Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:21, 1 May 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why has my edit been reverted? What did I do wrong? A1: Check the edit history for the article. Hopefully, the editor who reverted you left a useful edit summary explaining why they feel the previous version of the article to be better; occasionally, links to various policies and guidelines are included. The most common reasons for reversion are that the article should not contain editorial bias and every statement should be cited to sources reliable to the topic at hand. If you disagree with the reasoning provided or otherwise wish a fuller discussion, please check the archives of this discussion page for a similar proposal or open a new section below. Q2: One entry to this list is better described as an emerging or untested area of research, not pseudoscience. A2: A few topics have several facets, only some of which are described by reliable sources as pseudoscience; multiple notable descriptions or points of view may be appropriately included as described in Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. On the other hand, proponents of a particular topic characterized as pseudoscience almost always self-report as engaging in science. The several points of view should be weighted according to the reliability of the sources making each claim. Advocacy sources are reliable only for their own opinions - it is okay to state that Dr. X claims to have built a creature under the usual caveats for self-published sources, but the creature's exploits should be described as reported in independent sources. If the majority of scientists would be surprised by a claim, it is probably not mainstream science. Q3: Real scientists are investigating this topic, how can it be pseudoscience? A3: Respected researchers, even Nobel Prize laureates, sometimes have or propound ideas that are described by sources reliable to make the distinction as pseudoscience, especially when they are working outside of their core expertise. Q4: Why is the description so negative? Why not just describe the views covered and let the reader decide? A4: The Misplaced Pages policy Neutral point of view requires that the prominence of various views be reflected in the articles. We strive to summarize the tone and content of all available sources, weighted by their reliability. Reliable in this context means particulary that sources should be generally trusted to report honestly on and make the distinction between science and pseudoscience. Q5: Why does this article rely on such biased sources? A5 Scientists generally ignore pseudoscience, and only occasionally bother to rebut ideas before they have received a great deal of attention. Non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience can only be had from second- and third-party sources. The following sources are almost always reliable sources for descriptions of pseudoscience: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Encyclopedia of pseudoscience An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural Skeptic's Dictionary Skeptical Inquirer talk.origins archive Bad Astronomy Quackwatch Sense About Science Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.) Statements from scientific societies Q6: Isn't pseudoscience a philosophically meaningless term? A6 The term describes a notable concept in common use. Q7: Why is a particular topic omitted? A7 Some ideas are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article; other topics have been explicitly rejected by the consensus of editors here at the talkpage. Please search the archives for relevant discussions before beginning a new one. Still, this list is far from complete, so feel free to suggest a topic or be bold and add it yourself. Q8: What relation does content here have to the four groupings (below) from the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience? A8 Many fail to understand the nature of this list. It is not exclusively about "Obvious pseudoscience", but, as the list's title indicates, about "topics characterized as pseudoscience" (emphasis added). That wording parallels the Arbcom description from group three: "but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" (emphasis added). Therefore we include items covered in the first three groups below, but not the fourth. In this list, we refuse to decide whether an item is or is not an "obvious" pseudoscience (although most of them are ). Four groups 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. 3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

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

Science This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Multidel

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

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

Anthroposophical medicine

I don't understand why it is listed here. The entry on the topic makes a poor description of it (which could even be described as misrepresentation) and does not clearly states why it should be consider pseudoscience (appart of using quotes to denote words being used with irony, I guess). Furthermore, anthroposophical medicine can only be practiced by physicians who have a conventional medical education, including a degree from an established and certified medical school. In fact, there is plenty of research published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic and it is recognized by governments in Central Europe (such as Germany and Switzerland) where there are several hospitals completely ran by anthroposophic doctors. For reference look for the Health Technology Assessment Report on Anthroposophic Medicine that was comissioned by the Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office, which was published in English as the book "Anthroposophic Medicine" by Kienle, Kiene and Albornico edited by Schattauer GmbH. In addition, several universities in Germany and Switzerland have departments in their medicine faculties which are devoted to Anthroposophical Medicine (for example at Witten/Herdecke University and the University of Bern). How can this be considered pseudoscience? I think this is a case of bias because most information is published in a language different from English. Please also note that in the wikipedia page for Anthroposophical medicine there is mention of the criticism to this branch of medicine but it's not stated that it should be considered pseudoscience.Asinthior (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a mixture of religious beliefs and scientific medicine. That mixture makes it pseudoscientific because the religious philosophy is the driving force which interprets everything. That those who practice it are licensed medical physicians is irrelevant. Many, if not most, practitioners of quackery are licensed MDs. If the main article lacks a description of it as being considered pseudoscientific by someone (with references), then it should include that information. THAT is the proper solution to your dilemma.

I will grant you that there is a spiritual philosophy at the root of Anthoposophic Medicine (AM), after all it was created based in Anthroposophy. Although it probably doesn't really matter for the point you're trying to make, I'd like to distinguish between religious beliefs (i.e. religion) and spiritual philosophy. Quoting from Misplaced Pages itself:

"The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures..."

While Anthroposophy can be arguably characterized as a belief system (although I think it is actually a school of thought or philosophy) it is most definitely not a religion. In fact, there is a christian religious movement whose creation was inspired by Anthroposophy.

But going back to your answer, the fact that the interpretation of data is arguably driven by a philosophy, does not constitute a characteristic of pseudoscience. I am not conceding that is the case for AM, I'm just saying that your argument does not justify classifying AM as pseudoscience. The article on pseudoscience in wikipedia emphasizes falsifiability and scientific methodology as criteria to identify pseudoscience. I will get back to this point later, but I would also like to discuss the other identifying characteristics of pseudoscience (also from the wikipedia article):

1 Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

2 Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

3 Lack of openness to testing by other experts

4 Absence of progress

5 Personalization of issues

6 Use of misleading language

I believe a topic that gets published in peer-reviewed international journals fails to meet the criteria above. I have no idea how to insert a list of publications here, so I'll just copy and paste it below:

1: Stenius F, Swartz J, Lindblad F, Pershagen G, Scheynius A, Alm J, Theorell T. Low salivary cortisol levels in infants of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2010 Nov;35(10):1431-7. Epub 2010 Jul 2. PubMed PMID: 20580492.

2: Rosenlund H, Bergström A, Alm JS, Swartz J, Scheynius A, van Hage M, Johansen K, Brunekreef B, von Mutius E, Ege MJ, Riedler J, Braun-Fahrländer C, Waser M, Pershagen G; PARSIFAL Study Group. Allergic disease and atopic sensitization in children in relation to measles vaccination and measles infection. Pediatrics. 2009 Mar;123(3):771-8. PubMed PMID: 19255001.

3: Büssing A, Ostermann T, Majorek M, Matthiessen PF. Eurythmy Therapy in clinical studies: a systematic literature review. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008 Mar 31;8:8. Review. PubMed PMID: 18377647; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2322948.

4: Bar-Sela G, Atid L, Danos S, Gabay N, Epelbaum R. Art therapy improved depression and influenced fatigue levels in cancer patients on chemotherapy. Psychooncology. 2007 Nov;16(11):980-4. PubMed PMID: 17351987.

5: Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Wegscheider K, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Anthroposophic vs. conventional therapy for chronic low back pain: a prospective comparative study. Eur J Med Res. 2007 Jul 26;12(7):302-10. PubMed PMID: 17933703.

6: Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Anthroposophic medical therapy in chronic disease: a four-year prospective cohort study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2007 Apr 23;7:10. PubMed PMID: 17451595; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1876246.

7: Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Eurythmy therapy in chronic disease: a four-year prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2007 Apr 23;7:61. PubMed PMID: 17451596; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1868723.

8: Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Health costs in anthroposophic therapy users: a two-year prospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Jun 2;6:65. PubMed PMID: 16749921; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1513220.

9: Alfvén T, Braun-Fahrländer C, Brunekreef B, von Mutius E, Riedler J, Scheynius A, van Hage M, Wickman M, Benz MR, Budde J, Michels KB, Schram D, Ublagger E, Waser M, Pershagen G; PARSIFAL study group. Allergic diseases and atopic sensitization in children related to farming and anthroposophic lifestyle--the PARSIFAL study. Allergy. 2006 Apr;61(4):414-21. PubMed PMID: 16512802.

10: Alm JS, Swartz J, Björkstén B, Engstrand L, Engström J, Kühn I, Lilja G, Möllby R, Norin E, Pershagen G, Reinders C, Wreiber K, Scheynius A. An anthroposophic lifestyle and intestinal microflora in infancy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2002 Dec;13(6):402-11. PubMed PMID: 12485315.

11: Bettermann H, von Bonin D, Frühwirth M, Cysarz D, Moser M. Effects of speech therapy with poetry on heart rate rhythmicity and cardiorespiratory coordination. Int J Cardiol. 2002 Jul;84(1):77-88. PubMed PMID: 12104068.

12: Matricardi PM, Rosmini F, Rapicetta M, Gasbarrini G, Stroffolini T. Atopy, hygiene, and anthroposophic lifestyle. San Marino Study Group. Lancet. 1999 Jul 31;354(9176):430. PubMed PMID: 10437907.

13: Alm JS, Swartz J, Lilja G, Scheynius A, Pershagen G. Atopy in children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle. Lancet. 1999 May 1;353(9163):1485-8. PubMed PMID: 10232315.

These are a few selected published papers I thought would serve to make the point. As you can see they have been published in prestigious peer-reviewed international medical journals (by the was there is a LOT more published in German, hence my original point that the scientific community is overlooking information published in a language other than English, which I understand as German is not the easiest language to learn as a foreign language). So if studies are being publishes in journals such as the Lancet, I don't think you can argue AM is making untestable claims or that it lacks openness to testing by other experts. In fact, this list itself proves there is no absence of progress, as there is research going on. I believe AM also doesn't meet any of the other criteria from the list.

I would like to go back to falsifiability and the scientific method. AM is falsifiable, you just need to treat patients and see how they react to the treatment. I am aware, however, that it does not abide to the gold standard of double-blind randomized clinical trials. This is because the treatment is highly individualized, however, there are other standards that could be used such as metaanalysis of published single cases. Double-blind randomized clinical trials are not the only methodology available to clinical research these days. I am not an expert, but I'm sure that if we would argue that double-blind randomized clinical trials were a requisite to be considered science (as opposed to pseudoscience) medicine itself would not hold to this standard.

One final comment, about your remark on quackery. Yes, quackery is mostly promoted by MDs, but I would argue most of them do not really hold the credentials required by most governments to exercise medical practice. But even if that were not the case, quackery and pseudoscience are two conceptually different things. I would say quackery is based on pseudoscience, it uses pseudoscientific claims to sell a product or service. It is my impression that quackery fools people intentionally to profit from them. Pseudoscience does not necessarily do that, in fact it is often promoted by people who honestly believe it to be true. In any case, the fact that organizations that teach AM require that students hold a MD degree before they start learning AM show a commitment to ensure that physicians are adequately trained to treat their patients. Also, the fact that they are organized in an international federation that oversees their members shows accountability on their part, something I'm sure is not present in quackery. So, I do think that just as a university requires a researcher to hold a university degree to ensure the applicant is qualified to perform scientific research (although this does not prevent some researcher from falsifying results) and this is why universities mostly produce science and not pseudoscience, the fact that AM requires a regular medical license from its students, supports the idea that they strive for scientific standards. Asinthior (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Please send me an email message through my user page if you reply to this, as I only seldom log on to wikipedia.

As far as this list is concerned, that content is very well sourced. Note that it is not listed "as" a pseudoscience, but as a topic "characterized" as pseudoscience. There is a difference. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I fail to see the connection of your post to the point I raise. I'm not referring to the whole list, only to Anthroposophic Medicine (AM). I'd like to know what do you mean by "very well sourced" when referring to AM. Additionally, in the particular case of AM, and the way it's characterized in the paragraph describing it, it is my impression AM is being portrayed as pseudoscience and not as being "characterized as" pseudoscience. While I appreciate your raising the point that there's a difference, I'm not sure this contributes to the question I'm asking as to why AM should be considered pseudoscience. Asinthior (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how having a department gives it more credibility, homeopathy has departments in some universties also. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, but I would argue that universities are the place where most scientific research takes place. Aren't they supposed to only have scientific departments in their faculties of science? Asinthior (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ball Lightning

I'm not sure ball lightning is "no longer doubted by modern science". We have no reliable direct evidence, such as photos or video, that is not otherwise explainable. There's no real agreement on the physical characteristics of it. (Some reports describe slowly "rolling" balls of light that may pass through other objects or vanish like a popped bubble upon being touched, while others describe violent dancing or ricocheting behavior the ends with an explosive bang; they have no generally agreed-upon color, shape, or duration; there are no consistent conditions under which it appears; and so on.) While it seems there is a general acceptance that there's some actual phenomenon at work, there is no one generally accepted theory (or even two or three competing theories) that can adequately explain and predict its behavior; and the possible explanations that we do have are all over the place, ranging from vaporized silicon to microscopic black holes to visual hallucinations caused by lightning's magnetic pulse.

There does seem to be widespread acceptance that some phenomenon is at work, but it seems strange to say that scientists "no longer doubt" its existence when we can't even adequately define what we're talking about!

This entry should either be removed (as it's neither clearly true, nor considered obvious pseudoscience), or moved to a different section to reflect the fact that it has not been significantly explained. Ball lightning certainly doesn't fall into the same category with continental drift and meteors, both of which have vast quantities of observable evidence and experimental data backing them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.192.236.140 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's a good example of a "no longer doubted" idea. There is no single scientific consensus that say "The phenomenon of ball lighting is..." and goes on to explain the entire thing. There are a bunch of fairly small claims - many of which contradict each other - or only cover a small section of the range of phenomena that have been claimed to exist. It's not exactly pseudo-science, because people are seriously considering the problem - but it's definitely not a done-deal yet. It certainly doesn't belong on the same scale of certainty as the other things we use as examples. SteveBaker (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree- this entry seems rather out of place here. A13ean (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denialism (2)

I am concerned the sources provided do not really support the inclusion of climate change denial as a topic characterized as pseudoscience. The first reference is an editorial in the journal Science. It laments an early Bush administration environmental policy decision and talks about the growing scientific consensus. However, it never really addresses 'climate change denial', it only addresses legitimate skeptics and very briefly at that. Naturally it never uses the term 'pseudoscience'. The second source is a report put out by Democrats on a congressional committee that does not seem to be available online. In any case, I assume such a partisan account would not be a reliable source. The third source is a lengthy journal editorial, which again doesn't appear to address 'climate change denial' or label it as pseudoscientific. In fact, in the last paragraph the author actually states, "As shown by countless social studies of science, science is intimately and inextricably interlinked with politics, and no transcendent definitions exist by which to distinguish true science from 'pseudoscience.'" I am open to the idea that climate change denialism might be characterized by reliable sources as pseudoscience, but I don't see it yet. –CWenger (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. Biophys (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science, or medical conclusions

A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for science, physics, or medical concusions is happening here. PPdd (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical pseudoscience.

This article lack any theory that have previously been considered pseudoscience but is now considered fact. I added Copernican heliocentrism as it is one of the most notorious example of when the scientific consensus have been proven in their classification of something as pseudoscience. Another well known example is evolution that was branded as pseudoscience. If it is wrong to add these theories then "at one point or another in their history" should be removed from the initial description off the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.91.246 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an important distinction between ideas that are eventually proven to be wrong - and pseudoscience. The critical distinction is that:

1. Pseudoscience claims the trappings of science without following the usual precepts of the scientific method.
2. Pseudoscience may or may not ultimately turn out to be correct - that doesn't matter either way.

I don't think that Copernican heliocentricism is now - or ever was - a "pseudoscience". Copernicus measured planetary motions in a scientific manner - doing proper scientific observations (his observation of Aldeberan and the motion of the moon, are certainly notable new data - properly recorded and analyzed) and he came up with a solid mathematical model based on those measurements. He published his works in a manner consistent with scientific practices of his day. The fact that he made some mistakes is inevitable given the lack of knowledge on which to build and the nature of the instruments available for collecting data. But making mistakes doesn't make it pseudoscience. We don't call Newtonian mechanics "pseudoscience" even though they are known to be wildly incorrect at high velocities and were put together by a guy who was a notorious alchemist.

