that comment back; apparently there are many references to "chiropractic science", and some references to the "science of chiropractic". My mistake. ... Kenosis 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the issue of misprepresentation is tough. "Science" does have a generic meaning of "systematic body of knowledge". Some hold that making any empirical claim automatically puts one in science territory. Anyway, good points about chiro generally, and they apply equally to acupuncture/TCM, which have scientific support (probably more EBM than chiro) and generally aren't portrayed as scientific. The issue of when to apply category:pseudoscience isn't really resolved on WP (Cf. WP:CG), and I'd appreciate some input from interested editors on User:Mccready's recent rampage of tagging recent TCM-related articles, and general incivility and personal attacks (see Special:Contributions:Mccready and User Talk:Mccready. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Great, a bit of reasoning! It really helps. OK, I see there are some confusions over the section in question. How about we try to agree what the section is about. Could you pass comment on/correct my statements below. From what I understand, the section is to help the reader see fields that have unequal levels/various types of pseudoscientific elements in order for them to understand the subject of pseudoscience. It would be unhelpful to state subjects that are pseudoscience per se, as it is not a clarifying fact, the levels are different, and the reasons why people call them PS are different in each case. From your above comment, it seems that you are still trying to do OR to identify pseudosciences. It doesn't matter that much if a subject states itself to be a science. That is only one possible identifier. But that is all beside the point. We are not here to identify pseudosciences. Our main purpose is to explain to the reader why subjects are considered PS, and to provide useful examples. So the present section on PS subjects is 1, inconsistently labeled (pseudoscience in the title, and pseudoscientific in the description) 2, inconsistently populated (Many subjects listed are reported to be gray areas (and lit on PS in general says that all PS subjects are intrinsically gray areas anyhow), though only chiropractic is excluded for that reason). Again, just because a small area of a subject is supported, that does not mean that a subject is not PS. There are many identifiers, and it is up to reliable sources to say if a subject is PS. A subject can have science and PS in it. The verdict; the subject is pseudoscientific (not a pseudoscience per se). If any part of this does not make sense, please specify. KrishnaVindaloo 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

KrishnaVindaloo, I would be remiss in not letting you know you are already up to four reverts on pseudoscience. Three different editors have disagreed with your assertions on an issue that has been extensively argued on the talk page by many editors including but not limited to Dematt, Jim62sch, Levine2112, FeloniousMonk, and others. Any further reversions on the issue of chiropractic in this article will perhaps result in a block of your access in accordance with WP:3RR. ... Kenosis 05:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis. I understand the 3RR. My last edit was a correction, and not a revert. Re-parenting is not mentioned by Lilienfeld. Lilienfeld classes chiropractic as pseudoscience and he criticises chiropractors for using spinal manipulations for such "ailments" as mental "imbalance", the vapours, add, dyslexia, mental trauma, and increasing "human potential". Your so called extensive discussion is completely unclear, as is the description and title of the section in question in relation to the entries already there. Plus, in order for you to be consistent with your deletion of chiropractic, you must delete other entries from the list. Now, if you are interested in being even halfway convincing, perhaps you would like to discuss and refer to the literature in question. I know consensus is important here, but being tag-teamed by the Marx brothers is hardly Wikipedia convention. KrishnaVindaloo 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Marx brothers? Levine2112 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Comedians or Communists? Either way, you have to admit, that was good! The Karl brothers would be impressed, too(Popper and Marx). I would complain about uncivil and ad hominem attacks, but I'll have to admit that was funny, I don't care who you are, that was funny! --Dematt 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, this is just becoming a regular Night at the Opera, no? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Kenosis, I'll give you a hint: I used different contexts, added verifiable references that added different contexts, and clarified the article in every case. I discussed. Three other editors have not even tried to discuss this new improved issue. KrishnaVindaloo 06:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It is all too obvious you are looking for a confrontation of some kind, but why me? when there are at least six or seven editors thus far who have, based on the WP:VER evidence, rejected the idea of chiropractic as an example of pseudoscience. ... Kenosis 06:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No, confrontation is not the issue. It is verifiable from the new source, and from the article itself, that Chiropractic is considered PS. If not, then remove acupuncture and all the others that have some aspect that is partially supported with weak evidence. If you are still on the crusade of supplying the article with a list of absolute 100% pure pseudoscience fields, then you are not clarifying the article but making it less accurate. It is extremely easy to see the PS nature of chiropractic. Its like applying phrenology to brain surgery. Nobody has discussed the fact that chiropractic has been applied to a ridiculous expanse of ailments. Now tell me, what do you think is the actual purpose of the list of examples of fields that are "pseudoscience"? Is the purpose to say "these are pseudosciences"? Or is it to show the reader a range of PS fields that have different levels and types of pseudoscientificness? Chiro is a perfect example for the article because the proponents still behave in a PS fashion, even though the main intervention has been dramatically restricted to a specific form of back disorder. You removed the entry and wrote that fabulous explanation in the edit summary. I provided well researched information that satisfied your requirement, and continued to get tag-teamed without any discussion. I clarified by placing the information more usefully in other sections, and continued to get reverted - without sufficient discussion. It is not my POV that chiropractic is A PSEUDOSCIENCE. It is my intention to make the article clearer and more consistent. I don't care how much discussion you claimed to have done in the past. This issue requires fresh discussion. KrishnaVindaloo 06:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You might do better if you gave up on this specific crusade for a bit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Really, this is a matter of clarity, reducing confusion, and making sure we are all on the same page. KrishnaVindaloo 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That horrible yet necessary suggestion again - good research

Hi again, I wish to remind folk that there are plenty of claims made in the article which are not backed up by sufficient citations. There are also plenty of mis-interpreted papers that are easily cleared up with corroborating sources. EG, the Beyerstein source says chiropractic is a grey area in the field of medicine (because it partly works in one aspect of medicine). But his other papers say it is total pseudoscience (when applied in psychology). This is corroborated by other research by Keating et al, and a Benetto also corroborates this. So we need to stop being selective about things also. In addition, I noticed that some editors here tend to rely on single experimental articles, but it is the review articles (reviews of all studies) that are necessary. OR is not an option, let the authors answer the questions for us. KrishnaVindaloo 09:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So then find a way to relate it to psychology, assuming that your post above is accurate. If you mean as a treatment for specific phycological disorders, the source is likely correct. But if you mean psychology in a looser manner, I'd be skeptical. Chiro does appear to have short-term psychological benefits -- even if these results are only in the mind of the patient. But then, the mind is really what psychology is all about, no? ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Jim62sch. The Lilienfeld ref already did that in the pseudo in psych section. He says it is applied to psychology erroneously and in a pseudoscientific manner. KrishnaVindaloo 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Gradual expansion of "Identifying Pseudoscience" section

OK, here's a solution to the continued problems with identifying "pseudoscience" in this article.

  • The main purpose of this article is to explain to the reader what pseudoscience is about. Explaining clearly does involve using examples. Those have been provided to some extent in list form.
  • It would be clearer for the reader to have a characteristic of pseudoscience illustrated by mentioning a particular field and its pseudoscientific aspect (with citations) within the section of that characteristic.

So I suggest those characteristics or identifiers of PS should be expanded, perhaps even to have sections of their own with actual examples mentioned in the section. I realize that requires research and it will no doubt be a gradual effort, but the reasons for doing so will help all sorts of problems on this article. It will reduce the "pejorative" objection, clarify the characteristics, and eventually may remove the need for that highly disputed (and quite unenlightening) section on so called pseudoscience examples. It would be helpful if editors were not accused of POV pushing when in fact they are simply doing their best to clarify the article by providing examples for the identifiers of PS. KrishnaVindaloo 07:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if/when scholars use the term, it's still considered pejorative in general usage. That should be taken into account when we edit. Agree with the trend toward more citation. Citation and annotation are good. Slapping the label on field like chiro and acu which have PS elements but also sci elements, without annotation, is bad. It's asserting a single POV rather than presenting the range of sig POV's, and should be avoided. For those who have argued that NPOV allows unqualified categorization in the area of pseudoscience, please read WP:NPOVT#Categorisation. That's just as much an aspect of NPOV as anything else that's been cited here. Thanks for considering this. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing, Jim Butler. If a field has characteristics that are PS, then those elements or characteristics are pseudoscience. Which makes subjects such as chiropractic and acupuncture pseudoscientific. Which is why I suggested to change the title of the section. It is the case that some sources call chiropractic or acupuncture pseudoscience. However, for the sake of clearing things up for the reader, it is far more accurate to say - fields considered to be pseudoscientific. I know it is only a small change, but the meaning is very different in this context. And I see nothing wrong with showing the reader subjects fully accepted by science, but have small bits of them considered pseudoscience. The pejorative issue(thanks for the spelling lesson, whoever it was), is neither here nor there. Wikipedia says to handle PS subjects as science sees them, so the label is indellible (hope I spelt that right). KrishnaVindaloo 06:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the real problem lies in the phrase: "a significant portion of the scientific community". That means that not only do ou have to cite that the fields have pseudoscientific characteristics but this opinion must be agreed upon by a significant portion (is that a majority?) of the scientific community. So far, I haven't seen a citation that shows that is true for chiropractic. How about accupuncture? Is there something that can be cited that shows that for sure there is a significant portion of the scientific community agrees with this? What if there is also a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees that something is a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific? Levine2112 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed passage from "Identifying pseudoscience"

I've just removed the following passage from the section on "Identifying pseudoscience" ... Kenosis 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscienceuse use grandiose or highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the superficial trappings of science.[7] e.g. Engrams (Dianetics), engram chains (TFT), submodalities, representational systems (Neurolinguistic programming), innate (chiropractic). ... 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Kenosis. Do you realize your unreasonable actions are highly antagonistic? You seem bent upon provoking conflict. Editors are to provide reasoning for their actions on the talk page. I have given you examples of such reasoning for each of my actions. Your actions are for the most part devoid of reasoning. Are you to be considered unaccountable? How are we to know the reasons for your actions? Do you wish to remove half the article just in order to avoid the name of chiropractic being mentioned? Are you just trying to prove a point? Is it consensus that examples of obscurantisms are to be abolised from the article? Is it just that you need a nap or an asprin? It would be nice if you could provide some sort of explanations for your rather fact-obscuring actions. KrishnaVindaloo 07:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey KV, you don't have to use chiropractic for every example to "educate" your readers. Try some examples from other professions, perhaps traditional medicine has a few examples you can use. If you are only interested in teaching pseudoscience correctly, you only need a list of examples, you don't need questionable and/or controversial issues. They are questionable or controversial because the scientific community even has trouble deciding. WP is not supposed to be making that decision. You could use chiropractic to illustrate how the word pseudoscience can be used pejoratively to discredit a profession. Heck, the Wilk antitrust suit can be part of your argument. Even Carroll mentioned it. But I don't see you doing that. Are you willing to include all ideas that have pseudoscientific elements? Including a discussion of pseudoscience on the chiropractic page does not make it eligible for inclusion on the list. --Dematt 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Are they unreasonable? Are they antagonistic? If so, how? I personally doubt (in fact discount) the charge of Kenosis' actions being devoid of reasoning; if they are devoid of anything it is the endless repetition of reasons that remain ungrasped. If you note what was deleted, and pay attention to the discussion on the page it should become evident to you why it was removed. This isn't M-theory, you know. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I am extremely relieved to see that charges of being-devoid-of-reasoning are being discounted today. ;-) ... Kenosis 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It was more of an observation than a charge. Multiple reversions without any discussion is futile and causes conflict. There is still a lot of confusion over various issues on this article and discussion is required. If you are unwilling to discuss, as you mentioned yesterday, please refrain from editing. KrishnaVindaloo 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


The point here is that "innate intelligence" as it was used in chiropractic is not a good example of scientific terms being used to give a pseudoscientific gloss to a subject - in fact it's a better example of the opposite; this is a frankly mystical term used at a time when chiropractic was being promoted as a quasi-religion. Innate is a residue of a prescientific past of chiropractic. As an example of pseudoscientific justification therefore this is just a bad example. Chiropractic might have some very shaky scientific foundations, but calling everything with shaky foundations pseudoscientific is unhelpful. I think it is important to think of why a categorisation is useful. It is useful if by knowing that something is a member of that category, then it has certain attributes. If you start including in your category things that do not clearly belong, or partly belong or belong on some interpretations but with exceptions, then the categorisation becomes unhelpful. I am not a chiropractor, I have never visited a chiropractor, do not know any chiropractors, am not a promoter of chiropractor, am a skeptical rationalist, but do not see the utility of categorising chiropractic as a pseudoscience, and do see that doing so will dilute the value of the category.Gleng 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gleng. Chiropractic has not been categorized as a pseudoscience. Please read the description of the category. KrishnaVindaloo 04:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Oh also, chiropractic refers to the "innate" in the same way that acupuncture uses the "qi" concept. They are both equally PS in this matter. Explaining to the reader that these aspects are pseudoscientific will help them understand why chiro and acupuncture are considered pseudoscientific (and why universities will not include them in their orthapedic schools). KrishnaVindaloo 04:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now let's stop looking at "Innate Intelligence" as it was described over 100 years ago. Today, in terms of chiropractic, the body's innate intelligence is taught and propounded merely as the living body's self-healing ability. Here's a simple experiment to verify innate intelligence's existence. Cut your arm with a knife and wait. Did it heal? Of course. Now cut 100,000 people's arms and wait. Wow, they all healed as well (except maybe that one hemophiliac who tragically bled to death). Okay, something is at work there. Why did the body heal itself? How did it "know" to do so? Was it the band-aid that we put on the cut which instructed the body to heal? Was it the topical ointment we applied to the cut which commanded the body to self-repair? Okay, let's do another experiment. Let's take a cadaver. Let's cut its arm and apply some Neosporin and a band-aid. Now let's wait. Hmm. No healing... Okay, now before I overstate the obvious, I think it's clear to us what the modern chiropractic usage of the term "Innate Intelligence" is. Has the source or cause of this "intelligence" been identified or quanitified? Perhaps not. The answer to that riddle lies within the question, "What is life?" And who can answer that for sure? Empirically, we can observe "innate intelligence" at work. In a universe where physical laws dictate that things tend to move toward the state of greatest disorder, our bodies seems to "want" to fight against this. There is a prinicple of "survival" at work, but what guides that? Here is where we can as of today only postulate and dream. Is life a coincidence? Is it divine? Who knows for sure? Each person can have their own answer. Some scientific and some not. Some chiropractors may believe its God at work. Some may believe it's all Darwinian coincidence. The same goes for any doctor in any healing art. However, I don't think the "why" is as important to the doctor and the patient as is the "how". Your body just knows to try to heal itself or to cure itself. Chiropractic, like modern Western medicine, explains scientifically how the body heals. Where chiropractic differs is its approach to injury and illness. Chiropractic looks to aid the body's self-healing abilities by trying to clear up obstructions in the nervous system - the body's communication system. Research (which I have pointed to numerous times) shows that chiropractic is effective in doing just this - putting the body in a better place to heal and recover from a variety of injuries and illness. Notice that I didn't say all. There are some illnesses and injuries from which even the healthiest body cannot recover through its own doing. Now is the time for the surgery and the drugs and the more risky treatments. I think the point here is that "innate intelligence" as defined by chiropractic today is grossly misunderstood and confused with its religious roots from over a 100 years ago - a time when even medical science was still rooted in the spiritual. The confusion of chiropractic's innate intelligence still being a religious concept persists today because - despite the vigilant efforts of chiropractic researchers and educators - some people remain ignorant or make it a point of keeping other people ignorant for various reasons (see Wilk v. AMA). However, when looked at empirically, most if not all modern healers would recognize that the body tries to the best of its abilities to recover from all injuries and illnesses. That is "innate intelligence". Now who can disagree with that? Levine2112 18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I encourage those who are interested to looks at the WP entry on innate intelligence especially the first two paragraphs which do a far superior job of stating that which I have stated above. Levine2112 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
hey Levine, this indeed appears to be a very smart property of biological entities. Was this designed in, or did it come about by some sort of natural evolution process? :-) (That was just intended to be a smart-ass rhetorical question--please do not answer.) Of course it's a reasonable way of expressing the concept. ... Kenosis 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said here (not the spirit, don't quote me on the letter); the point I was making was rather that the term innate intelligence was transparently NOT introduced to give an apparently scientific gloss to a concept, but was introduced in a quite different context and the term persists today (with as you say a more enlightened usage as convenient shorthand for a host of endogenous repair mechanisms)Gleng 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's an excellent point. Levine2112 21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Agrred! Some scientific skeptics seem to have a very hard time with the idea that such concepts are used metaphorically. To my mind, terms like "innate intelligence", or TCM's qi, reflect the "art" part of healing and not teh "science". They aren't to be taken literally, but to the extent that they help the clinician, then they're valuable. Valuable in a pragmatic sense, cf. the first section of this essay by Rorty. Dangerous ideas. :-) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jim Butler. Scientists see a problem with such pragmatics because they do not adhere to the practitioner-scientist view. Metaphors are vague. In medicine they would need to be well defined in order to be rigorously tested. Really, your view of skeptics is not what is required here. If you have a reliable source saying that innate is just a metaphor, then present it. The only ones I see that come close are the ones written by professors who say chiropractic remains full of dogma and rhetoric because a restriction to manipulation to back pain only, will severely reduce the income of the majority who use chiropractic as a panacea. KrishnaVindaloo 06:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Critics are frequently the ones taking metaphor or prescientific concepts literally as science, e.g. Carroll with TCM theory. What reliable source did he use? Jim Butler(talk) 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) ... P.S., nothing wrong with pragmatism from a scientist-practitioner's view if a system is clinically useful... Jim Butler(talk) 21:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If one likes to use obscurantist language as a marker for pseudoscience, one might try cladistics, with its plesiomorphy, synapomorphy, Retrotransposon Markers, etc. This is a bogus criterion that depends on numerous other factors to make an assessment whether the language is merely technical, or obscurantist. Same with evidence-based medicine too, with its massive roster of obscure terminology. Countless legitimate fields use highly technical language that is quite easily termed obscurantist; indeed that's been the overall trend in most scientific fields, . ... Kenosis 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Great, if you can get refs to say they are obscurantisms or jargon, then they will do well. KrishnaVindaloo 04:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
KV, this line is simply not sustainable. Every field has its jargon that appears obscure to the outsider, and I doubt if any serious scientist would dispute that their field uses jargon extensively. The issue is do they use apparently precise scientific sounding terms for fuzzy or mystical concepts in order to give something a spurious scientific justification. Innate intelligence as used in chiropractic is a frankly mystical term used for a frankly mystical concept introduced at a time when chiropractic was overtly being promoted as quasi religious. It makes about as much sense to call this pseudoscientific as it does to call the Holy Ghost a PS concept. Gleng 09:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Gleng. I only meant that an obscurantism should be offered for clarity. Of course, if a reputable source states that the term is a pseudoscientific piece of jargon, or an obscurantism, then it will be better. I've seen plenty of examples. It is the view of reputable sources that PS uses obscurantisms though. The basic line (with or without examples) is entirely useful for the reader. KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fields regarded as pseudoscience (continued)

Please note that this section of the article is now written as follows. This, of course, is roughly equivalent to the earlier approach (the relaxed standard for inclusion in the list) which was used back when the list grew to very unweildy proportions, along with numerous arguments over each editor's favorite POV (may the best POV win; ahh, for the good old days). Among the many fields that now legitimately fit on the list? evolution. ... Kenosis 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • == Fields regarded as pseudoscience ==
    The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor that are characterized in part or whole as pseudoscientific by various scientific, philosophic, journalistic or other sources. (Note that some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community; see the individual articles for more information.) ... 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hell, the earth being an oblate spheroid is pseudoscience then. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
We probably need to change the title of the section again then.--Dematt 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dematt and Kenosis. I don't believe the list was ever really unwieldy. Its just a list, and fairly easy to maintain as such as long as there are no quibbles over annotations. I am not happy with the present state, as you can see by my objections above. But I'll be patient. As I said, the title should be consistent and not give the impression that we are identifying pseudosciences (pseudoscientific not pseudoscience), and all of the subjects have some aspect that is supported by science, so a subject cannot be removed on that basis. Whatever helps the reader understand the nuances of PS is the way forward. KrishnaVindaloo 03:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, KV. It seems that as far as chiropractic is concerned, you are the only one intent on including it in the list despite the overwhelming concensus that it doesn't belong. Your doggedness is clearly evident,and admirable, but is this fair to all concerned?
You are pushing your agenda on everyone here, ignoring everyone's objections. Why is that, KV? Why are you passing off your view as the only correct one?
You are getting your way on other edits here, why aren't you being sensitive to the other good editors and, in the spirit of compromise, leave chiropractic off the list once and for all? Thanks, Steth 04:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Steth. It is not my view that chiropractic is a pseudoscience. I am not pushing a view. I am not engaging in POV warfare or edit wars. Any movement towards that has been reversed by my reducing to zero reverts per day. I am making edits based upon verifiable and reliable sources. And I am explaining my actions. It is not a matter of getting one's own way. As an editor, I have to assume good faith. In which case, other editors getting their own way doesn't even come into it (unless things are being deleted or added that are unverifiable). The goal is to present the facts in order to help the reader understand the subject of pseudoscience, and all its nuances. Now you just passed your judgment on me as an editor. Why not instead, pass your judgment on the verifiability or reliability of the facts I have been presenting? That is what this talkpage is for. KrishnaVindaloo 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Significant portion

Hi all. This really is not easy to understand. Could someone please explain to me how you can PROVE that any of the items in the PS list are considered PS by a significant portion of the sci community. How are we to determine who is significant? If 3 profs say that a field has pseudoscientific elements then do we consider them insignificant next to the thousands of testimonials that pseudoscientists present to promote their ventures? KrishnaVindaloo 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is very difficult to prove. I don't think it is a matter of defining who is significant, as the sentience doesn't suggest that significance it attributed to credibility. The sentence eludes more to an amount of people. How many people does it take for an opinion to be significant? Again, this is why I think we should only list the most obvious examples here (astrology and what-not). Levine2112 07:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure Levine2112. Its pretty impossible, even with astrology. But its not a useful activity anyway. We list things such as astrology and say its obviously PS, then the reader decides for themself that its not! Same with chiro, acu, NLP etc. So here is a more clarifying or helpful suggestion:
  • Provide only those subjects where there is a definite issue of pseudoscience, where there is sufficient information in the literature or on the article, so that the reader can look at the article, and decide for themselves.
Otherwise we are just asserting that such subjects are pseudo. KrishnaVindaloo 09:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
There is an article for the list of controversial theories, and it is probably best that Chiropractic goes there rather than the list on this article. I would prefer that only subjects with are fairly obviously nonsense, eg. astrology, homeopathy, phrenology, are used rather than chiropractic. The list on this page is really a set of examples, rather than a diffinitive list, which is why I don't think we should bother about geniuenly controversial areas, or insignificant ones. Jefffire 07:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jefffire. Then why havn't all of the other fields been removed to the controversial areas list? All of the most informative books on pseudoscience, eg, Lilienfeld et al, Shermer, Williams et al, talk about pseudoscience in terms of controversy and make accounts of various views. There are controversial subjects that are not PS, but all PS subjects are controversial. From reading the literature on most of the list, it seems to me that they are all in dispute, rather than all examples of obvious PS. One might find statements that say, most scientists think astrology is PS, but that is hardly what an encyclopedia should be doing. To inform the reader, subjects should be presented that have varying levels of PS. There are subjects on the list that do not have a core theory per se, and there are subjects with a core theory that is pure PS according to verifiable sources (chiropractic) that are missing. Thus, in order to be consistent and fair, it is not right for us as editors to say that this or that subject is obvious PS. Its just not our job. The job is to present elements of fields that are PS in order to properly explain PS to the reader. That is how the most informative literature is presented, and that is really how it should be presented here. As I said before, the list really does look like a list of Wikipedia approved pseudosciences. It shouldn't. It should be a selection of subjects where there are pseudoscientific activities and issues. That includes very accepted subjects that have a PS element. KrishnaVindaloo 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with this article from the very outset. The lead declares that "Pseudoscience is a term applied to a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by sufficient scientific research. " The two references given do not support this very broad definition, which encompasses all areas of scientific activity that are controversial - in fact all of science, since nothing would be controversial if there had been sufficient research. I like language to have content. Now you don't mean to use pseudoscience to cover everything, but don't use this sloppy definition as an excuse to include everything you happen to want to include. If you're fuzzy about what you mean by pseudoscience, if you're using it as a label to suggest some serious analytical content when the content is not in fact there, then you're using the term pseudoscience in a manner that is itself pseudoscientific. It's not the label that matters but the content implied, and if it isn't clear what the implied content is, then attaching the label is either spurious and derogatory or indeed pseudoscientific. It is rather easy to express an opinion that something is pseudoscience, when the expression of such opinions doesn't have to be tempered by the discipline of peer review in serious publications, and when the only demonstrable notability of the source of opinion is that the source has an opinion. We have some duty I think to be judicious here, and chiropractic is simply not in the same class as your other examples. You need to tighten the definition, and find consensus support for the tighter definition.Gleng 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to change the lead in the introduction. The definition put forth there is quite consistent with the citations, and involves two things. (1) A claim of being science or scientific; and (2) divergence from scientific method or inadequate research to justify the claims. Simple – the rest is left to the [often difficult] process of sorting though the critics' cited claims about the various fields being accused. ... Kenosis 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've remove the statement that "a significant portion of the scientific community" considers the field lists as being pseudoscientifc. As explained SEVERAL TIMES above:

