Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:46, 29 January 2009

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.

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

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
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

List of editors

This list is was under discussion at ANI. Interested parties may review it using the page history.

Also now at ArbCom at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Martinphi-ScienceApologist_clarification.

Potential retitle

Given that the above is tl;dr, has anyone considered List of pseudosciences and questionable scientific concepts which would allow inclusion, and clear marking as suggested above, of "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" as defined by WP:PSCI. Obviously the list will still seem biased to some, for starters it has no mention of storkism :-/ . dave souza, talk 14:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a title I could live with, so long as the criteria of the current article are kept (see my reasoning above). Thanks, and great suggestion, Verbal chat 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "questionable" should be an adverb in which case the title would be List of pseudosciences and questionably scientific concepts. I'm intrigued, but not sold. I'm not sure what to make of "questionably scientific concepts". What is that supposed to mean? It sounds to me like "this subject is scientific, but it's questionably so" with emphasis on the idea that the subject is "scientific". That to me is a problematic connotation that I would like to avoid. Let's keep brainstorming, though. I like the sentiment from where this suggestion came. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to entertain this suggestion too. My first thought is that there must be a brightline division in the article so that it is clear to the reader which is the list of pseudosciences and which is the list of questionable scientific concepts. My second thought is that it may be hard to determine what exactly constitutes a "questionable scientific concept". I am not sure that this is a term readily used outside of Misplaced Pages. That said, ArbCom gave us a pretty decent definition. Essentially we are looking for concepts which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, but it is generally not considered so by the scientific community. And my third thought is: Why not just create two articles? One would be a "List of Pseudosciences" and the other a "List of Questionable Scientific Concepts". Or something to that effect. Each list would contain items based on the definitional criteria laid out for us in WP:PSCI. Seems simple enough, no? -- Levine2112 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I could live with this if necessary (absent Levine2112's novel interpretation), but I still think that Snalwibma said it best above (I made similar but less succinct points in the recent request to revisit arb.) - It is a core principle of Misplaced Pages that it is a tertiary source that relies on reliable external sources, and therefore "according to reliable sources" is implicit in any WP title. I would also not edit war over qualifying the title to include referred (purported and putative have more problems; described might be ok), though I find it awkward and a bit silly. Sorry, Fyslee - you make good points and are definitely trying to help, but that is how I see it. Both of these proposals carry the risk of giving the article a subtext of sources say, *wink*wink*, but we really mean that you should take this seriously, but so long as the entries themselves give neutral and properly weighted and contextualized descriptions, I do not think we would be wandering too far from the purpose of the encyclopedia. Still, the stylistically cleaner title without explicit qualification seems best. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eldereft, how do you reconcile the presence of items which are not generally considered to be a pseudoscience in a list article named "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" given that WP:PSCI explicitly instructs us that we should not characterize such items as pseudosciences? -- Levine2112 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked this question before and I already explained we are not violating that policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and characterized pseudoscientific concepts. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We could just stick according to reliable sources on the end? I still like Dave's suggestion too. Verbal chat 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to blow everyone's minds and yet again agree with ScienceApologist. according to reliable sources should be implied in every article on Misplaced Pages as WP:RS is (or at least should be) a non-negotiable standard for inclusion in any article. That said, QuackGuru's suggestion of "List of pseudosciences and characterized pseudoscientific concepts" only works if there is a bright line division in the list that distinguished which ones are pseudoscience (presumably by scientific consensus) and which ones are just characterized as pseudoscience by some but certainly not by any scientific consensus. Otherwise, imagine an article entitled "List of child molestors and characterized child molesters" that didn't draw such a bright line distinction between the two categories in the article title. You'd have BLP issues up the yin-yang for sure, no? -- Levine2112 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate Misplaced Pages-referential titles/content. Of COURSE it's "according to reliable sources", but that shouldn't be in the title. Would we want to say "A neutral, verifiable list of pseudosciences according to reliable sources judged by editorial consensus"? I don't think so. Please don't let our discussions about how to write according to Misplaced Pages rules bleed into article content. Someone reading this page should not have to be aware of Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, and arbcom rulings in order to understand our peculiar choice of terminology. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the grammatical concerns, I did think of questionably scientific topics but thought it best to keep close to the WP:PSCI definition which is headed "Questionable science" – no doubt a better variant can be found. Perhaps List of pseudosciences and concepts of questionable scientific validity. The idea that there's a bright line is dubious and in my opinion there's a continuum, which is why one article is appropriate. Some topics are the subject of genuine scientific research at the same time as involving pseudoscientific claims to a greater or lesser extent. So, we can subdivide each section using the PSCI criteria with sources, but be prepared to move topics if new sources become available. . dave souza, talk 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that we try to stay far away from the WP:PSCI definition which is not meant to be used in the way people have been proposing at this page. In fact, I'm willing to go as far as to ask arbcom to vacate the decision since people seem to be so obsessed with it. It's a good guidepost, but it certainly isn't the voice of the gods. Arbcom did not magically solve the demarcation problem by a majority vote. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your concerns, my intention would be that the definition would form a basis for including topics in the list and as a way of determining areas where the overwhelming scientific consensus is that they're pure pseudoscience, and mixed areas where there's genuine scientific research but inadequate validation and use by some proponents in a more or less pseudoscientific way. If the title gives that leeway, we can include all in a nuanced way instead of constraining the article to blatant pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure we can ever fully solve this problem as there are a number of real world (aka non-Wiki) debates re the definition of pseudoscience. •Jim62sch• 21:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The aim as I see it isn't to "fully resolve this problem", but to reach a workable solution that all parties can live with. Further discussion with that aim seems to me to be the best way forward. . dave souza, talk 22:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of regarded or characterized pseudoscientific concepts. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

lol. How about List of putative pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, or List of things-in-the-world that are asserted by reliable sources to be pseudoscientific. Frankly, I cannot think of a title that accurately conveys the content here which could reasonably function as a title. BTW, having been a long while since I checked in on this page, I'm impressed with the progress to-date w.r.t. trying to achieve respect for WP:V#Reliable_sources, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. For that alone, kudos to everyone involved over the past year or two, no matter what their positions on the numerous issues that inevitably come into play when one is dealing with a word ("pseudoscience") that from the getgo requires a judgment about what's science, what's not, what's in between, for what reason, in what respect, for whose purposes, for what readership, etc. etc. etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the "lol" when looking at such hyperbolic suggestions! You must not have seen the suggested List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. It's actually shorter than our current title and describes our current content very precisely. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If all "topics" within the list are agreed to consist of WP topics (i.e. articles), then indeed, why not? Speaking as just another WP user, that seems fair enough to me, Fyslee. I should think, or at least want to think, that WP's readership automatically assumes WP content is based only upon reliable sources-- silly me. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe using the word "subject" would make it clearer, since we're dealing with subjects, most of which are already described in articles, but if a V & RS has mentioned ... nah, I doubt anything not already mentioned would come up. Let's just try this alternative, since I think it is actually better. Thanks for triggering this:

• List of subjects referred to as pseudoscientific

The sourcing requirements are unchanged by this. The V & RS rules governing all of Misplaced Pages will apply here, not some special, local, temporary (since consensus can change), limited, twisted, POV version of how to select and choose sources. The rules that govern all of Misplaced Pages will apply here, which is what should have been happening all along, but wikilawyering has made a mockery of that, designed in such a manner as to keep certain subjects off the list. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and associated pseudoscientific concepts. QuackGuru (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In what manner does that suggestion (or any of your suggestions) solve anything? It just seems to be another wording without any new implications for content. It brings absolutely nothing new to the discussion, nor does it improve anything or bring us closer to a solution. Oh... I forgot...you see no problem, and therefore all this discussion doesn't even exist. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee, do please try to see the potential of this discussion rather than making assumptions about others. It strikes me that List of pseudosciences and associated concepts would be a possibility, as it removes any inference that everything on the list must be pseudoscientific, and indeed opens the way for a section on anti-pseudoscience positions or organisations such as Scientific skepticism if that were agreed on the talk page. Thus topics could be grouped within sections according to the weight of verification that they are pseudoscience, using WP:PSCI as a guide. . dave souza, talk 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about List of pseudosciences and concepts/ideas associated with pseudoscience? Take your pick if you'd rather use concept or idea. I'm not entirely happy (for example, skepticism is "associated" with pseudoscience, but it probably won't appear on this list), but we can make it clear that we mean concepts that have pseudoscience associated directly with them (as opposed to being antagonistic, or metaphysically connected, or being a philosophy-of-science critique of the subject, etc.) If we can have List of alleged UFO-related entities which has even worse "association" problems (are cows UFO-related since cattle mutilation is UFO-related?), surely we can have "ideas associated with pseudoscience". ScienceApologist (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think List of pseudosciences and associated pseudoscientific concepts is the best option. I'm not sure about List of pseudosciences and concepts associated with pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They're almost synomymous but not quite, and each has it's strengths and weaknesses. The former may be too inclusive the latter too restrictive and open to squabbling. Request time to ponder. •Jim62sch• 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, the title List of pseudosciences and characterized pseudoscientific concepts may work best. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, for grammar reasons (yes, I'm a PITA about that) List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific •Jim62sch• 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific

{{editprotected}} I have removed this editprotected request. If the page should be moved, follow the procedure at Misplaced Pages: Requested moves. Oren0 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Request remove title tag and change the title of article to List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The above template is only supposed to be used to request uncontroversial changes. Given the obvious rejection of this title by numerous editors, as well as the support for other options expressed below, it is clear that this option has not achieved consensus and that the change would be highly controversial. This dismissal of multiple editors' opinions as if they didn't exist is similar to the attitude which prevailed previously when the disputed tag was edit warred out. It is hard to imagine how this will have anything but a negative impact on the collaborative spirit on this discussion page. I would therefore ask QG to retain his support for this option if he wishes but to withdraw his request to have the change implemented at this time. Landed little marsdon (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is support to change the title. If you continue to be difficult I will report you to ANI for an indef-ban. QuackGuru (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One: don't strike through my comments. Two: I didn't say there was no support, I said there was support and dissent (i.e., no consensus and therefore not an uncontroversial change). Three: rather than threaten people with lifetime bans for asking you to have regard to the views of other editors, you might try to have regard to the views of other editors. So, I ask you once again: will you withdraw your request to have a non-consensus and controversial change made to the locked article at this time.Landed little marsdon (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support the new title. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support the new title. •Jim62sch• 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Object with caveats - I would only support such a title if 1) there was a bright line division of which concepts are generally considered pseudosciences and which ones are only characterized as pseudosciences (i.e. two seperate lists) and 2) if specific attribution was madatory for the latter list (i.e. Foo has been called pseudoscientific by Organization A and Researcher B). Otherwise, I see this title having the same WP:PSCI/WP:NPOV issues which we are trying to avoid. -- Levine2112 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, sadly, there is not necessarily such a bright line in the real world. In these cases, the preponderance of the evidence (as per WP:NPOV) would serve. In addition, "characterised" offers plenty of leeway for those who support a specific, shall we say, discipline. •Jim62sch• 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - If it isn't clear to the reader which concepts are pseudoscience by scientific consensus and which ones have only been characterized as such without scientific consensus, then we will have failed WP:PSCI and hence WP:NPOV. -- Levine2112 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment So our readers are idiots, then? •Jim62sch• 00:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment. We are assuming that the average reader knows nothing about WP:PSCI and the editorial guidance it provides. It would be rather easy for a reader to getconfused about the pseudoscientific status of foo if it is listed with a mixed bag of items - some of which are obvious pseudosciences and some of which are only called such by a notable skeptic group. Do you really want to see psychoanalysis and phrenology right next to each other on the same list even when we know there is a bright line distinction between their status as a pseudoscience? Probably not. So since we have the guideline, we have the sources, and we have the ability to keep these two items in distinct and proper lists, why not? It helps the reader to understand it more clearly and it helps contributors know where to place new items. It truly is a win-win. -- Levine2112 00:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed to an extent. Nonetheless, we're still going to have problems in deciding which goes in what category. •Jim62sch• 00:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • • We won't have that problem at all if we shorten it to List of concepts characterized as pseudoscientific. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If we use WP:PSCI as our basis for the inclusion criteria, I think we'll be alright. That said, the two article solution I proposed below draws the line in the sand a little deeper and takes care of any of the titling issue (i.e. a title which tries to account for two lists in one article rather than presenting the two lists in two separate articles with two distinct names). -- Levine2112 01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Mind if I think on it a bit? •Jim62sch• 01:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course! I appreciate the consideration. -- Levine2112 01:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. II | (t - c) 01:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to the simpler title, below. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nolo contendere This title may be marginally better, but practically invites a two-state solution. It is fine with me if consensus takes us this way, but just saying characterised or referred or whatever would seem to solve more problems (especially given Fyslee's parsing below). - Eldereft (cont.) 06:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Non support support "Characterized" is kind of weasel worded. But if all of the above like it, then I'll support it with my nose held. OrangeMarlin 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support with the criteria for inclusion on the page remaining the same, while still not seeing the need for this change. I'd also prefer characterised was spelt correctly (attempt to injecting some "humour" there) Verbal chat 20:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, I prefer the Commonwealth spelling, too, and I'm a bloody American. LOL. •Jim62sch• 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, if this will still the raging storm. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • On reflection, support only as second best to the "simple title" below. This bipartite title looks as if it is setting up a distinction between things that are PS and those that have merely been called PS, even if that isn't the intention, and will therefore not quell all the arguments. The simple title proposed below has a clear single criterion for inclusion, and works better. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support if everyone will stop complaining. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't support. I think this title completely fails to deal with the main issue. If it was: List of topics and concepts characterized as pseudoscience, then that would work for me. Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Object for same reasons expressed by LLM. It doesn't solve the NPOV problem. It also suffers from being a very long and awkward title, including unnecessary words. List of concepts characterized as pseudoscientific would be sufficient. The removal of the word "pseudosciences" would solve the NPOV violation. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Defer to the simpler title below. hgilbert (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, we don't want to mix obvious crackpot PS with topics that are only borderline PS. MaxPont (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too long and clumsy in my opinion, as I said below, I like the simplier title. --CrohnieGal 13:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even the current name is ridiculously cumbersome. This is worse. --TS 12:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Two article solution

In this compromise, we would simply have one article entitled List of pseudosciences and one entitled List of questionable sciences. Each would have inclusion criteria based soley on that which is outlined in WP:PSCI. Simple!

• Support. -- Levine2112 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the two-state solution? This actually makes some sense, if consensus can be maintained about its right to exist. I like the idea for starters. But I'm not sure it's consensible as proposed, because what's conspicuously missing is "concepts characterized as pseudoscientific", which comprise a significant part of the current list. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Concepts characterized as pseudoscientific" is implied by the definition of "Questionable science" given at WP:PSCI ("...but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience...") and would therefore be a part of the inclusion critera (i.e. the lead) of the proposed List of questionable sciences article. -- Levine2112 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Questionable science would appear to vastly understate some of the entries. I'm leaning towards List of fields alleged to be pseudoscience and List of concepts alleged to be pseudoscience, even despite the problems inherent in the use of the word "pseudoscience". But with that said, I think that forking it into two lists makes some good sense. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis, you say, "Questionable science would appear to vastly understate some of the entries." Question: To whom would it appear to be this way? I ask this not to trick you, but more as a reminder not to confuse the situtation with our own POV. We can only distinguish between what is a Pseudoscience and what is a Questionable Science using reliable sources applied to WP:PSCI. The majority of the problem which occurs at this current article is when someone sees something included which they personally believe should be excluded or when someone sees something excluded which they personally believe should included. If we check our POV baggage at the door and rely on WP:V based on the criteria of WP:PSCI, we should be able to neutrally divide the list into items which are Pseudoscience (either obviously or by general consideration) and Questionable Science. -- Levine2112 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, if you're going to differentiate between List of questionable science(s) and List of pseudosciences, that makes sense as two separate lists. In addition, there need be a third list containing the concepts alleged to be pseudoscience, which would also reasonably give rise to a fourth list of questionable scientific concepts. Given the progress I've seen to date in working out POV disagreements in the current list (I'm not kidding--there has been discernible progress despite the current brouhaha), this approach would, I think, be very facilitative and more useful to readers than the current list. in some cases, I imagine we will see the possibility of some concepts, practices or fields on more than one list, depending on what the RS's are saying about that particular concept, practice or field. Yes, Levine, though I'm sure the arguments will inevitably continue, in general this split approach makes good sense to me. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we keep the two lists as described above but based on your input retitle them to be List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (the current name of this article! :-) and List of questionable sciences and scientific concepts? -- Levine2112 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This also makes sense. The words "questionable science and questionable scientific concepts" are self standing. For pseudoscience, speaking just for myself, the qualification "putative pseudoscience and pseudoscientific concepts" more accurately captures the jist than qualifiers such as "alleged", "asserted" and other such adjectives that've been floated above. I do recognize "putative" would be a virtually impossible sell. So, what you likely end up with is, as you say, List of pseudoscience and pseudoscientific concepts with largely the same POV battles as before w.r.t. that list, with a safety valve of sorts to shunt a number of entries off to "questionable science". Nonetheless, IMO it's an improvement in categorization. Anybody else? ... Kenosis (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. •Jim62sch• 00:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This solution will reduce the amount of controversy. MaxPont (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. This would generate even more argument, over which list each topic belongs to. What is needed is a single list, with a single inclusion criterion. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the dividing and conquering of this article. Verbal chat 20:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per WP:POVFORK. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. So, what does one do with concepts and fields that are in the "grey" area that falls short of "clearly pseudoscience"? It's not a POV fork to list "questionable science" separately, but rather is quite arguably an extremely reasonable content fork. "Questionable science" has already been defined here. As I think most everybody here knows, WP:PSCI lays out a four-tier assessment, in which the first two appear to belong in the present list. Stuff that's in the grey area might reasonably belong both in a list of pseudosciences as well as in a list of questionable sciences. New entries would likely appear in a list of questionable science that do not meet the threshold for inclusion in the list of pseudosciences. Same old POV battles about what should be on the pseudoscience list, but at least it would be an opportunity to acknowledge that questionable science isn't the same as obvious pseudoscience. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tentatively support, per my thoughts just above. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose divide and conquer proposal. This is just another way of watering down the subject and would be a POV fork. I agree with SNALWIBMA that we need a single list with a single (and broad) inclusion criterion. That will stop most of the edit warring. A narrow inclusion criterion will always cause problems. The single criterion is that it must be cited from a V & RS. Any other criterion (once already included) would (for the cases of clear PS) be partially governed by WP:PSCI. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, Fyslee, the threshold question hinges on whether there is one reliable source that calls something pseudoscience or pseudoscientific? One skeptical RS calls my work "pseudoscience", another RS calls it "a testable hypothesis that merits further empirical study and evaluation", and it still meets the inclusion criteria for "list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts"? ... Kenosis (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that way, but basically it's a matter of using the same rules here as anywhere else at Misplaced Pages, and that is that things must be sourced properly. Here a weird Twilight zone state of special sourcing rules have been developed that suspends the normal rules in favor of some special rules developed as a compromise because of incessant and persistent edit warring. Such a state should not exist. A local consensus cannot override the consensus that has established our sourcing policies. The same rules apply everywhere at Misplaced Pages.

While notability is a requirement for creating an article, it is not a requirement for content within the article, IOW a reference doesn't have to be from a notable source, but still must come from a V & RS. A list is a special situation, as each item can be considered a mini-article, and the references used should have the same criteria for acceptance as they would in the subject's article. Why do I mention this? Because there are editors here who for ages now (years!) have tried desperately to keep out anything but official statements from scientific academies, well knowing that scientific academies rarely give pseudoscience the time of day and just ignore them without comment. Such comments are very rare. This is no proof that those PS subjects aren't bald-faced PS BS, but the sources that always do call them what they really are have been edit warred to death to keep them out. Those are skeptical sources, which are completely allied with mainstream science, consist of scientists and medical professionals, and in every way are legitimate sources for making declarations about the PSness of things.

