Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 1

message: Typo:
Riemannian Cosmology, proposed by Igor Bognanoff, regarded as illucid or cranky by most mainstream physicists, but defended by a vocal minority.
Should read:
Riemannian Cosmology, proposed by Igor Bogdanoff, regarded as illucid or cranky by most mainstream physicists, but defended by a vocal minority.
----
Kosebamse claims that "Gene Ray refutes the scientific method itself". Kosebamse, please explain exactly how Dr Ray does that.
----
The aquatic ape hypothesis is not anywhere near as fringe as many of the other theories listed here. It is not generally accepted, sure, but it is no longer considered bunk. It has serious science behind it, and a growing number of biologists consider it seriously plausible. RK 00:58 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Okay. Do you agree with my inclusion of Plasma cosmology? If so, put this page on your watchlist and watch out for any edits by Reddi. -- Tim Starling 02:44 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:: Plasma Cosmology is a protoscience that is being investigated by research around the globe. Is Magnetohydrodynamics fringe? In institutions such as  Los Alamos National Labrtory and thier groups [which is one of the better scientific research institutes in north America], Plasma cosmology is being developed. 
:: Are these fringe institutions?
:: * Plasma Physics and Nonlinear Dynamics Group, Federal University of Parana, Brazil
:: * Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
:: * ETHZ Plasma and Radio Astrophysics Group, Switzerland
:: * Plasma Physics Group, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine London, United Kingdom
:: * Astronomy Department (J. Arons), University of California at Berkeley
:: * Computational plasma physics group, Dept of Physics and Astronomy UCLA, Los Angeles, California
:: * Astronomy Department (R. Lovelace), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
:: * Center for Space Research and Plasma Science & Fusion Center, MIT
:: * Graduate Program in Plasma Physics, Princeton University [which has a graduate program in plasma astrophysics]
::  They are all investigating plasma cosmological research.Or is it all speculation?
:: Is it consisting of hanging threads thought? or is it just an outside the conventional boundary of science? Hannes Alfven , Nikola Tesla, Kristian Birkeland, David Bohm, and Max Born are "Fringe" Physicists?  Just wondering ... reddi 15:15 17 Jul 2003 (UTC) more later ....
----
You waste my time, Reddi, forcing me to research things like that. That LANL link is just Anthony Lee Peratt's personal web space. As far as I could see, there's no mention of plasma cosmology on the official plasma physics group home page. I haven't looked up all those other institutions, but judging by the names they're all just plasma physics groups, not plasma cosmology. Now excuse me while I go and do something useful. -- Tim Starling 00:41 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: OK, I nvr wanted you to "waste" your time .... I hope u get your stuff done. It's nice that you disparage things and then don't [or can't] answer some questions. I was merely inquisitive on the topics  .... but noone has answered my questions. Hmmm ... mabey no answer will come forth from anyone. I just wanna know the parameters to be included or excluded here ... BTW, what do you think plasma physics groups extend into [if you take the next logical steps in theory]? And Magnetohydrodynamics isn't fringe ... it's accepted theory ... [ps. Astrophysics and cosmology are related .... they are kinda interdependent from what I can tell ... but mabey I'm wrong] ... reddi 01:44 18 Jul 2003 (UTC) "It is not as uncommon ... [some to] accept the reality of phenomena that are not yet understood, as it is very common for physicists to disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of physics " - Bauer
::"I just wanna know the parameters to be included or excluded here..." I'm not sure exactly, I'm kind of making it up as I go along. It will list "speculative, fringe or otherwise disregarded theories," but the exact interpretation of that phrase is subject to the opinion of the Wikipedian community. As a rule of thumb, anything which denies the validity of:
::*The Big Bang
::*The old age of the Earth
::*Relativity
::*Quantum mechanics
::will almost certainly be listed here. I don't mean to list theories which attempt to correct the flaws with QM and GR which are well-known to the mainstream physics community, for example superstring theory. I mean theories which reject the experimental results in favour of the mainstream theories as being spurious.
::As for MHD -- I know it's not a fringe theory. You listed that one, remember? I listed rotating magnetic field because there seems to be some sort of mythology attached to it, in the form of the "rotating magnetic field model". Rotating magnetic fields are not speculative, but I suspect this "model" is. I don't know the full story yet, but the way it is listed at the moment is quite appropriate. 
::This page may seem to you to be rejecting or talking down the theories listed. I didn't mean to imply that these theories are incorrect. Like you say, physicists "disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of physics". Consider this page to be a catalogue of realities which are disbelieved by mainstream scientists. To say a theory is "fringe" is not a judgement on its accuracy, it's just a judgement on the attitude of the mainstream scientific community towards it. -- Tim Starling 02:18 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::: "I'm not sure exactly, I'm kind of making it up as I go along." Hmmm .... mabey you should slap a disclaimer tag of some sort at the top of this page then ... as it's definitely amorphous to what is to be includeed here or not.
::: Anything which denies the validity of The Big Bang? So that new extrasolar planet in the news the other day is fringe? ... The old age of the Earth? how old is old [the current age theories may really be young to what it really is ... mabey not]? ... Relativity? World views don't need to relativity ... you can rely on a different basis and be ok [see Godel [sp?] and the incompleteness theorum ... thankfully there is duality] ... Quantum mechanics? QM is just one set of theories ... there are others .... but mabey some of QM could be listed here too ....  
::: "I mean theories which reject the experimental results in favour of the mainstream theories as being spurious" ...  how does Plasma cosmology do that? Matter o' fact, plasma cosmology takes account of experimental data and phenomena of reality that is not accounted for in the mainstream .... how does 'Quaternion physics do that? ... I don't know alot about it ... and there isn't a listing on it .... so mabey you could list a note on them ... and, how does Luminiferous aether do that? Aether is an alternative theory ... discounted by some ... accounted by others [even michealson and morley  still accepted it after thier so much touted experiment] .... PLEASE make a note to the side of each of these entries ... mabey explaining them abit and a lil on why they are listed ... information is always good, especially on subjective material.
::: As for MHD ... Yea I listed that one ... to POINT OUT that it's not a fringe ....  there isn't "some sort of mythology" attached to it, I believe that may be your POV .... a "model" just a thought construct; ie., a way to think of things .... the way it is listed here at the moment is questionable IMO, as it conveys to me [and probably to others that see the page] that any of these listed views are in error of being correct .... [BTW, I recently discoveed the article Dynamo theory article ... it's the same thing ... so I thinkin of consolidating it with that one when i get time ... the RMF model is the DT]
::: "This page may seem to you to be rejecting or talking down the theories listed." Yes ... on 1st impression, it did ... and probably does to alot of readers that see it ....  that's probably reason enough to put a disclaimer of some sort here [like a "dispute" tag]  .... "To say a theory is 'fringe' is a judgement on the attitude of the mainstream scientific community towards it"? That is highly subjective ... who's the spokesman for the mainstream? ... this article needs a dispute tag, it'd help it IMO .... 
::: ... the more i read of this article ... it's just a POV article it try to reaffirm a POV and discount other NPOV information ... reddi 22:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC) more later ...
----
How does plasma cosomology deny one of the listed theories? If you read a little closer, you would have noticed that I anticipated this attack. I said that theories which deny one of the mainstream theories will be listed, I didn't say anything about theories which don't deny the mainstream theories. Not in that sentence, anyway.
"That is highly subjective ... who's the spokesman for the mainstream?" It's not subjective, because if worst comes to worst, we can take a poll. But luckily, we have a decent number of mainstream physicists and other scientists on Wikipedia, and those people have a fairly good idea of the attitude of their peers towards these theories. I'm relying on the input of experts. 
Assessing the opinion of the mainstream community is an important part of NPOV policy.
"there isn't 'some sort of mythology' attached to it, I believe that may be your POV". It's my intuition, nothing more. I've said I don't understand the "rotating magnetic field model", so I can't be sure what's going on. I'm hoping you'll just tell me, but otherwise I'll probably work it out eventually. But if you must know, my suspicions were twigged by statements like:
*"Plasma cosmology states that dynamically coupled rotating magnetic fields produced the universe observed today."
*[An analogy for the way the aether transmits influences is] one vortex ring (related to the rotating magnetic field)  
*In Strasbourg, Tesla built the induction motor which was experimental proof of the rotating magnetic field model.
The last one is particularly interesting. The main thing I'm missing is: what is the model? Rotating magnetic fields are a phenomenon, not a model. You don't prove a phenomenon, so what is there to this "model" besides the simple existence of rotating magnetic fields? -- Tim Starling 08:57 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
--
: "I anticipated this" ... yep ... as I stated before, an article to futher a POV. 
: "I didn't say anything about theories which don't deny the mainstream theories. Not in that sentence, anyway." [see above]
: ... [BTW, it's not an attack, sorry u feel under fire .... just a series o' statements to flesh out the reasons for this article (which i really don't have a huge problem with ... just want a clarification and reasoning, other than just willey-nilly listing of topics here] ...
: "deny one of the mainstream" ... hmmm but you nvr said, should that recent observation of the extrasolar planet be listed here? If correct, it's gonna deny models of cosmology ....
: .... this is subjective article (as it exists now ... mabey some detail to the listed items and a bit more information on the reasons to be listed may help it become less of that) and polls are subjective [unless properly controlled ... I thought you'd know that from statisics, though]. 
: [Clip "my consensus" is always right, no other possiblities can be right]
: [Clip "my experts" are always right]
: Assessing the opinion of the mainstream community is an important part of NPOV policy? hmmm .... POV is a position from where something recorded with a perspective. It's not neutral here in this article ...  "It's my intuition, nothing more." ok ... thank for saying it's your POV [but not explicitly] .... mainly biased from your perspective .... I thought the whole point of NPOV is to provide information without give a hint of bais to that information [which this artcle does ... as i stated before, it gave me [and probably alot more readers that view the article] a feeling that these listed items are frameworks that are in error of something ...] ... mabey providing a bias to information is ok? mabey not .... [see NPOV]
: [snip RMF model twiggin' someone]
: "Plasma cosmology states that dynamically coupled rotating magnetic fields produced the universe observed today" What is hard about that? Is the english a bit advanced? hmmm ... I thought it was pretty plain language ... I don't think you can get any simpler (in the concise form) ...
: [snip aether] appearantly you haven't read anything on Kelvin or his original papers ... he tried to work out the aether ... and he developed the "energy vortex" models [or theories, see below] ... [among other thing ... and helped form an early atomic models] ... this vortex theory eventually was taken by Tesla to the next level [into the RMF model].
: [snip "experimental proof"]
: "what is the model?" a model is a construct to think of things ... the RFM model is just a way to think of how the electromagnetic forces act throughout reality .... [go look up the synonyms of the word ... it's equilivant to: framework, pattern, theoretical account (or theory)] ... (BTW appearantly you skipped over the Dynamo theory part in my last response (which i was unaware of @ the time i created the RMF article, so i'm merging it with that as soon as I can [mabey after i post this])) ...
: ...  "Rotating magnetic fields are a phenomenon, not a model" ... but it is a model to put observe things (ala, phenomenon) into a process to understand it [see above synonyms] ... say: "Dynamo Theory" or "Rotating Magnetic Field model", and you mean the same thing ....
: [snip rest] ... more later .... reddi 15:29 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::It's alright, I think I've worked it out now. -- Tim Starling 04:54 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-----
Just want to say that I agree that Plasma cosmology should not be included among this list.  It has been around since the late 1800's and has much experimental backing.  It is only fringe because it is not the mainstream paradigm.  But you two have already gone through all this so I don't need to add any more here.  -- Ionized
:It's only fringe because it's not the mainstream paradigm? That's what fringe means! Look, if you disagree with my terminology, maybe we can move this page to Theories which are not part of the mainstream paradigm because your description of plasma cosmology fits perfectly with the kind of theories I wanted to organise. I didn't call the page Theories which were invented recently and have no experimental backing did I? -- Tim Starling 04:13, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
-----
My word... -- Tim Starling 08:03, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
:Ok, ok.  I am in no way trying to further any anger driven disputes, so please accept my apologies for intrusion.  It's not that I disagree with terminology, it's that the theoretically based Big Bang is more speculative in nature than the empirically based plasma cosmology, and should be included in the list before it by that standard.  I'll just state it this way, for people like me who have spent time researching plasma physics and cosmological theories in general, including their historical development, it is simply disheartening to continuously be looked upon as a quack by most.  And your inclusion of plasma cosmology in the list doesnt help that any :)
:I discovered Wikipedia yesterday, found the Plasma cosmology article, and right away began to correct it according to what I have studied.  Ive been looking through the page history at what Reddi's first version was, and watched its development as people like Roadrunner came in with 'peer review' and transformed the article from one about plasma cosmology, to one that pushes it aside only to further expound the Big Bang.  Such behavior is absurd and I hope that it is discontinued.  
:I plan to fully update the article over the next few months, expounding more on the actual methods and findings of plasma cosmology in general (as opposed to the current version, which until yesterday focused on Alfven's outdated model, which it seems was used only to attempt further discrediting of the plasma paradigm as a whole.) I thank Reddi for having started the article and hope that approves of my continuing contributions. 
:I do not expect you to change your list of speculative theories to match my preference.  The list isnt that bad after all, as you havent put in things that are obviously complete quackery (such as ufo stuff or the like.)  I do appreciate your note at the top about how the article may not be neutral. -- Ionized Tue, August 12th 10:15 am
::Just in case you missed my meaning, my gasp above was in reference to Reddi's amusing POV rant on science being "unimaginitive and conforming" . Such behaviour is unacceptable. Ionized, you might be interested in reading our NPOV policy, to see all the rules Reddi just breached. I believe scientists are the most open-minded sector of the community, but you don't see me spraying that opinion across the article namespace, do you? It's not on. Save it for your weblog, Reddi.
::Ionized, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you decide to write about plasma cosmology from a neutral point of view, as our policy demands, rather than producing more of the poorly-written advocacy that Reddi has become known for. -- Tim Starling 00:18, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)
:::I have begun to read NPOV policy, and will try my best to conform to this standard.  I have read over the page on the Big Bang and noticed that it indeed included reference to alternate theory, along with criticism.  However a majority of the page is devoted to developing an understanding of the Big Bang theory itself.  Over time, I hope to see the Plasma cosmology page follow suit here, which it is beginning to do.  I doubt I will be the one that includes the BB POV in the article, as my focus most definitely is the PC POV.  However, I am very willing to work with proponents of the BB to bring about a more neutral article on Plasma cosmology, as I believe I have already begun to do (the page seemed very biased towards the BB POV when I first encountered it.)  Thanks for your consideration and your welcoming. -- Ionized Tue, August 12th 10:00 pm
-----
Thank you to all those responsible for re-wording the article.  It is now much more acceptable, especially the comment that some currently accepted practices would have in the past been on this type of list.  -- Ionized Tue, August 12th 6:06 pm
----
I think Gene's ideas are theories in the looser sense, even if not in a strictly scientific sense. Don't know if this is relevant... Martin 23:39, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know myself, but would prefer to make clear that these ideas are indeed far from accepted knowledge or even serious theory - it would take our readers one look at the Time Cube website to discover that, but why not mention it here. Kosebamse 12:20, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: I have removed Ayn Rand's objectivism because that is is a school of philosophy and all schools of philosophies are disputed. I mean, then we could as well include all other schools of philosophy and all religious movements. Kind regards. Andries 21:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy: Ojectivism  removed

message: I do not believe that evolution shoud be on the list. It is absolutely not
an alternative, speculative or disputed theory. The groups who dispute evolutionary theory are on the same level as people who dispute relativity theory or quantum mechanics. I will start to figure out how to remove the Evolution entry from the list
I just checked, and I found that a few days ago somebody replaced creationism
with evolution. The same IP put in objectivism (later removed). I put creationism back in, but is there a way to stop this person from doing it again?
--Frank.visser 23:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Just keep an eye on the page. If they persist, ask them to justify themselves. Etc. - David Gerard 23:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution not alternative, speculative or disputed 

message: I've added the Biophotons to the list. It seems to a mostly German contribution to this corpus, but I've just checked the articles made it to the english Wikipedia and some little edit struggles are seen. The finer points of classifying as proto- or pseudoscience I've left open so far. One point of possible confusion: Biophotonics exist and is rather legitimate but boring and sometimes hyped to get the funding. It has no connections per se with Biophotons, but the Biophotonists are sometimes trying to take over the term and the article. Pjacobi 08:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biophotons 

message: Have re-inserted this, which was briefly in the article.
:Equally, a number of these concepts have in the past been regarded as mainstream theories (like luminiferous aether) or as strong hypotheses deserving of further study (like polywater. In all of these cases experimental study has demonstrated the strength or weakness of the hypothesis.
I agree that aether was never experimentally proven, but I understand that many scientists agreed it was a strong if untested hypothesis before experimental proof became available. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise I'll stop objecting and use something else (e.g. creationism) as the example of a previously mainstream thought now regarded as nonsense. The Land 19:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't listed as a pseudoscience, it is listed as "alternative, speculative, and disputed." --Fastfission 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous views of these theories 

message: How can "many in the "mainstream" scientific community consider to be "fringe" or pseudoscientific" be allowed in a NPOV article? -Anon
*Please review what NPOV is about. Wikipedia must maintain a neutral POV but it can state or list other POVs as long as they are attributed to an individual or group which holds them. --Fastfission 19:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: I removed Mirror Matter for the following reason. One could argue that it is a fringe theory because only a limited number of physicists work on it (about 20). So, it fits the definition given in the introduction in this respect. It is not, however a crackpot theory, because you can publish articles on it in, say, Phys. Rev. D. See the reference list of the article mirror matter
My objection against inclusing mirror matter in the list of alternative theories is that it is the only non-crackpot theory in the list. So, it has been singled out for some reason. It is not the only non-crackpot theory that fits the criteria, though. I could write down a big list of non-crackpot theories that can also be included.
I.m.o., until such a comprehensive list of non-crackpot theories on which a limited number of physicists work on is compiled, it is not correct to include just one  non-crackpot theory in the list.
Count Iblis 12:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Mirror Matter 

message: From what I can gather, this list was originally intended to be one of pseudoscience but the NPOV renaming was too charitable toward "crackpot" theories.  I think there is an important distinction to be made here between ironic science and pseudoscience.  Ironic science often is well within the mainstream, and is called such because it's theories are not empirically testable.  For example, research into the origins of life is an ironic science.  Even if such a theory were to lead to creation of life in a laboratory, one would still not know that it occured the same way the first time.  String theory also falls into this category because it does not make any predictions that can be observed.  (The big bang theory on the other hand predicted cosmic background radiation) Most ironic sciences are based on sound reasoning and the practitioners cannot be faulted because the nature of their subject defies clasical empiricism.  In contrast, those who adhere to pseudoscience are guilty of discarding reason and ignoring evidence.  Lack of verification does not make the theories of ironic science pseudoscientific in the sense that that term is commonly used, but they are speculative and often disputed.  If the title remains unchanged, then all ironic sciences should added. However, I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the list, and a better solution would be to use the same title used in the pseudoscience article: "Feilds often associated with pseudoscience"  (The list within the article should probably be removed or added to this page) This is almost a "weasel word" violation of NPOV because "often associated" doesn't attribute the claim to any particular person or group, but I think it's preferable to directly calling these theories pseudoscience (that might offend some non-rational people).  --AAMiller 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ironic Science v. Pseudoscience

message: # Acupuncture, in the traditional sense, is the practice of inserting very thin needles in particular points on the body to redirect qi thereby improving health and well-being. This is one component of traditional Chinese medicine. 
#:The mainstream scientific view is that acupuncture does work in certain situations, but not because of qi.  For example, it may trigger natural painkiller release.  I'd also note that many states license acupuncturists.
# Plasma cosmology is a sub-set of plasma physics which attempts to explain large scale structure in the universe.
#:I share the reservations about this entry stated by others on this page.
# The steady state theory holds that the universe has always existed, and will always exist, in the same macroscopic state. 
#:This is less fringe than many of the other physics theories presented, but I agree that it is still fringe.
#:: Steady state theory is quite discredited.  There are numerous predictions made by the Big Bang theory that steady state theory cannot duplicate.  It has been abandonned by cosmologists, and so under my rules is classified as "discredited". --EMS | Talk 05:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts on what should and shouldn't go in 

message: I added alchemy under "Physics" for lack of elsewhere to put it.  This certainly qualifies as a pseudoscience and felt it should be included, even though it is essentially "dead".  If anyone has any objections to including it, then it may be removed. Rt66lt, August 3, 2005
* Alchemy isn't really anything to do with striving to convert molecular lead to Gold; this is better thought of as a metaphor, as explained in Alchemy.  While some alchemists were able to extract rare elements (including gold) from impure sources of lead, the phrase "turning lead to gold" simply means the process of turning things of little value into something that does have value.  Alchemy is the father of modern Science; for instance, Isaac Newton considered himself first and foremost an alchemist.  In summary: "Alchemy" is not a theory to be disputed.  --User:mugwumpjism, 15 Aug 2005
:Alchemy is a protoscience, but many alchemists did try to convert things into gold. There were also alchemists who tried to make humans immortal and such. Since alchemy led to a lot of chemistry, it's a protoscience, not a pseudoscience. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alchemy 

message: Someone has some explainin' to do. How can applying the scientific approach be speculative ? Franc28 22:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Neurotheology was added to the list, but this is legitimate science. It is a new science and some of the results have been disputed (according to the article), but the basic idea behind it (that religious experiences are biological in nature) is widely supported in the scientific community. I tried to remove this entry from the list yesterday but it was put back. If it is put on the list because the main scientist involved in this research has been accused of improper scientific conduct, then that fact must be mentioned as the reason why it is on the list.Count Iblis 16:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurotherapy on the list ? 

message: If you include memetics here you could just as well include all of the controversial but legitimate scientific theories/ideas.Count Iblis 13:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my impression that 'memetics' is largely philosophical and not falsifiable, so it doesn't qualify as science. But I wouldn't consider it pseudoscience any more than Freudian psychology. --128.205.80.124 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the criteria? 

message: I thought that theories contained the requirement that they be verifiable via experiment.  Intelligent design, for example, is not verifiable via experiment. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 09:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aren't these 'hypotheses' rather than 'theories'?

message: I already started to improve this article but it looks to be an impossible task, according to me it doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all -- it's the kind of junk yard article that Wikipedia can do without. 
The above comment sketches the problem: "xyz is indeed a disputed theory and not popular among physicists, but it's indecent to have it listed on a page that includes the Flat earth theory. Oh well. If that's what the mob decides." 
To make de facto a blacklist of everything non-mainstream seems incompatible with Wikipedia's purposes, and possibly constitutes Original Research as well. The best solution I see is to copy-paste useful parts to other places, and then feed the article to the sharks. But maybe someone else has another solution? Harald88 21:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your conclusion. I'm the one who made that earlier comment that you quoted, and I stand behind it. However, I removed it because I don't want to be seen as a supporter of Plasma cosmology, even though it's a legitimate set of hypotheses. Back to the matter at hand, I agree that this list is indeed rather POV. Many scientific hypotheses are "controversial", from minor ones relating to pharmaceuticals to major ones dealing with cosmology, but we can't list them all. Alexander 007 21:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the last discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. --Pjacobi 21:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I didn't know that it was discussed before -> there seems to be large agreement that it's too much throwing incomparable things on one single pile, making it nearly impossible to give a fair treatment of anything. Harald88 23:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have a suggestion that may agree with both sides a bit more. We should make two different lists: one for theories (or hypotheses) that no longer have scientists relevant to the respective field supporting them (e.g., "the Hollow-Earth hypothesis", which no current geophysicists or geologists support, I assume) and theories/hypotheses which are still supported by some scientists in the relevant field (e.g., some current physicists support Plasma cosmology) but which are not popular. This is more useful, more achievable, and more fair. Alexander 007 22:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: For example, the Hollow Earth hypothesis, until a relevant current scientist is cited in support of it, will be in the more cranky list, while Plasma cosmology will go in the more reputable list. This may cause some problems with verification, but if a current scientist relevant to the field can't be found in support of a theory, it will go on the cranky list (ex silentio). Alexander 007 22:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Most people agree that the article as it is now is chaotic and hardly serves its purpose, which is to organize. It has to be organized further by applying stricter discrimination. And of course, I never implied that any article would actually be titled a "crank list". "Unsupported" would have been a less inflammatory choice. Alexander 007 23:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Can we reach a consensus to divide this article into more discrete categories? Any opposition? Alexander 007 23:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That would be very POV by definition, as the word "crackpot" constitutes name-calling, similar to the words "nigger" and "sect" -- and just as debatable. Harald88 07:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Harald, that won't work, because you would then have to list the tens of thousands of theories that are out there. That's why I think one should focus only on "crackpot" theories. I do agree that we shouldn't cause offense by calling that list "a list of crackpot theories". We can find another name for the list. However, there aren't that many notable theories that are "crackpot" in the sense that you can't publish about them in peer reviewed journals.Count Iblis 12:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you sure that that won't work? Only notable theories should be included, and notable theories (mainstream and impopular alike) are likely to get one full article each in Wikipedia. If I'm mistaken, please someone point out my mistake! It may be useful (and interesting ) to have an index page with one-line descriptors for all theories and hypotheses that are in Wikipedia. (Does anyone know if it's possible to search Wikipedia for that? If so, what is the count now?) Harald88 19:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Stevie, my concern is that this is too broad. What would happen is that most entries of such lists would consist of theories that are clearly "crackpot". But because the broad definition fits respectable theories as well, you would have a few of those appearing on the list. That would be extremely offensive to the people working in that field. Note that google does index this page and a google search for a non crackpot theory could yield the the list on which the theory is appearing.Count Iblis 12:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the list could be broken down into two: theories/hypotheses seriously researched, and those not seriously researched.  Probably not exact enough, but my basic gist is that it would be worthwhile to cover both the crackpot and the non-crackpot non-prevailing theories/hypotheses in the Wikipedia.  I don't personally insist that they should all go in the same article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A list is not really an article, and a discriminative list can't be objective. However, a list of theories and hypotheses makes sense for Wikipedia, and as long as it contains those that are worth mentioning and thus have or will have an article to go with it, it can't be too long. The only argument against it would be if there already exists an automatic index for generating such a list with a search engine. Does that exist? Harald88 22:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  plan to mark for AfD 

message: Should TRIZ really be listed under Divination? It doesn't even seem to belong on this page. Bobby1011 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRIZ 

message: A disctinction has been made between Kinesiology and Applied Kinesiology. But both are not science. It's the same bullshit, but thanks to this "difference", kinesiologues can say "no, I don't do AK, I'm a serious kinesiologue". Serious kinesiology doesn't exist, and if some governments reconize kineziology (it's written on the French page, maybe Quebec ???) it's a serious error. In France, a baby died because his parents was kinesiologue and wanted to attend him only with kinesiology. You can read what is written in the both articles, if this theories are disputed, it's because it's not science at all, and it's presented like a medicine, so it's very dangerous. I think we must make one only artice, because this 2 articles have been created to make an advertising for this dangerous activity. If some doctors would read this articles, they would see that it could be dangerous when people think it's an efficient method.
A french article linked with kinesiology (Méditation Kinémantra), is about a meditation method used in kinesiology. They tell that its efficient is proved by science. But they also say that you can have your own religion too... It's the first time I read that in an article about science, health or medicine... In France, this movement is suspected to be a dangerous sect.
So, I hope serious people will take care of it. If you have a scientific debate with kinesiologues, I'm sure it will be short, you will see that it's not a science at all. I'm french so I can't edit articles in english, it would be horrible. I'm trying to work on the french version. I hope you will do something about it.
Korr 11:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you also want to list it under list of cults? ;-) Anyway,I agree that alternative medicine isn't science. But does Kinesiology really claim to be science? Harald88 20:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinesiology and Applied Kinesiology 

message: An appropriate name for this wiki should probably be "alternative theories generally not accepted by the majority of the science community", but the current title is long enough.  I find it seriously hard to believe that the bickerers in this talk page that have bloated it to a nearly unreadable size, can't comprehend the purpose of an article like this.  I wanted to read this list to find alternative theories not generally taught as main stream, not read a bloated talk page to find out why the article is disputed.  I don't even know if an equivalent statement like this has already been brought forth, I don't have time to read such a novel.
So, if a theory is generally more accepted by science than it is not, just leave it be and off of this list.
Thank you,
--Filthy swine 00:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate name for this wiki... 

message: I trimmed considerably the line about zero point origin of inertia, which included detail that properly should be in the linked article.  (In this case, the linked article is nonexistent and I don't have time to actually write it, sorry).  I am a little surprised to see the ZPOI immediately under the Time Cube entry -- I knew Haisch and studied some of his earlier ZP papers when I was a graduate student at Stanford (and knew a lot more QED than I know now) -- and he was considerably more coherent and the ideas considerably more plausible than a lot of the other stuff on this page.  In particular, it seemed to me that ZPOI might be wrong but it certainly didn't fit into the "not even wrong" category. I'm leaving it here since it's definitely an alternative theory to the usual Higgs mechanism, but I'd love to see someone write a bit more about what they are doing these days. zowie 05:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's after Time Cube because it's alphabetical. To see more about Haisch, read Stochastic electrodynamics, which you cut from this entry, incorrectly. Maybe this item should be Stochastic electrodynamics. GangofOne 08:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm... interesting stuff.  I suppose stochastic electrodynamics should probably be given its own entry, separate from (or instead of) ZPOI.  I can't speak to that body of work, but Haisch's work always seemed to me to be a serious and sober attempt to explore a rather far-out idea (Of course, that makes it eligible for listing here as it is an alternative theory to the mainstream -- but it is more rigorous and closer to the mainstream than, say, the Electric Universe concept.)  Cheers, zowie 17:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero point origin of inertia 