  • While there are citations to individuals claiming certain subjects are pseudoscientific, there is NOTHING to suggest that (a) a significant portion of the scientific community (b) considers ANY of these fields to be pseudoscientifc, let alone all of them.
  • The phase "scientific community" is consider a Wikipedia weasel word to avoid

Unless editors can come up with suitable citations, they are a preaching pseudoskepticism. --Iantresman 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Iantresman. Pseudoskepticism is a little harsh, considering the lack of sci support for each core concept. But you have good points that I would agree with. I can see far better ways to present the section. Firstly, though not pejorative, it is still too much like a list of pseudosciences. As with the PS cat, this article should stay away from saying so and so subjects are wholly, very, significantly, ridiculously, pseudoscientific etc. It says nothing about what makes subjects pseudoscientific. Its unhelpful. So here is what I propose:
  • The list can easily be subgrouped in terms of concepts and PS characteristics: Untestable theories, tested but unsupported, not compatible with known physical laws, etc.
  • This would inform the reader better (talks about aspects of pseudoscientific subjects), and says why the subject is considered PS. This would also mean the list really is a list of PS ideas, rather than fields. There are no PS fields. Rather the subjects in them are PS. (there are PS activities and attitudes, but that would be too hard to represent. At least we get to talk about theories).

Anyway, its fairly easy to see the grouping from the present state of the list. KrishnaVindaloo 05:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychotherapy

Thanks for the edit KV. Can you help me understand the parcing of this sentence. I have taken this from the article because I am questioning the section in quotes that does not seem to match the first part of the sentence that is talking about pseudoscience in psychotherapy. My other question is "are we to assume that these treatments are psychotherapies?" And what does the second sentence have to do with anything? It sounds a little whiny. I am a little concerned we're stretching to make a point.

--Dematt 13:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that KV (assuming he wrote that section) didn't correctly summarize the original reference, available online here, which says:
Orgone therapy is frequently advertised on alternative-medicine sites, along with other treatments such as Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, herbal therapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, pyramid therapy, shamanism, and high-colonic enemas. There is an increasing degree of overlapping and blending of orgone therapy with New Age and other therapies that manipulate the patient’s “biofields,” such as Therapeutic Touch and Reiki. “Biofield” is a pseudoscientific term often used synonymously with “orgone energy.”
Orgone energy's being "advertised on alt-med sites along with other treatments" doesn't mean it is being used "in" those treatments. Certainly orgone energy isn't part of the standard curriculum in acupuncture schools as tested by the National Certifying Commission for acu. Is it part of chiropractic curricula?
As for Klee's statement about reducing funding for conventional medicine, this criticism ought to be made explicitly where it belongs, e.g. at alternative medicine, and not slipped in as an incidental, mini POV fork elsewhere. (It's a perfectly valid POV to include where appropriate, but I don't believe the facts bear it out: the $122 million budget for NCCAM is a drop in the bucket next to NIH's overall budget.) Jim Butler(talk) 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


That's what I thought. Thanks Jim. --Dematt 23:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it was nothing. All in a day's work, now that I've become a Healthy Skeptic! For just $374, I have filled my toolbox with Useful Knowledge from Experts, like Drs. Beyerstein and Sampson! Don't you feel terrible that you missed out on this? Granted, it's less impressive than my contemplated mail-order degree program in the Philosophy of the History of the Philosophy of Science. But it's so obviously, totally different from all those other feel-good, spread-the-meme, money-making seminars out there. Plus I feel very healthy now. (I just hope it isn't the placebo effect.) Jim Butler(talk) 03:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I will make the appropriate adjustments. The full quote is more appropriate. I have plenty of other sources that say orgone energy is the same pseudoscience as innate intelligence, qi, prana etc. That can be added to the article. The reason Klee listed those alternative therapies is because they all use the same pseudoscientific notion. I have to admit, I'm having lots of fun reading up on this stuff. It seems the more people object to the facts, the more of the can of worms gets exposed. Just the nature of research, I suppose. I should thank the objectors. KrishnaVindaloo 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
KV, thank you for acknowledging your faux pas. I am sure it was just an oversight on your part. That is the sort of mistake, however, that we need to be careful about in an encyclopedia. Especially in a subject that professes to be scientific. BTW, this sentence:
  • Organizations and publications such as the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice (SRMHP) [19] and the publication Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (SRAM) [20] have been created to raise awareness of pseudoscientific practices in medicine, self help, and business education.[citation needed]
I put the (fact) marker on it because I am concerned that a scientific organization would not be created for a purpose such as raising public awareness. I would think science doesn't care what the result of the research is. I would think that these organizations are for testing the efficacy of alternative medicine and someone has used WP:OR and assumed what the results are going to be before they are in.


Any comments?--Dematt 14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep. We forgot to mention orgone therapy is also advertised on the Internet, along with such things as Raelism, chiropractic, SUV's, "global warming", plate tectonics, the big-bang theory, orgasmatrons, psychoanalysis, "conventional medicine", Wikipedia and darn-near everything else. Did I forget to mention "chiropractic"? ... Kenosis 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
And the Frolov Anti-Aging Device, Energy Therapy, Telehypnosis, mood rings, pet rocks, and Chiropractic.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes Dematt. Read the articles on the srmhp site. Scientists, skeptics, consumer health experts have a duty to inform the public. This is part of ethics in their fields. The science of clinical psychology has a purpose; to determine which is efficacious and which is not. The journal is not only for testing theories, but also for creating reviews of research already done. This is standard practice in such journals. It is especially important in SRMHP's case, as reviewing large bodies of research is important for sifting the wheat from the chaff. Pseudoscientists are often determined to fool the public into buying into their scams and creating the reputable image of science, when no such privilage has been earned. KrishnaVindaloo 08:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fields that are not YET sciences and still include much pseudoscience?

On Tuesday August 8, 2006, the science section of the New York Times had an article on useful contributions of alchemists. Alchemy included a non-scientific and now clearly erroneous doctrine that all matter is composed of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. BUT on the other hand many alchemists did useful empirical work on how to make various substances via reactions with other substances, etc., that served industrial purposes and eventually contributed to the founding of the science of chemistry. Maybe they didn't do their experiments in a way that would qualify as scientific by today's standards. Thus there was a field of study that included much pseudoscience and was not done in a scientific way but eventually contributed to valid science.

Is there some standard name for that sort of thing?

(I suspect graphology may today be in a such a state. Much of it is pseudoscience. Some of it is not, but neither is it science—apparently it hasn't been scientifically studied; current science can neither support it nor reject it, for lack of suitable experimentation.) Michael Hardy 19:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Alchemy, no matter what positive influence it may have had on science, is still pseudoscience.
As for graphology, I couldn't find any science, just the handwriting version of phrenology. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"As for graphology, I couldn't find any science,". Yeah, that's what I said. Michael Hardy 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, there seem to be many pseudosciences that don't have any real hope of making positive contributions, but others, like present-day graphology or 16th-century alchemy, that at some stage in their develepment, may be a sort of "pre-sciences". Is there any standard name for that? Michael Hardy 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Such contenders may be termed "emerging science" or more controversially, protoscience. Problem is, of course, y'need'ta do a thorough analysis and argue each one on the respective merits-- and typically you can't know whether it's on a legit track until after it's already established itself. So we see a lot of arguing and speculation surrounding these kinds of issues. ... Kenosis 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure Michael, you could call the subject you mention many things; including emerging pseudoscience, if the sources were right. But it doesn't tell the reader much. In essence, this article talk page is full of completely unnecessary "analysis" that ammounts to OR (original research). A reputable author may state that graphology is pseudoscientific, and it would be fine to say graphology is PS according to that source on the article according to NPOV policy. Wikipedia should take no stance on that issue. The PS category has also been compiled with that in mind. If the author also states why they think it is PS, then that would help the reader. Eg, Graphology is only supported by testimonial, or it lacks a theory or mechanism of action. So lets save ourselves a whole lot of time and energy and research for sources that are reputable, and why those sources consider such and such ology to be pseudoscientific. Your help would be much appreciated. KrishnaVindaloo 07:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between

  • a "protoscience" or "emerging science" that has plausibility in the light of known science but is not yet supported scientifically, and
  • a theory purporting to be a science that can reasonably be rejected as nonsense by current science.

Graphology seems to be in the first category. Scientific research that could support or reject it simply has not been done. Is there some reputable scientist who has defended the position, in for example a scientific journal, that graphology is in the second category? Can anyone give the name of the author, the name of the journal, the title, the volume and page numbers? I haven't seen anyone do that. Michael Hardy 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Some professional public relations from within the field can be found here, where it is claimed to be an empirical science. A link to many articles from within the field of graphology can be found here.
  • A reasonable summary description of a skeptical view may be found here. A skeptical review from the "Encyclopedia of the Paranormal" can be found here (pdf file); and Robert Todd Carroll's treatment can be found here. A brief review of possible validity in personality testing can be found here, where the author holds that to date there are insufficient correlation coefficients to justify claims of empirical validity.
  • The current legal status of graphology in court testimony appears to be as follows: Cameron v Knapp, 137 Misc. 2d 373, 520 N.Y.S.2d 917 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1987) (handwriting expert may testify as to the authenticity of a writing but not as to an individual's physical or mental condition based on a handwriting sample) stands as current U.S. case law for the rejection of graphology as psychological testimony.
  • Some more specific analysis can be found here, and here; the latter has voluminous footnotes leading to a potential wealth of published information.... Kenosis 19:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe you'll find, looking through these sources thoroughly, that there are two prominent applications of graphology, one a tool of questioned-document examiners used to help ascertain the validity of authorship of a handwritten document, the other a method of attributing psychological traits to the author of a handwritten document. It is primarily the latter that appears to have highly doubtful empirical validity. ... Kenosis 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes Kenosis, this is pretty accurate according to my reading of the subject. It is quite dubious, and considered pseudoscientific. I will try to find more specific PS aspects. Certainly, its atomistic and loose methodology leaves it open to questions about its validity even now. Considering it is used together with hand analysis/palmistry, I would say it is pseudoscientific. Anyway, I'll get back to you on more specific aspects over time. It could be a useful one to compare or group with palmistry, phrenology, and even more esoteric "guestimate" systems such as chiropractic analysis methods and tealeaf reading etc. KrishnaVindaloo 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not YET looked at these links, and I will, but in the mean time, I'm not sure you two understood my question. As I said, I don't dispute that much of what is done in graphology is pseudoscience, and quite likely the parts of it that could in the future be supported by scientific research have not been, yet. My question was fairly specific for a reason. Michael Hardy 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Is there some standard name for that sort of thing?" Voodoo that by accident had a positive effect on a true discipline? Too long, huh? To the Greeeks it would have simply been "tekhne", art. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Michael. I see what you mean. I believe the easiest way to look at this from an encyclopedic view is simply to accept that some people have said it is such and such. If some said it is almost a science, then thats their view. An explanation is always helpful also. KrishnaVindaloo 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Informative groupings

Hello Levine2112 and all. The list of pseudoscientific notions should be grouped, rather than just listed alphabetically. There are obvious groupings, and they will help in several ways. 1, it clarifies for the reader why those subjects are considered pseudoscientific, 2, it becomes a list of concepts rather than stating they are all 100% PS, it makes the list easier to maintain. Levene2112, deleting a whole grouping of those concepts/fields (ie Vitalism), is akin to vandalism. Please stop. KrishnaVindaloo 05:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't falsely charge me with vandalism. It is unbecoming to attack an editor and not the edits. I looked through EOP and it doesn't mention Innate Intelligence. Do you have a newer edition? Please provide the quotation of your reference here. Again, Innate Intelligence refers merely the living body's inborn ability to heal itself. All kinds of doctors rely on it all day long, though they may refer to it by another name. I think you (or your references) are perhaps confusing the modern concept of Innate Intelligence with the definiton of it from over 100 years ago. Levine2112 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Levine2112. It is clear that innate intelligence is a vitalistic notion. There are abundant sources explaining this. Williams also shows this if you are willing to edit in a non-selective way. The grouping is useful, and removal of innate intelligence is entirely unhelpful. The sources are clear on this matter. Your action, however, does have a positive outcome. In looking up the research of Williams, I also found some more information to add to the article to make it clearer for the reader to understand pseudoscience in general. It involves chiropractic. In fact, I am pretty certain chiropractic is an ideal example to explain pseudoscience in general. Not only does the subject involve many other pseudoscientific subjects, but its strongest adherants display quintessential pseudoscientific thinking and behaviour. Its further inclusion can only clarify the subject and all its nuances. KrishnaVindaloo 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yet, Williams doesn't cite innate intelligence specifically as a pseudoscience. You making an assumption by putting two things together is a vilolation of WP:OR. I'm glad you are learning more about chiropractic. However, please realize that it sounds as if your research is very one-sided. Sure, if you are only reading sources from chiropractic skeptics, you are going to get a very slanted POV. Bottomline, there is far too much scientific evidence supporting chiropractic for its inclusion here to be anything short of a travesty and just add to the pseudosckepticism which your sources seem to promote.
You may be interested in learning that even the Skeptic's Dictionary doesn't refer to chiropractic as a pseudoscience. In fact it describes Innate Intelligence not as a vitalistic concept but rather a materialistic version of qi or prana. Therefore, based on Carroll, you can't group Innate Intelligence with Vitalism.
Even more convincing is the American College of Surgeon's "Statement on Interprofessional Relations with Doctors of Chiropractic" in which they position themselves to associations and cooperation which foster better health care for patients of medical physicians, doctors of chiropractic, or both. Sure, you could keep on citing your pseudoskeptics, but please listen to reason and at least the ACS. Levine2112 06:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Levine2112. Back to the issue of vandalism. you are reducing the quality of the article by refusing useful information from verifiable and reputable sources. It is very obvious from this and other related articles that innate is a vitalist concept.
I am very happy to add citations to back it up. In fact, I am more than happy to reply to each of your objections with reference to reputable sources. EG Kaptchuk,Ted J. OMD, and Eisenberg,D M. (1998) The Persuasive Appeal of Alternative Medicine. Ann Intem Med. 1998; 129:1061-1065, says Innate intelligence is a vitalist concept together with all others listed....and Oh yes...there are other pseudoscientific aspects noted in that article also.
Each time you make an unreasonable objection (such as leaving in all other examples, but deleting chiropractic) you cause other editors to delve more into the research and reveal more pseudoscientific aspects of chiropractic that can help clarify the article. It is inevitable as chiropractic is a pseudoscientific subject with lots of very clarifying examples of aspects of pseudoscientific thinking and activities.
You are a part of this cycle of discovery. So keep pushing by all means, but the more aspects and examples added, and the more verifiable and clarifying facts you snip out, the more it will look like you are vandalizing the article. Other adherants of chiropractic may curse you for creating this situation, but the article will end up with very solid research to clarify the nuances of pseudoscience anyway. I'm an editor. You make objections and demands, I assume good faith on your part and provide verifiable information to deal with your objections. That information is presented. Its just a fact of life on Wikipedia. KrishnaVindaloo 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you are insisting that chiropractic is a pseudoscience tells me that you haven't done enough research. Perhaps you should expand your field of research outside of the anti-chiro pool which you are in. I sincerely hope that my work here causes you and other editors to do more research on chiropractic. I just hope you are willing to expand your horizons rather than remain ignorantly stuck in pseudoskeptical world. The Untied States government (As well as many other counrty's including Australia, England, Japan and New Zealand) all recognize chiropractic as a legitimate science and thus licence chiropractors appropriately. Ask yourself "why?" "How can this be when I have all of these "skeptics" saying it is not a legitimatre science?" Hmm. There must be more to it.
Once again, please don't attack the editor, but rather the edit. Calling me a vandal violates Wikiquette and is unbecoming. It's also untrue. I feel that I am making the article stronger too (just as you do). Levine2112 07:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before many times, and will repeat it again. I am not here to identify pseudosciences. This article is about pseudoscience, not pseudosciences. Identifying pseudoscientific activities, concepts, and thinking is the goal, as is clarifying in a concrete way where those ideas and activities are used. There are some great editors here who are adhering to WP rules in order to show the reader the nature of pseudoscience. I am happily working through the facts myself, and presenting them in accordance with Wikipedia convention. I know a particular interest of yours is involved in that identification of pseudoscientific ideas, but don't get defensive. If a source is verifiable and reputable, it can be added. I have simply been improving the article by adding such clarifying facts. Please allow editors to get on with enriching the information in the article. KrishnaVindaloo 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am enriching and improving the article by removing poor examples that will only lead to confusion on the subject and inaccurate claims about other subjects.So you have a guy who wrote a book which says "A" is a pseudoscience. I have peer-reviewed science that says "A" is not. WP sides with peer-reviewed science.
The statment "Chiropractic adherants reject some aspects of conventional medicine, especially the use of drugs for certain conditions" is a fallacy in the context that you are using it. You are saying that chiropractic is pseudoscientific (which it is not) and it is calling conventional medicine pseudoscientific (which it does not). You have not provided a good source that claims that chiropractic is pseudoscientific or that its adherents calls certain aspects of conventional medicine pseudoscientific. Therefore the statement is a fallacy and must be deleted. For more of an explanation read what GlenG has written about this several sections down from here. Levine2112 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"Enriching and improving"? Superfluously redundant, no?  ;) Anyway, your point re chiropratic is correct, although scientology does seem to treat conventional medicine as a pseudoscience. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps I did jump the gun deleting Scientology also. I can't claim to know much about that topic... Perhaps if that deleted statement can be qualified with a reputable citation that shows that Scientology considers certain aspects of conventional medicine to be pseudoscience, than it could be reinstated. Without that qualifier, however, we are just to take the author of the statement's word on it. Levine2112 06:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

String theory

Removed it from the list. Maybe string theory is pseudo- or maybe it is proto-... Whatever, the reference listed isn't out yet and a link to the Amazon.com promotion page is not acceptable. Vsmith 00:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in a link to the American version of the book so that readers can order it easily. It is due out in September, so it won't be a long wait. The Britsh version has been out for a while and is the basis of much renewed discussion on the subject. If you cannot wait, you can find it on Amazon as well. In fact, there is a link from the page for the American version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk • contribs)
Here is an interesting essay on the tendency to overuse the term "pseudoscience". cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
String Theory, just like M-Theory (a more robust version of string theory proposed by Edward Witten)is hardly pseudoscience, and given that certain precepts have been mathematically proven, it's not really a proto-science either. It will, however, be quite some time before it is either accepted or falsified as a number of its concepts are rather more high-level than even quantum mechanics (branes, a multiverse, Calabi-Yau manifolds, supersymmetry, etc.).
No one dispute that String Theory is a mathematical theory, but math is not the same as science, and String Theory is the best example I know for that point. The issue here is whether String Theory qualifies as a scientific theory, and by any objective standard, it does not.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk • contribs)
I'd guess that the reason some see both string and M-theory as pseudoscience is because they simply do not understand them -- the concept of extra dimensions is counter-intuitive, and strings fly in the face of the zero-dimensional point particles everyone learns about in physics class. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Your guess is wrong (hence is better than String Theory, which is "not even wrong"). The concept of extra dimensions is extremely old (since the 1910s) and is well known to enable the magic of unifying gravity and gauge theories (since at least the 1920s). String itself was a worthy hypothesis in the beginning, but after 30 years we now know ENOUGH to say that it will NOT make any verifiable/falsifiable predictions because there are so many (10^500) ways to hide the extra dimensions and because they are all equally good under String Theory, in principle and in practice. Further research will be exactly like the medieval debate of how many angels can fit onto the tip of a needle--an exercise of intellectual masterbation for the practitioners.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk • contribs)
Actually, extra dimensions go back further -- remember time (or, more appropriately, spacetime) was once an extra dimension. The idea of 10 or 11 dimensions is relatively new however. As for it being "intellectual masturbation" that might be true if it were a philosophy, but it's not, it is real science (and has only been seriously studied for twenty years (see the first string theory revolution)). Not that the length of time it has been studied means much -- the warping of space predicted by Einstein was just proven in the past 5 years. Besides, that you, oh anonymous one, think string theory is pseudoscience means nothing unless you can back it up. Unfortunately, given that a sizable number of physicists are engaged in string- and M-theory researh, I doubt you'll be able to. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Listen to yourselves. You guys are dilettantes. It is amazing that you know so little and yet feel confident enough to do so much. At least read the recent books and blogs before you try to dominate an important forum like Wikipedia. Einstein's theory was tested within a year in 1916. Even if it hadn't been, at least physicists would have known that it could be tested in their life time, thus making it falsifiable. In contrast, there is NO experiments, even in a thousand years, that can possibly falsify String Theory, period. Even leading string theorists have come to accept that, although some of them (e.g. Lenny Susskind) have begun to claim that String Theory is too special to be limited by "traditional" definition of science. Bottomline is, unless you agree with Lenny, you have to conclude that String is not a theory of Physics any more than ID is a theory of Biology. As for why I want to remain anonymous? Well, I happen to know and work with some string guys, who happen to be very nervous about their livelihood these days. I don't want to find a dead horse head on my bed one day.unsigned left by anon
The theory of special relativity was posited in 1905, not 1915. As for your assertion regarding the length of time to falsify string theory, you are incorrect, in fact, with the next few yaers newer and better supercolliders might very well cast light on the viability of string theory. Casting string theory in the same light as ID is simply asinine, and your alleged reason for remaining anonymous is simply not verifiable. Also note that I've never said that either string or M-theory is correct, but it sure as hell is not pseudoscience. BTW, re modern literature, see my comments below on Woit and Smolin. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Just another indicator; string theory is not listed in the EoP. KrishnaVindaloo 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha, ha! Settling a debate with an old book sounds like pseudo-science to me.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk • contribs)

Removed again - Amazon is not a valid source, it's a commercial bookseller. Add the source with ISBN and anyone can use the ISBN to find further info. Vsmith 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see that you are used to bullying the high shcoolers in your class, but I know physics 100 times better than you do and I do not like being bullied.Comment left by?
Anon, whom are you addressing with this ad hom?&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It should prove interesting. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that only one editor thinks that it should be included...Comments? Ardric47 06:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not going to be included. His primary souce, Peter Woit does not say that string theory is pseudoscience (and it wouldn't much matter if he did), instead Woit argues that there are better approaches than string theory which are not being taken seriously. One line of investigation he has suggested is that "spontaneous gauge symmetry breaking is somehow related to the other mysterious aspect of electroweak gauge symmetry: its chiral nature." This is hardly a supporting citation for the inclusion of string theory.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ditto for the second source, Lee Smolin. In fact, Smolin seems to cast quantum theory in a rather bad light, and yet I don't see quantum theory/mechanics included by our friend. From Smolin, "I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard about them, and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it stands." Interesting that the objection to quantum theory is based on an inability to understand it. I think our friend who continues to try to insert string theory needs to actually read the books he cites, rather than merely going by the title. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is critical race theory pseudoscience?