The situation you describe, where there are very different declarations (I assume from mainstream sources, since fringe sources only misuse the term PS as an illegitimate defense of their BS), if they are from numerous very strong and notable mainstream sources, likely indicate that the subject is a mainstream subject under debate, IOW a genuine "Questionable science" (QS) or "Alternative theoretical formulations". These are both mainstream objects of study, not alternative or fringe subjects.

According to PSCI, the QS one can be dealt with in this manner: "... but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."' We can thus (very) briefly describe the dispute, while linking to the main article, where the dispute should be described in more detail. This is something we actually do with all the subjects in the list.

I hope that answers your question. Since I'm speaking in hypotheticals based on a lack of information about the subject you allude to ("calls my work"), I'd like to know what your example is. -- Fyslee (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a hypothetical. As we both know from experience, numerous fields and concepts have had RSs weigh in on both sides when the demarcation problem rears its ugly head. Indeed AFAICT that's what the whole POV battle has been about. ... If, as proposed in the section immediately below, an appropriate adjective or adjectival clause ("putative", "asserted to be", "reputed", "characterized as" or whatever qualification is consensible among participants in this list) then it's conceivable the more inflammatory POV issues (all revolving around the question whether something is pseudoscience) might largely be rendered moot, or at least substantially reduced (by merit of referring to the list as essentially "things that have been asserted by RSs to be pseudoscience"). The latter approach has the effect of substantially reducing or removing the judgments of WP editors as to what actually is or isn't properly termed "pseudoscience", and instead focusing more directly on the judgments made by the RSs. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think that two lists are needed. Look at the warring on this one, then double it. I like the simple list below. --CrohnieGal 13:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should have all the pseudosciences together. Putting them into two articles concedes the right of pseudoscientist advocates to engage in eternal warfare over the classification of their pet pseudoscience. --TS 12:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple title

List of concepts characterized as pseudoscience
List of topics referred to as pseudoscience
List of subjects described as pseudoscientific
&c. Fyslee has suggested a number of similar titles (thank you for all your work on this dispute). If we are going to move the article, we might as well make the title slightly less unwieldy. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support first choice to PS and characterized PS, above. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I could get behind any of those, as they are NPOV, have the necessary qualifiers, and aren't too long. -- Fyslee (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think the qualifier qualifies all the items and so i support.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. "Characterized" is probably the best of the lot, "described" my next choice. hgilbert (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Defer to the broader consensus title above. See Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the same way that "List of people characterized as war criminals" would be a bad attempt to sidestep WP:BLP, these suggestions all strike me as equally bad ways to skirt around WP:PSCI (and hence WP:NPOV). -- Levine2112 02:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, as I have explained to you elsewhere on this page. If a V & RS says it, it doesn't violate BLP, and in this case with PS subjects, it won't skirt around PSCI and NPOV if we change the title. We will still comply with NPOV and PSCI. In fact you have agreed that the current title violates NPOV. As to PSCI, only obvious PS will be so labelled "by us" in the list. All other mentions will just be referenced mentions. PSCI does not forbid us from producing V & RS that declare a subject to be PS. It only forbids us, as editors, from doing so. In fact, if we do this with a neutral title in a neutral manner, we don't even divide things up into obvious PS or generally considered PS, but just list things alphabetically by topic and let the sources speak for themselves. Let the readers decide. Nothing in the title identifies or declares any of the subjects as obvious PS. The title only declares that the list consists of references that describe subjects as PS. It does not declare anything in the list to be PS, as our current title does. Neither Wikipeida or its editors are declaring anything on the list to be PS. We are staying out of it and letting the sources speak. Our job is to document the real world using V & RS, not to come with our declarations about the real world. -- Fyslee (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So essentially, according to you, we can put George W. Bush (and pretty much every modern U.S. President) on a list with Adolf Hitler without violating BLP. Okay, try to start List of people characterized as war criminals and populate it. See how long that article lasts before an AfD goes through. It will be deleted and salted before you have time to alphabetize the list. -- Levine2112 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I like List of concepts characterized as pseudoscience for the name. --CrohnieGal 13:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The two article solution is better. MaxPont (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. On reflection, this is better than the more complex "PS and concepts characterized as PS". This is simple, easy to understand, and should avoid the arguments. The bipartite title looks as if it is setting up a distinction between things that are PS and those that have merely been called PS, even if that isn't the intention. I like List of concepts characterized as pseudoscience. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support second choice, still not seeing what the NPOV problem with the current title is. Verbal chat 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. None of these titles can be called simple. In fact every single one of them is more wordy and ridiculously hedged than the current name. We should give the article a simple name that describes the content: List of pseudosciences. --TS 12:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The obvious title

List of pseudosciences

Let's give it the obvious and sensible name. All the other ones are just weaseling. --TS 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this as a general rule. We can explain in the lead that not every topic listed will be wholly pseudoscientific. For example, with the caveats regarding hypnosis which currently appear. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this view. The title is not biased if the content is reliably sourced and explained neutrally, with he content it has now. Verbal chat 16:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems very reasonable. As well, the title need not necessarily use the plural form. It's equally reasonable to use an abstract noun such as List of pseudoscience. This approach would have the benefit of requiring no additional explanation in order to incorporate, as the list already does, pseudoscientific concepts that aren't clearly definable as a "field" or "practice" that can be referred to with a concrete, countable noun such as "a pseudoscience". ... Kenosis (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article - support. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The only way this obvious title would work would be if we limited the inclusion criteria to Obvious Pseudoscience and Generally Considered Pseudoscience as defined by WP:PSCI. Essentially, our list is already titled "List of Pseudosciences" yet the article remains unstable. Therefore, maybe we shouldn't be spending so much time rethinking the title, but rather rethinking the inclusion criteria. And why not use WP:PSCI as our inclusion criteria? Seriously. It is part of a fundamental policy of Misplaced Pages. It is generally accepted by all. And best of all, it's already written for us. So really, is there any good reason not to use PSCI as our criteria for inclusion in this list? -- Levine2112 17:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  We should not have non-pseudoscience on this article. The fact that there may be some inappropriate entries (and I'm open to argument) does not mean we should mend the problem by renaming it to water down the meaning. Rather, we should make sure we have clear consensus, based on policy, for what it contains. --TS 17:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But this is the very problem which has been stated above in many different ways. The title may be obvious, but it quickly gets out of synch with the content when, for example, treatments endorsed by the medical establishment worldwide are included here on the say so of a magician. Landed little marsdon (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Llm and TS. TS, would you be opposed to defining the inclusion criteria of this article to be in accord with WP:PSCI? (Meaing that the only entries to this list should fit into the "Obvious Pseudoscience" or "Generally Considered Pseudosciences" definitions.) -- Levine2112 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - This makes as much sense as an article titled "List of crackpots". We could surely use verifiable sources to make a long list of the latter, but many would surely be disputed, and some simply false. Not every crackpot has been so labeled, and not everyone who has been labeled a crackpot is (or is always) one. Just so with pseudosciences. It is simply not a well-defined, or definable, group. hgilbert (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. But what about if we limited inclusion to just the criteria defined in WP:PSCI? IOW, the lead of this article would read something to the effect of:

This list contains concepts which are either obvious pseudosciences (theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus) or generally considered pseudoscience (theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community).

-- Levine2112 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support My first choice is List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific. The simpler title would be my second choice. We can start a RFC on these two choices to seek outside advise. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Most of the proposed titles are reasonable IMO. The problem appears to be in matching the content to the title, or vice-versa. A simple title such as this makes sense, but may require more stringent inclusion criteria. A title with a built-in caveat like "characterized as" or others proposed above does rather the opposite, matching the title to the present list with the present inclusion criteria. If there's ever to be a realistic possibility of attaining a new agreement that even remotely resembles a consensus, I think it would be useful to keep this question up front and try to decide whether the objective is to find a title to match the existing list, or to develop a list that matches the chosen title. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Kenosis. And as such, I ask what you think of my proposal below. -- Levine2112 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tally

Alright, the flood of comments seems to have died down on this particular issue. For present purposes, the multiplicity of options are somewhat condensed - I do not feel like enumerating the lack of consensus for the two-article solution, nor sorting through archived discussions of whether we really need a new title (List of pseudosciences is functionally equivalent to the present title). Support (2nd choice) is noted with if the second choice is the other major option. Please correct this list if I have mischaracterized anyone's position. There seems to be little support for major changes to the inclusion criteria, so I have interpreted support only if ... to mean oppose. All opinions are assumed to have been offered in good faith and to have retained relevance. Opinions expressed in other sections have not been tallied, though they should be included if anyone finds one. Adding yourself here is also acceptable.

List of pseudosciences and concepts characterized as pseudoscientific

Support: QuackGuru, Jim62sch, ImperfectlyInformed, Orangemarlin, Verbal, Snalwibma, ScienceApologist, Hgilbert

Oppose: Levine2112, Eldereft, Landed_little_marsdon, Fyslee, MaxPont, Crohnie, Tony_Sidaway

6+2 / 7

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Support: Eldereft, Fyslee, Landed_little_marsdon, Hgilbert, QuackGuru, Crohnie, Snalwibma, Verbal

Oppose: Levine2112, MaxPont, Tony_Sidaway

6+2 / 3

I would like to interpret this as a consensus to rename the article to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (or something similar). If there are no major objections, I will submit this to requested moves for further discussion in a few days. Perhaps after that we can request unprotection? - Eldereft (cont.) 02:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support for this rename (option 2). -- Fyslee (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Does a title categorize the content?

Here's a yes or no. Does inclusion in a "list of Xs" effectively categorize something as an X? I think yes.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (Copied from above by Fyslee as it's a related matter.)