message: Anything which by admission the idea of a single individual (and returns only about 800 google hits) simply is not important enough for wikipedia. The argument "let the reader decide its notability" simply doesn't hold under wiki rules. Wikipedia is not an advertisement for people's pet theories. I am therefore removing the entry again. JoshuaZ 21:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That rule refers to whether there is an ARTICLE about it or not. The article about it has already been deleted. It can't be an advertisement, surely they wouldn't willingly put it in the pseudoscience catagory. The topic of this list is pseudoscience. It's on-topic. You are destroying information which is useful to sociologists studying the developement of beliefs. GangofOne 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And there will be people who find and wonder about the TGMD site and won't find any thing in wikipedia about it. You do them a disservice. GangofOne 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topological geometrodynamics 

message: "Many of the items on this list conform with scientific method but conflict with the well established views held by a scientific elite who have reputations and status to loose by accepting change. See work of Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend". I hold this to be a valid point of view worthy of inclusion.
I see that some things I added have been discussed and excluded already , however the focus of this article is confused. Is it just crackpot ideas, is it minority science , is it bad science. What is it? Needs to be split into several clearly defined articles. Lumos3 06:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lumos, while this seems reasonable, what Kuhn was saying was somewhat different, possibly you mean just ideas that do not violate one of the above but are still fringy? JoshuaZ 13:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Lumos, as discussed here earlier, the title of the list isn't very appropriate. This is effectively just a list of crackpot theories. We are not puting theories in the list just because they are speculative or disputed but otherwise legitimate scientific theories. It is actually almost impossible to makle a list of speculative theories, because then half of physics would be in there. Everything which is beyond the experimentally verified standard model is speculative, and that covers more than 50% of physics research. Count Iblis 14:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case we really do need a better name for this list. JoshuaZ 14:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree! Count Iblis 14:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I suggest "Alternatives theories in science" or "Fringe claims in science." What do you guys think? JoshuaZ 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like Fringe better than Alternate.  "Alternate" sounds like it is a viable arternative.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale deletion of my edit by Count Iblis  

message: This is a respectable theory, albeit controversial. To put this theory in a list containing theories like Flat Earth Theory and Ley Lines is just stupid. Count Iblis 00:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that if it is controversial, then it is disputed, and fits the criteria.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps 10% of all published scientific theories is similarly controversial. You can't put them all on this list. If you do put a few of these theories in the list that is dominated by nonsensical theories, like e.g. Flat Earth theory and Ley Lines, then that is defamation. Count Iblis 00:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Snowball Earth theory 

message: I have removed Vitamin C because it does not fit the criteria for this page. See the Vitamin C article. The debate on vitamin C and health is a respectable theory conducted between scientists.
*Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;
:Large amounts of supporting evidence are available. 
*Asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results; 
:Experimentqal results support high dose claims
*Failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
:Results have been reproduced in multiple studies 
*Violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible). 
:Does not apply here.
Lumos3 08:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitamin C 

message: I think its a bad idea, but maybe the proposer can explain at greater length?  ---CH 17:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am for the merger. The suggestion isn't to merge the whole "Crank" article, just the list of crank topics within that article. The lists are redundant, and contain similar items. --AAMiller 03:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is probably a good bit of overlap between that list, the list at Pseudoscience, List of alternative, disputed, and speculative theories, and perhaps List of alleged conspiracy theories.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good .. the list in Crank(person) was not much more than a sideshow.  The new incarnation of that article is much more encyclopedic in that it describes the crank mentality rather than examples of crank beliefs.  Unfortunately, this article listing pseudoscientific theories is becoming a sideshow.  see the above discussion titled: Split this article into three.  Vonkje 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: If the Internet had existed in times past...
*would Copernicus' theory about the sun be listed on this page?
:: It would have appeared on the online Spanish Inquisition page :) Count Iblis 19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the 'wave/particle' debate (indicated above) is continuing and controversial. In relation to atomic physics. I suppose it is a matter of who you cite as authoratative on the subject. Even Feynmann believed his conclusions were 'adequate' after years of Government funded and University research; implying that such investigation is irreducible to an objective or subjective event... And i did try to amend the tone of this article (a few words in the intro to create a neutral viewpoint of what the list is composed of) that implied that 'all' these 'fringe' theories are entertained 'only' by a minority of crackpots. I just didnt think that the article title would attempt to debunk the theories before they are even described. It is merely a list of theories, and as such should be descriptive. Interpretations and debunking takes place at snopes.com. As an encyclopedia, I imagine that the list should be as a accurate and fair as possible. I mean, David Icke's theories are really wild, but I wouldnt even understand who he was or what he thought if the narrator of his biographical detail and of his theories set out to say he is nuts and its not even worth discussing what he thinks. It should be assumed that readers are intelligent enough to make up their own minds as to what is crackpot, loony, intuitive, imaginative, creative, scientific, reasonable, etc... So description of each theory is paramount! Drakonicon 12:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drakonicon, the problem all along with this list was that the title didn't cover the contents. A not too small fraction of all scietific theories is controversial. But this list only contains theories that are of a crackpot nature. It would be impossible to list all controversial theories and it wouldn't be fair to add a controversial theory to the list if prctically all other entries in the list are crackpot. That's why I changed the title. Count Iblis 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other alternative theories 

message: I think that "Cold Fusion" should go somewhere in this article...unless it's considered a hoax...although there are those who believe that it is still possible.NCartmell 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a subject 

message: I have never before heard the theory of technological singularity described as pseudoscience.  It seems to me to be based on sound extrapolation and not pathological science.  Can somebody explain the reasoning behind putting it here?  If there's a good reason of which I'm unaware, that's fine, but it seems at odds with many other theories here.  Greyscale 09:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be removed from the list. Note that the title of the list was changed recently to make it less ambiguous whether or not a theory should be listed here. Count Iblis 12:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transhumanism

message: Should this be removed? It seems to me that the basic idea of eugenics is simply selective breeding, which is fully supported by evolution. The specific theory described in this article is a bit beyond what classic eugenics covers, but I don't see it as necessarily being unscientific. ---DrLeebot 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Eugenics historically has not just consisted of the trivial claim that selective breeding is possible, it has made pseudoscientific claims about the desirability of certain traits and the existence of racial stocks and body politics.  It also has used rather unscientific methods of determining the fitness of individuals and races.  It is almost a perfect example of a pseudoscience in how it uses the terminology and some of the superficial methods of science to gain legitimacy.  The history of the eugenists' adoption of Mendelian genetics is another interesting example - even though it has proved correct, they championed it because it supported their own biases.  Similar to how the Soviets backed Lamarck. Deleuze 15:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then. I guess I'm just too biased towards the way it's used in all the Sci-Fi novels I've read, rather than how its advocates operate in the real world. Thanks for clearing that up. ---DrLeebot 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to shore it up a bit. In this case it all depends on the definition used. Nobody denies, of course, that the mainstream eugenics of the 1910s-1930s was pseudoscience, but the question is generally whether that is all that "eugenics" means. Defining eugenics is quite difficult; Diane Paul has a good discussion of this in the first chapter of her history of eugenics (Controlling human heredity, 1865 to the present). I tried to make the entry here reflect this a bit better, while still being concise. --Fastfission 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenics 

message: OK, actually looking at the article (:-) I see a couple of problem inclusions:
* Le Sage's theory of gravitation
* Luminiferous aether
LSToG is wrong, but was a not unreasonable theory at the time. Not psuedoscience though. The LE pages sez its an obsolete sci theory - and that seems fair enough to me... Oh, and I see that the intro mentions LE. There should be some system for ranking sensible-at-the-time-but-not-now theories against currently-proposed-but-junk William M. Connolley 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Harald88 20:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorting the theories by their age would be a good start. --Vuo 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another possibility would be to have a "falsified in + date by such-and-such" clause after historical theories...that way, anyone currently touting the theory can be said to be indulging in pseudoscience because they are propounding a falsified theory. Byrgenwulf 20:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a good way to do it. Luminiferous aesther, steady state theory, etc. were not pseudoscience in their time nor neccessarily pseudoscience today. However there are forms of them advocated today (by cranks, mostly) which would probably qualify as pseudoscience. That being said, though, that aspect could be said about almost any crank—cranks advocate all sorts of theories which are incorrect or wrong, and listing everything that was once considered true, is now considered false, and is still followed today by people who use really sloppy methodology, would be a very long (and pretty useless) list indeed, especially if we are talking about the internet, where nuttiness abides. --Fastfission 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newtonian mechanics has been falsified, yet remains universally used by engineers, and often by scientists.  Your implication that the entire engineering profession is made up of cranks, is a little extreme.  The point is that it is falsified as a universal theory, but its bounds of validity are now known, so we know where and when it can be applied.  Arguably, this is a better position to be in, than not knowing the bounds of validity at all.  In fact a lot of theories which are known to be false remain as handy approximations in appropriate circumstances.  Scientific progress is a process of replacing theories which are wrong with theories which are more subtley wrong.Gordon Vigurs 10:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of problems 

message: I reverted the POV tag. Let's discuss it here first. Let's first focus on entries that are now on the list that shouldn't be on the list or vice versa. If there are any problems about how pseudoscience is defined then that's a less urgent problem if that hasn't led to any disputes about actual entries on the list. Count Iblis 22:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag by arturo#7 

message: Please come and vote :) Count Iblis 01:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD [[List of non-mainstream theories]] underway 

message: MichaelCPrice vandalized the article by deleting cited and referenced text, and falsely called it "restore vandalized text." -- Cri du canard 23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the irony in the edit summary: look at the previous edit summary (made by Cri du canard as an anon), which was made without comment or talk page discussion.--Michael C. Price talk 23:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Cri du canard; please do not make false accusations. If you insist on arguing this matter, please take it to Talk:Orthomolecular medicine. linas 01:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edit by MichaelCPrice