As I understand it, critical race theory doesn't purport to be a science and therefore shouldn't be considered pseudoscience. It draws on philosophy, history and anthropology more than biology. Critical race theorists often map the ways that society's perceptions of race change (in many countries, for example, Middle Easterners are considered white, while in Australia they are popularly considered non-white), and they assert that the tendency to classify people by race can have damaging effects socially. You can disagree, but you'd be entering into a social argument, not a scientific one.

I'm just a university student, but I've actually read read several journal articles about Australian critical race theory, so please consider this. Critical race theorists don't, to my knowledge, make any assertion like "We have proved that there is no biological evidence for race." They're far more likely to talk about the social understanding of what race means. If there are some that claim that race differences don't biologically exist, they aren't representative of the whole field. Certainly there are more who emphasize race differences, based on my experience.

The book cited in the article asserts that race is a biological reality, not a "social construct". [21] Thus, it would seem to be attacking a narrow or imagined definition of critical race theory that isn't representative of the entire field. This is called a straw man argument. I think the reference to critical race theory should be removed from the article. --Grace 07:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grace. Thanks for highlighting a few problems. Sure, I see no particular source on this article or that calling CRT pseudoscientific. I have read in the past that CRT has pseudoscientific ideas such as old PS aspects of Eugenics and odd bell curve misconceptions, and there are still arguments over whether "race" actually exists in reality (genetics and stats) or not. But I am not sure of the sources. If anyone can supply them it may help explain why it is listed. Specificity would also be helpful, so perhaps list the actual concept that is PS, and then the example (CRT). It always helps to state why the field is considered pseudoscientific in some way. If none of these are forthcoming, I see no reason to keep CRT. Regarding claims to science, it doesn't really matter if a subject claims to be science or not. That is not really a prerequisite of PS. Its just one indicator. I know the PS article is misleading in this way, but I suspect editors will come round to making it look a bit less like criteria for inclusion one day. KrishnaVindaloo 07:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I noted this: "Orgone therapy is frequently advertised on alternative-medicine sites, along with other treatments such as Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, herbal therapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, pyramid therapy, shamanism, and high-colonic enemas." Thought I should check; the first and only site I accessed (it was first on Google) was[22] didn't see chiropractic advertised but there was one for dentistry. I have trimmed the reference rather than add dentistry.Gleng 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gleng. I'm not sure if anyone has ever explained this to you, but your own research WP:OR does not negate the research of reputable sources. KrishnaVindaloo 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I was gently pointing out that the "reputable source" was transparently casual and unreliable. I have no problem at all with reputable sources and WP defines them clearly. Find an authoratative secondary source in a major peer reviewed journal if you want to claim something as fact accepted by serious scientists, otherwise keep a check on your pov pushing. It's too easy to make casual insinuations, and you're slipping them in too readily. The source I quoted above is impeccable as evidence that dentistry is advertised on an alt med web site, the challenge is do you accept this as evidence that chiropractic is pseudoscience.Gleng 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All the therapies listed are used in fringe psychotherapy. The concepts are used to treat those with all kinds of psychological disorders, even though there is no evidence for chi or innate intelligence, and there is no support whatsoever for the intervention in the context of psychotherapy. Do you want me to look up more sources that state this? Its going to be very easy! KrishnaVindaloo 08:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the construct of the argument in the extract; the statement is "Orgone therapy is frequently advertised on alternative-medicine sites, along with other treatments such as Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, herbal therapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, pyramid therapy, shamanism, and high-colonic enemas". So why is this statement worth including? As an example of evidence that orgone therapy is pseudoscience by association with other pseudosciences. Now put in this way, the argument itself is weak, it gets still weaker if the list isn't all accepted PS, and weaker again if the list is obviously selective, as I've demonstrated it is. So why include it - it seems to me that the only reason for inserting it at all is to insinuate a suggestion by association that chiro is PS. This seems to me to be pov pushing.Gleng 09:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No Gleng. Whats POV pushing is editors constantly seeking to remove chiropractic from the article, despite the pseudoscietific elements being identified in that and other subjects. It is extremely easy for the reader to see from this article that orgone is a vitalist concept that is also known as innate intelligence, qi etc. It is important as a pseudoscientific idea within the context of psychology also. The article is clearer with the line left in. KrishnaVindaloo 09:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is dark matter pseudoscience?

"NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter" (Aug 21, 2006). This seems to fail at least two important criteria as defined in the article:

  • "Evasion of peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")". Sure, the material will be printed in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, but this does seem like science by press release.
  • "Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict"; at best the observations is evidence that is consistent with the theory, which is FAR from being proof?

--Iantresman 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it was proto-science, but I wouldn't argue the point too vigourously. Personally, I dislike constructs that are invented to fill in a missing gap, which really is how dark matter got its start. Dark energy and MOND seem to me to be more likely, as they better explain reality -- i.e., they are more parsimonious than dark matter. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I also wonder whether (a) the observations were predicted, (b) the conclusions are testable. --Iantresman 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
My guess would be no and maybe. It could be a case of hoping to find something, or finding something and assuming it fits the theory. We'll have to see what comes out of it -- if it's bogus, it'll be challenged. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just one indicator: its not listed in the EoP (Williams). KrishnaVindaloo 04:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The existence of dark matter is science. Specific speculations on what constitutes dark matter are proto-science. Insisting on seeing it with your own eyes (instead of brains) before believing is pseudo-science.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk • contribs)
As I noted earlier, traditionalists dislike string theory and cling to dark matter, even though dark matter was merely adopted as a means of avoiding having to rework a whole shjitload of theories. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, I read in the paper (not the Daily Sport) this morning that dark matter had just been validated, and we even now may be absolutely saturated with the stuff (amongst all the caffeine). If anyone has a reputable source (more reputable than The Times) that would help. BTW, I'm totally ignorant about dark matter, if anyone has a good link for me that'd be great also. For all I know, it could be the dark side of the force. KrishnaVindaloo 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Casual insinuations - Good Research WP

KV, I don't think you've got the point. Scientists do not bandy the term pseudoscience around casually because for us it has grave connotations; others have similar objections to wide use of terms like "Nazi" and "holocaust" or "evil" or "fraudulent". If the word has meaning, and pseudoscience is a good word and the meaning is important, then don't dilute it or the whole article sinks into disrepute because it's contaminated with opinion driven insinuation. You'll find sources willing to say that chiropractic and all sorts of other things are pseudoscience, just as you'll find people to say that X or Y is a Nazi or stupid; WP is not a vehicle for propogating casual prejudice, but for reporting facts and reporting authoratative opinion. A casual aside that something is classed along with other pseudoscientific subjects is not a reasoned, carefully argued case for something being pseudoscientific. What I'm asking is that you do not make casual insinuations like this. NPOV needs care, our opinions do not matter, but what goes in the article, if disputed, needs a proper V RS pedigree and still some careGleng 08:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I provide good research. I've a pile of papers on chiropractic on my desk, and access to proquest and other such databases. Now in order to make sure I avoid casual insinuation, I have to delve into my sources again. What do you think I am going to find this time? From a cursory view, it is already very clear that my additions to the article comply perfectly well with Wikipedia policy on verifiability and repute. Oh! I just found another such fact. I'll add it to the article. Whatever makes the article clearer for the reader! KrishnaVindaloo 08:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Take this statement "For example, the Church of Scientology and Chiropractic adherants reject some aspects of conventional medicine, especially the use of drugs for certain conditions (Williams 2000:51:312)." It might be an accurate summary of what is stated, the status of the source I don't know, I have no idea about the author or the status of the publication; it's not a peer reviewed source so I don't have ready access to it. However, the statement if correctly quoted leads me to doubt the credentials of the source because the statement is loose, as given is either false or meaningless, and the argument is misleading as most conventional medical practitioners would in some cases, reject the use of drugs for certain conditions even when they are conventionally accepted. This is called discretion in prescription. So to make the statement accurate it would be "some chiropractic practitioners (reference)" not "Chiropractic adherents", would be specific about which drugs and which circumstances, and would involve some explanation of in what way this is different to the varying opinions about drug use from within conventional medicine. As it is, you have left a casual insinuation about chiropractic, knowing the insinuation to be disputed, and in a form that diminishes the authority of your source.Gleng 09:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did a search on Google for "pseudoscience dentistry", it came up with 56,700 hits, so maybe it's worth a look hereGleng 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gleng. You seem to be over-reaching. It is considered by some, a characteristic of PS to dis conventional medicine in various ways. That fact needs clarifying. Dentistry uses conventional medicine. It promotes conventional medicine. Chiropractic and CoS dismiss conventional medicine especially as it relates to the use of drug treatments. Chiro and CoS are very clarifying for the article. Dentistry is not clarifying at all. Your judgment by google is completely unreliable. Lets stick with reliable authors. KrishnaVindaloo 09:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at some of the dentistry pseudoscience links to see that there is indeed a large and transparently pseudoscientific fringe here. The analogy seems good to me; chiropractic is a very broad term, covering a lot of time and a diversity of approaches, and there are some elements that are working wholly within conventional medicine, others are collaborating happily, and some practitioners are off the fringe; it doesn't help to lump them togetherr any more than it would help to lump conventional dentistry along with PS dentistry. That something rejects conventional medicine doesn't make it a PS by the way. Yes I wish you would stick with reliable sources, and they're not hard to find - (well, they're hard to find for chiropractic). I searched PubMed for V RS on pseudoscience and could find nothing on chiro, but the following do seem to be the sort of sources that I would regard as strong for other areas:

Ostrander GK, Cheng KC, Wolf JC, Wolfe MJ. Shark cartilage, cancer and the growing threat of pseudoscience. Cancer Res. 2004;64:8485-91. PMID: 15574750 Forstein M. The pseudoscience of sexual orientation change therapy.BMJ. 2004;328:E287-8. PMID: 15087366 Schwartz RS. Faith healers and physicians--teaching pseudoscience by mandate.N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1437-9. PMID: 16207844 de Grey AD, Gavrilov L, Olshansky SJ, Coles LS, Cutler RG, Fossel M, Harman SM. Antiaging technology and pseudoscience. Science. 2002 ;296:656. Makgoba MW. Politics, the media and science in HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience. Vaccine. 2002;20:1899-904. PMID: 11983241 Makgoba MW. HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience. Science. 2000 ;288:1171. PMID: 10841733 David AS Frontal lobology--psychiatry's new pseudoscience.Br J Psychiatry. 1992 Aug;161:244-8. PMID: 1521108. Worrall RS. Detecting health fraud in the field of learning disabilities.J Learn Disabil. 1990 Apr;23(4):207-12. PMID: 2094229 Hewitt GC. Misuses of biology in the context of the paranormal. Experientia. 1988 Apr 15;44(4):297-303. PMID: 3282905 Cone EJ. Ephemeral profiles of prescription drug and formulation tampering: evolving pseudoscience on the Internet. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006 Jun;83 Suppl 1:S31-9. Epub 2006 Feb 3. PMID: 16458455

They are probably worth including, and they do show that there are RS out there if you look Gleng 10:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make my pov clear; I'm a skeptic about chiropractic, and extremely dubious about some of the ways in which it is described and promoted and about many of its claims. But that's my opinion, and I don't like double standards, and am similarly dubious about some areas of conventional medicine and science. But my opinions don't matter, but why should anyone else's? They should be noted if the source of the opinion is notable, if the opinion is carefully explained and justified (not just a passing aside) and the published source is undisputably reliable, serious and authoratative. It's a discipline that doesn't let us say everything we think is probably true, but ensures that what we do say is reliable, and if we let it go then we open the door to pov.Gleng 10:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lead to exclude the ludicrous criterion that something is pseudoscientific if it's not adequately supported by research. This is inconsistent with the later correct assertion that most scientific statements are falsified - as indeed is inevitable from the nature of the scientific method. It is not essential for a statement to be accepted as true for it to be scientific, only that it is not still believed when the evidence shows it to be falseGleng 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well sorry Gleng, but your trimmings are obviously an attempt at selective editing. Lets keep personal agendas out of this please. KrishnaVindaloo 05:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Identifying pseudoscience

This section really does science no service at all. It is too long, too fuzzy, seems like a recipe for guilt by association that implies that in the end psudoscience is just an arbitrary term used for something we don't like. There is one core requirement for pseudoscience; that it purports to be science, yet its propositions are consistently not falsifiable. From this, most else follows - dogma rather than evidence, dismissal of contradictory evidence, obscuranticism etc. I think (hope) that if you fall back on the V RS in peer-reviewed major journals you'll see this as the rigorous core behind a case for calling anything a pseudoscience.Gleng 16:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It has gotten kinda all-over-the-place, hasn't it? Speculation on underlying psychological motives, strategies and such... find another college prof or two who've published some of their own speculative slants and I'm sure we can make it even longer yet. ... Kenosis 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC) I'd be very cautious about trying to reduce scientific method to the one criterion of falsifiability though. It's simply not sustainable in that simplified form. ... Kenosis 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd favour tightening it considerably and restructuring it though. I think it needs a clear consensus core definition, and then maybe better to illustrate that with specific examples taken from V RS - maybe the examples of V RS above can provide cases that can be solidly defended?Gleng 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently that section begins by patiently explaining to the unfamiliar reader the basic issues. If that is replaced with a list of criteria asserted to be the core of scientific method, history has shown that criteria will be added and removed to suit various individual POV's and preferred inclusions or exclusions from the classification of pseudoscience. It already explains the importance of verifiability, statistical method, thorough documentation and openness to scrutiny, and falsifiability, thereby covering the most important basics. Neither these basics nor any set of basics will allow the reader to sort through bad statistics or fudging of research. But it can allow the reader to understand that when, for example, someone says there has not been a statistical analysis of data, or that there are no published data that are statistically meaningful, or that a theory is not verifiable, or that the stated confidence intervals are wild stretches based on the available data, etc., that there are valid, agreed-upon sets of principles upon which such a statement is based (as opposed to mere blind skepticism).
As to that list of characteristics, the text already says that no one of them settles the issue. I personally would rather have the reader parse the list and see how many of those characteristics fit the putative science being assessed, than have a list that is oversimplified and erroneously applicable to such valid theories as the big bang, evolution, clinical psychology, etc. It is in fact a balancing test, and we should present it accordingly. That said, I'm still uncomfortable with the attributions to various psychological motives and manipulative mental strategies that are on that list. ... Kenosis 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I share Kenosis' concerns. The scientific method (the scientific eight-fold path ;) needs to be retained, albeit rewritten to a more normative form, but the ascription of motives and the focus on various fallacies is not necessary. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is a list of criteria for demarcation, which still need citations. This list would be fairly consistent with the overall content of Gauch's Scientific Method in Practice, as well as many experimental psychology textbooks, which tend to be in touch with the leading edges of the demarcation problem due to the historical doubts about psychology as a valid science and the quest to bring the overall discipline of psychology into line with scientific method within the past 40 years or so. ... Kenosis 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • From the demarcation problem article, with an added sentence at the beginning which is drawn from the article on intelligent design, the editors of which did a great deal of research on this subject prior to collectively writing the section on scientific method now included in that article:
==Demarcation in contemporary scientific method==
The scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. The criteria for a system of assumptions, methods, and theories to qualify as science today vary in their details from application to application, and vary significantly among the natural sciences, social sciences and formal science. The criteria typically include (1) the formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability and the closely related empirical and practical criterion of testability, (2) a grounding in empirical evidence, and (3) the use of scientific method. The procedures of science typically include a number of heuristic guidelines, such as the principles of conceptual economy or theoretical parsimony that fall under the rubric of Ockham's razor. A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered non-scientific.
The following is a list of additional features that are highly desirable in a scientific theory.
  • Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.
  • Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.
  • Valid/Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.
  • Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.
  • Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.
  • Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.
  • Integrative, robust and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. (Robust = "stable" in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.) See Correspondence principle
  • Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory. ... 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the form of the list in the intelligent design article. Citations are given for specific applications of these criteria to the subject of intelligent design, but not for the criteria themselves, so we have some further research to do here before including it, because in this article we do not have the benefit of citations related to a single field-specific application. The article on demarcation problem could of course benefit from any reliable work we do here. ... Kenosis 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Consistent (internally and externally)
  • Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
  • Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
  • Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
  • Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
  • Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
  • Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
  • Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) ... 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kenosis. Thats a useful pointer. I'm just trying to work out how best to utilize it for this article. Any ideas? KrishnaVindaloo 05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


I agree that the section was fuzzy. Well, too abstract for the reader is actually a better description. Its not accusatory at all though. PS is so confusing as a subject and clearer description there in that section is required. I have noticed that there has been a lot of good clarification there recently though, so I wouldn't be pessimistic about it at all. From what I can see about the best articles on Wikipedia, they tend to be far more accessible to the reader. Concreteness is so important. So illustrations, diagrams, examples, cases etc are going to help a lot. KrishnaVindaloo 05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Concerning inclusiveness. Well, WP is about gaining the sum knowledge of what we know in the world about subjects. There is actually a great deal of new information on the subject that will make the article even more interesting that it already is, and will help to explain why PS subjects are flourishing nowadays. I'm working on a section/or part of a section that explains this in psychological terms. This isn't speculative. Its based upon accepted theory, and is well supported. Its also easy to keep concise and add clarifying examples. KrishnaVindaloo 05:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Kenosis. Your edit summary stated:
  • "Remove marginally sourced crap per WP:RS, WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Who's Lillienfeld anyway?)"
As mentioned by more than one editor here, that section is in need of more clarity and accessibility. If you are going to rant about WP:RS, I suggest you seek the facts first. Lilienfeld is among a group of scientists who have been researching pseudoscience for many years. They produce a peer-reviewed journal on the subject. They are eminently quotable. The examples they use are supported by their own research and are corroborated by multiple others. They are entirely suitable for this article. Lets get on with clarifying issues of pseudoscience rather than demanding stuff that Wikipedia makes no demands for (the impossible). KrishnaVindaloo 05:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Lilienfeld does indeed seem to be a clear authority on pseudoscience in areas of mental health (psychotherapy etc). He is editor of a journal in this field (The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice) that specifically evaluates claims in that area; the journal is not yet accepted for indexing on Medline so can't yet claim much in the way of acceptance, though personally I think it looks very well intentioned and conceived. I think it's important to pay attention to the specific limits of expertise of expert opinion.Gleng 12:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Well Kenosis, you made reversions just a couple of minutes after my edits, you ordered me to seek consensus, yet after hours, you have not answered any of my points on this discussion page. If you are trying to obtain a reputation for cooperative editing, I believe you have a long way to go. I will make appropriate edits on the article now, work on one section only, and will do it according to NPOV policy on WP:RS. If according to your opinion, any of those edits are "crap" then please discuss on this talk page. KrishnaVindaloo 08:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps an article on psychological aspects of pseudoscience would be useful. The published material by Lilienfeld and Ruscio has not contributed anything new to the demarcation problem that hasn't already been done by others; indeed the core demarcation criteria can be found in one form or another in most contemporary experimental psychology textbooks. I'm not arguing Lilienfeld shouldn't be cited in this article, despite my derisive comment about the material in my earlier edit summary--if I'm not mistaken he's already cited in three other places in the current WP article. Psychological speculation put forward by Lilienfeld, however, is not appropriate for the article on pseudoscience, in significant part because it is falling into the same trap of which pseudoscience is often accused, specifically of making assertions that are not empirically verifiable. Moreover, Lilienfeld also seems to be attempting to debunk therapies and ideas that hold no pretense of being science. Lilienfeld makes repeated references, for instance, to the "guru" approach and the patterns he observes in such therapeutic approaches. This point is already made in the WP article, the entire content of which is devoted to the proposition that just 'cause one person or group calls it science doesn't make it so.
To the extent that unverifiable speculation about psychological motives and strategies, though, is "verifiable" for the purpose of inclusion somewhere in WP (by merit of having been published by Lilienfeld and Ruscio), an article explaining the psychological aspects argued by these commentators seems like it could be a useful topic fork. ... Kenosis 19:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Kenosis. I can see that an incremental approach to improving the article is not productive. I will take another approach. Adding examples to explain pseudoscience was a trend started by Popper, and is commonly used today. They use the examples within context, and I see no reason why that should change. If you want to promote your self-imposed rule of not having examples in the text of the encyclopedia, try to suggest it as a WP rule to the administrators. In reply to your edit summary about "adding our favourite pseudosciences", well, I guess you could try to re-name the list of PS section: "Our favourite pseudosciences". Lilienfeld is reputable and verifiable, and he and his co-researchers have a lot to offer the article. The article is presently close to incomprehensible to the average reader. KrishnaVindaloo 04:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Scientific Community

In the section "Fields regarded as pseudoscience", I've removed the statement "and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community", as a back-handed way of suggesting "partly" or "mostly" dismissed. As I have highlighted before:

  • While there are citations to individuals claiming certain subjects are pseudoscientific, there is NOTHING to suggest that (a) any portion of the scientific community (b) considers ANY of these fields to be pseudoscientifc
  • The phase "scientific community" is considered a Wikipedia weasel word to avoid

--Iantresman 10:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Iantresman. I'm inclined to agree with you. KrishnaVindaloo 04:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarity and easy access

Hi all, further to the above comments on sections requiring change; there are a set of pretty well known suggestions for making writing more accessible and clear.

  • Firstly, writing is easier to understand when it is concrete. Show, rather than just tell. Examples and cases are such an approach. As I mentioned above, Popper and others used this approach, and it should be used here. I've already presented a range of examples in order to show that I'm not picking on anyone's particular "favourite pseudoscience". Not only should they be present, but they should also be in context so the reader doesn't have to go crosseyed to find the links.
  • A narrative and storylike approach also makes writing more readable. This is possible in the case of pseudoscience as the theories surrounding PS have evolved. This doesn't have to be strictly chronological, but some kind of evolution is necessary and should be made clear.

I'm sure other edits and plenty of discussion is necessary here, and it is welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 04:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


OK, I made some changes.

Here is the suggested format: [23]

To my knowledge, the only paras I removed were those saying : the above are only indicators of PS, etc. I did add some from Thagard, and made the paras fit with a few connection sentences. I hope you all assume good faith on this effort. My main purpose, stated above, is to help the reader by placing all the related concepts together, and by illustrating them to some extent. I did notice some redundancy as a result, so that may help reduce the file size in some areas also. The section on ubiquity needs a little more work, and the psychological aspects can be better explained there also. Again, discussion is welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 05:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Baring in mind there will be parts that editors will legitimately want to adjust: Just looking for points to agree upon here: Question: Do we agree that a consistently evolutionary presentation of theory, facts and characteristics of pseudoscience will be more understandable to the reader? KrishnaVindaloo 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. I note some areas of redundancy to help reduce file size: The demarcation problem section is largely redundant. It has been added already to the Falsification etc sections, but could be better highlighted there also, even within its own section. On an evolutionary/historical level, it would be appropriate somewhere between sci method and falsification. I suggest somewhere within or between the sci-method and the falsification section. Disussion is welcome again. The demographics section is also redundant, as it has been added to the ubiquity section. KrishnaVindaloo 06:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Per the above, good faith is always assumed, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. What was implemented a while ago was a complete rewrite of the article, so I've reverted it pending a weigh-in of participating editors about the organization of the entire article. Among the many problems with the complete rewrite are that there is already a place in the article to discuss the demarcation problem from the perspectives of Kuhn, Thagard, Lacatos and others. The reader does not need to have these perspectives in order to understand basics like verifiability and the expectation that evidence be empirical, testable, replicable, and measurable for the purpose of statistical analysis of the data. ... Kenosis 08:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Kenosis, your edit summary stated: "This was not clarity, but obfuscation in the guise of philosophy of science.". Would you care to explain to me how the present version is any better? I have listed reasons why presenting the reader with collections of related concepts and examples will help them. Can you explain to me how seperating and muddling such concepts both chronologically and logically is going to help anyone at all? KrishnaVindaloo 09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Kenosis, your reversion was completely expected, hence the link placed above to the "evolution" version rather than my own reversion followed by yours ad nausium. Yes other input is desired and expected. Lets hear views on whether it is best to keep the demarcation problem as a seperate piece of confusion, or to place it sensibly in the historical philosophy context to make it easier for the reader to see how it relates to verifiability and falsification. KrishnaVindaloo 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I will not attempt to respond to the hyperbole just above, filled as it is with conclusory judgments. The mass rewrite ([24]) reads like a draft of an academic paper built on the WP article. The observations about progressivity by Kuhn and Thagard (the latter described in a footnote at present) appear useful in the section about the demarcation problem. Personally I would support splitting up criticisms of the concept of pseudoscience from the section on the demarcation problem, which is the way it originally was until Mccready combined them some time ago ([25]). The material on ubiquity of pseudoscience is interesting too, and I would not object to a brief, well written section in the article. I do object to splitting up the "characteristics" into separate sections without broad consensus, because the original objective was to present a list of characteristics for the reader to look at and see if it fits whatever field(s) they happen to be interested in judging. ... Kenosis 23:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Great. It would be helpful to have more input from others also.
Kenosis, your observation on "essay style" are partly justified I believe. Statements such as "thus, characterisitics of pseudoscience are:". Those could perhaps be altered to something more encyclopedic.
Yes, Kenosis, spliting criticisms from demarcation would be far better I believe. If you could do something with it, I think that will work out fine.
Kenosis, could you give me more detail on your thoughts about progressivness. Scientific progress is something that really needs highlighting in the article. It is a major distinguishing feature of science vs pseudoscience nowadays (in the lit).
I'll get working more thoroughly on a consice ubiquity section. Input is welcome.
I also think splitting characteristics requires a lot more input from others. My reason for doing so was to place those characteristics right next to the reasoning behind those characteristics (easy to access and understand). Also, the list as it is (and a few other lines in that section) look far too much like a disorganized checklist of characteristics for adding intelligent design, homeopathy, or whatever, to the "our favorite pseudos" section. Indeed, it looks like a list for the benefit of editors who want to call something pseudoscientific, rather than a well reasoned set of organized characteristics. You say the reader may want to judge what is PS. Well, I don't think Wikipedia is set up to help them do that. Rather, WP is to show what is known about the subject. Certainly work needs to be done on the list. I suggest 1. Get it organized and perhaps annotated. or 2, seperate the characteristics as I did in order to enhance the clarity of the article.
There are some other aspects you may consider from the "evolutionary" version. The intro is organized there from the point of view of origins, and motivation surrounding PS. I believe that is a good way to start. I would like more feedback on that point.
More feedback, and plenty of suggestions please. There is a lot more we could do to help clarify this article. KrishnaVindaloo 02:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
HI again, I organized the list of characteristics. I placed them more or less in some kind of logical grouping. I am not totally wed to its current arrangement, and I'm sure it could be adjusted. I'm sure there are many possible logical arrangements, but the main point is; we need to keep it in some kind of understandable grouping. I left breaks between the various groups, I believe some kind of annotation or subheading could be presented. My particular grouping is: 1.Falsification/verification and being clear about theory(eg Popper), 2. Progress or avoiding progress, 3. The guise of science. Lets discuss this. KrishnaVindaloo 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC) PS, second thoughts, I reduced to 2 subheadings. As you can see, I am open to other arrangements. Comments are welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 04:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I presented another version (what a flipflopper!:). The present version (Untestability, unfalsifiability, lack of progress) seems to be a fairly logical grouping. It also adheres to the various arguments of scientists and philosophers (before Popper (verifiability) after Popper (falsifiability), and more recently (lack of progress in comparison with sciences). Again, I'm sure problems could be found with it, so I'm pretty much open as usual. KrishnaVindaloo 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The current version ([26]) is a well-thought, sensible subgrouping in my opinion, one which respects previous consensus in this article. ... Kenosis 16:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure Kenosis, looks fine. Personalization issues could be pseudoscientific argument, but the main thing is to have reasonable groupings to help the reader. There may also be some grouping by Bunge or someone that could be used as a citable grouping. But organization and clarity is the main point. KrishnaVindaloo 03:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Kenosis. Further to your "personalization of issues", I added a condensed version of the Devilly/Pratkanis social psychology characteristic. I did it this way to add richness to the explanations. Again, very much open to adjustment. KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I also added some important nuance into the characteristics section. Thagard and Popper differed on which characteristics were more important. This can also be discussed here if necessary. KrishnaVindaloo 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Open conclusions/summary

Hi all, I have been looking at the article as a whole, and I believe (as its quite a heated subject sometimes) it would be a good idea to conclude by not concluding. Basically, have a summary at the end that states there are still open questions on the subject of PS. It can mention that there is still open debate in the philosophy of science, it can state that subjects are considered PS for various reasons, it can state that there is still debate on the motivation for calling things PS, and it can state that the issue is becoming more important in some folks mind. Right now, it seems to conclude that the list of subjects considered PS, are actually pseudoscience, and I reckon thats the wrong way to end this article. I also notice the opening is not quite representitive of the article as a whole, and that can also conclude with questions rather than answers. I believe this would be a more intelligent and NPOV way to handle the article. Any thoughts, concerns, and ideas are welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Kenosis' edit sum: Umm, no. this is the place for presenting characteristics, not one's favorite peeve.

Hello Kenosis. I double checked the section on theories once considered PS. It was incorrectly entered into the article. I moved the entries to the correct place where they made the rather abstract sentence far clearer for the reader. You deleted them.

Firstly, if you think all of these examples are my peeves (Scientology, Naturopathy, Chiropractic, Christian science) then you have not assumed good faith and you consider me to be editing this article because I find every subject considered PS to be a "peeve".

Secondly, you have not shown any evidence of there being a rule in Wikipedia for dismissing examples and concrete language from a particular section. Indeed, if you revert again, and do not show me any evidence for this, I consider your action vandalism in that you are reducing the quality and readability of the article.

Thirdly, you are removing examples selectively, in which case one may consider your actions to be selective and biased towards particular subjects.

I will now reinstate those and other concrete language into the article. Wikipedia policy states that a fact can be included if it fullfills the verifiability requirement. That is the standard I am using, and the standard you are dismissing. KrishnaVindaloo 05:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There are such things as "undue weight" and "presenting arguments fairly" and "POV forking", too. Cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that Jim Butler. Its so clear why this article ends up with so much conflict. People simply refuse to discuss sufficiently. I kind of know what you mean, and your line here is far better than other's restriction of discussion to edit summaries. It'd be grand if you could explain what you mean in more detail. In the meantime, I suggest if editors here are sick and tired of discussing points, then go and edit somewhere else. KrishnaVindaloo 02:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I added some more useful examples to help the reader understand what the hell the article was on about. If anyone has any more useful examples it will help. Also, if anyone has any reason why examples should not be used in this one particular section in the whole of Wikipedia, then please try to explain your objection outside of an edit summary. KrishnaVindaloo 02:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What Jim means, I think, is that you seem to not be paying attention to undue weight, POV forking and presenting arguments fairly. Seems to me that your are hell-bent on including certain things that you find pseudoscientific in whatever manner it takes to get them included.
I don't see the examples added of being of any value, as this is an encyclopedia not a textbook.
Something about the way you are handling this is seriously rubbing me the wrong way. It seems that you believe you can steamroller the other editors on this page, crushing them until your ideas prevail. You seem not willing to admit that you just might be wrrrrr, wrrrrro, wwwrrrrrrooo, wrong. It seems that Krishna knows all and the rest of us are the untouchables. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch, please assume good faith. I am hell bent on making this article readable and accessible to the average reader. Your attitude - we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to be clear - is completely ridiculous. You have not provided me with any evidence there can be particular POV forking. Books on pseudoscience always include examples in context. They have to or otherwise their writing will end up looking as obscure as it is in this article. KrishnaVindaloo 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Try being a little less hell-bent as a general approach.  :-) More below... cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Right now we seem to be getting some useful discussion. I believe thats productive. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to including examples providing the examples themselves are adequately referenced by a V RS. Examples can help to clarify an abstract point. I do object to introducing insinuations that are not necessarily sustainable by V RS. Thus, the one example beginning The term "pseudoscience" may by used by adherents of fields considered pseudoscientific.... introduces a set of factual claims (that proponents of the fields mentioned make these claims, and these need V RS) and a complexity of insinuations - that these fields are "considered pseudoscientific", which also need V RS, and that these are disuted fields are accepted by mainstream science All of these implicit insinuations also need V RS. This example as phrased is actually far too sweeping a generalisation, and so even for aparently uncontroversial elements there is likely to be reasonable dispute: for example there are certainly areas of psychiatry that are regarded as pseudoscientific by some in the conventional mainstream (e.g. ECT) - and many areas of psychology (see the IQ/race debate). Equally while chiropractic (as the recurrent most contentious example) has aspects that certainly reflect a pseudoscientific history, it also has aspects that place it well out of this class, notably its development of peer reviewed journals such as the Journal of Manipulative and Physical Therapy, its acceptance of regulation, and the formal acceptance of evidence based medicine principles by its professional bodies. I'm not arguing here that chiropractic is not pseudoscience, only that the case is highly arguable on reasonable objective criteria, and so using it as an example is unsound. So I would restore your first two examples as discreet, clear and capable of V RS (though that is still needed) but reconsider your third to give a discreet, unarguable referenced instance. Shouldn't be hard to find - see an ID proponent on Darwinism[27]. Gleng 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Hello Gleng. I have no particular problem with chiropractic, but chiropractic proponents keep making the most obvious attempts at censorship of even the merest mention of their following in this article. If you don't want chiropractic mentioned throughout the article then stop urging me towards the literature. It is perfectly within Wikipedia rules to have chiropractic mentioned as an example throughout, in every single characteristic on the list. As it is though, a range of examples can be used simply in order to avoid chiropractic proponents tearing the article up because they are not being allowed to censor facts. KrishnaVindaloo 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have no objection to including examples either, the problem being primarily a practical one. It's turned out we've been able to find sourcing for virtually everything as pseudoscience, and it is eminently possible, based on a source or two here and there, to throw in such things as the "big bang" and evolution (not falsifiable in the strictest sense, and likely not reproducible in this lifetime). It is, or ought to be, clear that only when scientific method is viewed as a cluster of considerations and criteria can a reasonable assessment be made (taking the sources as a whole into account, and in keeping with WP policy) of whether something is legitimately called "science" or legitimately called "pseudoscience". This is why I believe the editors should, in general, continue to follow the already longstanding practice of avoiding "examples" of specific fields in the section on "Identifying pseudoscience" — one can't determine what is pseudoscience by attaching it to just one or two of the "characteristics of pseudoscience" presented in the article.

A consensus was already reached in earlier discussion by many editors that the place to present examples of pseudoscience was in that previously very long and highly unstable list of fields that is currently titled "Fields regarded as pseudoscience". Then, two or three months ago, I and others began to demand sourcing. A significant number of us including Hgilbert, Bubba73, Jeffire, Iantresman, Duncharris, myself and others, spent many, many hours providing many sources for at least the basics in this article, complex and arguable as they can be on a subject such as pseudoscience. With the wealth of sourcing that has begun to come into play in the current versions of the article, the policy of WP:NPOV#undue_weight has increasingly come into play as well. (This is of course in addition to the "big three", WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR, as well as WP:CON and a number of more specific guidelines such as NPOV: Pseudoscience.) In general, on balance, I think the article has improved because of the many efforts.

If there is going to be a new consensus to use the section on "identifying pseudoscience" as a place to include "real-life" examples, then discussion of this approach should of course be conducted accordingly. But I think experience has already taught us that applying what we each see as "real-life" or "concrete" examples to the process of describing to readers the characteristics of pseudoscience opens up a hornets nest of POV's where everyone wants to throw in their favorite illustrations of how such-and-such a principle or characteristic applies to whatever fields they privately (or publicly) most despise. I think the only exception we should make, frankly, is to astrology, and in this case the exception should be justified on the grounds that both Popper and Thagard, two of the 4-5 major theorists on the subject of pseudoscience, used this example to make their point about the demarcation problem (and if the issue becomes one of strict principle for the WP article, perhaps astrology should be removed there as well). In my estimation, the longstanding approach of a list of characteristics in "identigying pseudoscience" should continue to be the article's approach in the future. At a minimum, if this basic approach is going to change, it should be thoroughly discussed and re-consensused. .. Kenosis 17:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All you say makes good sense to me.Gleng 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Very well stated, Kenosis. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello Kenosis. Your main objection: people mentioning Big Bang theory, astrophysics or whatever. I believe it is unhelpful to all to maintain your view. This article is not about identifying pseudosciences. If a part of a subject is useful for explaining pseudoscience, then it should be included within reason. If Big Bang theory has a pseudoscientific aspect then that can indeed be mentioned within reason (as long as there are good cites for it). Your concern is quite unfounded. I know there are editors here who are bent on censorship or inclusion of germ theory as part of their agenda, but we know who those editors are, and we are allowed to point out their biases. Their presence here will always be unhelpful, but there are plenty of other reasonable editors around to keep things straight.

Concerning which examples to include, well there are reasonable ways of determining which should be included or excluded; There are whole books and articles written on sci vs pseudosci or the aspects of pseudoscientific subjects eg, Lilienfeld, Shermer, Bunge, and many others. They use examples in context (within the explanatory sentence), and so should we.

POV forking will not occur. If an example is included but someone writes: "Yeh, but its promoted by such and such body as science" that can be excluded because they are not being specific, and they are not talking about PS aspects. The article should be usefully specific, rather than make useless broad sweeping generalities.

So back to making good discussion. I'm grateful that some of you have discussed something here. Its better than the snide and unspecific objections in edit summaries. But I have heard no alternatives from anyone here. Digging in the heels and making unconvincing and unspecific rules just does not wash. You've shown no Wikipedia rule for excluding examples. Exclusion on the basis that chiropractors will tantrum or add germ theory is unreasonable. POV forking is easily avoidable. Including some non-mainstream examples may be helpful (they should be mentioned as examples in books or papers on PS though).

We have made some improvements to the article, and I am working on adding more citations to various facts. But this article needs to be at least as clear as those articles and books on PS, and as such, concrete language and examples are required. Solutions and alternatives? The characteristics are in useful sections now, so I suggest placing the examples in paragraphs at the bottom of each subsection. At least that will solve the containment objection. Any other alternatives or suggestions are welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps you could read the comments on the Talk page again; nobody is suggesting excluding chiropractic because chiropractic will tantrum, but because you will not get consensus from reasonable editors that this is a good example, and because you won't find good V RS support. You need to assume good faith in these comments on the Talk pages, that they are honest and reasoned advice from editors striving to build an encyclopedia according to NPOV, V RS and No OR, and editors willing to discount their own pov in those interests. I'm not anonymous; check me out if you think I've any hidden agendaGleng 08:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Gleng, you really are shooting yourself in the foot here. I had no particular feeling about this from the start. Every time you insist on a non-existant consensus, or RS, I go to the web or the library and find another reliable and verifiable source that says chiro is pseudo. There have already been many reliable sources saying it is PS in various ways. Even Beyerstein, who says there is some (weak) support for it that makes it a grey area in medicine, states that the theory is totally PS. Outside of medicine? Of course, the majority of chiros still worship subluxation voodoo, and they apply their qi-powered bonesetting to everything from autism to downs syndrome. Every pseudoscience has some science in it. Keating mentions this also. If there were one subject that shows the most stubbornly persistent PS nature, its chiropractic. I had absolutely no idea chiropractic was so PS, until editors such as yourself kept urging me to go to the library to look up W:RS evidence for its PS nature. Consensus? No, just a reluctance to understand pseudoscience, a dismissal of the literature, a group of chiro supporters trying to pull a fast one, and some (only some) editors just giving it to them to avoid the harrassment. This article is going to improve whether you like it or not. Its just one of those things. KrishnaVindaloo 08:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to check out Good Faith. You might do better to start from the possibility that I would like this article to be as good and strong as possible, and that means stable and authoritative and well referenced and cogent. You might also want to consider the possibility that I have no vested interest in chiropractic, and that you know nothing about my personal opinion about it, but that I refer to it rather than anything else because it simply reflects an area I happen to know something about. You might also like to consider the possibility that you and I have rather different standards of acceptance for V RS, and that I expect that statements reflecting establishment or science opinion to be referenced with appropriate authority, by for instance policy statements from major bodies such as the AMA or GMC, or Government?research Council report conclusions, or reviews in major peer reviewed publications, and suspect that if they're not stated then they're not there. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that one reason why I am persistent in demanding high quality sources for scientific statements is that I don't see how we can expect high standards of V RS on the other side if we don't abide by them ourselves. Finally, perhaps you might consider the possibility that my comment on consensus was by the way of gentle advice that I do not believe that you have much support from other editors here in this, and that I assume their good faith as well as yours.Gleng 14:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well-made points above, Gleng and Kenosis. KV, this ongoing conflict could be resolved very easily: the sources you cite are fine as sig POV's (because they are notable), but not as sci consensus (because they fail WP:RS for scientific articles). That's because "pseudoscience" is a sociological definition, not a scientific term (with objectively agreed-upon "diagnostic" criteria, etc.). The stuff you want to add is fine if you use NPOV wording, i.e. facts about opinions. Instead of including declarative statements about PS as you've been doing in recent edits[28], you could say "Shermer says such-and-such about pseudoscience". Does this seem like a reasonable resolution? regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The section on "Identifying pseudoscience" already accounts for this by introducing the characteristics with the statement "The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful in identifying pseudoscience." This is yet another reason that that section should stay away from using "examples" of particular fields. I think if we let this one slide (the introduction of particular fields into that section as examples), the arguments will never end about what reasonably belongs there. ... Kenosis 22:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. And, in a moment of verbal reflux, may I once again offer that this is an encyclopedia, not a text book. so examples don't belong in the section in which KV wants to add them.
KV, you really need to learn to work with other editors. You are not omniscient and your views carry no more weight than anyone else's. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch and Kenosis - I understand the slippery slope problem with examples, but if they serve an illustrative purpose, why not confine ourselves to use of uncontroversial ones (i.e., just those that are already mentioned in the short list in the article)? Truly representative examples of PS will inherently be fairly obvious, yes?

Yes, examples are very easy to find, eg, subluxation theory (chiropractic) is considered pseudoscientific because it fails to adhere to measurable, falsifiable, standards etc and the adherents continue to apply the theory to alternative medicine practice despite negative findings of reliable studies, etc. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

KV, I don't think editors are inherently allergic to mentioning pseudoscience and chiropractic in the same sentence. Chiropractic does so. (IMO, the article List of pseudoscientific theories -- how long is that thing gonna stay locked? -- also ought to include whatever aspect(s) of chiro have been said to be PS by notable sources.) But surely you can make your point by using less "grey" examples. If you can't find more clear-cut examples, how generalizable is the principle you're trying to illustrate? cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Butler, every example is grey when applied to the area for which it receives some support. Dianetics is quite valid for testing galvanic skin response. On the whole though, it is as pseudoscientific as chiropractic. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch. Do you think I should spend more time writing vague and provocative edit summaries and less time explaining my proposed changes point by point on the discussion page? This article is in need of improvement, and I've encouraged discussion throughout, and made changes in accordance with reasonable suggestions. For example, Kenosis has made some very useful suggestions for organizing and clarifying the article. I do wish that people would discuss more clearly though rather than making cutting remarks and unsupportable assertions in edit summaries. Claiming consensus really doesn't cut it, especially as it is so hard to say what the editor's consensus is. Also, people seem to be claiming consensus before adequate sourcing has been presented. It is pretty clear what some editor's biases are, and there is definitely a strong pressure from some to make sure the article isn't "too clear". I know there are high standards here, but some seem to be trying to make the standards impossibly high. This subject is about pseudoscience, and debate is always ongoing. Pseudosciences involve some science, and one can help explain the other. There are plenty of good editors here to help out though. Thankfully we do seem to be moving further away from presenting "our favourite pseudos" though. The more specific and clear we get (aspects of PS within fields), the better for the article and the reader. KrishnaVindaloo 03:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
KV, there is no universal agreement on the idea that "once a field has been said to have PS aspects, the whole topic becomes PS". That's a sig POV perhaps (Williams? who argues this?), and per NPOV it can be presented (w/ sourcing), but not asserted. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Butler, some editors are doing their best to present subjects reasonably. Others are attempting censorship. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

KV, I'm not sure what this means, "...especially as it is so hard to say what the editor's consensus is." The editor himself has a consensus? The consensus is formed on the talk page, and it needn't be unanimous. For example, if I remember correctly, we all (save yourself) agreed not to tag chiro as pseudo, and yet you have violated consensus by sneaking chiro into a number of areas.

I saw no agreement. Some claimed agreement, yet there was a constant stream of new literature coming in at the time. In fact there was an attempt to dismiss that newly presented literature. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re "Also, people seem to be claiming consensus before adequate sourcing has been presented" -- first, consensus and sourcing are not inextricably interwoven. If the preponderance of the editors are satisfied with the item with the sourcing as it is, or even when no sourcing is provided as it is not required (as in "the sun is a star"), then they have reached a consensus. True, another editor may come along and ask for further citations, but if the group of editors feels the sourcing is sufficient, the consensus remains.
Re "It is pretty clear what some editor's biases are..." -- this is truer than you intended it to be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch. Right now it looks as if legitimately editing editors are willing to look at the literature again. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
(reduce indent). KV, first, do not add comments in the middle of mine. Second, I sincerely hope this comment is not an ad hom, "legitimately editing editors". Third, where do you see anything to support your claim that as editors are "willing to look at the literature again", chiro might be included as pseudo (your implication). As Jim Butler told you earlier, try being a little less hell-bent. There is much more to life than engaging in some relentless crusade to include chiro. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Robert Mendelsohn, M.D. The Medical Time Bomb of Immunisation Against Disease
  2. ^ Russell Blaylock, M.D. Nexus Magazine, Volume 12, Number 1 & 2. available online, [deprecated source?] follow-up article]
  3. ^ Richard Moskowitz M.D. Vaccination: A Sacrament of Modern Medicine Lecture presented at the annual conference of the Society of Homeopaths, Manchester, UK, September 1991 text available online
  4. ^ Robert Mendelsohn, MD The People's Doctor, No. 4, Vol. 12
  5. ^ Vernon Coleman, M.D., D. Sc., Modern Medicine is not a science Amrit-Manthan whale.to Spam blacklisted available online]
  6. ^ Thomas Kuhn in Grim, op. cit., pp. 126-7
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lilienfeld20 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive_6&oldid=813216238"