Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 4

message: JA: To remove a potential contradiction in terms, I have substituted "system of concepts" for "body of knowledge", since it does not make sense to call something "knowledge" if you are at the same time calling it "false".  Jon Awbrey 13:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: System of concepts

message: JA: Science is not limited to the physical world, that is, to the "natural sciences" or "the hard sciences" as they are popularly called, so I have made the above substitution.  This may require additional clarification as to what one means by "real" and "phenomena", but these concepts have fairly standard definitions in and out of philosophy and science.  Jon Awbrey 13:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub [real phenomena/the physical world] 

message: JA: I started out with the simple intention of substituting "system of concepts" for "body of knowledge" in the Introduction, and found myself in the thicket of such a tangled paragraph that I was led to make the following additional changes.
Introduction 
The standards for any system of concepts, methodology, or practice to qualify as science vary in their details from application to application, but they typically include (1) the support of empirical evidence, (2) the formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, (3) the use of scientific method.  The procedures of science typically include a number of heuristic guidelines, such as the principles of conceptual economy or parsimony that fall under the rubric of Occam's Razor.  A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered "nonscience", and if its exponents further claim the status of science for it, then they put themselves at risk for the charge of "pseudoscience". 
A number of attempts have been made to apply philosophical rigor to the notion of pseudoscience, with mixed results. These include Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability and the historiographical approach of Imre Lakatos in his Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Other historians and philosophers of science (including Paul Feyerabend) have argued, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, that a clear philosophical distinction between science and pseudoscience is neither possible nor desirable.
JA: Being by nature a positive person, I think that it is clearer to describe science in positive terms, and then say why a given system of concepts fails to meet those criteria.  Jon Awbrey 14:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I think the revision to the earlier version is a great idea.  The recent edits have left a bit of a mish-mash of this and that, without such clear direction as the previous version.  Call it the problem of writing-by-committee.
Sorry to all those who have made the many recent revisions, but I like the clarity and simplicity of the earlier version.  Phiwum 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free.  Jim62sch 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision, more correctly reversion

message: I have made an edit to the introduction which has been reverted without comment twice.  Now, I am more than willing that my edit is rejected by others, but I'd like an explanation.  
I have slightly changed the language so that it reads the term "pseudoscience" is typically pejorative, a claim that I think is not particularly controversial.  I don't know of any skeptic that uses the term without negative normative overtones.  
Instead, the two editors reverting apparently think that only adherents of dubious theories view the term as pejorative.  This strikes me as dismissive and false.  It is rather more natural to think that the claim "X is a pseudoscience" is almost always a negative judgment about either X, some of the arguments for X or the honesty or scientific understanding of some of X's advocates.
Surely we can agree that "pejorative" does not imply "subjective".  Many terms are pejorative while still being factual.  For instance, the term "irrational" is undeniably pejorative (mathematical usage aside), but it is certainly objective in at least some of its uses.  Similarly, acknowledging that calling a theory pseudoscience is a negative judgment is not giving away too much: such claims can still have objective grounds. Phiwum 20:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the direction you were heading with successive edits was progressively beneficial.  I first reverted via popup because I have come to trust Jom62sch's judgment as a general rule, and because I didn't notice your original explanation, only the disagreement about reverts.  Most importantly, the introduction is not the place for specific examples of how a field might choose to defend or counterattack.  If it is worthy of saying, there can be made or found a place in the article for the specific points. I also left a response on my page. Take care... Kenosis 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the explanation.  I certainly agree that your latest edit is an improvement.  It also includes my main concern, namely that it is not just adherents that find the label to be pejorative. (The bit about ideology didn't matter to me, but I kept it as a leftover from the earlier intro.) Phiwum 21:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the new edit is better -- I restored the previous merely because the version I reverted had really drifted away from a good definition (no offence). Jim62sch 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated reversions without comments

message: JA: Give it up, guys, can't you recognize an unfalsifiable label when you see one?  Anyone who criticizes the arguments or the evidentiary basis of any bull e-dicted by this particular Closed Circle is automatically labelled an "Adherent" of some unspecified pseudoscience or another.  At least they are providing us with an object example of how that works, so maybe there's a lesson in that after all.  Jon Awbrey 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -) Kenosis 04:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfalsifiable Labels (No, the other UL)

message: This historical material is temporarily removed from article for discussion, as it is incomplete and not fully representative of the most relevant parts of the historical discussion...Kenosis 18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Logical positivism, for example, espoused a theory of meaning which held that only statements about empirical observations are meaningful, effectively asserting that statements which are not derived in this manner (including all metaphysical statements) are meaningless.  Later, Karl Popper attacked logical positivism and introduced his own criterion for demarcation, falsifiability.  This in turn was criticised by Thomas Kuhn, who illustrated with historical examples that falsification did not play a largely causative role in changes between scientific theories, and also by Popper supporter Imre Lakatos, who proposed his own criteria that distinguished between progressive and degenerative research programs.18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text removed from Problem of demarcation section 

message: ::I believe a clear consensus should be developed and documented about what can go in the section on Classifying pseudoscience.  There is a reasonable argument for pop science and pseudoskepticism here because they are classes that have specifically to do with the lack of use of analytical rigor and nothing more specific in terms of the content of the arguments--they have more to do with style of analysis of whatever particular field of practice or research they're dealing with.  If the editors do not achieve a clear consensus about their inclusion here (rather than in the list section), it opens the door to inevitable additions by passersby with no thought to organization.  Seems to me all further attempted additions of more specific classifications should be immediately put on the list of pseudosciences, or rejected completely if it can be shown why they do not belong on the list...Kenosis 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point I think which should help to keep it under control.  Going to implement it now, pending of course the normal course of discussion about the issue...Kenosis 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add something to the effect of "claims to be skeptical via the scientific method", but that might simply be redundant with "non-rigorous" and "claiming to be"  ColdSalad 12:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent addition of pseudoskepticism to section on Classifying pseudoscience

message: Just removed this from Intro because it's a bit too field specific for intro, and applies to fields involving human factors.  Placing it here because of its potential value to the article...Kenosis 07:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In certain kinds of science involving human factors as an object of study, double blind testing is often appropriate.07:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removed sentence

message: JA: The drawing up of a blacklist, an Index of Proscribed Thoughts, with no supporting arguments attached to each case,
is a very non-scientific, non-scholarly procedure, and violates all of the guidelines of truly critical thinking.  The hypothesis that anybody who criticizes the dicta of the Grand Inquisitor is automatically the adherent of some proscribed heresy is not exactly unfalsifiable, since people of good sense see the flaw in it right off the bat, but it is the moral equivalent of Infallible Truth in the eyes of the True Believer in (Pseudoscient)ology, not to be confused with the pseudo2science of Pseudo(scientology).  Jon Awbrey 13:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (Pseudoscient)ology as a Pseudoscience

message: Geese, is there no admins watching this? Its taking forever to load the page. 
Jon Awbrey, you have made a lot of headers that could have fit in to existing discussions:  please stop doing that, its made the page longer than it ought to be. (and prefacing every paragraph with "JA" is not necesssary, thats what signatures are for, and signatures work fine as long as everyone signs, and if someone doesn't just sign anonymous for them to avoid the ambiguity you are apparently trying to superflously avoid.)--Brentt 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do we have sections at all? If we really wanted to start a new section every new comment, it would be easy to set up the code that way. If you can't subordinate simple things like quoting styles and signature styles to the overall style of the board, how can we believe that you can subordinate your personal opinions and personal style to the larger goals of Wikipedia?--Prosfilaes 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your misunderstanding the guidlines, a good clue that your misunderstanding the standards is when your the only person ahdering to what you think is the standard. Brentt 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Think Its Time For Archiving?

message: Discussion through January of 2006 has been moved here: /Archive 2.  The previously existing Archive 2 was comparatively brief....Kenosis 13:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: many tanks for your effort--Brentt 04:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remainder of discussion from 2005 archived 

message: Why is cybernetics on the list of pseudosciences?
:I believe the reference is to an attempt to apply cybernetics to direct economic and social life (see the author mentioned), but I am removing it from the list as misleading (cybernetics as we commonly think of it is not a pseudoscience). This illustrates the danger of the current system; how long has cybernetics been listed??!!
::Yea, I was a little iffy about that one too when I first saw it added a couple months ago. I don't really know that much about cybernetics, but I know that some thinkers associated with the skeptic movement take cybernetics seriously. Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett both seem to take it seriously as applied to questions of "free will" and what "control" really means.  And I think I've even seen Richard Dawkins talk about it in regards to evolutionary theory. (oddly enough those three are all connected to each other...Hoffstadter and Dennett are good friends, and both of them have works that are derivative of Dawkin's ideas.) But they all are usually considered skeptics and Hoffstadter was even one of the founding members of the Skeptic's Society and even wrote an essay defending the "hard-line" skeptics when their was a split in the society between one faction who wanted to be more open and accomodating to "alternative" theories.
::I'm sure that there are all kinds of pseudo-scientific renderings of cyberenetics though. I did pick up a book once titled Cybernetics that I suspected was a pseudo-scientific tract upon skimming it (heh, one of the things that made me suspicious was the fact that the author's name was presaged by MD. When I see the author of a supposedly scientific tract having little or nothing to do with medicine presaging their name with MD I get suspicious--because I've seen so many authors of pseudo-scientific tracts use their medical credentials to give a false sense of authority. Creationists are especially fond of that little tactic). But just because its been usurped as such doesn't mean their isn't serious proto-scientific renderings of it (again I don't know that much about it, so maybe it is pseudo-scientific) --Brentt 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cybernetics? 

message: When I first saw this added my first reaction was what the...!? thats ridiculous!. But then I thought about the title of this list being "fields associated with pseudo-science" and then thought, well strictly speaking, string theory, while most emphatically not a pseudo-science, is often associated with pseudo-science. Not with the auspices of actual string theorists of course, but by New Agers who read a popularization of it and think that their misunderstanding of it reinforces their views (they do it with QM and relativity of course too). But of course, despite the title, I don't think thats what the list is supposed to be about. The term associated probably shouldn't be in there. It does nothing to mitigate the POV of the list (and I do think the list is from a particular POV as I've said before.) But if the list is going to be up, there is no sense of saying "associated with". Maybe "alleged to be", if you want to keep of the facade that the list isn't POV. --Brentt 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: String Theory!?!?

message: This is unrelated to the POV issue. But I changed the name of the list to Fields alleged to be pseudoscientific and phenomena associated with pseudoscientific methods of study. The main change being so things like UFO's,Telekenisis, and Perpetual motion can be included without any awkward qualifiers, since they are obviously of interest but aren't pseudosciences per se. I thought it would be a uncontroversial change. Hope I'm right? --Brentt 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another list name change

message: I would like to nominate Anthroposophy for inclusion in the list on this page. It was called spiritual science by its founder Rudolf Steiner and continues to claim this description today but follows none of the methods used by science. Particulalry it violates reproducibility since all its observations are subjective. I do not say it is without value merely that it is not a science yet masquerades as one.   Lumos3 12:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, its pretty clearly a pseudoscience. Brentt 17:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously a pseudoscience, but is it notable enough to warrent inclusion to the abridged list on this page rather than the main list? Personaly I haven't heard of it before. Jefffire 10:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously, a strong immunoprotective/immunostimulatory effect was induced by the treatment of glioma patients with ML-1 standardized mistletoe extract 
in a research report by the Stadtische Kliniken, Department of Neurosurgery, Koln, Germany and published in The International Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment. Hgilbert 00:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthroposophy as a Pseudoscience 

message: Regarding the suggestion to move that article here, as per the discussion on the relevant discussion page, that article does not belong here but represents another stage in the scientific process. It is sourced, the concept exists and is separate from "pseudoscience". Why confuse the two??? Haiduc 11:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial science 

message: Not sure if its a good idea to list it here, but it seems relavant to current discussions so here goes. --Salix alba (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Quackery has been nominated for deletion 

message: Per the suggestion of others, I've redacted irrelevant comments to their own section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) .
Who judges who is on the "inside", or what is considered "consensus"?  According to the literature, a consensus of papers still considers comets to be dirty snowballs, and "2003 UB313" has less papers about it that Halton Arp has published on intrinsic redshift --Iantresman 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant? You brought up the idea of "inside" and "outside" of mainstream science, and these question seem key to the article? How can the merit of an article be assessed if you're going to side-line some of the content. I haven't criticised your article suggestion at all, the least you can do is engage in the discussion. --Iantresman 09:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ian's concerns about what constitutes "inside"

message: User:Kenosis, why do you want to remove pseudoarchealogy from the list?  Can you explain your reasoning?  When I compiled some watchlists dealing with pseudoscience, I had a large number which I thought of as pseudoarchaeology. ---CH 06:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Today in Pseudoarcheology: User:Kenosis tagged with a citation request  all the items in the list which didn't have a reference; I untagged Pseudoarchaelogy as being defined as a pseudoscience, and he/she deleted it from the list entirely.)  I think it may be better as a See Also than as an example, as is pseudophysics.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoarcheology