Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 10

message: This talkpage has gotten out-of-control. The discussions contained here have drifted so far away from the purpose of talkpages as to be really not worth keeping live. Therefore, I have archived the previous discussion. The issues are still active, but in the spirit of turning over a new leaf, let's begin discussing how to make the article better. To wit, let's have all contributions here be of the sort: "Let's include this in the article" or "Let's remove this from the article". No more arguments about people's behavior, no more discussions about what is and isn't a pseudoscience (except in regards to what to include or remove from the article), and generally no more tangential discussions. If you want to pursue any of these, there are other venues in which to do it. Now let's get back to editting. --ScienceApologist 17:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Am I making sense when I say, Pseudosciences make scientific claims but do not follow the scientific method, therefore they behave in certain ways that we list (i.e. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, etc.)  In other words, if A then B.  But when we try to say a particular field's theory is untestable -> therefore it is a pseudoscience, that would be saying; since B then A, which is not logical.  So if we are going to use anything as an example of pseudoscience, we first have to prove they are A, otherwise there are a lot of things that behave like B but aren't A, such as surgery that can't use double blind tests, etc.  Agree/Disagree? --Dematt 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The way pseudoscience is usually determined is through examining all the available evidence, not just pointing to single features. No one would ever claim that something was pseudoscience just because it couldn't be subject to double-blind tests. Subjects are pseudoscience because they make claims that either have been falsified or lack testability. --ScienceApologist 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My last point is not wrong. After falsification of an idea has occurred, pseudoscience supporters continue to advocate the idea in spite of its falsification. --ScienceApologist 19:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not it isn't. I stated quite clearly that pseudoscience "makes claims that... have been falsified" as in "already" falsified. --ScienceApologist 19:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you need to look at Popper and Kuhn; both stress that theories are retained in normal science long after they have been extensively falsified, they are only replaced when a better theory emerges,.... and then the process is complex. Kuhn's account of science is a competitive one - differenct co-existing schools developing competing theories that are mutually inconsistent, neither of which are wholly true, and often "incommensurate".....Gleng 09:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about Kuhn's paradigm shifts here, I'm talking about people who advocate, for example, flood geology even after it's shown that in order for the atmosphere to contain that amount of water vapor, no life could have been supported on the Earth. --ScienceApologist 12:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, then that list becomes pretty important.  That is where we need to concentrate on verifiable and reliable sourcing.  But of course we run into the same problem; if we're going to use examples for each, anything from any field could theoretically go in as an example, i.e. surgery for untestable, etc. right, unless we decide on some kind of line of demarcation?  So, either we (1)decide on the line of demarcation, (2)don't use examples, (3)keep doing what we're doing - but keep running into the infighting.  Is that a reasonable assessment? --Dematt 20:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, no, no. This analysis is almost completely original research. Pseudoscience is evaluated in introductory science courses as a matter of curriculum! It's not merely a pejorative, it's an actual issue in science education. I'm sorry that the pseudoscientists get offended when evidence is shown that blows their ideas out of the water or their methodology is pointed out to be flawed, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a love-in or a place where criticism is mitigated. We report what is actually done, and in introductory science classes, what is done is, frankly, demarcation -- despite the fact that this task gets muddied amongst various philosophers of science. --ScienceApologist 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is NOT just a "philosophy of science issue". It is also an issue of scientific literacy and as such is relevant to the people actually doing science. You are claiming, falsely, that pseudoscience is used almost exclusively as a put-down. I'm pointing out that while people take offense to the pseudoscience label, there are plenty of examples where pseudoscience is used in other contexts. Your attempt to construct a hierarchy of norms between intro science teachers and philosophers of science is silly. We can report both in this article and they will complement each other well. The article can delve both into philosophical issues while explaining what scientists have said about pseudoscience, and it can do both without claiming an objective value-judgement on the term. --ScienceApologist 20:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we have verifiable citations to works which criticize pseudoscience in a wide range of introductory textbooks. I'll remind everyone here that while pseudoscience may be a POV, Wikipedia reports notable POVs that are found in the outside world. The job of Wikipedia is not to right perceived wrongs of society. In Europe, the scientific community is somewhat more accomodating to fringe and pseudoscience than we are in the United States. This is probably due to the fact that in Europe the anti-science perspective is looked at as backwards while there is a significant group of people in the US who actively promote "science bashing" and criticize science itself. Different strokes for different folks, of course. We can report this in the article if someone can dig up some sociology of science citations to this effect. --ScienceApologist 12:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But here, I think, matters come to a head. Because what can now be seen is that the term "pseudoscience" finds its place in a political, rather than a scientific, arena. That is, the science bashers bash science and the defenders of science respond with sound-bite distinctions that are politically useful but have little actual scientific merit - convenient brushes to tar opponents with but unsustainable from a neutral perspective. When that point is combined with SA's point above that "the standard skeptical societies [...] have a good claim to "word ownership"", and we look at the ideological foundations of those skeptical societies (here, e.g.,), the point becomes clearer still. That certain educators have become part of this political battle should not be taken as evidence for anything other than they have become involved.Davkal 13:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that you all have deliniated POVs that surface on this page.  I think a good up-to-the-minute, progressive, online encyclopedia should spend its valuable time presenting this debate rather than making lists from eitherany POV. Am I wrong? --Dematt 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I think you're right on.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 08:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I making sense? 

message: Because the word PS can be used either indiscriminately (as a pejorative) or with attempted precision (as Popper attempted), and in mutually inconsistent ways, it seems important to be precise in citation. Hurd uses the word PS to embrace, specifically, the occult, superstition and quackery, and not to make that clear would be to miscite him, particularly because elsewhere in the present article it is clear that a precise use of the term pseudoscience would exclude all of these -and to include the Occult as pseudoscience would probably entail including all religion. The Occult is a necessary inclusion in any cite, as this makes clear that Hurd is embracing religious beliefs as pseudoscience.
This is Hurd's only use of the word, to stretch his meaning beyond what he said would be a speculative inference. 
In psychology, as in all fields of science, the word pseudoscientific is part of the armamentorium of internal criticism (though seldom in the peer reviewed scientific literature, which generally prefers terms with operational definitions); the holder of one position may say that an alternative is pseudoscientific, meaning variously that the terms are ill defined, or the position is logically unsound, or that the argument is irremedially obscure. Sometimes this is a "straw man" position to delineate the conflicts, sometimes a serious criticism - but just as Medawar declared with rigor and vigor that every scientific paper is a fraud, there is little sense in treating arguments within a field as though they were somehow criticisms of the field, for intelligible external consumption. However, psychology is relevant for one good reason - it was chosen as one of the three canonical examples of unfalsifiable theories by Popper, who was the first to attempt a rigorous use of PS.
The University of Maryland curriculum by the way uses PS in the title but the description makes no further use of it.
How any of these arguments can give comfort to those who choose to believe nonsense is beyond me. If nonsense cannot be countered by cool rigor, careful analysis, and clear thinking, but needs to be branded by emotive labels with no intellectual content, then maybe it's not nonsense after all.Gleng 10:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gleng, the problem with your edit is that in attempting to mitigate the use of the term "pseudoscience", you introduced a slant that claims that pseudoscience is poorly considered. While you submit that there is no definition of pseudoscience that is adequate, this quibble has no bearing on the sentences you editted. There is plenty of text elsewhere in the article which deals with this, but you failed to take the cites at their word which is that they are discussing the perils of pseudoscience. Trying to argue against these cites in the fashion you did by saying that they are somehow not giving good enough definitions for what they are fighting against is injecting original research. --ScienceApologist 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? How can using the author's own words instead ogf yours be injecting my POV exactly? This is the only use of the term in the article, and at least we should respect the possibility that the author meant exactly what he said. I think it is OR to go beyond that and infer that the author actually meant more than he said. Gleng 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hate to butt in here where I haven't been following the current history of the debate, but using precise quotes is often the best way to avoid accusations of OR and POV editing. When properly sourced, the case stands stronger. FWIW. -- Fyslee 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see I wasn't the only one confused by that. --Dematt 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It may well be that trying to cover science education is a bit too much for the lead. ... Kenosis 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree re the quotes, but I also agree with Kenosis.  When I go to a restaurant I want a drink first, not a roast suckling pig slapped on the table. •Jim62sch• 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, drink... pig.... definitely drink.  I say drink. --Dematt 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pig... drink.... perhaps a compromise is possible?  Seriously, yeah, agree w/ paring the lead a bit and covering more below. -Jim Butler(talk) 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. - meant to add, agree w/ Gleng above re operational definitions. - Jim Butler(talk) 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, per the Pork Soda method, 1) put pig in a big blender, 2) empty contents into large vessel, 3) put into centrifuge to sort out bones, intestines, etc., 4) boil contents so no one gets sick, 5) add seasoning so no one throws up from the taste, 6) carbonate; makes 100 eight-ounce servings ... maybe this analogy has reached its practical limit of utility? Actually, in my comment above, I was mainly just wondering whether recent discussion of "pseudoscience" in science education might deserve a separate section in the article rather than attempting to deal with controversial pedagogy in the introduction. In the last half of the 20th Century, in general, scientific method is taught in keeping with whatever the discipline is, while pseudoscience is merely acknowledged as one form of the category of non-science without further qualification in the texts. In general, it hasn't been the educator's job to teach students what pseudoscience is, but rather to stick to teaching students appropriate method in their particular discipline--chemists learn one set of methods, biologists another, phsyicists another, experimental psychologists yet another, each of which is currently accepted in their own area of inquiry based on past successes.  And it's left to "philosophers of science" to integrate it all, if they think they can. And as we already know, philosophers of science have been unsuccessful in attempts to arrive at a clear solution to the demarcation problem; though the AAAS has made nice progress in developing guidelines in recent years. So to whatever extent the term "pseudoscience" may be used in any of the recent texts on method, it is relatively very new. Maybe a brief section in the article on recent trends in science education involving the use of the word "pseudoscience" might be appropriate? ... Kenosis 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we're getting to the marrow of the matter (porcine metaphor exhausted?).  Yes, Kenosis, agree with your ideas; cult has some good approaches on presenting POV's. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 17:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would certainly make sense and set the stage for the rational debate of the issues. --Dematt 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing accurately 

message: I've added a missing information tag on the "pseudoscience in psychology" this is missing a reply from those who feel that they have been inappropriately marginalized by evidence-based academics and psychologists. There seems to be some tension between practitioners in the field and the researchers. I believe it is referred to as the widening research-practitioner gap. There is also a tension between the more directive behavioral approaches (eg. CBT) and the humanistic (soft) approaches to research in psychotherapy. It appears that proponents of the more behavioral psychotherapies have referred to underpinnings of the softer psychotherapies. Proponents of these softer approaches would proabably say their methods are too complex to be studied using a scientific reductionist logic. These are significant disagreements that should be described in the article. --Comaze 14:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: I added this earlier today and it was removed;  I would simply have reverted the deletions, but other people have since changed this article, so there was a bit of double work on my part.  Let me explain why the wiki link belongs here so this doesn't happen again, unless the majority believes I'm clearly off the mark on this one.
Orthorexia nervosa is an "eating disorder" in which the "victim" only eats healthy foods.
ON ( for short ) was invented by an MD in Colorrado, never put to any type of experimentation, or any type of peer review process.  The theory ( which states that 6.9 % of the public suffers this disorder ) is based on personal observation, and nothing else.  There is in fact some evidence that the idea's founder cointed the term to mock the concept of the workaholic, but this is debated.
In other words, the notion claims to be scientific, and may fool the layman, but there's no basis in the scientifc method.
FireWeed 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be OR.  If you can find a citation claiming ON is pseudoscience, fine (though it sounds pretty damned obscure and not particularly worth noting in an article on pseudoscience).  If not, then clearly it should be omitted. Phiwum 12:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a similar note on this user's talk page about this. And you are right, Phiwum, it does seem too obscure to be placed here. Levine2112 18:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthorexia nervosa 

message: There is a "caution" blob on this page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diamond-caution.svg" with which the word "counselor" is misspelled with 2 "l"'s, but I cannot find a way to edit that text.  Maybe some more agile wiki-editor can do so. Carrionluggage 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Good catch, thanks! BTW, did you know you spelled "carry on" wrong? :) --Dematt 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Counselor/counsellor —they are alternate spellings and both correct. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Spelling in "Boiler-Plate" 

message: Popper maen Karl Popper, the edit has wikilinked reference. Do we have to quote what is already in here ? Nasz 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popper 

message: I added George W. Bush, but I feel slightly inconvenient putting him in the same paragraph as Nazi Germany and Stalin Sovjet. Whatever the qualities of GWB, I dislike seeing USA mentioned in the same paragraph as Nazi Germany and Stalin Sovjet. If anyone can make a better formulation, I would be the first to agree. Rursus 10:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably would be good just to add more examples to avoid too appearance of "guilt by association"; haven't got time but sectstub'd it.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 06:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What's the problem here? I assume you are only objecting against the Bush part. But which part of that statement you doubt? --Pjacobi 17:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience in Religion and Ideology 

message: Should not they also be included in pseudoscience? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ProtoCat (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shhhhhh!  Don't let accpuncturists and chiropracters hear you say that.Bubba73 (talk), 15:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accupunture and chiropractic 

message: Hello. I'm new to this article. I think its written very well. I did come across this published article though, by a social psychologist called Pratkanis . Its actually in the peer reviewed journal Skeptical Enquirer. It seems to be very relevant to explaning as Pratkanis puts in the "holy cow!" problem (how do some people believe pseudoscience?". From a science and psychology perspective it seems to be strongly relevant to this article. It actually seems relevant also to the characteristics of pseudoscience, but I think the perspective is more towards explanation.  I see there are some quite experienced editors here. So does anybody have a suggested line or two for introducing the main concepts into the psychological explanations section? Newtonspeed 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Popper, individual psychology, and psychoanalysis are good examples of pseudoscience. Proponents of both theories held onto them for their explanatory power, but they failed in terms of falsification. That is, they did not actively look for contradictions in their hypnotheses. --Comaze 08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but they are not good examples because there are secondary sources qualifying them with more specific points. There are only some aspects of Freud's ideas that are PS. He's not totally PS. Psychoanalysis nowadays isn't total PS. Though there do seem to be some problems with some actual pseudosciences being used in some areas of psychotherapy. So those specific pseudosciences are far better examples than psychotherapy or psychoanalysis per se. Newtonspeed 15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll check my lecture notes and get back to you with some specific examples. It might be a few days. Freud's psychosexual stages (development model) are problematic because he offers the opposite/reverse explanation if someone does not fit in the model. ie. repression, denial, and especially, reaction formation... If someone acts in a way that does not fit Freud's model the client must have reaction formation. On the positive side Freud was responsible for making major contribution to psychology, the unconscious is probably the most important contribution that remains in psychology. Best --Comaze 10:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sorry, I meant that Freud isn't a good example in relation to psychological explanations of why pseudoscience ideas stick to people. Newtonspeed 10:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about why pseudoscience sticks to ordinary people? It seems that Freud's theories have stuck to psychology for years. There are attempts, however, to integrate it into the scientific psychology. Second, Freud's theories have not been easily replicated by other scientists. Also, I don't understand why you think that Popper is reliable? His views on falsification is necessary for good science and his views are widely regarded in both philosophy of psychology and philosophy of science.  --Comaze 11:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand the subject of this section. Its about explaining why people get fooled, and what sort of methods of psychological persuasion are used. I'm sure some aspects of Freuds ideas are pseudoscientific, but that really doesn't seem to be core to the issue of this section. It may be relevant elsewhere in the article and I'm sure we'd be happy to have any very reliable and relevant information included as usual. You'd need to discuss with others most likely though. Newtonspeed 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you looking for something like The Barnum effect? --Comaze 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No presently I'm looking for explanations that are mentioned by sources. If the Barnum effect is mentioned then fine. But so far I think its mostly confirmation bias, and some social psychology methods that are applied by pseudoscientific groups. Pratkanis seems to be backed up by other sources, but I want to ok it with others here before adding anything in. Still trying to sort it out. Newtonspeed 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: PS, I ran a search on the author above (Pratkanis and pseudoscience and psychoanalysis) and couldn't find much. But then ran it on pratkanis and pseudoscience and there are other good references, one by a researcher called Grant Devilly (Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry). That reference may have something you are looking for. I'll have a check myself though. Newtonspeed 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychological explanations 

message: Just to encourage healthy discussion. Was it really considered an important precursor?  That seems to imply that its a protoscience and any pseudoscience can be seen as protoscientific. It seems to be quite wrong. Its down to sourcing though I guess. If there are a good weight of sources for the assertion then it could be acceptable. Newtonspeed 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phrenology was the first known attempt at localisation of brain function. See any neuroscience text. On second thought, maybe precursor was not the right word. My point is that to say phrenology is a classical example of pseudoscience without mentioning its importance in the development of biopsychology and neuroscience is not in line with wikipedia policy. --Comaze 07:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not intending it to be dismissed out of hand. I understand you are allowed to be bold and edit, but you are to respect a reversion with discussion.  With respect, I can see from your contributions that your particular bias (we all have biases and I admit mine are quite towards testability and empiricism) may be towards the presentation of pseudoscience as protoscience. Though some have your view its not the majority of science thinking.  I'm just following procedure with regards discussion on good sourcing for a particular view. Any range of peer reviewed sources will be fine, and of course reliable books and websites are to be taken into account as per NPOV on reliable sources. Either way, it remains that if any specific part or assertion of a phrenologist being turned into science will need to be mentioned at least somewhere else in the article. Its most likely just not specific enough to imply that one fringe subject was important for the development of neuroscience. From my understanding, the sciences of biology and physiology are the main precursors to neuroscience. I would imagine that any distortion of that view would be unacceptable. Input from other editors here may be helpful. Newtonspeed 07:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Localisation of brain function is the main research technique in cognitive neuroscience. I can understand and agree with your requirement for sourcing. I need to do a search later. If you feel the need to revert in the meantime go for it. I'll post it again when I have the sources or remove the assertion if my memory has failed me. --Comaze 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand that issue. Neuroimaging is often used (pictorially) by pseudoscientific concerns in order to promote a particular product. You can see this to a lesser degree in some pseudoscientific self help manuals which depict a head or brain with particular mechanisms in place (usually totally unsupported by science). I still feel it would be misleading to imply that neuroscience was pseudoscientific in some way. You would need to be very specific in any case. Newtonspeed 08:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Comaze 08:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, could you paste the actual statement by Friston, concerning others mentioning it as neo-phrenology - together with the context of that line? We would need to determine what they are actually getting at. Its sounds like a criticism. If so, it would need to be placed in a critical line in the article with reference to actual statements in relation to pseudoscience. Newtonspeed 08:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friston was a review paper. I think it would be better to reference a neuroscience or psychology text book if you want more context. --Comaze 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, is that a no? By context, I mean the paragraph, rather than just the line or line fragment. Newtonspeed 09:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The abstract gives some context. Click on the DOI link I provided in the reference. --Comaze 12:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrenology a precursor to neuroscience? 

message: I think this article would be greatly improved if we could work on that Etymology section. There is an excellent section in the OED on pseudo-science. A good place to start? --Comaze 14:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back into the lead, also reversing some accumulated entropy of the lead section. I also removed the NPOV tag associated with that section. Of course it could theoretically be turned into a genuine etymology, but it would be quite brief and unnecessary, so I wouldn't know how to do that, offhand, without messing excessively with the content and flow of the lead. ... Kenosis 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine. --Comaze 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I removed the section titled "Medicine and health care".  Given that it was focused solely on the issue of shark cartilege, it's useless and misleading as it was.  With approprate material and some reasonable breadth of WP:NPOV perspective, and with WP:V and WP:reliable sources of course, this appears to me to have potential as a section in the future. Immediately below is the content I removed: ... Kenosis 14:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: I removed the "fact" tags for Thagard and Bunge.  Both of their works are already in the footnotes, Thagard (1978) is there in at least two footnotes. ... Kenosis 15:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed fact tags 

message: I replaced the newly changed illustration, which was nicer but annotated in German, with the previously included illustration that is annotated in English.  This allows the interested English-speaking reader to get a sense for how speculative early phrenology was and why it has been long regarded as pseudoscience.  I left the new caption stand as is, trusting that the reader interested in further inquiry can get a sense for just how far off the phrenologists were compared to, e.g. Brodmann's areas (which also was arguably pseudoscientific because of its lack of testability in humans at the time, and lack of supportive data used to arrive at the conclusions). In due course I suppose we'll get a sense for how other editors may think about the new illustration caption.  I wonder whether the new illustration caption is too focused on aspects of phrenology that may have been protoscientific, as it was unverifiable even at the time it was first developed and put into use in some horrid ways back in the 19th century.  Personally i have no objection to the approach, since the topic of pseudoscience and the issue of the demarcation problem isn't nearly as simple as many people may think at first.  ... Kenosis 19:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Kenosis. The current illustration is preferable as its in English. I feel the caption (about phrenology contributing to modern medical ideas still needs some support from a source. As it stands it looks a little unspecific and vaguely promotional towards pseudoscience as protoscience. Newtonspeed 02:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll see if I can find an better quality image. There should be a better quality one in english. --Comaze 03:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agreed that a nicer quality image with English annotations would be very nice, tautological as it may be for me to have said this. I'm more concerned about necessarily implying to the reader that protoscience, or perhaps more accurately, proposed science, necessarily qualifies as empircially based science today. ... Kenosis 04:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What can I say, sometimes pseudoscience stumbles on discoveries. I've added the page numbers for the Fodor reference. I assure you this is generally not disputed in cognitive psychology. Did you see the page on Modularity of mind? --Comaze 07:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you reverted my edits without any sort of discussion on the issue (which I prompted both here and on my edit summary) of who thinks what about phrenology's contributions to anything in particular. A simple caption with no argument one way or another (sourced or not) would really simplify the issue. The article is more about pseudoscience such as phrenology, rather than neuroscience or neuroimaging or contributions and one sided influences. I read the page on modularity of mind and its only one view out of many on the subject of phrenology. Newtonspeed 07:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's work with Wikipedia:Captions. --Comaze 09:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: I reverted to the broader definition of pseudoscience, from user Comaze’s addition. Judging by the history of this article, I understand that the previous briefer definition would have been reached via consensus and discussion.  My reasoning for the briefer broader definition is that if pseudoscience is so based specifically upon scientific method, then it may distort ideas away from consideration of scientific community behavior and pseudoscientific behavior. Its accurate to say that scientific method is a part of behavior, but the scientific community also generally behaves in a way that doesn’t promote or argue in the pseudoscientific way.  The article contains information about “communities” of pseusoscientific thinkers so I think a focus purely on scientific method will make the definition to narrow and take the emphasis away from behavior. Comaze, I’m not trying to imply that you are trying to narrow the definition away from any particular interest you may have, but I would like to point out a possible bias you may have in your use of unsourced assertions . I feel such assertions shouldn’t go unsourced, especially when other editors have pointed out a problem with them. I’m assuming good faith based upon what seems to be your particular perspective. Again, my particular perspective (bias) is towards empirical testing and I am open to other editor’s interpretation of my own biases, though I think its important to understand how the scientific community works as a social phenomenon rather than just as a group that operates the scientific method. Newtonspeed 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I have no objection to using both definitions in the footnotes of the first paragraph, so long as we don't clutter up the body text with multiple definitions. Seems to me that combined, they might give an opportunity to the reader who chooses to check the notes to get a slightly better perspective at the outset of the article. ... Kenosis 12:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Pseudoscience (or pseudo-science) is a group of beliefs mistakenly thought of as scientific."A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have.", from the Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition 1989. The body of knowledge, methodology, or practice may appear scientific, but it fails to adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method.For example, Hewitt et al. Conceptual Physical Science Addison Wesley; 3 edition (July 18, 2003) , Bennett et al. The Cosmic Perspective 3e Addison Wesley; 3 edition (July 25, 2003) See also, e.g., Gauch HG Jr. Scientific Method in Practice (2003) --Comaze 07:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to ignore the side issues. This is really a content dispute about phrenology and whether or not the image caption should say something about its influence on modern neuro-imagining technique (or modularity of mind, etc.). Pseudoscience is not an easy topic, especially since philosophers of science have not yet reached consensus on a definition of pseudoscience. The closest we have is falsification and even then mosts scientists would agree that pseudoscience has a prototypical rather than categorical definition  --Comaze 12:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also replied to you on the COI article linked above. The issue is not philosophy or content; its conflict of interest and the general push of your contributions. Newtonspeed 13:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:AGF,please. --Comaze 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe they've pretty much settled on the definition of pseudoscience being "That which claims to be science but isn't." What they haven't settled on is the precise definition of science (which is where falsification and the whole demarcation problem comes in). Perhaps we should describe it this way? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. But it is getting a little over my head now. I need to check with my professor. Do you think that prototypical v. categorical is relevant to demarcation problem (and this article)? See eg. Herbert et al. --Comaze 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition – length and breadth 

message: Anon recently changed a direct quote on line 71 attributed to Bunge (1999).  However, I can't verify this one way or another since that reference seems not to exist.  Would anyone mind adding it back in? Silly rabbit 03:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned reference? 

message: ConfuciusOrnis, don't you think you might just be starting an edit war by putting those two in? It's glaringly obviously POV. Let's focus on bigger things. Thanks. --profg 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the edit history. He was reverting an edit which took them out from a version which had had them for quite a while. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No. We have a vast array of expert opinion that Creationism, including ID, is pseudoscience, including the collective opinions of an enormous number of scientific associations & organisations, as well as individual prominent scientists. That it is notable & prominent can be seen from a number of high-profile events, including the Kansas evolution hearings, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎, the construction of the Creation Museum & its mention in a Republican presidential candidate debate. I can't think of another breed of pseudoscience whose profile comes even close. Hrafn42TalkStalk 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The difference between Creationism, ID & Scientology and other religious beliefs is that the former three make purportedly-scientific claims. Stating something as a matter of faith isn't pseudoscience -- falsely claiming scientific support for them is. HrafnTalkStalk 02:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a very good point, however on a technicality, I would probably specify the specific claims rather than the group themselves as I guess you are refering to the 'test' part of scientology not the whole belief system, similarly for Creationism, you are refering specificaly to the presentation of 'scientific' evidence for creation rather than the belief in it. Thanks for the response.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexx16x (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See Also" 

message: :::Please leave the external "see also" link to alternative medicine as it is -- it needn't be totally inclusive of pseudoscientific pursuits to merit inclusion as a "see also" link. Our main job in this particular article is to tell it like it is and stick to the basics of "pseudoscience", within the three core WP content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR), as well as on WP:RS and other applicable guidelines, via the main procedural policy of WP:Consensus to the maximum achievable extent. If the reliable ources are adequate to merit a separate section on "alternative medicine", then it can be parsed a bit more finely in keeping with the sources, and we'all can argue accordingly. If the sourcing isn't adequate, such a separate section is not very likely to become stable in this article. That's as best I can figure it at the moment. ... Kenosis 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan and I totaly understand.  If it ever looks like we need to work it out, I'll be glad to see if I can help with the details.  It probably is something that could be worked out, but it would take a lot of effort to get it NPOV.  Until then, maybe we can all be thinking about the alternatives.  -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's a wise decision. Enough of so-called "alternative" medicine is pseudoscientific enough that it warrants inclusion. The rest of it is a combination of various things such as traditional medicine, religious ideas, new age, mysticism, speculation, wishful thinking, quackery, disproven and nonsensical methods, and of course some are outright frauds and scams. OTOH we have modern medicine that stretches all the way from scientifically plausible but as yet unproven experimental medicine, to fully accepted and well-proven methods that fulfill all the dreams of every EBM fan. In earlier days of great ignorance there was no real difference between quackery and mainstream, and as time has gone by a number of things have made the transition from alternative to fully accepted methods. At the same time far more methods have been rejected as worthless or dangerous. As time goes by the transition from "alternative" to mainstream is becoming increasingly rare and will become even more rare with time. The things that currently continue to be classified as "alternative" are with few exceptions unlikely to ever become proven or accepted as mainstream (except possibly some elements in them, but not the therapies or professions themselves). They are basically what's left in the garbage heap of previously discarded and disproven methods, or methods that have been rejected as nonsensical and totally implausible. -- Fyslee / talk 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty close-minded view of science and medicine, very much akin to pseudoskepticism. This only goes to make the continued existence of the label "Alternative Medicine" possible and neccessary. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, well, you have to admit, that's the Fyslee we all know and love:) -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Part of the problem is that the term Alternative medicine is vague.  A reasonably broad interpretation of the term would include e.g. herbal therapies which have empirical basis.  Another part of the problem is that many of us assume that medicine as practiced today in modern hospitals in the developed world is grounded only in science.  I am afraid that there is wishful thinking, ignorance of the evidence, beliefs held in opposition to overwhelming evidence, true believer syndrome, etc. in modern clinical practice. NuclearWinner 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, alternative medicine is a vague term, but vague terminology isn't exactly uncommon in pseudoscience. Simply listing the alternative medicine article in the see also section does not automatically mean that every alternative medicine ever developed is necessarily pseudoscience just as labeling a subject with Category:Pseudoscience doesn't mean that there is 100% consensus amongst the entirety of humanity that the subject is pseudoscience. All we're doing is pointing out that alternative medicine has been considered and criticized by many as pseudoscience. Whether there is pseudoscience going on in modern hospitals is beside the point. ScienceApologist 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the "see also" link to Alternative medicine should stay. I read it as meaning no more than "if you are interested in this subject you will also find relevant material at Alternative medicine" - with no implication whatever that alternative medicine = pseudoscience. Snalwibma 19:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying regarding "for more reading, you might find this interesting". However, that is not what "see also" is used for. read more here. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's what see also is used for to me. ScienceApologist 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't see how "Alternative Medicine" is related to "Pseudoscience" other than by a POV judgement. Essentially, this is equivilent to having an article called "Bad" and adding one religion there but not another or one political party there but not any others. If Alternative Medicine is added here then why not "Medicine". Certainly there are pseudoscientific elements found in Medicine. It seems like we've had this discussion many times before and the consensus always sides with not labelling, grouping or insinuating anything that is only subjectively associated with or labelled pseudoscience. "Pseudoscience" is being used here as a POV pejorative weapon rather than a neutral term with some scientific semantic merit. Let's stay on the ball here folks. This article has progressed tremendously. Let's not get bogged down with POV pushing. That's my take on it anyhow. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The question is not whether alternative medicine includes a degree of pseudoscience (somewhat more than medicine).  This issue is that placing it in a list portrays all of it as 100%pseudoscience.  If we take our emotions out of the discussion, I think we would all agree that the subject should be discussed rather than listed, but in the interest of consensus and out of respect for those who have brought this article out of the dark ages, I think it is fine the way it is. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also link to Alternative Medicine

message: I added the following under the "Clinical Psychology" subsection and it was subsequently removed for the reason "Uncited OR":
Clinical psychiatry and biological psychiatry also fall under scientific criticism for the lack of testable evidence for mental disorders and the lack of scientific rigor in determining their etiology. Disagreement over the nature of emotional distress and its relation to changes in the brain and body fuels an ongoing controversy. Psychiatrists continue to struggle to define psychiatry as a hard science, while competing against alternative approaches to treating mental distress. A political movement known as anti-psychiatry has arisen which advocates alternatives to biological psychiatry.
Please explain how this is original research.  A criticism of biological psychiatry is that it is a pseudoscience and this is a notable POV mentioned in the articles Biological psychiatry, Biopsychiatry controversy, and Anti-psychiatry.  To whit, the claims of biopsychiatry cannot be falsified by biological evidence and so neither can biological evidence verify the claims of biopsychiatry.  Biopsychiatry is portrayed as a science but fails the criterion of falsifiability.  Perhaps this criticism of biopsychiatry does not belong under the section titled "clinical psychology" or perhaps it should be detailed in some manner besides my own.  But I argue that the criticism that elements of psychiatry, not just psychology, fail the scientific method deserves mention in this article.  Oneismany 04:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biological psychiatry describes the discipline, biopsychiatry controversy describes the minor, but arguably significant, movement among certain mental health professionals that challenges the validity of biological psychiatry as a scientific discipline. In the same manner we have articles on climate change denial and climate change, Al Gore and Al Gore controversies, splitting off the reliably documented discussion and/or criticism of something from the article describing said thing is not a POV-fork unless it promotes the criticism rather than describe it. Moreover, the creation of this article was a consensus outcome from a RfAr on this very subject (in which, for full disclosure, I was a participant on the "pro-psychiatry" side - so i'm hardly an advocate of this particular article). The subject of the article is a minority viewpoint (as is made clear in the lead), so its not undue weight to focus on such a viewpoint. However, if you consider the minority viewpoint to lack significance, XfD exists for this very reason. Why don't you nominate and let the community decide? Incidentally, I agree that  the use of a minority viewpoint such as this to justify describing bio-psychiatry as a "pseudoscience" is invalid per WP:UNDUE. Rockpocket 07:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No Rockpocket, the biopsychiatry controversy article describes only the minority opinion in this minor controversy -- in your own words "it promotes the criticism rather than describe it", rendering it, by your own admission, a POV-fork. This is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE. It is the equivalent to creating an article on the "Shape of the Earth controversy" that states only the view that the Earth is flat. Where a controversy is notable (not "minor") and is described without undue weight to the minority viewpoint, it is legitimate. This is neither. HrafnTalkStalk 09:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except it doesn't, which you appear to have overlooked per your talk page. Plus, misquoting me isn't particularly helpful. Rockpocket 02:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm skeptical regarding psycoanalysis per se, however I agree with this edit .  If psychoanalysis is included here it would have to be in another section, and the specifically accused parts of psychoanalysis would have to be clear within the text. Otherwise it is unclear as to what is actually being criticized or specified as pseudoscience. Docleaf (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed edit on psychiatry 

message: Could people take a look at Biopsychiatry controversy and tell me if there's any reason to consider it to be anything other than a pure WP:POVFORK of Biological psychiatry, and a gross violation of WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE? HrafnTalkStalk 06:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biological psychiatry describes the discipline, biopsychiatry controversy describes the minor, but arguably significant, movement among certain mental health professionals that challenges the validity of biological psychiatry as a scientific discipline. In the same manner we have articles on climate change denial and climate change, Al Gore and Al Gore controversies, splitting off the reliably documented discussion and/or criticism of something from the article describing said thing is not a POV-fork unless it promotes the criticism rather than describe it. Moreover, the creation of this article was a consensus outcome from a RfAr on this very subject (in which, for full disclosure, I was a participant on the "pro-psychiatry" side - so i'm hardly an advocate of this particular article). The subject of the article is a minority viewpoint (as is made clear in the lead), so its not undue weight to focus on such a viewpoint. However, if you consider the minority viewpoint to lack significance, XfD exists for this very reason. Why don't you nominate and let the community decide? Incidentally, I agree that  the use of a minority viewpoint such as this to justify describing bio-psychiatry as a "pseudoscience" is invalid per WP:UNDUE. Rockpocket 07:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No Rockpocket, the biopsychiatry controversy article describes only the minority opinion in this minor controversy -- in your own words "it promotes the criticism rather than describe it", rendering it, by your own admission, a POV-fork. This is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE. It is the equivalent to creating an article on the "Shape of the Earth controversy" that states only the view that the Earth is flat. Where a controversy is notable (not "minor") and is described without undue weight to the minority viewpoint, it is legitimate. This is neither. HrafnTalkStalk 09:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except it doesn't, which you appear to have overlooked per your talk page. Plus, misquoting me isn't particularly helpful. Rockpocket 02:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm skeptical regarding psycoanalysis per se, however I agree with this edit .  If psychoanalysis is included here it would have to be in another section, and the specifically accused parts of psychoanalysis would have to be clear within the text. Otherwise it is unclear as to what is actually being criticized or specified as pseudoscience. Docleaf (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Biopsychiatry controversy]] a POV-fork? 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating 

message: I really think the topic of testability is too large to be included as it is in the intro statement. Although it is true that "they do not adhere to the testability requirement of the scientific method", that is certainly not one of the defining features. As SA has pointed out, it's not the testability that's the problem, it's the response to the tests, when carried out, that generally defines a pseudoscience.
More to the point, I think the statement below is a much clearer set of definitions: "Pseudosciences may be characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development."
I propose moving that statement up to the intro para, removing the current statement, and covering the testability requirements in the existing section, one paragraph down. I really don't think we're doing anyone a service by putting this potentially misleading statement so early in the document where it cannot be properly explained.
Markbassett (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of Astronomy has the same problem of testability. A young n***a from da street 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although MAury says that testability is not the problem, it actually is one of the biggest problems in pseudosciences in most disciplines (See How to Think Straight About Psychology (Stanovich) for a more thorough explanation.  FAlsifiability is so important in evaluating claims and also in just plain straight thinking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That is something of a gray area, but those subjects are generally better classified as protoscience. The difference is mainly that those theories haven't been refined to the point where they can be tested yet. On the other hand, pseudoscientific theories show no signs of ever being testable, or, if they are, contradictory test results are ignored or handwaved away. Sometimes it is hard to judge, though. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right Infophile.  With regards to string theory it is unfalsifiable at the moment, but does not meet the other criteria for pseudoscience (for example string theorists have a continuity between their theories and the rest of physics, they don't think everybody else in their field are idiots (as some pseudoscientists do), and they will move on to other work if there theory is falsified - unlike pseudoscientists, etc etc).  But even with string theory, one can see the importance of the falsifiability, it helps us understand that although string theory explains everything, we should still take it with a grain of salt until we can test it (many religions explain everything, but are untestable).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to testability... 

message: Wikiquote external link, that 71.105.19.9 is reverting to retain, contains only the following example:
Does anybody really think that, as it stands, this provides the reader with significant additional useful information? HrafnTalkStalk 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One link is to the transcript while the other is for the video clip.--71.105.19.9 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Overkill. HrafnTalkStalk 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede.--71.105.19.9 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquote EL 

message: Hi. I'm curious. This article is written mainly from the positivist/critical rationalism angle which is widespread in America. Many of the examples of pseudoscience follows other kind of scientific philosophies or other post-modern approaches. While it may be tempting to use the popular science "scientific method" as a basis for criticism, there are a lot of scientists that allows hypothesises and unprovable things to be discussed without sinking to sling the perojative pseudoscience at it. While I am not terribly good at post-positivism approaches (which are popular here in Norway) it is clear that pseudoscience as defined here is defiend from an anglocentric perspective.
--Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  I either wasn't aware or didn't recall that these ideas (Positivism, Postpositivism) had a name.  And yet there they are in Wikipedia!  I think your point is a very good one, and it deserves to be considered as the article is edited.  Please feel free to make edits that occur to you. NuclearWinner (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy 

message: I was doing a cull on :Category:Creationism stubs for articles that were either no longer stubs, or needed further attention & came across this article. Has anybody heard of this topic/its founder? Does anybody know of any sources that might substantiate its notability? Should it simply be redirected to Pseudophysics? It's been wholly unsourced for a year, so probably should have something done about it. HrafnTalkStalk 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Conservationist physics]] 

message: It is redundant.  NuclearWinner (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed protoscience sentence from user Vapour 

message: So as not to edit war, let's discuss this section here. Levine, I checked the link you provided before making the initial revert. I also checked WP:SEEALSO, and it didn't mention anything related to this issue there. I felt that it didn't actually appear to be a characterization in light of the other items currently on the list. Certainly, some of them are obvious pseudoscience, but many are also simply related topics. We have Protoscience in there even though it's specifically called out by the policy you cite as not being pseudoscience, for instance. In the end, the relevant question I see is simply: Would somebody reading this possibly also be interested in reading about the subject of alternative medicine? Since it seems obvious they would; it should go in.
However, I do see a problem with the section becoming too listy. We've already got an article for that. I'm going to go and trim it down some after posting this, get rid of the items that are more like listing pseudosciences. I might leave in a couple really prominent examples though, such as Intelligent Design. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, I agree with your edits. Please read WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience (if you haven't already). I think it sets a good bar in terms of how to deal with characterizing subjects as examples of Pseudoscience. And I get how "See also" works, but in a sense it is arbitrary - leaving it up to us to guess at what another reader might be interested in. It is too easy for See Also to be abused for a WP:POVPUSH. I totally agree with your "too listy" rationale - as you say, We've already got an article for that. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember a while back we had both evidence-based and alternative medicine in this list (though I might be thinking of another article), after a similar discussion. That seemed to be a good solution at the time. I don't have time to go history diving right now, but I'd be interested to see why that was changed. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd just as soon leave them both out or anything else where its appearance in this list could be construed as being presented as an example of Pseudoscience, thereby violating WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think there's much threat of that as long as we keep the section from being too much of a list, but it's hard to make that call definitively. Perhaps we could see what some other editors think to get a feel for consensus on this. (I'm fine with leaving it out until that time.) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. And again, I can understand the logic train getting to the assumption that someone reading about Pseudoscience might also be interested in reading about Protoscience. I don't however see such a clear logic train for Alternative Medicine. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the way I look at it at least, Alternative medicine is a mix of "pseudomedicine," "protomedicine," and a few cases of typical medicine which has been co-opted under the label of being alternative (I'm using the prefixes there like with -science, in case my meaning isn't obvious). Seeing as we have links to other pseudo- topics (Pseudohistory, for example), alternative medicine seems to fit under this banner. Or, in another way of looking at it, alternative medicine is to evidence-based medicine as pseudoscience is to science (it's the closest parallel at least, even if, as I noted before, not all of alt-med is "pseudo"). That's my logic, at least. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yet, mainstream medicine also includes pseudo-medicine and protomedicine (as well as EBM). I know you think that "alternative medicine is to evidence-based medicine as pseudoscience is to science", but that is simply a POV and a mischaracterization of a general term. You are saying to include "Alt Med" in the See Also section because is is equivalent to pseudoscience - a logic train which violates WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. I am not denying that Alt Med does have some pseudosciences lumped in with this general categorization, but I also acknowledge that it has much scientific-based practices in its composition as well - similar to Mainstream Medicine. Alt Med is not generally considered pseudoscience as a whole, but more along the lines of comprising some topics which are "Questionable Science" and some which are "Alternative theoretical formulations" (as well as some which are very much EBM). Accordingly (by the policies set forth by WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, we would be in violation by including Alt Med in the See Also section using the logic you have outlined. Make sense? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well I think I see where our impasse comes from, at least. We seem to have different pictures of what Alternative Medicine is (and for that matter, mainstream and evidence-based medicine), and I can understand how your view of it leads to your conclusion here. Now, we could try to hash all that out, but I just don't see it being worth the effort that would necessarily entail. I think the most reasonable solution here is to just wait for/seek out the opinion of a third party. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some (popular) definitions or usages of "Atlernative medicine" include biologically based therapies that have definite theoretical, experimental and/or clinical bases for Science but are not (yet or again) accepted as (FDA approved or class 1 EBM) mainstream Medicine (including substances that are categorically exempt, such as nutrients recognized as foods).  There are several structural economic, social and scientific problems that both maintain and create the classification of valid, science based therapies as "Alternative medicine".  This also means that medicine of yesteryear, now old and generic, with valid evidence acceptable for its time, and still useful with biochemically measurable results, can be (has been) disparaged (publically attacked) in some (commercially and scientifically) trivial way, and become deprecated as "Alternative medicine" simply because there is no automatic economic mechanism to support and "defend" it. Hypothetically there are (or were) cumbersome mechanisms institutionally to *possibly* address this, but these very same institutions often are in hostile (economic & political) opposition in practice, as well as simply not functioning.  Furthermore there are a number of historical medical controversies with economic and political dimension that are simply scandals awaiting recognition as scientific bias, incompetence, and/or fraud.  This applies to "mainstream" drugs that are more dangerous and less beneficial than their captive documentation claims, and to cheap biologically based therapies (some biochemically measurable) abandoned, severely delayed (decades or major fractions of a century), or murdered disparaged aborning. In this latter category, are historical cases that continue to drive major public controversies. In the former category, a number of the recent drug scandals fit. Automatically confuting (complementary and )"alternative medicine" as pseudoscience furthers errors, and for some, an agenda of non-scientifically based disparagement, all too common at WP.  Altmed categorization as PS appears to directly violate WP:NPOV, and, by overgeneralization, WP:V.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not thrilled about it, but as you have listed it does seem to balance out any POV claims about any one of these subjects. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly; trying for something that "mildly unrevolting" to all parties. :-)  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you for catching that on Quackery. I knew I remembered coming to that compromise somewhere, just got mixed up as to which article it was (though I got shot down when I mentioned it, and it's accepted now. Interesting. Analyzing the source more than the arguments, perhaps?). Anyways, quick note on the definitions of C/A/EB Medicine: Yeah, I realized not long after my post on what I see AltMed as that my two different analogies don't really say the same thing. I consider the first to be more accurate (and it matches up quite well to most of the definitions there); the second just benefits from simplicity, and I thought using it would make a clearer case for why we should have the link to AltMed here. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: As you will notice from the cfdnotice I've just posted above (as the nominator didn't bother to do so), :Category:Pseudoscience is up for deletion again. You can find discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 27#Pseudoscience. HrafnTalkStalk 02:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: KEEP, KEEP, KEEP.  Knowing the difference between science and pseudoscience is an essential part of everybody's education.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong place to express the opinion, and the CfD has already been closed as a "keep". HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Pseudoscience]] up for deletion ... again 

message: I prefer the original simple definition to the now much more complicated one diff.  I find that there is virtually no difference in the various definitions given in the sources aside from slight differences in wording, and it is important for this article to be firm and precise in the scope of its applicability.  Rather than simply reverting, what are the opinions of other editors around here regarding the recent changes to the first sentence of this article? Silly rabbit (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing out the downside of my first edit. But it's important to have a wider definition because there is, outside natural sciences, well accepted research which doesn't adhere to the natural scientific method, within social sciences and other disciplines studying human beings also qualitative research is used. So the earlier definition would have made some of the existing research "pseudoscientific". Your new arrangement was ok, but I'll edit a bit more for grammatical reasons. Of course other ideas are welcome too, but what used to be there was too much a simplification, and it also looked a bit misleading to have many sources for one definition when in fact those sources do not give the same definition. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 07:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the explanation.  Now that I know your mind, I am much more comfortable with the changes to the first sentence. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Could people who watch this article check out Psychohistory - I am not sure if it counts as a pseudoscience or not.  Judging from the article it seems to be the invention of one guy, Lloyd deMause (try googling him) and his students/disciples. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye, Slrubenstein.  It looks like a borberline case of pseudoscience because of the untestable premise, circular arguments and focus on confirmational evidence and ignoring vast swaths of disconfirming evidence.  It is similar to Alice Miller's bleak and blinkered view of childhood and history, and deMause may have influenced by others like Arthur Janov and similar proponents that say that ALL children were abused and that frames history and explains politics and EVERYTHING.  There is a lack of boundary conditions too, another sign of pseudoscience, because de MAuse applies psychoanalytic theory (which is suspect to begin with) to the whole history of mankind. Also, a lack of continuity from other areas of science (social aspects, evolutionary, and genetic factors are ignored; or at least do not mesh with the 'theory') is another sign of pseudoscience.Zonbalance (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  article of interest 

message: Creation Science and IT should not be listed in this article.  According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience they might be considered to be questionable science, not psuedoscience.
JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it says this? And what is IT? Information Technology?--Filll (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire. They're obvious pseudoscience, and we have sources ranging from the courts to national science academies stating as such. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JBFrenchhorn, Just because something is pseudoscience, doesn't mean it is not true. And just because something is scientific, doesn't mean it is true. rossnixon 01:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right infophile, again. Creation science and Intelligent Design (ID, rather than IT I guess) are pseudoscience and meet ALL the criteria for pseudoscience: unfalsifiability, lack of continuity with other science, lack of boundary conditions, disconfirming evidence ignored, emotionally charged reasons why it is desired to be true,  etc etc.  They are religious beliefs, which is okay, religion is not always bad.  The evidence for natural selection and evolutionary theory is overwhelming and evolution is both a theory and a fact (gene frequencies change from one generation to the other, that part is a fact we can observe all the time)Zonbalance (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The starting assumption is that a very old book is literally true, and no evidence to the contrary will ever change that assumption.  It's shoehorning data to fit a pre-concieved notion.  That's not science, and attempting to claim the respectability of science makes it pseudoscience.  WLU (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess in saying that, you subject evolution, for example, to the same scientific frailty and capability to change or be utterly up heaved? As long as we are all consistent. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the index to creationist claims.  All creationist attacks against evolution have been rebutted, in some cases by Darwin himself, over 150 years ago.  Science regularly changes its theories in response to new evidence.  Evolution is not a pseudoscience, it is well supported by a myriad of not just evidence, but lines of evidence, from a huge array of disciplines and sub-disciplines.  See the talk origins archive for more information.  WLU (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 208.188.2.101, "Creation science" IS pseudoscience: just like the various other pseudoscience topics that you did NOT remove.  So why did you not remove those others?  Do you think it's right that a supporter of any specific pseudoscience should arbitraily remove his/her favourite from the list of pseudosciences?  Do you actually not accept that anything at all should be classed as pseudoscience?  How about astrology, or phrenology? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor makes edits on that which he understands.  I don't have to write / rewrite an entire article. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please read History of evolutionary thought -- the Theory of Evolution has been subjected to continuous testing, alteration and improvement. HrafnTalkStalk 15:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation Science and IT 

message: In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Shortcut 

message: Discussion is at WP:TFD#Template:Infobox_Pseudoscience. This seems to be "try to delete anything connected with the topic of pseudoscience" month. HrafnTalkStalk 03:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox Pseudoscience]] up for deletion