I agree with LLM. Looking at it from the other direction, I think that a title (a) categorizes and (b) describes the content, and that it also establishes the basic (c) inclusion criteria. When content and title are not in agreement, one or the other must change so as to establish harmony between the two. A title must also (d) be NPOV. A loose title establishes broad inclusion criteria, while a very specific title establishes narrow inclusion criteria. In this case the narrow inclusion criteria allow a number of fringe POV pushers to keep their favorite PS delusion from being mentioned at all, in spite of the fact that those delusions are widely described as pseudoscientific by many V & RS, many quite notable. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -- Levine2112 06:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

According to what policy a title of an article is a category. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what is being asked here, but WP:CLS is the answer to your question. -- Levine2112 06:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Does a title categorize the content? Absolutely not. QuackGuru (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, see WP:CLS. Categories and lists on Misplaced Pages are different methods of doing the same thing - catergorizing. -- Levine2112 07:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Titles do not categorize. This list is not meant to be a categorical denigration of everything that appears on it as a pseudoscience. On that everyone agrees (I think). ScienceApologist (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely no agreement on that. Without qualifiers, the title is clearly and unequivocally declaring ALL the content unquestioned pseudoscience. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be clearer still, so I will ask again and clarify. We are not just asking a general question about whether titles of articles categorize or are categories. Instead we are talking about a very specific type of article (a list) with a very particular type of title (list of Xs). So, the question is: does including A in a list entitled "list of Xs" effectively categorize A as an X? I think it does. Landed little marsdon (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course. That's the nature of a list and why WP:CLS says that Lists and Categories are interchangeable - both exist as a matter of editor preference. -- Levine2112 23:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In maths, A would indeed be a subset of X. Hence the importance of a neutral title like that which QG and I prefer. •Jim62sch• 23:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that a "yes" Jim?Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In maths, yes. However, maths knows no nuances. •Jim62sch• 01:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't maths, so your comment doesn't answer the question. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And in this case, the non-maths case, do you think the subtle and complex nuances of the language which preclude a simple yes or on answer are primarily down to the word "list", the word "of" or the variable "X"? Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's neither of the first two, but it may well be both variables: x and a, or at least how we define them and include or exclude them. •Jim62sch• 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might say that. OK: for any A and any X, if A is included in a list called "List of Xs" then that effectively characterizes A as an X. Now, given your point about the variables creating nuance, you must think that particular As and Xs make a difference, and therefore you must think it false for at least some As or some Xs (otherwise they wouldn't make a difference), so I'll put you down as a "no" then. Landed little marsdon (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How about putting me down as a qualified "maybe"?  :) Subsets can have subsets too. If we list numbers, 1.7, 4, 77.6, 9, 7 and 11 all qualify; but if we list whole numbers, only 4, 9, 7 and 13 qualify; but, if we go further and specify primes only 7 and 11 qualify; and if we want to be really esoteric and go for Mersenne primes only 7 qualifies. Language, which is all we have to express the sub-issues in this debate, works the same irritatingly difficult way.  :) •Jim62sch• 20:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure you're not missing the point. Of course different sets will have different members and subsets will partly overlap, but the point here is simply about the relationship between the title of any particular list and its members. That is, does the title of any particular list determine and categorize its members? In the examples you gave, in any example I would argue, the answer is obviously yes - thats what allowed you to specify so easily what should be in each list. In any event it doesn't really matter at this stage since all this is about is trying to get a rough idea of the areas of disagreement. So far i think we have two yes's and one undecided since the guestion was further clarified. Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not missing a tick :) Nonetheless, in maths you would be correct, but maths is objective whereas language is not. So, while I really do understand what you're saying, I'd still, as a linguist, need to remain a qualified maybe. OK, I might lean toward yes, but it really depends on the clarity of the title and sauid title would need to both avoid and encompas nuances. Sorry to be so difficult (as I'm sure that that's how I seem in this case), but it's really not as simple a question as one might imagine. •Jim62sch• 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're being difficult, i just think you're confusing yourself and the issue by constantly bringing up maths examples which, when shown not to support your point, you claim only don't do so because they're maths. Then why bring them up? If you actually have an example using language where you would want to include something you would not characterize as an X on a list of Xs then I'd love to hear it.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not confused either. In linguistics, most morphology, syntax, grammar and even nuances can be reduced to maths terms.

Let's say that our list is "words". We can classify love as a noun. Also as a verb. (In rare cases, as in "love potion", it's an adjective) Which is it? Both? All three? We could get much more complicated, if I wished. •Jim62sch• 23:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the title does categorize the content. The name should be List of pseudosciences and it should consist largely of a list of pseudosciences (other items such as the list of former marginal theories now mainstream are also relevant).

The difficulty seems to me to be convincing advocates of various pseudosciences that their pet pseudoscience does belong here. Paradoxically, the presence of such advocates, and the absence of mainstream support, is a good sign that a field is in fact a pseudoscience. --TS 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

TS, I totally agree with you here, but I also want you to consider that there seems to be difficulty convincing adversaries of various disciplines/theories that their personal beliefs on a subject should not be factored into the inclusion criteria. Basically, the difficulty you speak of above cuts both ways. Even though per WP:PSCI we may not be able to call a certain discipline/theory a "pseudoscience", some editors' personal distaste for this discipline/theory seemingly dictates their mission for including said discipline/theory on this list. Make sense? -- Levine2112 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we have a "list of frauds" and then have disclaimers that not everything on the list has been proven to be a fraud. Any flaws with that? See Misplaced Pages:CG#Category_naming. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well put! -- Levine2112 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Preparing to start deletion process very soon

This has dragged on long enough. I'm considering beginning the deletion process soon. If we can't choose an NPOV title, one that allows readers the freedom to make up their own minds based on the sources, then this will forever be a battlefield, per my comments immediately above this section. With a better title, the actual content, LEAD, and inclusion criteria can indeed label and categorize some of the content as unquestioned PS, but the title shouldn't. That is totally unnecessary and a violation of NPOV. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd not think that deleting an article would delete the issue, so I don't see any benefit to an AfD. - Jim62sch 21:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The situation is that when the foundation of a house is faulty, there will always be problems with the house. Unlike with a physical house, we can change the foundation of this article quite easily. If we aren't willing to do it, we will be faced with continual disruption here. In that case we should start over with another foundation (an NPOV title) and build on it, using the same content we have now. We need a new foundation that will justify and support the current content. Right now there is a mismatch. Any title that includes a POV element that conclusively identifies content as unquestioned PS will always meet resistance from unreasonable editors, of which there are and will be any number who will plagued the article. I have suggested a title that is immune from such attacks. -- Fyslee (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that. The titles you've suggested seem OK. •Jim62sch• 23:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For the nonce we need to reduce the choices, and the drama and shit-stirring instigated by an unamed editor/admin needs to stop. Then, we can get down to business. •Jim62sch• 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How can an editor become an admin whilst remaining unnamed? That doesn't make sense. --TS 12:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Parsing of WP:PSCI

I have previously parsed the ArbCom decision's four groupings, here reproduced above and commented below:

There is an obvious demarcation line that the ArbCom members seemed to recognize, and that is "who is supporting or criticizing what."

They made four groupings, and the first two are these:

• 1. Obvious pseudoscience
• 2. Generally considered pseudoscience

These are subjects that are recognized by the scientific mainstream as fringe/alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to mainstream science, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The ArbCom decision allows the scientific mainstream criticisms to be stated, IOW that the fringe/alternative believers are wrong, and that their position is pseudoscientific, all by the use of V & RS, and can (in addition) even be so characterized by editors at Misplaced Pages (by using the ] tag), or by labeling them as PS in articles. IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:

The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above:

• 3. Questionable science (IOW, things like psychoanalysis, which is considered mainstream and is specifically addressed by the ArbCom, and would not be allowed to be categorized as PS, but could be mentioned).
• 4. Alternative theoretical formulations ("are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process," IOW also considered mainstream, and would not be allowed in this list. "Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation.")

They are mainstream ideas that may or may not be firmly entrenched, but are somewhat trusted or still being researched by mainstream scientists in a legitimate manner. They may actually be experimental. No matter what, they are not considered fringe or alternative medicine ideas. They are sometimes accused by the fringe side as pseudoscientific (in true pseudoskeptical style - see Carroll), and the ArbCom decision forbids the fringe editors here from categorizing those mainstream ideas as pseudoscientific. Again, the ArbCom decision is supporting mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:

I think this parsing is accurate and makes sense of what is confusing to some editors. The ArbCom members are not addressing the use of V & RS in lists and articles, and they would hardly be expected to disallow V & RS, but they certainly would set limits on what certain fringe/alternative editors have occasionally tried to do - editorially calling mainstream ideas pseudoscientific. The ArbCom members support mainstream science and set limits on how far fringe editors can go in (mis)using Misplaced Pages categories.

Changing the title of this list would greatly help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by NPOV and sourcing inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a List of subjects referred to as pseudoscientific. That would be the primary inclusion criteria (IOW what was "on-topic"), and would allow well-sourced criticisms by scientific academies, various organizations, and even notable individuals who are quoted in V & RS.

At the same time the ArbCom decision would disallow the disruptive POINT violations of pseudoskeptics who attempt to include more-or-less mainstream ideas in this list (such as vaccinations, antibiotics, etc., as has happened). Such sabotage attempts would not be allowed. Those who are still acting in a protectionist mode will of course attempt to retain a narrow-inclusion-criteria title "List of pseudosciences....", since that will allow them to keep their widely criticized pet ideas out of this list. That's unwikipedian and such attempts should be defeated. It limits the list by disallowing many very notable opinions in V & RS.

Other sabotage attempts have been attempted by slurring the distinction between groups 2 and 3, IOW when fringe supporters attempt to claim that alternative medicine concepts that are "Generally considered pseudoscience" by the mainstream are really considered "Questionable science" (by fringe supporters), merely because they have a "following" (or even a "substantial following"...duh!), or because fringe supporters believe that such methods (by using crystal ball thinking) might someday be proven or accepted by the mainstream. Such slurring should be rebuffed. Only when such PS concepts actually have been scientifically proven do they become mainstream. It has to be an unquestioned historical reality (IOW V & RS) that such a transition has occurred. Read Marcia Angell on the subject, where she (ultra mainstream) makes a clear difference between groups 2 and 3. The ArbCom also makes that difference, and we as editors on this list need to do the same. No slurring should be allowed.

Fyslee (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Fyslee's take on #2 and #3 as he relies less on parsing and more on interpretation. Here is the actual text from PSCI with my commentary below.

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.

I take this at face value. It says nothing about "alternative" nor "fringe" so we shouldn't make a generalization that all alternative/fringe ideas are definitionally pseudoscientific. If something is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community then there will be a preponderance of reliable sources saying so (hence "generally considered"). We shouldn't rely on Misplaced Pages editors' POV in any way, shape or form; that's where we historically always get into trouble. Present the sources - the more authoritative, the better - which verify that the theory is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community and there really can't be any argument for exclusion from the "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts".

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.

Again, I take this at face value. This says nothing about mainstream. It is possible for an alternative or fringe theory to have a substantial following too. Whether the theory be considered a mainstream or alternative one is irrelevant here. What is relevant here is that the theory has a substantial following and there are only "some" critics alleging it to be a pseudoscience. Present reliable sources which verify that the theory has a substantial following but is only alleged to be pseudoscience by some critics, and there there really can't be any argument for exclusion from the "List of questionable sciences and scientific concepts".

All we have to do is follow WP:PSCI to the letter, and we can't go wrong! :-) -- Levine2112 08:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

But that's what we've tried for years now and it hasn't worked. That's why we are here. A change of title will guarantee that we can preserve the current content pretty much unchanged and eliminate much of the edit warring. That single problem has been at the foundation of most of our problems here. Without a change of title, much of the content should be removed, or the whole thing deleted. Much of the content has been edit warred into the article, in spite of the title not justifying such inclusions. I believe those inclusions are good ones, and that changing the title will solve the problem. It will make the list cover the subject much more deeply and completely than is allowed by the current title with its narrow inclusion criteria. -- Fyslee (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and failing to meet NPOV is what we've tried for years. The solution is not to disregard NPOV and relax our inclusion criteria. This will only lead to a huge list filled with unhelpful entries with more and more WEIGHT, NPOV and RS disputes. Why? Because we are creating our own made-up inclusion criteria which will keep on getting changed to suit different editors' POVs of what this article should be. Some people will want to keep things such as Psychoanalyis, Evolution, and Vaccination out. Others will want to keep it in - and when these people present reliable sources that indeed verify that the subject has been characterized as a pseudoscience, the ones wanting exclusion of such obvious non-pseudosciences will have very shaky ground to stand on. So if you want an article where Psychanalysis is listed with Phrenology, where Evolution is listed with Intelligent Design, and where Vaccination is listed with Homeopathy, then by all means rename this article as you wish. However, if you'd rather have an list-article which could only present pseudosciences as per the general consensus of the scientific community and another article which could only present questionable sciences according to reliable sources, then I ask you to reconsider the "two article" solution and also to reconsider which solution is a better tool for a researcher to use to learn about what is an example of a pseudoscience according to the general scientific community. With your solution, the researcher will be presented with a huge list, most of which will just be assertions of pseudoscience but will actually be poor examples. With your solution, we would be reducing the term "pseudoscience" to its basest perjorative meaning where it is lodged at a discipline like a blunt instrument rather than used as proper scientific nomenclature. With your solution, inclusion criteria will be very loose and will be at the whim of any editor who wants to come along and change it. However, if we created two lists with inclusion criteria already rigidly worded and demarcated for us at WP:PSCI, then no one can argue it (short of changing the ArbCom ruling). With the two article solution, the pseudoscience list will not be a perjorative name-calling POV list, but rather a useful list of pseudosciences per the scientific community. In short, why do we keep trying to invent some new fangled way to transport a heavy load across open ground when we already have the wheel? :-) -- Levine2112 02:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Using WP:PSCI as the inclusion criteria

I move that we use WP:PSCI for the sole inclusion criteria of this article. In other words, we limit inclusion to the "List of Pseudosciences" to those concepts which are deemed "Obvious pseudoscience" or "Generally considered pseudoscience" as defined by WP:PSCI. The text for the Lead of this article would generally read as such:

This list contains concepts which are either obvious pseudosciences (theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus) or generally considered pseudoscience (theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community).

Short and sweet. And hard to argue with since this is a faithful summary of PSCI which is part of NPOV which is a pillar of Misplaced Pages's policies.

So, if you oppose limiting the inclusion criteria of the "List of Pseudosciences" to the very Misplaced Pages policy which tells us how to deal with pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages, then I'd appreciate an lucid explanation as to why. Thanks.

• Support. (duh!) :-) -- Levine2112 19:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose your interpertation of Misplaced Pages polciy. Your stringent inclusion criteria is against WP:PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is no interpretation here. I have quoted directly from PSCI. Perhaps you don't mean my "interpretation" of the policy but rather my "application" of the policy. Either way, please explain. -- Levine2112 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It's core policy covering this very issue therefore it should be non-negotiable. Landed little marsdon (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Taking the decision in a way it was not intended. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can you please expand on that please? What was the intention of the decision if not to be a way to handle, distinguish and classify pseuodosciences on Misplaced Pages? -- Levine2112 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Since psychoanalysis isn't on the list, Levine2112, the inference of your argument is that you want to extend that "category" to include concepts with far less scientific or mainstream support. If there are specific concepts currently on the list which you claim have similar levels of support, please provide examples for consideration. . dave souza, talk 22:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Er, this pretty much describes the current list, with the caveat that pseudoscientific aspects of otherwise legitimate or questionable concepts are included. If some version of this statement is added, we of course should omit the RfArb links. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I agree with Eldereft. This is a storm in a chocolate teacup. The title and content are fine. Verbal chat 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment for Dave Souza. I think the point is more about sources than about debates between editors here. That is, the PSCI criteria refer to general scientific consensus, for which there will either be mainstream scientific sources or there won't. If such sources exist then the entry will be added on that basis, but if no such sources exist then we will lack acceptable evidence of scientific consensus and the entry will be excluded. We can therefore conclude that under this proposal all current entries which lack mainstream scientific sources would be removed since those are the cases where we lack acceptable evidence that the scientific community regards them as PS. Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We're getting into a WP:FRINGE issue here. If "Theories" have no evidence of a substantial expert following within mainstream science, unlike psychoanalysis, and a large majority of available mainstream sources allege it to be pseudoscience, then it would be reasonable to characterize it as pseudoscience with a caveat as to any lack of overwhelming evidence that it is rejected by the scientific community, and an indication of any significant minority mainstream scientific support. Which is why I'd like to see examples, as nothing on the list at present jumps out as being unfairly characterised. . dave souza, talk 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to run now, but let's start with hypnosis. I'd say that according to the sources presented, hynosis itself is not generally regarded as a pseudoscience. So why is it included here? It seems so because hypnosis has roots in now discredited science and because it is used for some paranormal instances. Well, if that is the case, then why isn't psychoanalysis included here? It seems to fit the same mold. I am not advocating the inclusion of psychoanalysis , but rather the removal of hypnosis. If you want to include "Pastlife regression therapy" in this list or animal magnetism, it would probably be uncontested. But hypnosis in general? It doesn't seem right labeling the whole concept when only subsections and odd uses of it are pseudoscientific. There is some kooky forms of cancer treatment out there, but are we going to list "Cancer treatment" as a pseudoscience. I would hope not. -- Levine2112 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The entry currently states that "It is clinically useful for e.g. pain management, but some claimed uses of hypnosis outside of hypnotherapy clearly fall within the area of pseudoscience", so presumably your concerns would be met by changing the start of the paragraph to:

•Certain uses of hypnosis outside of hypnotherapy..." – anyone have thoughts on that approach? . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. This is the way to deal with subjects like chiropractic, where it would be improper to call the whole profession PS, but very proper to call parts of it PS. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See, I'd go the other way and say that we should only list the pseudoscientific children while not listing the non-pseudoscientific parent. It's kind of a "one-bad-apple-spoils-the-bunch" situation and I am sure if we looked at many, many other "parent" disciplines not listed here, we could find pseudoscientific "children". As such, I don't think we should be listing the parent discipline here, but rather only list the "children" as such:

• Past life regression is a claimed uses of hypnosis outside of hypnotherapy which clearly fall within the area of pseudoscience... blah, blah, blah, source, source, source.

What say you? -- Levine2112 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Dave, if there exists "a large majority of available mainstream sources alleg it to be pseudoscience" then it would go on the list no problem. Even one such source would probably do. The problem arises for those entries where no such scientific sources can be found. Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that for "theories" to attain the status of "questionable science" they also have to have a substantial following in the scientific community, so if they lack that a source such as a notable skeptical organization, or by notable academics or researchers, would be reasonably sufficient. Just because something's ignored by the scientific community doesn't mean that it's science, questionable or otherwise. . dave souza, talk 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The quality of sourcing would logically vary depending on the grouping listed in the PSCI. It would take extremely strong and notable sources to declare anything in group 4 ("alternative formulations") a PS, while it would only take a good skeptical source to declare anything in groups 1 & 2 a PS, simply because science ignores them. They exist, and are certainly PS, but only scientists who are active skeptics bother to comment on them, and thus such comments are legitmate if they are published in V & RS. Items clearly in group 3 ("Questionable science") can be mentioned as considered by some sources to be PS, but we, as editors, can't call them PS, according to the PSCI ruling. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose However, I'd like to choose 3 or 4 topics listed in the article and see why they should or shouldn't be included per the proposal by Levine (I think Levine proposed it, since he was the first support). Right now, I can't see how any of the topics listed currently shouldn't continue to be listed. OrangeMarlin 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • My guess is that the argument will be made that because some journal article said there was some evidence for a certain alternative medicine, then it must be "questionable science" or an "alternative idea" and not "pseudoscience". It's a really common argument when it comes to pseudoscience-promotion. "There's an article which says that my pet idea works published in the Journal of Obscurity and Unrelated Ideas! It MUST BE that there is ongoing controversy WITHIN the scientific community. The jury is still out. You CAN'T call it pseudoscience!" ScienceApologist (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I willing to posit that there are a few borderline cases where we can battle back and forth as to whether it's supported by reliable sources. For example, Martin used to argue that the Paranormal group belonged to the AAAC, so therefore, it wasn't pseudoscience. But, I'm still willing to see what Levine's logic is...I'll change my oppose if it makes sense. OrangeMarlin 01:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it helps to characterize others' arguments in that way. There are actually some fairly compelling arguments against inclusion which have been cited repeatedly without really being addressed. Foremost amongst these, IMO, is the complete lack of anything resembling a source capable of representing general scientific consensus for many of the entries on the list. Once such a source is cited some may fall back on the Journal of Obscurity to bolster their position, but at the moment there is no need to because the sources being used to support inclusion are guite a ways below even that lowly title. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that type of argument has been used here! It's not a hypothetical situation. Whatever the case may be, if there is significant disagreement among mainstream scientific sources, then we document the disagreement, as we should do per NPOV. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, this looks like setting a high bar for evidence that "questionable science" is regarded as pseudoscience while not requiring evidence that they have a substantial following in the scientific community. As Fyslee says, there's a good case for making any disagreement within mainstream science about the subject explicit, and I'd also say that the quality of sources should be indicated where there's reasonable doubt about them having high standing. . dave souza, talk 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I think you're overplaying the "inclusionist" hand. The fact is that many entries currently in the article are there on the say so of one non-scientific source alone. And this means a substantial following within the scientific community does not have to be demonstrated by those opposing inclusion because the minimum requirement has not been met by those wishing to include a topic - the minimum requirement being a sound scientific source saying "X is pseudoscience". The lack of such sources is one of the major points discussed above. The point being that to include something in the list on nothing more than the say so of one non scientist is setting the bar for inclusion far too low given the definitiveness of the title. Thus some have argued that the title should be changed to align it with the low bar inclusion criteria, while others have argued that the title should stay the same and the article be aligned by rejecting all the entries not sourced to solid scientific sources. Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop writing in generalities and give a specific example of a problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This section is about inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria for a list apply to any potential member of that list and thereore a discussion of such criteria will always be general with regard to any particular potential member. I simply don't see any benefit in going off topic and arguing the toss about particular entries. My point here is about the inadequacy of some of the current sources per the current title and per PSCI, and about why it is wrong to describe the debate as mainstream science sources versus the "journal of the obscure", when many of the sources currently used in the article are not mainstream science at all and are clearly not up to scratch per the current title and per PSCI.Landed little marsdon (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have any specific objections or suggestions, then there is no reason to entertain this line of inquiry any further since it is not helping actual content of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine anything having a more direct and far-reaching impact on the content of a list than its inclusion criteria. I therefore think there is much to be gained by following this line of inquiry. Landed little marsdon (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Suit yourself. However, no one is going to pay attention to someone who refuses to discuss actual article content. Eventually, you may find your contributions removed as a violation of WP:TALK. Fair warning. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't understand how discussing inclusion criteria is very much discussing article content then I can't help you. I would also point out that many here seem to understand this point quite well and have been discussing this important point in some detail. I therefore don't think that threatening to remove clearly relevant talk page discussions is either appropriate or helpful. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you have not been forthcoming with offering specific examples of content changes you would like to offer. The relevancy to article content of your continuing refusal to do so is weak at best. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the overall basis for determining article content in a section devoted to that very question. The points I have made have been specifically on that point. If you do not want to discuss that point but would rather debate the merits of particular entries seperate from the question of how inclusion criteria would affect them, then you are free to start a new section on those entries and make whatever points you want to make about them there. I happen to think that this attempt to develop the general principles for inclusion is important enough to warrant discussion free from distracting arguments about particular entries.Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad you agree that you have no objections to any of the included material at this list. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

At no stage did I say that and it is hard to believe that you genuinely think I did (please see WP:TALK about the care that should be taken not to mischaracterize others). Anyway, by way of clarification; there are in fact a number of entries that are, IMO, quite ludicrous. However, I think these are better handled by getting at the source (pun intended) of the problem, rather than by laboriously arguing the toss on a case by case basis. I also happen to think that sources trump personal opinion, and so it is far more appropriate to resolve the general principle of the inclusion criteria rather than to quibble about particulars that would be resolved automatically by tightening up those criteria. Landed little marsdon (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As others have advised me that conversations with you are pointless, I will cease for the time-being. I think you're not going to get your way. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Its an elegant solution. MaxPont (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support as second choice. It's internally consistent (and lines up with the pseudoscience category on WP), but I would prefer Fyslee's renaming idea and then putting big asterisks and annotations next to the non-obvious examples. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory

This newly created article, previously a redirect to the deleted BLP Myron Evans, was formerly on the list of pseudoscientific theories here. I have classified the article as "fringe science", although it was previously marked by consensus with a "pseudoscientific concept" template. If any other editor wishes to classify the article as such and re-add it to the list, I have no objection. Mathsci (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like pseudoscience to me (well, it is). I realise that GUT or a TOE is desired by all physicists, but we're not there yet. Gravity keeps proving to be a real bugger. •Jim62sch• 22:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Balancing Quackwatch, CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer

Earlier, Backin72 tried to balance some of the Quackwatchish sources with scientific sources - statements from the NIH and WHO - on traditional Chinese medicine . He was continually reverted by QuackGuru. His references need to be added back in. We can't portray a misleading picture of a subject based entirely upon the extremist and less reliable sources listed in my subject title. II | (t - c) 02:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Those sources are not directly relevant to the topic of pseudoscience unless we decide to take a novel synthesis. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

II is absolutely right. These are diplomatic consensus statements by the most RS there is. MaxPont (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article about "diplomatic consensus statements". ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but it is an encyclopedia based on NPOV. The article itself says "inclusion does not necessarily indicate that any given entry is in fact pseudoscience." Readers will want to know why, cf. WP:WEIGHT and WP:PARITY. Including WHO and NIH as balance to CSICOP is a little bit like balancing an ant with an elephant. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

. Lists are nice because we can annotate the entries. All the sources are, as MaxPont correctly notes, top-notch. (QG had earlier noted that the NIH source is from 1997, and would be inappropriate if we were using it to discuss the evidence base. But for what it's cited for, it's still up to date.) --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine

Our coverage of this pseudoscientific subject seems unbalanced by advocacy. To say that Chinese Medicine is regarded as pseudoscience merely by CSI or some skeptical advocacy group is to grossly misrepresent it. Chinese Medicine is fundamentally pseudoscientific, depending on the existence of all kinds of fanciful forces and relations between the organs. The remedies are quite often toxic, where they are not completely useless. If there ever was a blatant pseudoscience, Chinese Medicine is it. Our articles on the subject should not contain weaseling intended to misrepresent the fact that Chinese Medicine is almost universally regarded as mumbo-jumbo. --TS 12:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland warns GPs - Pulse, August 7, 2008
• Chinese Medicine is Not Science(1) - eeo, February 7, 2007
• 'Quack' degrees will damage our university say academics - The Times, September 4, 2008

(Note: none of these meet WP:MEDRS for what majority of scientists think.) --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There might be some traditional Chinese medicine that has been incorporated into Medicine, but that's done through a scientific analysis of it. But then again, I'm just a shill for Big Pharm. OrangeMarlin 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. Verbal chat 10:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is a useful example of #Parsing of WP:PSCI when used to argue that items should be excluded from this list if there isn't a top quality source describing them as pseudoscience, when the items fail to meet the standard set for Questionable science of having "a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis". Arguably Chinese medicine has a huge following outside scientific medicine, but these criteria are to do with pseudoscience and science, and WP:WEIGHT is clear that the reference should be to expert opinion in the field of science. It also illustrates the curate's egg problem of some items on the list – they may be good in parts, and we have to make that clear in the entries, but that should not exclude them from this list. . dave souza, talk 11:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that degree courses were (are?) being offered suggests a level of support that muddies the water sufficiently to make inclusion problematic. And that's only using the negative sources provided above. Prima facie, then, this seems to clearly meet the criteria for questionable science. It certainly shows that TS's analysis "that Chinese Medicine is almost universally regarded as mumbo-jumbo" is completely mistaken. Landed little marsdon (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, there are degree courses in Homeopathy (although some universities have started to close these now) and that doesn't mean homeopathy can't be called pseudoscience here. The use of refs supporting the placement in this list is entirely appropriate. I fully agree with Dave and OM here. WP:PSCI does not support LLMs contention. Verbal chat 12:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I made the same observation as User:Landed little marsdon when I inspected the sources and so endorse his point. Note also that the second source provided is a personal opinion which is explicitly disavowed by the publisher and so is a poor source. Furthermore, TCM is quite a broad and general category comparable to Western medicine and so contains numerous different therapies which will vary in effectiveness, usage and so forth. It seems to be officially supported by the Chinese Ministry of Health under whose auspices it is used to treat hundreds of millions of patients each year. It is questionable but the same can be said of Western medicine which is widely questioned too. Since any and all forms of medicine are routinely questioned, selecting particular forms for derogatory treatment here demonstrates the non-NPOV nature of this list which seems quite synthetic and so inappropriate as an article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Verbal, are you rejecting PSCI and saying you don't care whether something has a significant following or not? Or are you saying that degree courses do not demonstrate a following?Landed little marsdon (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The "degree courses are offered, so it's not pseudoscience" argument is unsustainable because that isn't the definition of science. There are undoubtedly going to be some degree subjects on any pseudoscience list. There are undoubtedly going to be lots of subjects with immense followings on any pseudoscience list (and if WP:PSCI says otherwise it is wrong). --TS 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't my argument. My argument is that according to PSCI, topics with a substantial following in the scientific community (in this case the medical community) should not be categorized as pseudoscience even if some people have described them as such. And the existence of numerous degree courses is clearly suggestive of such a following. Please also note that I don't have to show that that following is correct, I only have to show that it exists.Landed little marsdon (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence the curate's egg issue. If there are aspects incorporated into medical science, we say so. As for "the existence of numerous degree courses", whether that can be counted as "a substantial following" comparable to psychoanalysis, that's a matter requiring evidence. dave souza, talk 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no substantial following for Chinese Medicine in any part of the scientific community. Insofar as there is medical support, it is not scientific. The principles of Chinese Medicine are explicitly pseudoscientific. And again, the existence of university courses does not make something a science nor does it amount to a substantial following. --TS 14:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you be so sure? It sounds to me like you have already made your mind up and are not interested in any evidence to the contrary. What would you accept as demonstrating a substantial following?Landed little marsdon (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We have WP:RS, that's all that's needed. The discussion about degrees is irrelevant. You are also misinterpreting PSCI. I fully agree with Dave. Verbal chat 15:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am interpreting PSCI in exactly the same way as Dave, and a major part of that interpretation is that topics with a substantial following should not be characterized as pseudoscience even if some sources so describe it. You therefore need more than just an WP:RS, you need the absence of a substantial following. The degree courses are not a clincher in this respect but they go some way towards demonstrating a substantial following. Landed little marsdon (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

<ri> Two things – "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." The question remains as to whether the following is as substantial as the scientific following of psychoanalysis, which requires reliable sources and not bald assertion. Secondly, where aspects of the "theory" are clearly pseudoscientific, we can identify these aspects without characterising the "theory" as a whole as pseudoscience. As in the case of hypnotism. . dave souza, talk 17:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of having a substantial following; what kind of thing would you like a source to say before you would accept that something has a substantial following? Also please note that when I say that numerous degree courses is suggestive of a substantial following, I am not merely making a "bald assertion", I am citing evidence (the courses) in support of my claim. A bald assertion is what you are making when you baldly assert that hypnotism shall be included.

Landed little marsdon (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How does having some university courses make Chinese Medicine somehow not a pseudoscience? Could you please explain this? --TS 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that there are a number of university courses in creationism and astrology, I would also appreciate an explanation. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a course on Astrology when I was in college, offered through the Astronomy department. It's sole purpose was to debunk astrology. Who knows what these course actually offer, including debunking the non-science stuff. Besides, there's a huge pushback on offering these crap courses in medical schools. The realization that they don't help patients was enough. OrangeMarlin 22:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not my point as I explained above. My point is: degree courses run by the medical/scientific establishment are indicative of support within that establishment. And, given that PSCI says that where there is a substantial following topics should not be characterized as pseudoscience, the following, demonstrated by the courses, means that this topic should not be so characterized. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Since there are no degree courses run by the medical/scientific establishment which take these ideas seriously scientifically, there is therefore no support in the establishment and there is no substantial following. Therefore we rightly characterize the subject as pseudoscience, demonstrated by the fact that none of the courses offered by the mainstream treat these ideas as legitimately scientific. Meaning that this topic is appropriately categorized! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Two points: courses do exist in fairly high numbers according to the cited source. And, courses are not a necessary condition of a substantial following and therefore it doesn't mean such a following wouldn't exist even if no courses existed. FWIW, the fallacy you have committed is called the fallacy of Denying the antecedent. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the fallacy you have committed is an argument from ignorance. Cheers. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to get back to the question. Since Chinese Medicine makes all kinds of claims that are not scientifically verified but, if true, would have testable, predictable, real world effects, it is de facto pseudoscience. What evidence do we have to counter that? --TS 20:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine of course still has a substantial following in China. This is not an American encyclopedia. Labeling Chinese Medicine as pseudoscience and defining it in terms of American standards might indicate an encyclopedia with an insular view of the world and of medicine The United States and even the West does not have the final say on what constitutes medicine. The POV of editors on whether this kind of medicine works or not can't be an issue, because that would be, well, POV.(olive (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

another very valid point.Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is this comment amazingly lacking in any basis in fact, it is one of the rudest things I've seen written at Misplaced Pages in a LONG time. The comment simply attests to an orientalists attitude that assumes the Chinese think that TCM is more scientific than Americans. The comment is, in fact, extremely culturally insensitive and offensive to people who are themselves Chinese. The Chinese medical scientists and most respected doctors in China are just as good as their American counterparts at recognizing the inherent pseudoscientific nature of various folk rememdy propagation. I suggest retracting it entirely. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh SA, that's not what I said at all. I didn't say the Chinese think anything, and no you're can't lay any "attitudes" on me.I merely place traditional medicine where it belongs in the hands of the country that uses it rather than in the hands of Americans. This is a comment about context. The context is "traditional" and "Chinese", not Western or American. In fact I am showing great respect for the tradition by assuming that we as Westerners may not be the best to judges something outside our experience. But just a short comment on what seemed to be an important point on context. (olive (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

That's a red herring. The statement of fact that Chinese Medicine is pseudoscience has nothing to do with America. It has to do with the unscientific nature of the disciplines gathered under that heading. --TS 20:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The conflation of "Chinese medicine" with "Tradiational Chinese medicine" seems to be the big problem here. In any case, Littleolive oil has told me on her talk page that she's not going to continue the conversation. I'm so surprised that people make such offensive characterizations of what is "traditional" and "Chinese" versus "Western" and "American" as though the bodies are fully indepedent. Her use of "Westerners" and "judges" seals the deal that this is a characterization of rational thought being a peculiarly "Western" idea: culturally insensitivy to the extreme! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinese medicine is many thousands of years old. Maybe they didn't have microscopes and current scientific methodologies, but I am sure they did have some ways of determining which herbs/methods work for what. Is traditional Chinese agriculture a pseudoscience, or did it feed hundreds of millions of people through centuries without bringing soil to nutritional depletion after only a few decades (unlike the current methods used in China). Is Thomas Edison a pseudo scientist because he was using a trial and error approach? I would welcome here an input from a Chinese speaking person who may be able to provide sources to whether Chinese consider TCM a pseudoscience. I would also welcome here some reference as to number of Chinese people subjecting themselves to TCM. I would also welcome here a reference to a number of USA doctors recommending to their patients to also try some TCM methods. TCM includes many things, and labeling all of them collectively as pseudoscience would require extensive referencing. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC) u

Would you prefer someone who speaks Mandarin or Cantonese? I know a little of both and have plenty of Chinese colleagues who will gladly let you know what they think of the way TCM is currently being applied. This is NOT an article on TCM. If you want to know about prevalence, US references, etc. the place to do that is at the article about the subject. Otherwise, this is a non-starter. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer a Chinese (speaking) person, and not about their personal opinions, but about Chinese sources they could provide. My comment was a reply to the first comment in this thread, and therefore references which could be provided by that commenter would be helpful. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for sources, you could probably have just said that and left out the majority of the unhelpful rhetoric. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That "rhetoric" gives a context for asking extensive sourcing for a claim that Chinese consider TCM a pseudoscience. If all rhetorics was excluded from this thread, including yours, this whole thread would have only few sentences. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A start. Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrible source. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Landed little marsdon (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC).

Well done. You've found the pseudoscience school. What's that supposed to prove? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Astrology is millennia old, too: so what. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The first ref to the independent gets tossed because it's so conditional as to be meaningless. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the next two, the Brits also acknowledge homeopathy. But, they used to paint themselves with woad and dance around trees too. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

LLM has not provided a single reliable source for his arguments. About the only thing that might qualify as interesting is the fact that acupuncture does work for certain types of pain, and that's it. There are SOME reliable sources that are under debate right now, so the jury, so to speak, is still out. LLM, try pubmed if you want to make a point. Otherwise, you're arguments are pushing the limits of rational discussion. OrangeMarlin 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TS didn't provide any RS's either for his far-reaching assertion "that Chinese Medicine is almost universally regarded as mumbo-jumbo". He said that sources went far beyond CSI and skeptic groups, and then went on to cite a few more individual opinions. Thanks TS for sharing your view, but it doesn't look like you've backed it up with sufficient RS's. We need more than "truthiness" and OR to classify topics. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a good general source for the kind of information we need here: the WHO report]. After reading the section on China (p. 148, i.e. p. 158 of the PDF file) I think it's quite likely that this falls under the "substantial following" clause. In particular: " 95% of general hospitals have units for traditional medicine and 50% of rural doctors are able to provide both traditional and allopathic medicine." "There are 170 research institutions across the country with perhaps the most prestigious being the Academy of Traditional Medicine in Beijing." --Hans Adler (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, WHO is hardly reliable. It's a governmental body that really doesn't have science in its focus as much as it should. And I don't give a crap how many people use an idiotic idea, science doesn't magically appear just because a certain number of people believe in it. And by the way, have no clue what allopathic medicine is???? Must be some pejorative word used by CAMmies. OrangeMarlin 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

...WHO is hardly reliable. Please provide some reference for this. Or is it only your personal opinion? 212.200.243.116 (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that the WHO is about as reliable as it gets for the kind of statistics that I cited. Of course you are right that this doesn't imply TCM is scientific; it does, however, imply that you are likely to offend roughly 50 % of your Chinese colleagues if you call TCM pseudoscience, just like you offend a sizeable number of psychologists if you call psychoanalysis pseudoscience (which, of course, it is). As to "allopathic medicine", they define it for use in the document as "the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, scientific medicine, or modern medicine". --Hans Adler (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the WHO source, but it doesn't prove "substantial following". Sure 50% of doctors in rural China may believe in some forms of TCM, but I'd wager to guess that a substantial percentage of rural American biology teachers (some estimate up to one in three) believe in creationism. That does not make creationism any less pseudoscientific. Rural Chinese doctors are not reliable sources of demarcation. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about the Chinese scientists in this survey. I presume their views can be ignored as well. Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You really got your finger on the pulse of pseudoscience supporters, don't you Landed little marsdon? A cursory investigation into Michael Paton's career shows a certain avant-garde sensibility and peculiar attraction to TCM that can best be described as "pathological" in my book. Not only is this "survey" not peer-reviewed, he hasn't even gone through the normal process used in conducting such a thing. The questions and survey design he describes are all leading in a way to drive the respondent to the answers he desires: normal social science editors would reject the proposal on sight, but conference proceedings do not have such editorial oversight. Reminds me a lot a bit of ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And the source for your libelous attack on Michael Paton is... ? Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough. Landed little marsdon, can you please find some other article to work on for a few days? If you'd like, I'll make this a formal request, but hopefully an informal one will work? --Elonka 00:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. There is no evidence they were not educated in rural environments, and as we all know, rural mind is by far inferior to urban one. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Snarkiness aside, it is hard to see what this comment is supposed to do. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The BMA is the medical establishment, and so their recommendation that a form of TCM be more widely used shows exactly the kind of substantial following PSCI requires for something to be considered questionable science. That point is clearly conceded when racist slurs are offered instead of rational argument.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Astrology is followed by hundreds of millions. too. So? Hell, from a study I did 17 years ago I know that only 8.25% of Americans kniow how many times a year the sun earth goes round the sun. Just because the masses show utter ignorance doesn't make an alleged science correct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over what "substantial following" means here. It doesn't mean "a lot of people use it." The question is whether there is substantial agreement in the scientific community that it qualifies as science at all. In the case of Chinese Medicine, there is almost nobody within the scientific community saying that it's anything other than a collection of traditional practices, some of which may have some value, none of which are scientific, and few of which have ever been rigorously tested. That's pseudoscience.

The BMA saying this or that therapy may be of some clinical use is neither here nor there. It isn't science. --TS 05:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" as a necessary criterion for characterizing. TS has strongly expressed his opinion, but hasn't provided any RS's for Chinese medicine being "generally considered pseudo". (Same for chiropractic.) As for "substantial following", I presume this refers to both doctors and scientists. Research is active in acupuncture (according to Ernst), and globally it certainly has a substantial following. In the West, I've seen numbers on the order of 5% of people who have received acupuncture (need to dig up source). Additionally, a majority of US docs said acu was useful as a complementary (as opposed to "alternative") therapy. Between the above and WHO's practice guidelines, significant following is established. --Bodhi Agonist (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A "collection of traditional practices, some of which may have some value, none of which are scientific, and few of which have ever been rigorously tested". Is that your working definition of pseudoscience? Then quite obviously it's defective. Otherwise almost every traditional cultural practice is a pseudoscience. Why is someone in Africa who builds a traditional clay house not a pseudoscientist? Were the builders of Gothic cathedrals pseudoscientists? How about bookbinding? Would the missing criterion happen to be "is a medical practice"? Or "is being used in the West by the wrong kind of people, those who also love pseudoscience"? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The personal definition that anyone has for pseudoscience is irrelevant. The most reliable sources indicate that it is pseudoscientific. That's good enough for inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that picking holes in personal definitions gets us nowhere. If an African village architect stated that the house would fall down unless he hung a tribal fetish in the roof, that would be pseudoscience. If medieval architects claimed that the cathedral would fall down unless the archbishop walked around the grounds with a procession to drive away the devil, that would be pseudoscience. If practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine claim that eating bits of a seahorse cures male impotence, that's pseudoscience. --TS 16:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the word pseudo-science, as its components indicate, means something which has pretensions of being scientific. See the OED, which has the entries, "As a count noun: a spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth. As a mass noun: spurious or pretended science; study or research that is claimed as scientific but is not generally accepted as such. Chiefly derogatory.". So, an essential ingredient in pseudoscience is what you might call men in white coats - some show of the appurtenances of science. Witch doctors and priests obviously don't qualify as their stuff is magic, religion, faith and the like. Better candidates are management consultants, toothpaste salesmen and economists who like to dress their pitches with statistics and scientific language to make them more plausible. Since TCM is explicitly based upon tradition rather than science of the modern kind, it seems to be more the former than the latter. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my point. And I think the fact that this kind of confusion ("pseudoscience" as a catch-all term for everything fishy, including voodoo) seems to be so widespread is one of the reasons for the high demands for using the term that are set in WP:PSCI. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as with "quackery", the important thing to focus on is not the idea or practice itself, but on the claims made for it. Building cathedrals isn't PS, but making PS claims regarding them and their construction is PS. Different people can make differing statements about building a cathedral, or about spinal manipulation, or any other idea. They could then be divided up into all four of the PSCI groupings. Some claims would be mainstream and accepted science (group 4), while others would be clear nonsense (group 1), and the others would cover the span in between. It's all about the claims. We should focus on them. List the claims that V & RS have described as PS claims.

An important thing to consider is that (as mentioned above) the pretense to be scientific is essential for an idea to be considered PS, but it doesn't have to be conscious or overt pretense. The word "science" doesn't have to be present at all. Simply making a claim that is scientifically testable, IOW falsifiable, places the claim within the bullseye target zone for potential accusations of being PS. If it's not falsifiable (AND doesn't make overt pretense to be scientific), it's more likely religious or metaphysical. Where religious and metaphysical ideas become vulnerable to PS accusations, is when they make overt claims to be scientific, and/or make falsifiable claims. One or the other is enough to qualify. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fyslee about this, but I think it is a side issue. The criteria for inclusion are made clear in the article. I think TSs definition was too broad, but equally LLMs and CWs were both far too restrictive. The criteria in the article seem to be correct. Aspects of TCM are rightfully included. Verbal chat 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though I find the terminology in TCM hard to accept (wind, earth, liver, etc.) it might very well be the case that they have over time discovered empirical regularities that are valid. Compare that to the rituals used by traditional Japanese swords makers. Most of them are perfectly consistent with metallurgy. (BTW, I think that traditional Japanese swords making should be included in the list.) MaxPont (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have similar feelings about a lot Chinese terminology such as "energy". But I think it's mostly the fault of the tradition of translating the Chinese terms rather than taking the original Chinese words as technical terms. I am sure some established Greek or Latin terminology would sound equally ridiculous when translated into English words of Germanic origin. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Marxism as a pseudoscience

Classical "scientific" Marxism should probably be added to the list. I think that Karl Popper can be used as a reference for that. I also don't understand why psychoanalysis (the other example used by Popper) is not included in the list. MaxPont (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle. One of the advantages of this list over a category is that we can qualify inclusion in some way. (However I think we are not doing it in a satisfactory way, and I am not sure what would be a satisfactory way. This problem will become more obvious with the inclusion of psychoanalysis.) --Hans Adler (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a "problem". If reliable sources describe "Classical "scientific" Marxism" as pseudoscience, and it has no significant following in mainstream science in the way that psychoanalysis has, then it's clearly suitable for a list of pseudoscience. If it's "questionable science" by our definition but in part is clearly pseudoscientific, then it can be shown on this list in a way that makes that clear. A caution about Popper, his descriptions tend to be thought experiments which can be rather easily taken out of context, as shown by quote mining of his thoughts on evolution. . dave souza, talk 09:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't read MaxPont's statement very clearly and didn't write very clearly. I agree with including both, and the "problem" was meant to refer to the inclusion of psychoanalysis. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we can't include psychoanalysis. See new section below. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSCI applies to this list

WP:PSCI applies to this list.Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Pointelss survey. PSCI applies everywhere, but is consistently and constantly being misused by you and, without exception, the people you are supporting. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• We don't need no steenkeen polls This is silly. OrangeMarlin 03:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Having seen the evident confusion on this talk page over what "WP:PSCI" implies, I don't think answering "yes" here would send the right signal. Obvious, blatant pseudoscience such as Chinese Medicine should remain here. Misinterpretations of past arbitration committee rulings are unfortunate if they mislead some people into believing that this may be in question. --TS 04:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Not in the way that some think. Pointless. Verbal chat 09:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Without a doubt. PSCI applies to any article dealing with pseudoscience, so of course it applies here. -- Levine2112 09:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Of course, but it's not the only thing that applies, and it only applies partially. -- Fyslee (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of psychoanalysis

According to PSCI (see top of page), we can include psychoanalysis:

• "... such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."

The list "may contain information to that effect," so we can include sources that claim it is a pseudoscience. It is a mainstream subject with little (but some) criticism as being PS, and we mustn't characterize (categorize) it as such, especially at other articles. We already have the sources we need at the psychoanalysis article's "criticism" section. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of the non-neutral-title-versus-the-inclusion-criteria, we can and do include several questionable sciences (rather than pseudosciences) in this list. As psychoanalysis is considered a "questionable science" per the definition given by WP:PSCI, then you are absolutely correct; we can include psychoanalysis on this list.

However, if we were to limit this list's criteria to just "Generally considered pseudoscience" and "Obvious pseudoscience", then psychoanalysis should not be included in this list. Also of consenquence, changing the criteria to just "Generally considered pseudoscience" and "Obvious pseudoscience" would solve the non-neutral-title-versus-the-inclusion-criteria issue. -- Levine2112 05:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is not "pseudoscience", though it may be mistaken science. The part that is not falsifiable according to Popper is more philosophy than scientific claim. The ego, id, superego trichotomy is influenced by Plato's desires, intellect, and spiritedness. If we include the trichotomy as "pseudoscience" we might as well put Platonism as one, which is surely not. Wandering Courier (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WC, I understand your reasoning, but that's not the issue here. We aren't determining if something is or is not pseudoscience, but if V & RS have claimed it is. In this case, PSCI specifically states that the list "may contain information to that effect," (that "some critics allege to be pseudoscience."). -- Fyslee (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.

1. "It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. There cannot be two kinds of medicine -- conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence. Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional treatments."
   Angell M, Kassirer JP (1998). "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies" (PDF). N. Engl. J. Med. 339 (12): 839–41. doi:10.1056/NEJM199809173391210. PMID 9738094. Retrieved 2007-12-28.
2. "More than half of the physicians (59%) believed that acupuncture can be effective to some extent." Physicians Divided on Impact of CAM on U.S. Health Care; Aromatherapy Fares Poorly; Acupuncture Touted. HCD Research, 9 Sept. 2005. convenience links: Business Wire, 2005; AAMA, 2005. Link to internet archive version: Cumulative Report

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed 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
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles