Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 17 March 2024 (→Falsifiability in lead: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, April 14 2009, see discussion. Speedy keep, February 1 2007, see discussion. Speedy keep, January 31 2007, see discussion.

This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Paranormal High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Creationism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism 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.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Scientology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. 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. 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. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. ] The anchor (#Weak-form efficiency) has been deleted by other users before. ] The anchor (#Bucailleism) has been deleted by other users before. ] The anchor (#Consumption and television) has been deleted. ] The anchor (Criticism) has been deleted. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Restored "unwarranted"

@JeffSpaceman and Hob Gadling:

Discussed at User talk:Hob Gadling#"Unwarranted". Should be held here. - DVdm (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

My comments on the matter can be found in my edit summaries, but I will recapitulate -- stating that the doubt is unwarranted is unnecessary. Given that the name of this page is topics characterized as pseudoscience, and the other forms of denialism (i.e., Germ theory denialism, Holocaust denial) discussed here do not have that description attached to them, I don't see why "unwarranted" is a necessary description. The fact that the doubt is unwarranted is proven by the description of the article name. "Unwarranted" just seems extraneous. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Subjective?

The climate change denial thing feels subjective, yes, the climate has changed over the billions of years, but when the earth cooled down rapidly 3.8 billion years ago, why can't it warm up again? 82.168.190.109 (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

How is skepticism a (pseudo-)science?

Please remove 'GMO skepticism' from the list. Skepticism of a theory does not qualify as a science, so it cannot possibly pose as one.

Thanks in advance! 2A01:C22:AC2F:F900:2805:68CE:2EB3:10CA (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Skepticism is a not a pseudo-science. For the reason why GMO skepticism is —and likely will remain— on the list, see Genetically modified food controversies. - DVdm (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Entire article in need of an overhaul?

Visitors to this page have devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to arguing whether individual entries on this enormous list belong there, and sometimes to whether or not a single word should stay or go. But since the basic premise of the whole article is so flawed as to render it both useless and embarrassing, does it really matter what is or isn't included?

Most dictionaries (including Misplaced Pages) define pseudoscience as that which wrongly claims to be science. Therefore concepts such as exorcism or faith healing are not pseudoscience because they aren't any kind of science and never claimed to be. Whether or not they work is beside the point. If it wasn't, every religious, magical, or superstitious belief ever held to be true by anyone would belong on this list, and it would be a very, very long list indeed!

Except that this isn't a list of things which are pseudoscience according to any definition other than the one at the beginning of this article, which appears to be "anything described using the word 'pseudoscience' in any context by the authors of any books we choose to define as our source material". Using similar logic, I could write an equally useful article proving just as conclusively that almost everything listed here is real science because I can cite a published (or at least self-published) source chosen by me which says so.

Of course, most if not all of my sources would be cranks or outright nutters, but so what? It states quite clearly at the start of this article that whether or not the authors of the designated source material have any relevant qualifications, or indeed any qualifications at all, is unimportant, as are all other considerations, so long as they've used the word 'pseudoscience' in connection with a topic on the list.

Consider a simiarly compiled list of Nazis. I think most historians would define a Nazi as a member of a German political and ideological movement called the National Socialist Party which ceased to exist in 1945. Therefore if my list included Volodymyr Zelenskyy they'd raise a few objections, such as the fact that he wasn't even born until 1978. Ah, but this is a list of people characterised as Nazis! And Vladimir Putin has repeatedly characterised Zelenskyy as a Nazi, so he belongs on the list, even if he isn't a Nazi in any meaningful sense.

Putting it another way, what the authors of this dismal listicle appear to be saying is that whether or not something is pseudoscience is simply a matter of opinion. In fact, not even that. It's all down to name-calling. Claiming that something is pseudoscience because somebody who in their own opinion and yours, though not necessarily anybody else's, wrote a book in which they used that word to describe it is the reasoning behind religious dogma, and indeed a great deal of pseudoscience. And as I've already pointed out, the same argument can be turned on its head to prove its own exact opposite.

Seriously, this reads like something written by little boys who would be better suited to compiling one of those articles you have listing every appearance ever of obscure comic-book characters, including that time they popped up in the background of one panel of somebody else's comic by mistake after they were supposed to be dead. What you really need to do is flush the whole mess and start again, ideally with a title such as "List of major pseudoscientific topics" rather than a clumsily worded get-out clause allowing people too thick to write the article you ought to have here to cobble together a lazy, ramshackle approximation of it then pat themselves on the back and self-identify as clever.

Before you ask, no, I'm not going to write it. I've got better things to do than spend the next few years arguing with the kind of people who can write gibberish like this without a trace of irony, let alone self-awareness. All things considered, I'm pretty sure I'd get sick of edit-warring long before they did.

Oh, by the way, since many of you appear to enjoy having long discussions about whether or not individual words should stay or go, perhaps you should apply your mighty intellects to paragraph 1, line 4, because I strongly suspect "practices-efforts" isn't a proper word at all. Have fun! 86.130.66.52 (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleted Section on EMDR as pseudoscience.

I deleted the section on Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy. The section was written with very old sources. EMDR now has good empirical support and an impressive research base from the APA and Cleveland Clinic and is a notable treatment for PTSD.

https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/treatments/eye-movement-reprocessing

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22641-emdr-therapy#:~:text=Eye%20movement%20desensitization%20and%20reprocessing%20(EMDR)%20therapy%20is%20a%20mental,or%20other%20distressing%20life%20experiences. Malfesto (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverted this since its better to bring this up in talk first. This entry literally has a section called "Pseudoscience", so it meets the criteria for this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Falsifiability in lead

We need a statement about this in the lead. Let's try to formulate something. Here are a few thoughts to work with (and correct if necessary):

If a claim is not falsifiable, it is not a pseudoscientific claim. All scientific claims are falsifiable, and if a belief makes no falsifiable claims, in other words no claim to be scientific, it is not pseudoscientific, but may be classed as a religious belief. The moment a religion makes falsifiable claims, those claims are subject to examination and, if they are falsified, they are then classed as pseudoscientific claims, and many pseudoscientific claims have been falsified.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead word "pseudoscience" takes the reader to the definition. Do we need to duplicate part of another article here? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• List-Class science articles
• Mid-importance science articles
• List-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• List-Class physics articles of High-importance
• List-Class paranormal articles
• High-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• List-Class Skepticism articles
• Top-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• List-Class history of science articles
• Mid-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles
• List-Class Alternative medicine articles
• List-Class Creationism articles
• Mid-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• List-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• List-Class List articles
• Low-importance List articles
• WikiProject Lists articles
• List-Class Scientology articles
• Low-importance Scientology articles
• WikiProject Scientology articles