Talk:Synchronicity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Questionable references

There are two references to Bishop's book, which seems to be an inferior work according to Prof. Palmquist: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/reviews/reviews_18_3_palmquist.pdf Especially, there is a reference to Kant's notion of intellectual intuition: "It has been asserted that Jung's analytical psychological theory of synchronicity is equal to intellectual intuition." I suggest that this line is removed, since Palmquist shows that there is no connection between synchronicity and Kant's notion. Matswin (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This sort of thing usually happens. I think when you have one WP:RS source calling another a liar, you have to find a way to incorporate both sayings. Bishop says that "X",(ref) but Palmquist states that is baloney.{ref) "Inferior work" sounds WP:POV unless we are pretty sure that the work is WP:SOAPBOX or non-WP:RS. Hard to consign a book by a scholar to the junkpile! Anyway, it's not up to us to do that. Would take more than one scholar. Student7 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The JSE publishes pseudoscience and is not reliable, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove reference to Arthur Koestler in the article overview

In my admittedly non-schooled reading of Jung and Koestler, they seem to be talking about very different things. Koestler addresses causality (influence of the mind at the quantum level if I understand), Jung is clearly focused on meaning and, if anything, his concept purposefully does not include causality. The reference to Koestler, especially in the article overview confuses this article, which is about Jung's concept. Also there is no other reference to Koestler in the article body. So its not appropriate to reference his work in the overview. I'm not adept enough at Wikipedia protocol to figure out when the reference to Koestler was added to the article. If recent, then it should be removed pending discussion. If its been there for years, then let's discuss removing it.

--Ronewolf (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct.

We do have articles which discuss material which is differently interpreted at a high level by various WP:RS. I would agree that this difference should be mentioned. "When Koestler discusses synchronicity, he means ..."

This implies that one author cannot be used to substantiate the other unless made explicit by the authors themselves.

Neither do I have sufficient overview of the topic to make substantial changes, if needed. Student7 (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(Another) Questionable Reference

Toward the end of the description section there is a vague discussion of researchers who are continuing Jung's work on synchronicity. Ray Grasse is the sole example cited. Ray Grasse is an astrologer with a degree in film-making. In my opinion, without formal training of any kind in a related field, he does not strike me as a very representative example to cite in a discussion of researchers who are furthering Jung's work and he certainly should not be the only example cited (which he currently is). Whether or not one thinks him a charlatan (which he certainly is) his work is of dubious value as a representative example. I think the reference should either be removed, supplemented with other examples, or moved to a section more appropriate for discussing "research" like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.88.37.66 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I rm this material. Kind of left hanging though. And reference-less. So needs work! Student7 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Its a poor sort of memory: That only works for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.13.181 (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Pratītyasamutpāda

I pulled the link to Pratītyasamutpāda out from the article. This is because, while I am a fan of both Synchronicity and Pratītyasamutpāda, they are really unrelated. Pratītyasamutpāda is a strong assertion of causality - it may be summarised as "whatever is produced, is produced through causes". I believe that the article may be better linked to Indra's net, which is an interpretation of Pratītyasamutpāda as found in East Asian Buddhism (also cf. especially Huayan School). However, Pratītyasamutpāda has a broader scope, and is treated in very different ways by the Madhyamaka, as well as the Theravada and other schools.

Regardless, I would also consider correlating Indra's net with Synchronicity as bordering on WP:OR, but I am willing to discuss this further with this article's editors, if required.

(20040302 (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC))

TODO/MEMO to make draft about inconsistencies with current basic methodology of science very roughly

inconsistency with current methodology of western science very roughly expanding Tart's last statement in Criticism section

• Kantian (roughly) "everything has cause and effect in categories meanings of natural minds"
• Hume-an (roughly) "infinite(? -TODO) chain of cause and effect pairs"
• Jungian Synchronicity (current western understanding of synchronicity (see Wikipedia current (13 November 2015)): "it's simply synchronicity, not every event should be investigated scientifically (in current meaning of having a cause)" (no algorithm receipt of further investigation/inquiry, so reduction or even as Tart (who is even sometimes "bamboozled" in paranormal investigations so is last person to be biased anti-synchronicity) calls it 'mental laziness')
• original (obsolete currently AFAIK Marxists are basing on similar to Kant's line) old-Chinese science : something appears with something, (TODO: check source if additional word for instance "always" (I have it somewhere in quotations) was used, and lack of direction: basic diversity/differentiation/axiology/hierarchy of this two events, also check/find more sources then Jung's students)

Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph that does not seem to relate to the topic

The Criticisms section contains the following paragraph:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, and avoids information and interpretations that contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or is a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study, or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis. Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence that challenges a preconceived idea, but not to evidence that supports it.

It seems unclear how this is a criticism of synchronicity. Is it inferring that the experience of synchronicity is really just an example of confirmation bias?

Seems that way. But since the source does not mention synchronicity, the inferring is done by the WP user who wrote that. Which WP users should not do.

Synchronicity is a bunch of baloney, and confirmation bias obviously plays a role, but the paragraph does not belong in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to delete it, but it is an integral part of the chapter, which is partly WP:OR and partly appropriate. Separating the wheat from the chaff needs more work than I thought. What do others think? Which parts can stay? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Unexplained redirect

The link "plate o' shrimp" redirects here with no reason given. That's linked from Baader-Meinhof, among other places, meaning that a search for the Baader-Meinhoff effect gives you an unexplained intermediate phrase before arriving here. Can anyone explain why or remedy that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.42.21 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It was a reference to a line from the film Repo Man. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Wording in regards to the paranormal

I'm sorry, but how is "arguing for the existence of the paranormal" a more soapbox version than "try to justify his belief in the paranormal"? The former does not suggest any stance towards the issue, merely describes how Jung employed the concept. The latter suggests that Jung's beliefs were transgressions which demanded or demand justification. Clearly, the tone of the former is far more encyclopedic.--MASHAUNIX 13:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence for the existence of the paranormal. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You need to consider WP:WEIGHT. When irreducible complexity is used as an argument for intelligent design, we call it pseudoscience. Jung's synchronicity is also pseudoscience, and we, as an encyclopedia, do not give equal time to pseudoscience and quackery. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You miss my point. I am not saying that any paranormal phenomena actually exist, and that they do not is clearly expressed in the paranormal article. However, this is not the space to express that, merely the space to indicate how Jung employed the concept of synchronicity. He did not employ it to "try to justify his belief" because his belief (or any other belief) does not require any justification, or at least not from the point of view of encyclopedic description. Our article on Jung states that "Jung's work on himself and his patients convinced him that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals." Should this (or other such statements) be changed to "Jung's work on himself and his patients led him to the mistaken belief that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals." or similar? Clearly not; WP:WEIGHT needs be considered in the articles on the subject matter itself, e.g. paranormal, spirituality, but not in articles of this sort where such value judgement adds no informational value.--MASHAUNIX 16:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. Take someone like Kent Hovind, for instance: Hovind is an adherent of young-Earth creationism, and a self-styled cryptozoologist. We don't say that these beliefs are incorrect, but we most certainly assert that they are pseudoscientific. The same applies here. No, we don't say that Jung was "mistaken" or "incorrect", but we do make it clear to the reader that his "theory" was clearly pseudoscience. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, your edit that I reverted didn't say: "arguing for the existence of the paranormal"; it said: "to describe the paranormal". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but when I changed that to a more neutral wording you reverted me again. Comparing Jung to Hovind is IMO absurd. Nevertheless, my issue is fundamentally with the use of the word "justify" here as I find it unsuitable to address the issue. "Jung used the concept to justify his belief in the paranormal" is somewhat ambiguous; it could even be read to indicate that the action was conclusive and he succesfully justified the belief, or on the other read to suggest that his belief was "incorrect" (which you say is not appropriate) or even insincere. Simply stating that he held the belief and argued is completely sufficient to get the message across; the very word "belief" makes it clear that this is not sound scientific theory, since by definition no belief is backed by evidence.--MASHAUNIX 10:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken (or perhaps I am); the 2nd revert I made was identical to the 1st. I would not have reverted "arguing for the existence". Incidentally, if you think I'm comparing Jung to Hovind (apples to oranges), you're seriously missing my point. I'm comparing pseudoscience to pseudoscience (apples to apples). Joefromrandb (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, so can we agree on this wording?--MASHAUNIX 17:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This line about Bernard Beitman seems weak and weird

A thought for the experienced editors of this entry to consider: the comment, "However, professor Bernard D. Beitman (who is not a mathematician) accused the law of truly large numbers of not being well established but based on "plausibility, not mathematical proof," does not seem to belong here. It links to a recent blog-post type article in Psychology Today, which is not a very reliable source, and certainly not a peer-reviewed academic paper, and, with the greatest of respect, Beitman does not seem sufficiently noteworthy to appear in an entry about Jung.

Beitman's statements are only an example of point of view of some contemporary Jung's supporters with high scientific degrees, personally I prefer David Hand's explanation of coincidences, however added this line to make article more neutral. So generally I'm not opposing of removing it as in fact fringe.Qsr03 (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

There are opinions that the law of truly large numbers is special case of 2nd Borel-Cantelli lemma, which has mathematical proof.Qsr03 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Article overhaul

The current page is extremely weak and lacks nuance. Most significantly, the definition section is repetitive and highly unreadable. I propose that definition section be organized into three sections: dictionary, scholarly, and separation from magical thinking. I have fixed the definition section up based on scholarly research and citations. There may also need to be a history section. Although Jung coined the term "synchronicity" there is substantial overlap with the concept of magical thinking that has a long history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z5amfYVc (talk • contribs) 00:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the specific ideas put forth by Jung. There is overlap with other philosophies, but this article isn't about those, and it seems deceptive to conflate them all together.

In any case, that's a major change to the content of the article and you should wait to see what other editors (who are more familiar with the topic than I am) think before putting your version back. There's no rush. ApLundell (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Z5amfYVc: Dictionary definitions are sometimes used in articles, but it's not appropriate in this instance, since the topic focuses on the Jungian interpretation. In any case, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Most of the changes you suggest [1] appear to be unsourced generalizations, and overall, aren't an improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Research Section

I am proposing the addition of a research section to summarize scholarly research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of synchronicity. This seems like an obviously needed section. However, there has been some who have dismissed the changes I have sought to include. Please state your reasons here so that we can come to a resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SymICiEl (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Must be more neutral, many psychologists consider experiencing coincidences as irrational: "On the other hand, skeptics (e.g. most psychologists) tend to dismiss the psychological experience of coincidences as just yet one more demonstration of how irrational people can be. Irrationality in this context means an association between the experience of coincidences and biased cognition in terms of poor probabilistic reasoning and a propensity for paranormal beliefs." (Mark K. Johansen, Magda Osman, 2015, "Coincidences: A fundamental consequence of rational cognition")--37.47.87.143 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I suggest adding this paragraph then to help balance the views of different researchers on the relevance of studying synchronicity. In addition, I suggest not linking to a separate article "Research on synchronicity" at this time. Instead, I suggest seeking consensus for adding the research section in the main article and expanding that section first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SymICiEl (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

On the scientific opinion : science is far from having a definite answer to synchronicity hence this wikipedia article is pseudo-scientific.

Besides, in mathematics, the law of large numbers requires the hypotheses of independence, whereas as Jung recalled, synchronicity has nothing to do with iid random variables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.24.162.204 (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Research on synchronicity

Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Einstein

I don't think Einstein should be mentioned that heavily in the article. The article gives the reader the totally false impression that this esoteric bullshit idea is somehow connected to the theories of relativity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed this: "he had begun considering the possibility of a non-causal principle as early as 1909–1910 and 1912–1913, when he met Einstein and was introduced to the idea of the relativity of space and time". This is like "he had begun considering the idea when he visited Paris". Jung, or the guy who wrote that sentence, believed that there was some synchronicity between the two events. So what? Wikipedia is not for promoting fringe theories, and the idea that there is some connection between Jung hearing about science and Jung concocting an unconnected specific stupid idea is fringe, especially if the sentence in the article suggests a logical connection, as this one did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits but unfortunately we must go by what reliable and academic sources say. I agree that this should be handled carefully which is why direct quotations are helpful for avoiding misrepresentation of scholarly source. But if Jung's conversations with Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli are considered noteworthy to the origins of the idea by academic sources (e.g. Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology published by Springer-Verlag, and Prof. Bishop's paper published in the Journal of Analytical Psychology) then this article must reflect that. We cannot misrepresent a subject or concept simply because it is wrong or disliked. I'm not really sure what you mean by "Jung, or the guy who wrote that sentence, believed that there was some synchronicity" since the Bishop quotation only states that Jung claims to have drawn inspiration from his conversations with Einstein—nothing more. It is an academic fact that Jung had conversations with Einstein and Pauli, and that Jung believed these conversations to have inspired him in inventing the concept of synchronicity. If you have any reliable sources that refute the notability of this information please share them so an agreement can be reached. Cheers, Oeqtte^[t] 00:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, we cannot mention everything a sources mentions. We need to choose which parts are relevant enough for an encyclopedia article. Also, we have rules such as WP:FRINGE. I am pretty sure that the source which mentioned Einstein also mentioned heaps of other people influencing Jung. If we write that Jung was influenced by Einstein, without mentioning all those other people, many of whom are crackpots like Jung himself, we are doing a selection with the implication that synchronicity is somehow scientific. Which it is not. Thus violating WP:FRINGE.

This is not simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. None of the people quoted here has any expertise in physics, and there is no reason to assume that any of them knows what the theories of relativity are actually about, so their mentioning Einstein is on the same level as if they had written "shortly after Jung had come back from a vacation in Naples". There is no logical connection between Jung doing something such as talking to Einstein (or taking a vacation) and his innumerate ideas. If he claimed that he was inspired by Einstein, we can write that he claimed that, but we cannot just state a correlational connection, implying a causal connection as if it were a fact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It still stands that if this hypothetical "vacation in Naples" is considered amply notable by academic sources and serious encyclopedias then it must receive due weight. We are talking about historical facts here, rather than scientific implications. Wolfgang Pauli's contribution especially is heavily noted in a multitude of sources which makes discluding these facts from an origins section somewhat dubious. (Yes, he is mentioned several times throughout the article and not without reason; he was Jung's principle collaborator on this topic. It is perhaps of greater importance throughout the article to state what Pauli actually did in this capacity, rather than just name-dropping for the sake of name-dropping as you say. Your concern seems to lie more with Einstein.) As for "I am pretty sure that the source which mentioned Einstein ...", I can only suggest double-checking the sources yourself; besides physicists, Taoism and J. B. Rhine are perhaps also undermentioned in the origins section. All historical facts must be presented according to due weight then there can be no improper emphasis. I may suggest re-adding something along the lines of: "Furthermore, Jung states/claims that he drew influence for the concept from his conversations with Albert Einstein as early as 1909–1910 and 1912–1913." (Here with no unnecessary mention of Einstein's scientific theories as you'd agree they may be misleading. Your further suggestions welcome.) Then of course any well-sourced material contrary to this claim must also be given due weight, if such exists. Thanks for your constructive responses. Cheers, Oeqtte^[t] 11:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleting Pauli too was probably too much - yes, it is usually said that he was involved. And diluting Einstein with unscientific influences like Taoism and Rhine would make him more acceptable. Still, the rules do not force us to copy everything from all the sources.

I asked at WP:FTN what others think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There's currently already a long quote that mentions Einstein as an influence, as for the material Hob removed, it appears WP:UNDUE and to suggest that physicists also entertained the idea, which seems implausible, considering that such philosophical misinterpretations and mystical readaptations of physics happen outside of the field (like in this case, Jung's ideas, Chopra... an exception might be Capra like in The Tao of Physics, an article that probably needs a little work too BTW, but still, it's not development in physics, more popscience artistic synchretic presentation)... —PaleoNeonate – 03:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Academic sources on pseudoscience

Really what this article is lacking is reliable academic sources (specifically publications from scientific journals and academic journals) which explicitly mention pseudoscience. So far the only source close to this is an article by Christopher Bonds in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience; the rest that actually mention pseudoscience are all nonacademic. Please if you can help find some properly academic science publications with this information it would help a lot! Thanks, Oeqtte^[t] 02:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Einstein

I don't think Einstein should be mentioned that heavily in the article. The article gives the reader the totally false impression that this esoteric bullshit idea is somehow connected to the theories of relativity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed this: "he had begun considering the possibility of a non-causal principle as early as 1909–1910 and 1912–1913, when he met Einstein and was introduced to the idea of the relativity of space and time". This is like "he had begun considering the idea when he visited Paris". Jung, or the guy who wrote that sentence, believed that there was some synchronicity between the two events. So what? Wikipedia is not for promoting fringe theories, and the idea that there is some connection between Jung hearing about science and Jung concocting an unconnected specific stupid idea is fringe, especially if the sentence in the article suggests a logical connection, as this one did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits but unfortunately we must go by what reliable and academic sources say. I agree that this should be handled carefully which is why direct quotations are helpful for avoiding misrepresentation of scholarly source. But if Jung's conversations with Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli are considered noteworthy to the origins of the idea by academic sources (e.g. Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology published by Springer-Verlag, and Prof. Bishop's paper published in the Journal of Analytical Psychology) then this article must reflect that. We cannot misrepresent a subject or concept simply because it is wrong or disliked. I'm not really sure what you mean by "Jung, or the guy who wrote that sentence, believed that there was some synchronicity" since the Bishop quotation only states that Jung claims to have drawn inspiration from his conversations with Einstein—nothing more. It is an academic fact that Jung had conversations with Einstein and Pauli, and that Jung believed these conversations to have inspired him in inventing the concept of synchronicity. If you have any reliable sources that refute the notability of this information please share them so an agreement can be reached. Cheers, Oeqtte^[t] 00:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, we cannot mention everything a sources mentions. We need to choose which parts are relevant enough for an encyclopedia article. Also, we have rules such as WP:FRINGE. I am pretty sure that the source which mentioned Einstein also mentioned heaps of other people influencing Jung. If we write that Jung was influenced by Einstein, without mentioning all those other people, many of whom are crackpots like Jung himself, we are doing a selection with the implication that synchronicity is somehow scientific. Which it is not. Thus violating WP:FRINGE.

This is not simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. None of the people quoted here has any expertise in physics, and there is no reason to assume that any of them knows what the theories of relativity are actually about, so their mentioning Einstein is on the same level as if they had written "shortly after Jung had come back from a vacation in Naples". There is no logical connection between Jung doing something such as talking to Einstein (or taking a vacation) and his innumerate ideas. If he claimed that he was inspired by Einstein, we can write that he claimed that, but we cannot just state a correlational connection, implying a causal connection as if it were a fact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It still stands that if this hypothetical "vacation in Naples" is considered amply notable by academic sources and serious encyclopedias then it must receive due weight. We are talking about historical facts here, rather than scientific implications. Wolfgang Pauli's contribution especially is heavily noted in a multitude of sources which makes discluding these facts from an origins section somewhat dubious. (Yes, he is mentioned several times throughout the article and not without reason; he was Jung's principle collaborator on this topic. It is perhaps of greater importance throughout the article to state what Pauli actually did in this capacity, rather than just name-dropping for the sake of name-dropping as you say. Your concern seems to lie more with Einstein.) As for "I am pretty sure that the source which mentioned Einstein ...", I can only suggest double-checking the sources yourself; besides physicists, Taoism and J. B. Rhine are perhaps also undermentioned in the origins section. All historical facts must be presented according to due weight then there can be no improper emphasis. I may suggest re-adding something along the lines of: "Furthermore, Jung states/claims that he drew influence for the concept from his conversations with Albert Einstein as early as 1909–1910 and 1912–1913." (Here with no unnecessary mention of Einstein's scientific theories as you'd agree they may be misleading. Your further suggestions welcome.) Then of course any well-sourced material contrary to this claim must also be given due weight, if such exists. Thanks for your constructive responses. Cheers, Oeqtte^[t] 11:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleting Pauli too was probably too much - yes, it is usually said that he was involved. And diluting Einstein with unscientific influences like Taoism and Rhine would make him more acceptable. Still, the rules do not force us to copy everything from all the sources.

I asked at WP:FTN what others think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There's currently already a long quote that mentions Einstein as an influence, as for the material Hob removed, it appears WP:UNDUE and to suggest that physicists also entertained the idea, which seems implausible, considering that such philosophical misinterpretations and mystical readaptations of physics happen outside of the field (like in this case, Jung's ideas, Chopra... an exception might be Capra like in The Tao of Physics, an article that probably needs a little work too BTW, but still, it's not development in physics, more popscience artistic synchretic presentation)... —PaleoNeonate – 03:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Academic sources on pseudoscience

Really what this article is lacking is reliable academic sources (specifically publications from scientific journals and academic journals) which explicitly mention pseudoscience. So far the only source close to this is an article by Christopher Bonds in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience; the rest that actually mention pseudoscience are all nonacademic. Please if you can help find some properly academic science publications with this information it would help a lot! Thanks, Oeqtte^[t] 02:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)