Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 6

message: Just a question, not really a suggestion or anything, but why isn't the concept or idea of a "meme" in this list?Adolon 06:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's generally well-accepted, maybe? Also, it seems to play a bigger part in sociology than the natural sciences, and it's a ton harder to know for sure that a theory there is pseudoscience. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memes? 

message: Can this be counted as pseudoscience? From where I'm standing it's the reverse of pseudoscience, its trying to apportion knowledge not with twisted or wrong science, but without science all together. - perfectblue 15:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of it might be that people who claim this then extend this to claim that other, unverified claims in the Bible must therefore also be true. I agree that an item like this probably wouldn't make sense on its own, but presented as it is, as part of a list of topics related to ID, I think it's fine to have it in. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biblical scientific foreknowledge

message: Do these deserve to be in the primary pseudoscience category?
I mean, they aren't even cohesive pseudoscientific hypothesis, mostly they're just a collection of urban legends and conspiracies that are the result of A) Scientific Ignorance B) Bull headedness (the refusal to accept other explanations). I think that they belong in the secondary category as they sometimes reference pseudoscientific concepts but are mostly just the result of uneducated people looking for alternative explanations for things that they don't believe.
perfectblue 15:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already debated this one extensively (mostly on the moon landing hoax). Why don't you go back through the archives to see all the arguments made there. If you still have concerns (or if you've already done this), then could you let me know what issues you feel haven't been addressed in there? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apollo moon landing hoax accusations  and Face on Mars

message: I've removed the tag from this page as I saw no concerns raised as to why this article might still be NPOV. If anyone feels there's still a problem here, let's discuss it and try to fix it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Is it too controversial to include any of the alternative medicine beliefs like osteopathy, homeopathy, some aspects of herbalism, faith healing, spiritual surgery, medical dowsing, naturopathy, crystal healing, pyramidology, etc. as pseudoscience?--Filll 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as they're properly sourced as such, go ahead. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am  bit nervous about starting chaos and attacks etc.--Filll 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems most of the rabble-rousers around here have moved on. The worst that'll likely happen is I'll revert it if you don't source it or use a really bad source (finding a halfway decent one shouldn't be hard). If you're unsure whether a source is good enough, just ask here. I have a pretty good handle on what would qualify as a mainstream scientific body and who all the big notable skeptics/skeptical bodies are. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Faith healing, homeopathy, dowsing, crystal healing and psychic surgery, are now in the list. Pyramidiocy I think is fairly adequately covered by pseudoarcheology, daniken and ancient astronauts. ornis (t) 13:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative medicine

message: Hello. Just some information. Todd Carroll is an educator focusing on scientific skepticism and philosophy and teaches subjects that specialize in distinguishing science from pseudoscience in particular. His Wiley published book (2003) is consistent with accepted scientific view. Its an excellent source in my view, and is probably even more useful than Williams (2000) encyc of pseudoscience. Docleaf 11:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Often, and perhaps the majority of the time, WP is not a secondary source, but a tertiary source.--Filll 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why buy the CD when you can get tickets to the concert for the same price? Carroll is a commentator who makes no attempts to be objective, at most he's as reliable as his sources, so why not quote them instead? If they're not credible enough to stand up on their own, then he certainly isn't, but if they are credible enough to stand up then why not cite them instead of him? It certainly can't do any damage to cut out the middleman. - perfectblue 15:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carroll gives a well qualified account of the science view and it is always based on primarily, the research findings. Then there is an analysis of why the methods are considered pseudoscientific or dubious. That is why authors such as Carroll are so useful to this subject. The primary sources are great, but they often fail to give explanations for why. This is why secondary sources are so well regarded in Wikipedia. Basically they pull together a set of research and discuss, then giving conclusions. The beauty of lists is the faculty for annotation, and primary sources often don't give much explanation beyond saying something is unvalidated. Authors such as Carroll give their view based upon the research, and from a scientific skepticism point of view which is supported by philosophy of science concepts, with explanations. I don't think you could ask for more. Docleaf 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caroll

message: For some reason, whenever I try to click on edit to edit a section I get the section next to it instead. This is likely due to malformed syntax somewhere. Could somebody with some free time please have a look at the syntax for the citations etc to see where the error is.
perfectblue 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malformed code 

message: The Shroud's section references the religious beliefs about the shroud. Shouldn't it reference the unproven scientific ones instead? After all, faith based beliefs discount science (therefore pseudoscience also) in favor of a unified explanation.
There's nothing pseudoscientific about saying "It's mystical".
perfectblue 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last time, it doesn't matter whether you or I think an item belongs here. The threshold for inclusion of content on Wikipedia is verifiability, not true. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A reliable source labeled it pseudoscience. Therefore, it belongs here. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ours is not to question why, ours is but to report what reliable sources say. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blind faith is not a good thing. Reko 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shroud of Turin