Hence I fully support the reversion of your addition to the article. It doesn't belong there.

However, I strongly disagree with Czolgolz's reason for reverting.

We absolutely can and should list "historical" pseudosciences...even if they ultimately happened to be true. "truth" is absolutely not the issue here - making scientific claims and yet failing to use the scientific method is what constitutes a pseudoscience. The alchemists believed you could turn lead into gold without any scientific basis for making that claim...and indeed, we now know that by irradiating lead atoms with just the right kind of radiation, you can cause some of them to be transmuted into gold atoms. Alchemy is still a pseudoscience.

This is not "List of failed scientific theories".

SteveBaker (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh - and the reason that "This article lack any theory that have previously been considered pseudoscience but is now considered fact." is because if you follow the scientific principles - you generally end up with something that's at least close to the truth - but if you do things pseudoscientifically - then the odds of you happening to guess the way that universe works are rather small. Hence few pseudoscientific endeavors actually turn out to correctly produce fact...that's the reason that pseudoscience is so very rarely the way that modern technology improves. My (somewhat contrived) example of how the alchemists turned out to be correct about the possibility of turning lead into gold is a matter of purest luck on their behalf. SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to include 'historical' pseudoscience here, that list will be longer than the article. The existence of meteorites, continental drift, germs, rocketry, etc, were all considered purest fantasy by many of the greatest scientists of the time, and yet were ultimately proven correct. I think we'd be opening a can of worms to include every scientific theory that was originally met with skepticism. Czolgolz (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, NO!! You didn't read a word of what I wrote!!

A failed, misunderstood, disbelieved or otherwise contested scientific idea isn't necessarily pseudoscience. Please look up the definition of the word. Here is the acid test:

We only call something "pseudoscience" if the proponents of the idea were making statements of a scientific nature without following the scientific method.

No in fact we don't. People often call something pseudoscience because of their own bias and believes. The consensus on Copernicus and Darwin did not consider their works to follow the scientific method. If it actually do follow the scientific method or not is irrelevant, it is the scientific consensus that is relevant. If this topic is to be about things that are in fact pseudoscience then we have another problem, as this article is based on current scientific consensus and not absolute truth.

The scientists who decried (let's say) continental drift didn't do that because the proponents of continental drift failed to follow the scientific method. So they didn't call the theory 'pseudoscience' - they simply said it was incorrect. So even at the time, it wouldn't have passed the acid test. We don't call "Cold Fusion" 'pseudoscience' either - the proper methods were basically followed - even though the hypothesis turned out to be incorrect due to experimental error.

But in any case, before we could conceivably add meteorites, continental drift, germs or rocketry to this list, we'd have to find a reliable source that says that these areas of study were considered pseudosciences. I very much doubt that you'll find such a thing...and this discussion ends right there. It doesn't matter a damn what you or I think. If you don't have at least one reliable source that says something like "X is pseudoscience" - then X doesn't go into the article - period.

The subjects i chosen clearly have those requirements in their article. Both Copernicus and and Darwin was not considered to have followed valid scientific method by the scientists at their time. Both articles have plenty of evidence of that. The word pseudoscience did not exist at their time, but all the criteria for pseudoscience was applied to these theories by the scientific community.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspect you're wrong about Copernicus, who predates modern science, and Darwin's science was considered valid by many scientists and philosophers such as Mill, though disputed by others, notably Sedgwick. The definitions and requirements of science were still emerging at that time, but the term pseudo-science apparently existed as it was applied to phrenology in 1843 according to our article: I've not read the source for that. . . . dave souza, talk 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We've got one, at least in part.... see phrenology and this analysis by John van Wyhe . . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Should historical examples not be left for pseudoscience? there doesn't appear to be many examples which were labelled as pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Phrenology was, and is. . . dave souza, talk 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed science articles
• Unknown-importance science articles
• List-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• List-Class physics articles of High-importance
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• List-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles