Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 8

message: I have a source (a book) noting that Kirlian photography is pseudoscience. However, the Skeptical Inquirer reviews the source, describing it as
:*".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout."
:*"It reads more like a collection of opinions "
:*[needs to] "contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts."
Do we include or exclude the verifiable information, or is the credibility of the Skeptical Inquirer sufficient to question the reliability of the source? --Iantresman 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Iantresman. The single reviewer David Bloomberg (no credentials provided) can possibly be taken into account, perhaps in the footnotes. But the source (encyclopedia of pseudoscience) does fullfill the requirements of verifiability and reliability.  Book reviews are one thing, but one has to take into account the background and biases of the particular reviewer. Also, as a source corroborated by other sources, it is also perfectly fine.  Whittling away at reliable sources written by collections of professors and other experts does the reader no favours at all.  I noticed you made some rather undue weight additions to the article using Williams. In principle the info is ok, but it will need more info and refs to support and balance it and will need to be more brief. The PS article is not about the EoPS. One other interesting thing about the review is that it seems to want the EOPS to state which is PS and which isn't.  There seem to be no books published that take the appropach suggested by the reviewer. PS is an issue that pertains to certain subjects.  Again, we are not really here just to brand whole fields PS. The reader will benefit by taking the approach of Williams, Lilienfeld, Shermer, and others because that pretty much adheres to the spirit of NPOV on pseudoscience. If a field has PS elements, then the elements should be specified and the discussion made clear, and it should say why those elements are pseudoscientific. That way we are clear and specific and NPOV policy is upheld. KrishnaVindaloo 03:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference credibility ?

message: I have created a new article: Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and would welcome its review. --Iantresman 15:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience

message: Hi all.  I've been busier than I'd like to be, but I'd like to float an idea, and to the extent that there is agreement with the following suggestion, I'll be happy to help implement it.
I suggest that we try, to the extent that V RS's dictate (and I think that in sum, they do), emulating the approach editors have taken at cult (version as of this edit here).  There are a number of striking parellels.  Check out that article's TOC and how splendidly its editors have framed the issue according to NPOV.  Note also the introductory paragraph under subsection Cult#Study_of_cults (current version here).  I think it would be good if we could apply that approach, and thereby (and correctly) acknowledge that the term "pseudoscience" is used in different ways by different people (and, among scientists writing for peer-reviewed journals, indeed infrequently used, as Gleng and others have noted).
What do you think?
regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jim Butler. Yes, I'm in favour of including all relevant views more comprehensively. I will have a good look at the cult article for specific applications here. There are some reservations though. It is possible to create POV forks using the approach laid out in the cult article. That has to be taken into account. Also, article size is an issue. It looks fairly well researched, but only about as well as this article is.  Anyway, I'm open to any good idea that helps apply NPOV policy to this article. Any reliable research you can supply on the usage of the term pseudoscience by scientists or other researchers will be great. I noticed that a lot of the references in the PS literature section include the term pseudoscience. Well, thats a start I suppose. KrishnaVindaloo 07:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion that we emulate approach at [[cult]] 

message: Hello all. I am calling for some attention to the opening because it looks like it really needs it. Not apportioning blame here, as the article has improved and evolved. The opening needs to catch up.  Taking an overview of the whole article, it seems to be pretty much unrepresentative, and there is little in the way of "advanced organizer" there to help the reader.  So here are some suggestions in order to encourage some useful input:
*NPOV comes first, and I know there is some discussion to do here, but we should make the opening representative with majority, minority and so on all in good proportion.  
*Clarity is an issue of course, so we need to be brief, yet clear.
*Answering the why questions in the mind of the reader is something that is often left out, and its incredibly important here. I know some would like to say that PS is horrible, but we need to say exactly who thinks it is negative, and why they think so. Similarly with those who think the PS concept should not be applied. Stating why will help. No bald statements from any viewpoint.   
So as neutral as we can get it within a reasonable size, yet as clear and "nuanced" as possible. I'm not suggesting this will be an easy job, and I'm certainly not suggesting that everybody will be satisfied with the outcome.  As per WP recommendations, constructive and cooperative help will be much appreciated. KrishnaVindaloo 08:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More specifics: Well, I had in mind listing the more updated characteristics of PS (perhaps Thagard's list, which is very inclusive of other thinkers).  Psychology, and ubiquity needs mentioning also, I believe. I'd like some suggestions from others though. KrishnaVindaloo 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added something more specific to the opening in the article. Feel free to adjust or add anything else appropriate. KrishnaVindaloo 07:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Representative Opening

message: KV offered us two versions of what Becksrtead and Morrow said.
1)"Regarding lack of boundary conditions specifically, Christianson (2005) and Beckstead and Morrow (2004) say that demon possession therapy, holding therapy, bioenergetics, re-birthing, and EMDR are inappropriately applied to a wide range of conditions, from treating trauma to “curing” homosexuality."
2) Regarding lack of boundary conditions specifically, Christianson (2005), and Beckstead and Morrow (2004) say that chiropractic and EMDR are inappropriately applied to a wide range of conditions, from treating trauma to “curing” homosexuality. 
The paper is online 
The study reported interviews of 42 volunteers who had sought therapy of various kinds to change their sexual orientation. Therapy had been successful for 20 of them, and not successful for 22. Those for whom treatments were unsuccessful had experienced diverse treatment approaches, including aversion treatments, behavioral management, cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnosis, medicinal or hormonal treatments, and marriage counselling; one of them reported treatment by EMDR and one by chiropractic treatments. No breakdown was offered of the successful treatments.
There is no other mention of chiropractic or EMDR in this article. There appears to be no mention at all of demon possession therapy, bioenergetics, re-birthing or holding therapy, or of pseudoscience, or of boundary conditions.
In what sense were either of KV's accounts of what this paper said true?
On Christianson - on what basis does KV believe that her opinion is notable? Is the opinion of every private relationship counmsellor notable? 
Gleng 09:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Gleng. I worked with KillerChihuahua on these edits. In trying to slag me off, you are also casting aspersions on the integrity of KillerChihuahua.  I believe your actions to be conflict provoking, especially as the matter has moved to another article. You, Steth, and other proponents of chiropractic have been calling me a liar for the past month. The peer reviewed corroborating literature I provided shows you to be utterly wrong. Rapid eye movement is mentioned in Beckstead and that is another term for EMDR. Both papers state that chiropractic is used for RT. Christianson is both notable and reliable according to NPOV policy. She works in affiliation with a university, and she has produded a peer reviewed article that says chiropractic is used for reparative therapy.  Beckstead and M also say so and state that it is ineffective for the purpose. You have just desperately removed the fact from the chiropractic article stating that it is nonsense. The facts are stated exactly as they are in the article. So tell me this, could you imagine how many people in the world use chiropractic for treating problems that go beyond chiropractic's extremely limited use? Because using chiropractic for treating certain specific back problems may have some small support. But applying it outside?  Chiropractors regularly promote chiropractic for treating everything from cancer, to mental trauma, to spiritual improvement.  I'm not trying to get that information into the article. But, Gleng, you seem to be extremely determined to ensure that kind of information never sees the light of day. KrishnaVindaloo 09:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This response does not seem to answer Gleng's criticism.  He asked for a clear citation — a quote, say — which supports your interpretation of this article.  Why not give one? Phiwum 11:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I have no desire to mention chiropractic. It will only cause trouble. I have already stated so. It was not my original intention to add chiropractic. I did so only on KillerChihuahua's prompting. KrishnaVindaloo 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  In that case, your response to Gleng is even less comprehensible than I thought.  Phiwum 12:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phiwum. This has only become a problem after the addition of the word "chiropractic" to the line. It is a word that causes problems on this article. I did not intend to use it in my original edits, but after cooperating with others it was necessary. Editors are trying to pull apart my edits to state that they misinterpret and that I lack integrity. Nobody has even bothered to go out and get a copy of Christianson (or if they have, they don't let on).  So what is the real problem here? The real source of the trouble? KrishnaVindaloo 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Gleng did get a copy of Beckstead and Morrow and claimed that your citation is unsupported by the text.  Do you concede that point or not? Phiwum 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. BnM corroborate Christianson, who states that chiropractic is used for reparative therapy. They also say that it is not good for the purpose.  All I concede is that the merest mention of chiropractic will gain lots of attention from a tightly defensive group who generally only turn up when chiropractic is mentioned to apply pressure. KrishnaVindaloo 14:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and the fact corroborates Christianson. A month ago editors were asking me to provide corroborating evidence. I did so. They asked me to provide a clear example for explaining to the reader how boundary conditions work in the context of PS. I did. They cause a huge amount of friction and called me a pathalogical liar. I have provided evidence that they are all wrong. Now I am not going to put up with your continued accusations that I lack integrity.  If you continue to badger me, I promise you I will fill this article with negative chiro information that fits NPOV policy perfectly, and trumps your inflated idea of consensus (attempts at social pressure more like) every time. KrishnaVindaloo 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Steth. Do you realise there are better things to be getting on with. For example, making statements in the article more complete in order to explain things better? KrishnaVindaloo 14:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this sidebar topic... I fixed the ref to better adhere to WP format. KV, please note the format. I realize what you are doing works too. But the footnote system if much easier for editors/readers to check references as the little superscript number provides a "jump" to the footnote reference. Please consider this format for future citations. Levine2112 17:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Substantively, I question Atwood's statement. When he says "Primary Care Physician", I'm sure he means the designation given by insurance carriers. So my question is: Are chiropractors not PCPs because they haven't "repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings"? I don't imagine this to be true. I think there are a lot more substantive factors. And as for not being able to identify themselves as a "specialist"... says who (other than Atwood)? I don't imagine this to be true. I could be wrong, but a quick Google search reveals many chiropractors identifying themselves as "specialists". In fact, I just went through Atwood's references and coulddn't find any mention of this there. Where did he come up with this? Levine2112 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have a book ref by Homola that corroborates Atwood. But unfortunately (for some) its rather damning. Would you like me to add it? KrishnaVindaloo 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not hanging onto the reference for dear life. Do what you want with it. KrishnaVindaloo 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was inappropriate for you to use it in the first place, KV.  Editors shouldn't have to worry so much about double-checking your edits for NPOV, V and OR. Jim Butler(talk) 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its fine Jim Butler. We have establised for certain that I am not in fact a pathalogical liar after these month or so of a certain group labeling me as such. And we've found a place for the information where it fits perfectly (the chiropractic article). KrishnaVindaloo 02:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry KC. The above editors were getting heated and starting to call me a liar once again (for about the fifth session), so I decided that they would be better off calling me a liar on the chiropractic article, and I moved the info that way so we could get on with other things here.  You know, pretty standard procedure here. KrishnaVindaloo 16:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Integrity in citation

message: I've removed the stub paragraph about Occam's Razor.  This is a widely misinterpreted and misunderstood aspect of scientific method; one of many additional aspects of scientific method that could be mentioned in that section.  The problem I have with presenting Occam's razor is that it is a subtle heuristic and difficult for many to properly understand, as was repeatedly seen in discussions related to the article about Occam's razor.  See also, for example Hickam's dictum, an illustration of how even seasoned medical diagnosticians struggle with the concept.  Fact is, sometimes an additional element, or two or three or more, is what is required to explain a given interaction of phenomena, and the simplest explanation on first analysis turns out upon later analysis to actually be neglecting important factors in the analysis.  Indeed, "God caused it" is to some nonscientists the simplest explanation for all natural phenomena, the rest irrelevant detail (recall that that example is used in the article in the beginning of the second paragraph of that section in relation to "falsifiability").  Trying to explain the subtleties of this issue in the "Introduction" section seems a stretch for this article, so I just removed it for now.  I'd have no serious objection to reintroducing it in a more workable form in the future though.
The removed material is: "Another criterion applicable to theoretical work is the heuristic of parsimony, also known as Occam's Razor. This principle says the most simple explanation for the evidence is preferred over explanations needing additional assumptions.Gauch (2003) 269 ff, "Parsimony and Efficiency"." ... Kenosis 18:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, sounds reasonable Kenosis. What do you have in mind for future explanation? No rush for replies, I'm sure this'll take some sorting out. KrishnaVindaloo 18:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed stub paragraph in "Introduction" section

message: Please note . Editors may add evidence to this page, or comment on evidence given by others.Gleng 07:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration

message: I tracked down the Rees article in Modern Medicine that KrishnaVindaloo attempted to add to the article.   Here is a link to an online version from the Wayback Machine.  It appears to be a brief opinion piece or letter to the editor.  The version I found cites no sources.  It's not clear whether this piece was peer-reviewed, and it doesn't show up in PubMed, FWIW (sometimes things do fall through the cracks, though).  The author is identified as "an internist in private practice in Brookline, Mass."  I don't see how this source is notable and agree with Kenosis's removal of it.
FWIW, I still feel that the whole article needs a sort of "meta" overhaul with NPOV wording throughout, a la cult.  That is, I think we should present arguments as "so-and-so says...." rather than asserting them, e.g. "Pseudoscientific thinking is globally widespread."  I'd also like to emulate cult by including a section on definitions and POV's on same (cf. WP:NPOV:  "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one").  Commentary like this applies here as well:
:"Among the experts studying cults and new religious movements are sociologists, religious scholars, psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychohistorians. To an unusual extent for an academic/quasi-scientific field, however, nonacademics are involved in the study of and/or debates concerning cults, especially from the anti-cult point of view."
I think that adopting this sort of language and approach would move the article considerably closer to NPOV.  Worth a try?  cheers, - Jim Butler(talk) 06:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is an important issue for the PS article. Cults are well known to employ PS tactics in order to ply their followers. There can certainly be at least a small section on this, with the relevant examples provided. This will also help to explain to the reader certain psychological and social psychology aspects of PS beliefs and adherance, such as cognitive dissonance, authority control, groupthink, leading, reduced critical thought, censorship, and so on.  If you have any suggestions as regards your own interests, Jim Butler, please feel free to make them here. KrishnaVindaloo 07:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rees as V RS; NPOV wording

message: *The section on "Identifying pseudoscience" includes a number of citations that DO NOT support the statement they refer to. Having had a chance to look at Gauch, Hugh G., Jr., Scientific Method in Practice (2003) 3-5 ff, this section says NOTHING about pseudoscience.
*The book appears to discuss what constitutes the scientific method, not whether adhering to specific aspects of the scientific method are pseudoscience. 
*I'd like to see citations include SPECIFIC quotes supporting a statement so they can be properly assessed. --Iantresman 09:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I second that. But I would also request that you stop shouting in caps Iantresman. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence for which that work is cited is: The standards for determining whether a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, or practice is scientific can vary from field to field, but involve agreed principles including reproducibility and intersubjective verifiability. The cite is completely appropriate, as it is for scientific method not pseudoscience. Your protest is nonsensical. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I stand (well sit actually) corrected. Thanks for the clarification KC. KrishnaVindaloo 12:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Killer, I think that iantresman was alluding to the later uses of this reference, it is repeatedly used in the article to identify criteria for recognising PS. I agree the first use is appropriate - what about the subsequent uses?Gleng 12:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if Gauch doesn't use the term "pseudoscience", it's OR to assume that he would use it.  The implication that "not scientific" is the same as "pseudoscientific" is both an OR formulation and unsupportable by most definitions of PS.  As you've pointed out, Gleng, the term is both imprecise and pejorative, and infrequently seen in peer-reviewed literature, as a PubMed search will show.  To the extent that a precise, intersubjectively-verifiable definition with clear criteria is not universally agreed upon among academics (see cult again), we've got to be particularly careful with OR, V and NPOV issues when using the term.  That means, imo, being clear on who uses the term, what definition is being used, and not putting words in others' mouths.  Those who do comment on demarcation do not necessarily relegate to "pseudoscience" all that falls outside what they say is science, nor do they necessarily embrace the term as it is used by nonscientists like Randi, Shermer and Carroll.  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that Gauch does not use the term "intersubjective verifiability".  That term could use another citation for the sentence.  It is, however, not at all the case that "intersubjective verifiability" is not universally agreed among scientists and philosophers of science; indeed if anything characterizes scientific method it is the expectation that the language and terms used in the analysis are intersubjectively verifiable--that is, any term where a proponent of a theory or hypothesis maintains, for instance that "only Our Leader" knows the nature of "phenomenon S" lacks an operational definition and also fails a number of the other criteria presented in the section on "Identifying pseudoscience". ... Kenosis 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kenosis, I may not have been clear above, or else I'm not understanding you.  I'm not disputing that intersubjective verifiability is a cornerstone of the sci method, a point that your comments illustrate well.  I'm saying that the term PS itself, ironically, lacks a commonly agreed-upon definition with intersubjectively-verifiable criteria (and probably that's one reason why the term PS is rarely used by scientists in peer-reviewed publications).  It's not clear that subjects that fall outside Gauch's demarcations would be considered by Gauch to be PS.  We can infer that he'd consider them non-scientific, but perhaps he's define PS based on additional factors, like fraud, etc., or perhaps he wouldn't find the term very useful at all.  By asserting a single definition, the article verges on saying that "only James Randi" and like-minded people "know" what PS is :-) .... regards, Jim Butler(talk) 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NP Jim, thanks for clarifying. The objective is to briefly explain to the reader some of the basic expectations of scientific method. One of the two elements of PS is already defined in the article as failure to follow scientific method. ... Kenosis 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Kenosis, thanks, I'm on the same page with you now.  As Gleng's thought experiment below shows, there's a fuzzy area between reasonable inference and OR.  My inclination in this case would be to restrict citations of Gauch and similar sources to saying what the sci method is.  OTOH, that may be too anal-retentive...  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Gleng. Please list exactly where this reference is used to identify criteria for recognizing PS. Your claims seem quite uncertain. KrishnaVindaloo 13:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gleng, the solution here is incredibly easy. To me this seems very much like an attempt to remove something negative, rather than seek a solution. I'm sorry, but this sort of thing simply has to stop, or at least be recognized for what it is. NPOV policy states that we should seek cooperation to solve problems, not just to remove stuff we don't like. Am I right or could you correct me in some way? KrishnaVindaloo 13:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say anybody removed anything. I am looking for solutions. KrishnaVindaloo 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on "Identifying pseudoscience"

message: I've removed these two sentences from the end of the lead. They're making a moral judgment, argumentative about the state of the modern world, full of WP:WEASEL, unencyclopedic, confusing non-scientific with pseudoscientific thinking, among other problems.  It doesn't belong in the lead or anywhere in the article. 
*"Evidence shows that pseudoscientific thinking is widespread, and there is concern by scientists over the spread of pseudoscientific notions from alternative medicine and popular psychology to clinical psychology, and science in general.  Efforts to distinguish more clearly between pseudoscience and science are continuing in order to overcome public neglect of genuine science." ... 15:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So can you suggest a solution, or do you just want to delete? KrishnaVindaloo 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a research paper, it's an online encyclopedia.  Those two sentences are argumentative and don't belong in the article. ... Kenosis 16:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I think Kenosis found the solution. The McNally ref that KV found is worth looking at though, .  it might help resolve some of these issues if cited accurately later in the article as opinions of a practitioner.Gleng 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could find far more evidence to say the whole world is going to hell because of lack of belief in certain pseudoscience(s) (e.g., Creation science.  Best we avoid this kind of content in the lead of the article, I should think. ... Kenosis 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My intention was to represent the article more comprehensively. Now nobody has suggested anything. There is a reason for why people are still trying to identify pseudosciences. What is the solution to this point?  We need to explain who wants or doesn't want to know about PS, and we need to give some idea of their reasoning in the opening, because that will give some idea of the whole point of the Sci- ps effort. What is PS, and why does it exist? If someone wishes to propose a solution to this problem, instead of just deleting stuff that doesn't suit them, I'm sure the article will improve. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NOR again. ... Kenosis 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So thats the best you can do! Well thanks for the suggestion. KrishnaVindaloo 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed two sentences from the lead of article

message: I hate reverting(just me, I don't mind so much when others do it) edits that I consider POV, as that's usually not the past way to deal with that issue, however in this case(the removal of contents) it was hard to come up with an appropriate change.  I know your argument is "who's to say?" however that argument can be used on anything and has no bearing on the appropriateness of the article.  If you're going to argue "who's to say?" you'd better remove every last thing from that list.  Moreover, being considered pseudoscience doesn't make something pseudoscience, please stp taking offence at well documented sources.  I still recomend that this section be changed to something that discusses why things have been considered pseudoscience, as that's more helpful to the reader's understanding.  Nonetheless, that's not the current format, and you'd do well to stop cherry-picking your battles.  i kan reed 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "why things have been considered pseudoscience...", absolutely more useful --Iantresman 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RevertRemoval

message: Has anyone else noticed that there are two sections on the demarcation problem? I recommend changing the name of the section Introduction"" to ""Demarcation"" and merging the small amount of content in Demarcation problem and criticisms of the concept of pseudoscience  that is referenced. Banno 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  demarcation 

message: Please discuss your reversions. I realise it is hard work, but discussion is the solution. Deleting clarifying information from the article is completely unconstructive.  There are clearly editors here who are trying to reduce clarity because that clarity involves negative views on their favourite hobbies.  The solution involves solving those problems.  KrishnaVindaloo 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KV, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability: 

The policy:
; 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
; 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
; 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
How clear can we make it? You repeatedly complaining of "censorship" and "editors trying to reduce clarity" is nonsense. "Williams (2000)" is NOT a cite. It is NOT a "reliable source." Give us a full reference, like this:   Otherwise we WILL remove your poorly sourced and non-sourced crap from the article. Puppy has spoken; puppy is DONE. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry KC, you certainly need to be a lot clearer. The link you gave directed me to  connects to nothing but nonsense and pornography. If you are not interested in solutions, please don't waste my time with bullshit. Thank you. If you do have some useful information that involves clarifying pseudoscience for the reader using citations (I'll give you a reminder, about half the fucking references and literature were supplied due to work conducted by me alone) then go ahead and break a sweat. KrishnaVindaloo 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you being deliberately obtuse? That was an EXAMPLE, the link, as well as the article referenced, are PRETEND. You and I didn't collaborate on an article in Time magazine about "The world according to Kv" and the link is to a list of 404 (file not found) message pages. The point is that if you do NOT provide verifiable cites in a detailed format, instead of "Williams (2000)" which conveys NOTHING, then the crap will be deleted. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Obtuse? Sorry KC, but you get reported along with Kenosis who, like you spends half your rv edits writing  disparaging remarks in edit summaries without even attempting discussion. The so called crap you refer to is majority view. If you wish me to provide additional information, then ask. Because deleting without seeking solutions to the problem that gets your goat, will just put you in the same pit as the quasi-religious nutters who have bought into a pseudoscience, who are dissonant as a result, and are bent on turning Wikipedia into a whitewashed soapbox for the realistically challenged.  KrishnaVindaloo 12:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have ALL been asking for better cites for MONTHS, and you have failed to provide them. Read item 3 in the message box from WP:V above: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. You want this stuff in, you have to provide a reliable source. What are you going to report me for, insisting you abide by WP:V and WP:NOR, two of the three pillars, completely and utterly non-negotiable? I'm guessing a barnstar would be appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No KC. We are not told how we should edit in this respect.  We can provide insufficient material if we so wish. How much more information do I need to add to the citations that I have already presented in order to make my contributions permanent?  Its not very much is it? I'm pretty darned close. Some proponents here are just shitting themselves thinking about it.  The gas they feel evolving in their bowels will give rise to many desperate acts of abuse and deletism. No doubt I will be called a pathalogical liar, or some such abusive term at a later date. Most of the edits that I have presented have been accepted. Because they comply with NPOV policy. Some of them have not been accepted even though they comply perfectly. But at least I know who is desperate to remove valid edits. I am looking forward to presenting the facts you demand, on top of the valid facts that have been refused due to the long term censorship problem that afflicts this collection of encyclopedia editors. KrishnaVindaloo 13:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KrishnaVindaloo's use of words "...valid facts that have been refused due to the long term consorship problem that afflicts this collection of encyclopedia editors" is an interesting approach to complaining about the consensus of how to reasonably apply the principles of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:Reliable_sources and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. ... Kenosis 13:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No I'm not suprised at all that you didn't get it, KC and Kenosis. And of course you put consensus before NPOV policies. Does that feel safer for you? The criteria for inclusion (censorship) that some editors here are using are not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and they are certainly not geared towards clarification of articles. Quite the opposite.  I am happy to discuss here. But there are editors who either decide to put the boot in when they feel it suits their own purposes, or they bias themselves over NPOV that it makes their own efforts to discuss quite painful to them. They keep losing the discussion.  They are not realistic or logical. Their demands go way beyond the normal requirements for NPOV. People talk of raising the standards, they are actually just raising restrictiveness. The only reason for that is to remove clarity. This article is for all relevant views. Relevant views are not what some groups of editors want here. They want their own view. I am stuck between editors who want to push PS on theor own favorite nasty, and who want to remove PS on some PS treatments they have sustained in some desperate hour. I have been providing evidence from sources, and others have been deleting them without any kind of constructive thinking. Not only that, but I have suffered personal abuse by them.  What respect or protection to I get from the likes of you? None.  If you are not interested in collaboration with those who are willing to compromise, then join the whackos properly and get on with doing what whackos do. KrishnaVindaloo 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, there is only one person here who doesn't "get it", as KrishnaVindaloo says, and that is KrishnaVindaloo.  Although consensus can never decide not to follow NPOV, the manner of implementation of NPOV is decided by consensus, not unilaterally by KrishnaVindaloo. ... Kenosis 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflict) My entire focus has been on sourcing, not npov. Your trolling about "abuse" and "censorship", and bizarre statements like "The gas they feel evolving in their bowels will give rise to many desperate acts of abuse and deletism.", has no bearing on whether you've provided cites. Your attempt at misdirection and your persecution complex ("No doubt I will be called a pathalogical liar, or some such abusive term at a later date.") are irrelevant. Show a cite, discuss on talk, or your additions will be deleted. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar point applies here, I think.  What KrishnaVindaloo appears to refuse to acknowledge is that WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight inevitably must be decided by consensus, not by KrishnaVindaloo. That the consensus differs from KrishnaVindaloo's opinions does not make it a conspiracy. ... Kenosis 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeh Kenosis, we get all your consensus based arguments. Unfortunately for you, most of us are individuals. KrishnaVindaloo 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trolling now is it KC?  Obtuse, now trolling!  Do you know how bad that looks for you?  Not ony are you aiding and abetting known fringe pushers, but you are being abusive.  I have long since accepted the fact that Wikipedia is an Anglo U.S. thing, and I'm going to be the cotton picking paki to whip. But would you please have some sensitivity and think about how others see you?  Its looking pretty bad from on high (the average reader). KrishnaVindaloo 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one cares if you're from Pakistan or anywhere else. That is completely irrelevant. We do care if you troll or fail to provide reliable sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Its looking pretty bad from on high...(followed by an odd justification to cover your gassy bowels)"?  Taking our pickled godhood a little too seriously, aren't we.  You seem more to me like an Arjuna who headed off into battle having misunderstood Krishna. •Jim62sch• 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion and NPOV over deletionism

message: Is there anything that hasn't been called PS by somebody at some time? I thought of what most unlikely association would test this, say toothpaste+pseudoscience .
Maybe dentistry should be added after all. Or not. This article should represent all significant views about pseudoscience. This is not the same as saying that it should attempt to list every example of the use of the word pseudoscience. There are different views of the concept, between Popper, Feyeraband Bunge etc. and these should all be represented – these arguments expose the difficulties of calling anything “pseudoscience” if the term is implied to have any content rather than being merely derogatory. For the article to list examples of whatever anyone has called pseudoscientific is as daft as the idea that  Stupidity should have a list of examples of everything that’s ever been called stupid. So why not just ditch that whole section ("notable commentators"!!!!! according to who exactly?); this would get rid of most of the weak sources. The philosophical views deserve more space and respect, and with more space, there will be fewer of the distortions that inevitably come with paraphrasing. This article should, IMO, not be an excuse for cheap and empty jibes at things we don't like, but a thoughtful account of the concept of pseudoscience itself, and it is clear that we are especially indebted to Kenosis for his considerable efforts to achieve just that.
If anybody wants to discuss views on toothpaste advertising as pseudoscience, please take them to toothpaste.Gleng 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Gleng, if its PS, then it can be mentioned here, if it is verifiable, and if it helps the reader understand. KrishnaVindaloo 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, if it complies with NPOV policy any sized army of pseudoscientists can go and screw themselves. Its as simple as that. KrishnaVindaloo 14:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm still looking for the army of pseudoscientists...canon to the left of them, canon to the right of them, on rode the army of pseudoscientists...  ROFL.  •Jim62sch• 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article revision and NPOV

message: Who added this reference, can anyone identify what is supposed to be the source here? thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding: the question applies for all the EOP references. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like Williams, Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, to me. --Pjacobi 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ah, thanks much. That's considered a faulty reference SFAIKT - it has been described as full of errors. Suggest we remove all instances of using this as a ref. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have a copy?  Is it still in print? --Dematt 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It uses the X-Files as a reference, and does not use or mention CSICOP. Did you want to look something up in it? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Adding: If you do, Amazon sells it new for $82.50 but you can get a used copy as of this posting for $2.00. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to trust you and Kenosis as long as I know you have the book.  But, since so many of our problem areas seem to surround this book, I think I need to get a copy.  I'm going after the $2 version! Is that on amazon as well? --Dematt 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, its used. I'd like to state for the record that I do not currently have a copy of this book, so it is a very good idea for one of us to get the used copy or check in a library. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the used one, the shipping was more than the book!  Looks like iantresman has us covered though. --Dematt 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Second hand books: www.addall.com/used/ --Iantresman 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The "problem" is the question of whether it is any good as a source at all. I have removed all of the entries in the list which use the EoP as a source. I would support Gleng's suggestion that we remove the entire list. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh hey, just saw you wrote the article on the EoP - good job!! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As with other, more respactable, encyclopedias we can use the EOP to get an overview but for sourcing a Wikipedia article we are required to go to sources given by the other encyclopedia. They give sources in the EOP, do they? --Pjacobi 15:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that they do; and that the sources are often questionable. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you kidding?  How can an encyclopedia not be referenced?  Are you saying that they used the "encyclopedia" term in a "pseudoscientific" manner in an effort to sell a book as something that it is not? --Dematt 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also a selected bibliography at the back of the book, and it's quite possible that if I read all the books, they might mention all the material that is included. But there are no references in the entries, and most entries do not include a recommended reading list, and nor do they indicate which of the contributing editors was responsible for the entry. I also know no other source which lumps pseudoscience with superstition or hoaxes. --Iantresman 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Celery is so pseudoscience. I had some this morning and then realized it was beef jerky! I rushed to brush my teeth, but then my pseudoscientific toothpaste ceased to exist! Levine2112 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now Levine, you know that was just ridiculous.  What you needed was an adjustment so you could see that was not celery, then you would never have to use toothpaste again! --Dematt 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ROFLMAO at Levine's entry... thanks, I needed a good laugh. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It was notable enough to become a book, an often-used source in this article, and the subject of some reviews. There are many other books listed on Wikipedia, some of which I would not personally give the time of day. Personally, I don't think the book is that good, but that doesn't necessarily make it non-notable. --Iantresman 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, let's keep watching it.  Thanks for your help! --Dematt 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its notability may consist in its failure to be what it claims. A case of false advertising, just like Kevin Trudeau's book. One would expect a book with that title to actually make some conclusions, be a presentation of the viewpoint of skeptics and not a platform for apologists, etc.. Too bad, because such a work could have value. There is no point in claiming to have a viewpoint, and then being ambiguous. -- Fyslee 18:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this daft discussion about? Trying to change NPOV policy again?  We have already established that the book is written by notable and reliable people.  Your problem solving skills seem to involve a broom and a carpet. Its really a very dumb way of doing things.  The book is full of explicit statements that such and such is pseudoscientific. And it agrees with a lot of what is written in the hatebox already. So what are you all trying to do about making the article at least halfway accessible to the reader? No matter what you do with that stupid laundry list, you still seem to end up with a load of accusations.  You removed all the conceptual grouping that was being set up, and now its back to an alphabetical list.  How to organize pseudosciences from a-z. Utterly stupid! No value at all for any reader.   KrishnaVindaloo 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, assuming you are referring to the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, can you find me a couple "of explicit statements that such and such is pseudoscientific" in any of the entries beginning with the letter "K"? Any entries? --Iantresman 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience an alphabetical list of pseudosciences? Levine2112 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "hatebox"???? •Jim62sch• 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EOP 2000:70-71

message: The reference given, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=83419614&oldid=83411556, did not even mention Chiropractic or subluxation. I have removed the ref and the entry it supposedly supported. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW: Would you consider http://www.ncahf.net/index.html to be valid source? --Pjacobi 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not very large, lost their Calif. legal status, and are MIA in Mass. at current time. It seems to me that we could find something more reputable to verify information. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think NCAHF or Quackwatch make very good references. The arguments made there are wholly opinions, rarely based on all the evidence out there, and have been shown to be most innaccurate and biased at times. In general, avoid these sites for reliable sources of what is and what isn't considered to be a pseudoscience. Levine2112 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The articles are nearly always referenced and can provide good sources that can be used. As sources of opinion -- and Wikipedia is about presenting existing opinions -- the articles themselves can often be used. It depends on the situation. -- Fyslee 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Next try: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208927  --Pjacobi 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PubMed is outstanding. Always acceptable as a source in my estimation. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It did mention it, but Coaker was acknowledging that he was a Phd in physics and was suggesting healthcare as having similar problems.  He doesn't cite references for his list of noted subjects, though obviously that was not the emphasis of this paper. --Dematt 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PubMed is a resource, not a source.  It gives access to MEDLINE publications, many of which are written by MD's. Its publications can be excellent references on medical topics, but not necessarily on pseudoscience when it comes to business competitors in the medical industry. The American Medical Association has very substantial financial interests at stake, as do MD's as a group, in reducing or eliminating chiropractic's positioning in the health care marketplace. ... Kenosis 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Competitors or not, since Wikipedia is about presenting POV, and labeling it as such (and by whom), then such references can be perfectly acceptable if properly labeled. Wikipedia is about presenting all sides of a subject, with nothing being swept under the carpet. This is no place for political correctness. -- Fyslee 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Fyslee.  This ain't about political correctess by any stretch.  It's about how to present both sides rather than just throwing chiropractic in willy-nilly without a consensused, balanced, verified, properly sourced explanation of what the issues are. Published material by a business competitor with a major financial stake and a history of trying to destroy chiropractic (as documented and ruled by the federal court in the US) affects our determinations of what constitutes a reliable source when we find instances of MDs calling chiropractic pseudoscientific.  ... Kenosis 18:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just state who is saying it. It's their opinion, and if properly sourced it's okay. -- Fyslee 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  There is an internal battle among chiropractors, even as the empirical research progresses.  And, there's a competitive battle waged by the AMA, which is under federal court settlement agreement not to attempt to destroy chiropractic any more.  Still, we find the occasional mention of chiro in a derogatory way in literature by MD's, and also by others.  Yet,  the fact that chiropractic has progessed in doing empirical research and in its theory development causes it to not clearly meet Thagard's threshold test for pseudoscience, which is lack of progress on its theories. Additionally, the largest, or one of the largest, studies of chiropractic, the "Workman's Compensation Board" study entered into evidence at the anti-trust trial against the AMA, showed major benefits in return-to-work rate for those treated by chiropractors-- twice as effective as MD's for comparable injuries at every level of injury severity. As I advocated in earlier discussion, a brief discussion of chiropractic, if it's to be included, should include all the relevant views, synopsized in a balanced fashion per WP:NPOV. This would be a far more sensible approach than throwing in chiropractic as a poster child for pseudoscience, because plainly it's not a clear-cut case as some have argued. ... Kenosis 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your understanding of the Wilk v. American Medical Association case isn't quite true. The boycott was illegal, and organized boycotts aren't allowed. Otherwise doctors and other healthcare professionals still have a professional and moral obligation to attempt to educate and protect their patients from dangerous, deceptive, and false ideas. The AMA simply had not exhausted those options, which is what the judge said. Those options are still available and being used quite legally, and rightly so. Scams, deceptions, false advertising, weird and unscientific ideas, etc. are all fair game, no matter the individual or profession that is involved in them. Chiropractic is far from the only target. -- Fyslee 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've mentioned before on this talk page, physicians have a right to make assertions in writing as to efficacy.  Problem is the evidence of chiropractic's effectiveness presented at the Wilk trial showing return-to-work statistics that were vastly superior to that of injured workers treated by MDs at every level of injury severity (can't cite you the classes of injuries at the moment).  But, of course MDs retain the right under the First Amendment to comment in keeping with the Supreme Court's time, place and manner criteria for free speech.  What the judge was saying is that the AMA must argue the issues on the merits.  Calling chiropractic pseudoscientific hardly settles the question for us as to WP. Taking the sources we've reviewed as a whole, the issue appears quite debatable and chiropractic appears to be a mixture of older concepts without adequately specific operational definitions, and therapies that are increasingly well studied and shown to have benefit for the clients.  Thus, both sides of this "coin" must be presented if chiropractic is to be discussed in this article on WP. ... Kenosis 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The AMA had engaged in covering up research that showed the benefits of chiropractic. While there was concern for patients, the judge felt that the motivation behind the AMA's illegal conspiracy was also driven by fear of competition and financial concerns. Need there be more said? That the AMA is not allowed to do this as an organization anymore is a nice win for chiropractic. Individually, we see medical doctors working along side chiropractors more and more. Medical doctors and chiropractic doctors both have an ethical responsibility to recommend what is best for the patient. I've seen massive amounts of referrals going both ways. Bottomline, chiropractic is as poor as an example of what constitutes a pseudoscience as say immunology; both have large amounts of advocates and critics engaged in professional competition all pointing their fingers at the other. Let's stick to the obvious, hardly contentious ones here folks. Levine2112 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I will spell it out more clearly.  He's a prof, and he states extremely clearly that "similar beliefs and behavior are associated with iridology, medical astrology, meridian therapy, reflexology, subluxation-based chiropractic, therapeutic touch, and other health-related pseudosciences."  He is calling subluxation based chiropractic a pseudoscience. A view exists that chiropractic is PS when used in this way.  Its very clear.  It doesn't matter if some moneygrabbing US court says there is a battle, chiro is illegal in some other countries, and it is based on voodoo. It is a perfect example of a pseudoscientific subject, and useful nuance lies therein. KrishnaVindaloo 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Whole-heartedly. Levine2112 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, he's a reliable source and he says subluxation based chiro is PS. Why does he say this? Well, its pretty common for people to come to that conclusion after the vitalistic theory, the unsupported nature of the theory, and its application to everything from beating the slot machines to curing homosexuality. I will add more info to it in good time. KrishnaVindaloo 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is the "he" you are referring to here, KV? Levine2112 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chiro ref

message: NB, this information is pretty well supported. It just needs to be placed in a format that helps the reader understand this overly abstract article. Feel free to comment and suggest.  KrishnaVindaloo 06:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fields and concepts currently regarded as pseudoscience by notable commentators 

message: Is the section "Fields and concepts currently regarded as pseudoscience by notable commentators" itself. I'd strongly recommended dropping the project to put an exhaustive list in this article. The pseudoscience-ness of topics can be discussed and presented in greater detail in their own articles. 
Some important examples should stay here.
Pjacobi 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is an opposite and alternative way of doing things.  There was a long list of PS subjects a while back, but it was paired down a lot and some said it was unmanagable and some complained it was nonsense because it has cosmology etc in there. Of course there was nothing unmanagable about it at all. It just didn't suit some proponents, and it took the thunder out of some folk's accusation at intelligent design etc being PS.  The bottom line is, there is nothing you can do about NPOV policy.  Its all useful stuff. It just depends on how you organize it, and how you deal with idiots who buy into pseudoscience and can't countenance negative facts.  KrishnaVindaloo 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pjacobi. Otherwise we should drop the list entirely. The debate over this list has carried on for at least a year now and I fear it shall never end if we stay on this track. Levine2112 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead, cut away, it doesn't make any difference, you can't stop people writing NPOVly about specific pseudoscientific subjects in other parts of the article. KrishnaVindaloo 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pjacobe and Levine2112 above. Use the "keep it simple" technique. --Dematt 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would strongly support ditching the list. If a brief list of examples were to be kept, then perhaps one example from each of three fields, strongly supported here on the talk page, and well referenced. No ambiguous or disputed examples, as they only muddy the water, not provide clarity. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could certainly agree to that.  As for cosmology v plate-techtonics, I assume your reticence to include somologycosmology is because it is much broader in scope, taking in a number of theories?  If so, I can certainly understand that as well.  •Jim62sch• 10:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Include is the operative word here. The way to include is to consider NPOV policy first. So basically anything that helps explain and make concrete the abstract ideas in the article will be fine. We can brainstorm our own lists all day, and of course some will be restrictive, so I say keep it open. KrishnaVindaloo 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed re NPOV...you should read the policy sometime though.  •Jim62sch• 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Source of All Evil 

message: There seems to me a wide if not universal agreement that the list is not a good idea, but many still think that some examples might be interesting/helpful/
I've revised the lead to include the following 
"The term pseudoscience or pseudoscientific is sometimes applied by disputants working in the same field to disparage a competing theory or the form of argument used by a rival, sometimes by commentators from outside a field to disparage a whole field, sometimes merely to characterise the fact that a theory publishe in a popular book has no academic credibility whatsoever, and sometimes in reference to a theory now discarded."
I suggest that this lead provides a possible context for selected examples at the end of the article, and would suggest choosing one clear and uncontentious example of each, writing in a way that discusses what is meant by PS in each case and the difficulties of attaching a coherent meaning to it.
e,g, - disputes within a field - I think the most notable example with very extensive V RS support is the dispute within psychology relating to Freud's theories - this was one of Popper's examples. Essentially this is an argument within a field about the appropriate "level" of explanation. Actually I think this will be very hard to write about in a balanced way but it could be mentioned as having been Popper's example and then just refer the reader to the articles
- disparage a competing theory - ID vs Darwinism? the accusation flies in both directions - again can mention and refer to the article
- to disparage a whole field - astrology was Popper's paradigm example and subsequent commentators (Bunge etc) have analysed his case in detail. We don't have to disparage astrology, simply analyse the criteria used
- popular book - non Daniken 
- discarded- phrenology (discuss issue of ahistorical fallacy?)
??? Comments?Gleng 08:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PJacobi had some good thoughts on this in the source of all evil section.  (BTW -- I added breaks to your post above to clear up the formatting, hope you don't mind).  •Jim62sch• 10:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a related comment towards the end of the "cosmology" section above, to the effect that I'm not opposed to trying such a section on an experimental basis. ... Kenosis 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminder to Gleng. I was referring to your edit. I understand personal attack very well as I have been the recipient due to my staunch insistence on NPOV policy.  Thats the straight truth. Or do you wish to call me dishonest again? And would you like to have all your chiro friends stand up and chuck stones at me while you do it? KrishnaVindaloo 17:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated earlier in Latin: get off the cross, we need the wood.  •Jim62sch• 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignoring offensive rubbish

message: OK, I know I've said it before, but it is something that people have been skirting around for months without even attempting discussion. Theorists call subjects PS, and they explain why they are PS.  They generally say, for example, astrology is pseudoscientific because its - theory - is untestable.  Or chiropractic is pseudoscientific because its proponents adhere to its vitalistic theories despite the fact it has failed in empirical testing. So to include a field, it is probably a good idea to add the explanation for why it is considered PS by referring to its theories or the activities of proponents. It would be a good idea to be organized about this, and possibly to use sections. We can have sections on pseudoscientific notions, such as a section on intelligent design or teleological pseudoscience which has implications to certain fields. We can add a section on vitalism which is used pseudoscientifically in a great number of alternative medicine activities. And so on. It is the concepts that organize the fields, not the other way around. Top-down approach will lead to a more concise, organized, and intelligent article. KrishnaVindaloo 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For your own knowledge, here are portals to literally hundreds of pieces of empirical scientific research in which chiropractic has not failed. Levine2112 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OR is unacceptable, Levine2112. We can only go by the view of reviewers. Sorry, but a lot of them say that chiropractic is fairly pathetic, and a bit of a warm up and stretch will do a better job, for free! KrishnaVindaloo 17:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What OR? I am not putting this in the article. This is here for your knowledge (and anyone else who is interested). I figured that you would be interested in seeing literally hundreds of pieces of research, all of which provide empirical evidence which supports the efficacy of chiropractic for a  variety of conditions. Certainly I know there are "reviewers" out there who deny or write-off this research. I just want to make sure that you are aware of it. Levine2112 17:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm perfectly aware of expert opinion, Levine2112. And I know how it fits into the majority view. KrishnaVindaloo 18:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. It's good to know that you are aware of all this research and all of the empirical evidence supporting chiropractic. A lot of dissenters seem to turn a blind eye to this (as did the AMA before the Wilk case) and say such fallacies as chiropractic fails empirical testing or there is no scientific evidence supporting many of chiropractic claims. Clearly, you and I both know that the oppositie is true. There is plenty of scientific research and empirical testing which in fact supports chiropractic. Federal funding for chiropractic research in the United States is a very recent thing and it is amazing to see how much evidence even the smallest amount of funding has brought forth in support chiropractic. Levine2112 19:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so how to you reconcile the fact that the whole theory of chiro is pseudoscience? Pseudoscience is about theory more than anything else.  So what do you say about that?  The minor supporting evidence is completely outweighed by the fact that chiropractors spend their time learning about qi flows, and vitamine fads, and reiki, and shamanistic touch, and divert their efforts away from critical thought whenever things get to realistic for them. So yes, lets look closely at the amazing anecdotes of believers.  How about taking a browse of chiropractic websites for a start! Look at the kind of PS they are peddling. Do you have an answer to that? KrishnaVindaloo 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My answer is that I have never heard of qi flows, vitamine fads, reiki nor shamanistic touch mentioned in any chiropractic office or classroom which I have ever been in. Chiropractors follow a standard routine to secure the information they need for diagnosis and treatment. They take the patient’s medical history; conduct physical, neurological, and orthopedic examinations; and may order laboratory tests. X rays and other diagnostic images are important tools because of the chiropractor’s emphasis on the spine and its proper function. Chiropractors also employ a postural and spinal analysis common to chiropractic diagnosis. The chiropractic approach to health care is holistic, stressing the patient’s overall health and wellness. It recognizes that many factors affect health, including exercise, diet, rest, environment, and heredity. Chiropractors provide natural, drugless, nonsurgical health treatments and rely on the body’s inherent recuperative abilities. They also recommend changes in lifestyle—in eating, exercise, and sleeping habits, for example—to their patients. When appropriate, chiropractors consult with and refer patients to other health practitioners. I really don't know of any other health profession which applies more critical thinking. As for peddling PS or BS or whatever we may want to call it, I'm sure there are some chiropractors who are guilty of this, just as there are some MDs, DOs, etc., who are also guilty of this. You can't hold an entire profession accountable for the acts of so few. Levine2112 16:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you also hear that chiropractors expose their victims to far more xrays than normal radiologists will allow? Comments? KrishnaVindaloo 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I don't understand... You think chiropractic is a pseudoscience because you feel they take too many x-rays? They are too diagnostic? You do realize that chiropractic pioneered the use of x-rays for diagnostic-based healthcare. In other words, they were the first healthcare profession to embrace the use of x-rays and are responsible for developing many of the diagnostic techniques radiologists use today. Regardless, what basis does this conversation have here? Levine2112 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (ri) "Did you also hear ..."???? What the fuck? Has this page become a gossip column or the Krishnal Enquirer? •Jim62sch• 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... profanity aside, KV's point seems unfounded. A single CAT scan, for instance, will expose a person to the equivalent of many dozens or hundreds of plain X-rays... so by that rationale, MD's radiate their pts a lot more than chiros (assuming chiros aren't using CT's these days? Anyone?) From my perspective as an allopathic MD, chiropractic is established as a reasonable, empirically validated treatment for certain conditions (eg as effective as allopathic care for lower back pain). I've referred pts to chiros on occasion, if they're interested and there's data to back it up. There is a crazy fringe (anti-vaccine, believe chiro can cure the flu or HIV, etc), but as a field it seems a little inappropriate to label modern chiro a pseudoscience. Just my 2 cents. MastCell 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: MastCell, you'd need to understand the dynamic of the page to understand the "profanity". To quote from a movie favourite, "I don't swear for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. We've got to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words anybody understands." Anyway, your point re CT scans is excellent. •Jim62sch• 12:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello MastCell. The point that you are all missing here is that it is a view of a reputable source (a professor with expertise in the area of nerves).  And of course there are other sources that state the view. Its not my view at all. I know hardly anything about Xrays.  I don't need to know a thing about them, except that chiropractors often use too many, and don't use certified xray professonals. According to the literature, they also often request their patients to repeat visit, thereby earning extra bucks. Not my research!  Other views. Other relevant views.  Editors should not be dismissive of relevant views.  This is all important information in the study of pseudoscience, because it is exactly how pseudoscientists behave (ie, the cult of chiropractic with all its pseudoscientific theory and behaviour). It illustrates the behaviour of pseudoscientists very clearly, and the reader benefits. KrishnaVindaloo 14:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So chiros advocate back-alley X-rays?  Besides, a professor with expertise in neurology is hardly a radiological expert is he? What are the other sources -- a race car driver, a chef and a proctologist? •Jim62sch• 19:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim62sch, your dismissive tone has been noted. KrishnaVindaloo 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I assure you I feel quite honoured to be notable.  •Jim62sch• 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theories and concepts and activities within fields

message: This most recent version of the following sentence requires some discussion, in my opinion:
*"A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably called pseudoscience or pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method. Williams, William F. (editor) (2000) Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Cover, J.A., Curd, Martin (Eds, 1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 1-82. "
I'm wondering if the field needs to be presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research to be reasonably called pseudoscientific.  Some advocates of clear cases of pseudoscience such as intelligent design, seek instead to call it science or scientific, while advocating instead that the definition of science should be expanded or changed to include their methods (or lack thereof).  Alternately, such advocates of a particular theory of field may merely refer to it as "science" or "scientific" without any real thought or knowledge of scientific method, or without an adequate understanding of how scientific method might reasonably be conducted. ... Kenosis 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested in reviewing the most reliable and verifiable source possible on this question before I would be comfortable adding my opinion.  What do the philosophers of science use as criteria.  Our references that are verifiable are the skeptic dictionary and Williams.  No offense to either of these works, but if we're going to get this right, we should be using the very best.  Is there any other source we can all agree on? --Dematt 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider Williams a reliable source. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CSICOP? Scientific American?  Astronomical Society of the Pacific has some stuff on Astronomy related ps , The Archaeological Institute of America has Seductions of Pseudoarchaeology: Pseudoscience in Cyberspace... Both have some commentary on the nature of pseudoscience in general. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And to address Kenosis' original question, yes we should use accepted norms of scientific research. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes Mcnally is welcome by all means, weighting considered. Now, using chiropractic as an example, lets focus on the good science from the bad science within that field.  Applying chiropractic to schizophrenia, for example.  Lets hear what you have to say about schizophrenia sufferers, and what chiropractics can do for their condition.  Firstly, we can consider the theological applications of chiropractic in this context.  You first. KrishnaVindaloo 12:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not. If you want to add content, I suggest you start by looking for a very strong source that discusses it carefully, read it and report what they say. As Steth has said previously, Nightmares do not make good sources.Gleng 13:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the core chiropractic textbook? KrishnaVindaloo 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From which you would synthesize info, thus violating WP:NOR?  No thanks.  BTW, I've never been to a chiropractor, and doubt that I'll ever go to one (although you never know), thus I am not by any means a supporter of chiropractic, in fact I'm rather ambivalent about it.  Thus: ENOUGH OF YOUR FUCKING INSANE OBSESSION WITH CHIROPRACTIC.  Do you understand?  It's really quite simple: your constant natterings on about the "evils" of chiropractic are like the ravings of a pickled lunatic.  As far as I can see the only reason you came to this page was to bash chiro.  At this point, you have as much credibility as a scientologist.  •Jim62sch• 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Proponents keep denying things, and the evidence is to the contrary. . KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know how long we'll need to put up with this, Steth; until KV is banned I suppose.  Or we could all go out and bark at the moon tonight -- maybe then we'd see KV's wisdom.  •Jim62sch• 23:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First part of "Identifying pseudoscience" section

message: Shouldn't the "Notes"-section be renamed "References", the "References"-section renamed "Further reading" and the "See also"-section be dumped into a black hole?
And when removing the link the Keith Parsons on-line essay (why?), shouldn't it be replaced with an entry about his book? Which one? Has anyboday read them?
Pjacobi 15:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right about Gauch, he's a source about the scientific method, and not pseudoscience. --Iantresman 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What's cited is in the ill-named "Notes"-section. The equally ill-named "References"-section should provide the reader with a selection of further reading. --Pjacobi 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Notes probably is the most common.  However, if the items in references are properly done in the  name  style, we could call the section Notes and References as in the Intelligent design aricle. •Jim62sch• 22:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that Intelligent design would work relatively well here, considering there is really no perfect answer. --Dematt 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up the tail 

message: *As I've mentioned before , I believe that most of the citations in this section do not support the identifications described. 
*Most seem to support the identification with the scientific method, but that is not the same as implying that it means it also identifies pseudoscience. (A cat can be identified by fur, a tail and miaows; just because an animal does not miaows, does not necessarily mean it's a pig, or even mean we consider it might be a pig).
*I recommend that we move all citations, add new ones that include direct quotes showing the association with pseudoscience, and then remove all entries that can not be verified. --Iantresman 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move? Move where? Move why? We can check the cites without moving them anywhere, am I missing something? I concur it would be well for us to check each and every cite, but surely we can do that here on talk, and only remove those which are inappropriate (not a good source, does not support statement, etc) rather than move them all then put back the ones we find suitable. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm suggesting that if we don't find citations for some of them, we remove them --Iantresman 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Identifying pseudoscience" citations

message: I notice that five of the citations to Hugh Gauch's Scientific Method in Practice (2003) were removed here.  Just to clarify the original situation in which these citations were placed, all of those references had a direct relevance to the particular "characteristic(s)" involved, and each of them cites the relevant pages or section(s) of that book.  I do understand that some of the text may have been changed and that some WP users occasionally change things with little-or-no regard for the context they're dealing with, sometimes leading to a distortion of the original context.  But as far as I was able to tell, at the point at which they were removed, those Gauch cites still retained the basic relevance they originally had when I provided the citations.  My offhand sense of the most effective way to proceed in this particular case is to allow the citations to stand for the present, and improve on them, rather than eliminate them and leave those points in the article without any visible verification whatsoever. After all, the editors have chosen to define pseudoscience as involving a substantial deviation from accepted scientific method.  Thus a presentation of relevant aspects of method is quite relevant to each of the points involving citations to Gauch (not that he's the only one we could cite to). I would much prefer to keep those citations rather than eliminate them completely, and thereby allow the possiblity for better citations to be added in the future to the extent that they may be available.  ... Kenosis 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gleng talked about those refs here. --Dematt 04:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw that in the section above.  But that section was not limited to this issue. Please, of course, feel free to reproduce relevant info from that section in this section to the degree judged appropriate by anyone choosing to comment on this issue. ... Kenosis 05:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes it has become all too common for certain editors to remove useful literature or information. Whatever reason they are doing it for, it is unconstructive. KrishnaVindaloo 03:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said my piece for the present.  Admittedly it usually takes more keystrokes to add material than to remove it. ... Kenosis 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, yes.  One way a controversial article, or any article, gets AFU, is by changing the context in which material is placed.  Originally the "characteristics" were introduced by various editors, and pseudoscience was said to have two elements, (1) holding an idea or field out as science or scientific, and (2) failing to follow scientific method.  This originally was presented without any citation other than the references already provided in the lead of the article to definitions such as Carroll's skepdic.com and the OED.  Since failure to follow scientific method was one of the two elements used in the section on "Identifying pseudoscience", it would appear sensible to cite to a reliable source that these characteristics were in fact characteristic of scientific method. Enter, the Gauch citations. Now, if the new consensus is that the article should only include material that can be cited to a source that specifically identifies a deviation from a particular characteristic of scientific method, for each and every characteristic, then ditch the ones that don't have such a citation.  I don't think the editors need go that route. ... Kenosis 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Rather than kick them, it would be more sensible to keep the valuable information, and simply reframe it to suit the info about science. When there is an improvement effort going on, at least keep the references. Such deletion really does smack of sweeping stuff under the carpet. There is far too much of that going on right now. There is nothing wrong with keeping all suggested references for now, then having a proper investigation. When no corroboration turns up after a while, then you can consider deletion. Either way, sensible discussion is necessary. I do believe for that to work, this article is in desperate need of reliable mediators though. KrishnaVindaloo 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such information is not valuable if it's not accurate and verifiable. My feeling is that some of the characteristics are cited by others in identifying pseudoscience, but others are not cited because they are not actually used by anyone, except by people who mistakenly believe that not following the scientific method 100% is pseudoscience. Since the scientific method varies from subject to subject, I think this is unlikely. Either way, verifiability of characteristics and pseudoscience (not scientific method) is a requirement. --Iantresman 09:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not particularly complaining about your editing.  Here is a notable example though  (not yours) that removes cites, removes information that is pretty much in proportion to the article, and in proportion to maj and min (using cites). There is a snarky edit summary that makes no attempt to improve, only to delete in favour of Gleng's awful, argumentative, and boosterist editing (eg considerable disagreement etc) and focuses on arguments between disputants, rather than the majority of those who identify pseudoscience using quite neutral explanatory terms. Corroboration is also an important point here, you may want to remove info that you don't think is reliable, but corroborating information can make all the difference.  Basically, its a bad idea to join in with unconstructive deletion activities, when there are perfectly easy alternative solutions. KrishnaVindaloo 10:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully I'm giving good reasons why I think certain statements should be removed, and giving people every opportunity to provide citations first. And hopefully others will back-up their editing with similar good reason too. --Iantresman 11:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Ian. You might have noticed now that Gleng and Steth have added refs it shows pretty well how biased the commentary is. The comments are hardly representative of the refs, and its pretty much an argument that doesn't even represent the article - It just shows an argument. And are the refs themselves representative?  I really do think this article needs a mediator or two. At the very least to teach some people how to write an article. KrishnaVindaloo 12:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you might teach us...Ommmmm  •Jim62sch• 12:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently removed references 

message: *I've found one reference and quote that refer to "operational definitions" and pseudoscience. Perhaps someone would like to assess it for suitability. 
*I've also attempted to add a clarification explaining the term "operational definitions" which I think is scientific mumbo-jumbo to the average person. --Iantresman 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operational definitions

message: "At what time exactly, Gleng?"
Exactly what did you mean by this oddly inappropriate but apparently offensive edit summary? I take it you objected to SA's phrasing; if so take it up with him.Gleng 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its unnecessary commentary. Its the sort of thing that your editing is full of. I just removed a lot of such commentary from you from the opening. I had to do the same thing on the vitalism article. Please stop doing it. Authors make particular statements, and we can summarize or paraphrase the statements to make them more concise, or just paste them in with quotes. But please stop adding your own commentary and OR. KrishnaVindaloo 03:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Gleng. You edited the section and left it looking like your editing. I am pointing out how to correct that kind of thing. KrishnaVindaloo 11:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: KV?

message: I've just been looking up Lilienfeld's publications and reading a few. He's a clinical psychologist, and he extensively discusses misuses, abuses and unscientific practices in his field. It's good and interesting stuff, and relevant.  But where does the alt med bit from? I don't think that any of the things he writes on at least in the peer reviewed literature fall into this category. So I removed an unverified and apparently unlikely reference.Gleng 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Gleng, this is typical of your sort of unconstructive editing. Alternative medicine is full of pseudoscience and it is going to be as easy as a walk in the park finding refs to back up Lilienfeld's view. Of course your sort of editing generally discourages that kind of constructive information search. KrishnaVindaloo 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like many authors, Lilienfeld also writes books. KrishnaVindaloo 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lilienfeld

message: I removed McNally as he is irellevant to the protoscience section. I did have the source placed in the psych section as it is more appropriate there. It has been reverted nevertheless. Also its been selectively placed in. He also mentions "Of course, merely because a term can be misused does not mean that it does not have its proper uses." Feel free to discuss. KrishnaVindaloo 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one else seems to have an issue with this quote.  It's self-explanatory, consistent with McNally's article and appropriate under the section.  The second sentence on "what is the evidence?" is straight from the abstract, and sums up his take well.  What's not to understand?  Restoring.  Jim Butler(talk) 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McNally

message: Feyerbend did not specifically mention PS, so it is irellevant to the article. Feel free to discuss KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feyerbend's comments about epistemological limits are relevant, but he probably shouldn't be mentioned as explicitly as he is due to the fact that he probably wouldn't appreciate his comments being construed as a defense of hucksterism and pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 04:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading actually makes him sound almost anti-science.  He is advocating that we stop pushing science as the know all and end all of every decision - even to stop pushing it in school.  Interesting.  I wonder how he would feel about it in healthcare? Hmm, what do you think KV? --Dematt 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feyerbend