Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 2

message: It may be useful and interesting to try to nail down some definition of the term pseudoscience that approaches objectivity. I expect it will be a long debate, with various proponents trying to fit a definition to their own pre-set categories, and then an even longer one (possibly interminable) as to what fields are "real sciences".  In any case, I think it still needs to be pointed out that in actual usage the term "pseudoscience" is typically not used in an objective sense, but rather more often reflects the speaker's own biases. This should be obvious from the fact that, far from being a clinical term, the term typically carries derogatory and derisive connotations.  As Eloquence seems to be pointing out, the recipients of the appellation "pseudoscience" may simply be whichever fields get the most votes in the ongoing scientific unpopularity contest.  Forgive my being relatively new to the Wikipedia, but this does raise a question that has come to my mind regarding the 'pedia in general: I know that NPOV is the Holy Grail of the Wikipedia, but failing that, when writing articles, do we try to err on the side of objectivity or on the side of popular opinion? There are strong arguments for both .... Grizzly 11:04 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
::Grizzly, NPOV ≠ objective: see Wikipedia:NPOV.  Wikipedia articles should not err on one side or the other; articles should not take a position.  They should state facts and state opinions so long as the opinion is pertinent and can be attributed to a particular person or persons. B
I agree with Ecleticology's suggestion for a list of pseudoscientific candidates although I think the list should be broader and categorized to include protoscientific and nonscientific suspects as well and be titled something like: Protoscientific, pseudoscientific and nonscientific candidates. This is in line with wiki policy to report pertinent, attributed opinions whether we like them or not.  Then this article can point to the list for an example/model of what some think is pseudoscience.  Further, if for example homeopathy were on the list, there should be at least one statement in the list from say the medical community like JAMA or the FDA about homeopathy in general or criticism of a particular homeopathic treatment like the uses of colloidal silver. B
: There's absolutely no point in moving this to a separate "list" article. That only encourages sloppy categorization. Just edit the damn article if you think there's something missing. --Eloquence
-----
Ok, perhaps I should explain *why* I think Eclecticology's proposal is a good one.  To me, the most important things for the Wikipedia to contain about pseudoscience are: 1) an article accurately describing the concept, and 2) where there is a view by some, many, or a lot of people that a field is pseudoscientific, the article on that topic should discuss that in detail so the reader can make their own determination.   Any list of "pseudosciences" is very much of secondary importance.
A list which divides things up into "almost universally regarded as pseudoscience", "regarded as pseudoscience by some scientists", and so on, will necessarily have to short-circuit lots of complexities (including those with the whole concept of pseudoscience) which is very hard to do in a NPOV manner, and to me represents a lot of wasted effort that would be better spent on the topic articles, which the reader will have to read anyway if they want to understand the topic and its scientific credibility.
Therefore, to me Eclecticology's proposal represents a way to concentrate effort on making this article better, and topic articles better, and avoids wasting time having debates on list categorizations that aren't in the final washup that important or useful in the context of the Wikipedia anyway.--Robert Merkel 23:32 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
: Any encyclopedia article needs to give proper examples for its subject to be understandable. That this is "very hard" for controversial topics is not an excuse to move the examples away to separate pages, especially when Eclecticology states that the list should accept "without debate any subject that anybody considers to be pseudoscientific." 
: No serious encyclopedia would do that and we are, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. If I read an article about pseudoscience, I expect homeopathy, perpetual motion machines, "intelligent design" and the like to be mentioned and discussed in brief. I don't want an end result that is eloquent but doesn't dare to say anything of value because it might tick off pro-pseudoscientists. If people working on this article violate NPOV to push an agenda, then this is the problem, not the article.
: Once again, the current article is fine, what it lacks, for the most part, is a brief summary of the opinions about the subjects mentioned, with the subjects themselves discussed in their respective articles. --Eloquence 01:13 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)~
::I have no objection to the article containing a brief number of examples that show the broad range of subjects that are sometimes treated as pseudoscience.  But whether SETI or astrology or intelligent design are pseudosciences is not about pseudoscience; it is about SETI or astrology or intelligent design as the case may be.  Examples are merely illustrative.  If the examples are not "proper" examples then, rather than make the subject more understandable, they create more confusion and unclarity.  The article does include a workable list of criteria for determining whether a subject may be classed as pseudoscience; I would feel more comfortable if we strictly conformed to those criteria; that would be a more scientific approach.
::To maintain NPOV in this article we need to avoid both a pro-pseudoscience bias and an anti-pseudoscience bias. 
::Eloquence, if you note my earlier comments, I have already made the point that I still regard the inclusion of examples of possibly pseudoscientific topics as illustrative examples in this article as essential.  I have also said that extensive discussions of whether a particular topic is regarded as pseudoscience, by whom, and on what grounds, is appropriate for a particular article page (eg SETI, acupuncture, homeopathy, telepathy).  However, to attempt to categorise and summarise what might become very complex arguments about the views of a particular activity in a list where there is not space to do so is likely to lead to endless arguments and isn't particularly useful information, as anybody who wants to find out more should read the topic article anyway!  Therefore, if there has to be a list, and we're going to have arguments about it, I would prefer it to be as loosely defined as possible so we don't have to bother with pointless categorization and summarization arguments. --Robert Merkel 11:33 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
::: We are in agreement up to a point: detailed discussions are best placed in their respective subject articles. But a separate pseudoscience list with loose criteria is a cop out that only encourages sloppy work. If a particular discussion gets too long, we can always move it to its subject article while retaining a brief summary. What we should try to do is quantify opinions. This can be done, for example, by searching scientific databases for "field name + pseudoscien*". (That alone does not suffice, because any article so found may actually argue that the field is not pseudoscientific.) Skeptical organizations like CSICOP are also a good source for finding scientific claims. I for one think that the current presentation is fairly accurate, but it lacks a few pseudoscientific fields. 
--Eloquence 12:00 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
-----
The classification section on pseudoscience leaves out a few factors in my opinion.  It leaves out possibilities such as noting that observations have been made that are not verifiable but that make no claims.  For example, I navigated here from the auras page.  I can see auras.  It's possible that it's a medical condition, a vision problem, or some kind of psychological problem.  I suppose from your perspective it's possible that I'm lying to you.  However, I make no claims, other than I am observing something that you can't apparently photograph.  Others have made these observations as well, and some of the ways that auras are seen fall nicely into a couple of distinct categories.  So is the ability to see auras pseudoscientific?  No scientific claims are being made, but the rudiments of the scientific process are being used (by taking observations).
Also, does someone first have to claim something is scientific for it to be pseudoscience?
--Godshatter 08:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking observations is not the rudiment of the scientific method. Everybody makes observations. The scientific method is about making claims from observations. If you aren't making claims of any sort, then nobody would confuse it with science, I'm fairly sure. And if that's the case, then I doubt anybody would bother to call it pseudoscience. Though I will say this acknowledging that 100 years of philosophical debate has yet to provide anything close to a way to define what is science and what is not. --Fastfission 13:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try to nail down the definition

message: I see that recently an anonymous user removed the Wolfram item from the list of pseudosciences, with the comment/question "Why does genius Wolfram appear on the list?".  I plan to add it the entry back in, along with a bit more in the article on some additional criteria for pseudosciences.  Some of the criteria by which Wolfram's A New Kind of Science qualify for pseudoscience status are grandiose and unsubstantiated claims, and bypassing the methods of science in the large, namely peer review of his ideas. Did you hear about his aborted contract to have his book published by Addison Wesley? He wanted the reviewers to sign a non-disclosure statement and promise not to study math or physics for the ensuing ten years.  A real nut-case, genius or no.  No, I did not get this from reading all 1280 pages of his tome.  I have read a couple of scathing reviews in the Notices of the AMS and the Bulletin of the AMS.  And Freeman Dyson's comment regarding ANKOS is "There's a tradition of scientists approaching senility to come up with grand, improbable theories. Wolfram is unusual in that he's doing this in his 40s."  So there are more than a few professionals who consider this particular work to be pseudoscience.
Grizzly
:I would probably keep it off for different reasons.  I would distinguish between pseudoscience and nut-case science.  What distinguishes the latter would be the connection with a single individual.  When he's gone his "science" will also be gone and draw no more interest than an historical curiosity.  ☮ Eclecticology 17:07 27 May 2003 (UTC)
::Heavy stuff! Does a lack of peer review make science pseudoscience? It shouldn't. Peer review is not part of the scientific method itself, it's a part of scientific professionalism, which some could argue, is itself a contradiction of terms. I think Wolfram does bonified theoretical experimentation, via the empirical method, which distinguishes himself from pseudoscientists. Eclecticology is right: history will sort-out the importance of his work. Wolfram's a bonified scientist with grandiose claims, nothing less. rmbh 19:47, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
:Peer review is a basic tenant of science.  If you close off your theories to scrutiny, you are not acting in a scientific manner.  A credible scientist willw ant their theory to be subjected to the scrutiny of other scientists.  Think about it, reproducibility is a very basic requirement for scientific practice, but how can you reproduce something if you won't open your theory to scrutiny?  Scientists will have no idea whether the results they got mean anything unless they know how the theory works.  Nathan J. Yoder 00:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wolfram

message: I am concerned about the posted definition of pseudoscience, that it claims some data is collected scientifically but was not actually performed via the scientific method.  For example, don't the Princeton group PEAR or the Psychophysical Research labs (I can't find links to it) actually perform scientifically valid experiments?  They and others have found both evidence supporting parapsychology and evidence undermining it.  However, they are on controvertial topics, and therefore rather than being labeled protoscience, they are considered pseudoscience.  I agree that the vast majority of pseudoscience does not stand up to the rigors of the scientific method (see Bad Astronomy for extensive debunking), but isn't it possible that some DOES do things "right"?  If they did, I would still call them pseudoscience.  
In addition, I don't feel Occam's Razor is a good criterion for defining science/pseudoscience.  Take the Big Bang for example: to quote John Dobson, is it more likely that "nothing made something from nothing (even a kindergartener knows that can't happen)" or that an  omnipotent omniscient power did it?  I think God is a "simpler" explanation, even though I don't believe in him!  But perhaps this conversation treads the line between science and religion--which many philosophers, anthropologists and some educators feel are the same thing: "a systematic method of understanding the empirical world" (Sara Delamont).  
--zandperl 13:22, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining pseudoscience

message: I removed these words said about Feyerabend:
:Feyerabend has been quite famous for his statements, comparing science to voodoo in example. His way of thinking boils down to: "Anything goes."
I have studied Feyerabend for many years and know of no instance where he compares science to voodoo.  Feyerabend's thinking hardly ever "boils down".  And when it did he was always ready to mix things up again.  These two quotes show what I mean:
:The only principle which does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.		
:'anything goes' is not a 'principle' I hold...but the terrified exclamation of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history.
::Sorry, my professors have misled me. Please accept my humblest apologies. - Sigg3.net
Say two "Hail Mary"s and three "Our Father"s and you are forgiven :)  More seriously, one of the problems with Feyerabend is that he is so difficult to pin down.  You can find him arguing for relativism and against it.  Elsewhere he defends astrology only to say that it "bores him to tears" later.  He is overly argumentative, inconsistent, often rude. It all makes great reading. --Chris 11:42, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again. Seems like interesting reading, I will check it out sometime. - Sigg3.net 20:59, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: About Paul Feyerabend

message: I'm looking for skeptic info about biogeometry, negative green, Chaumery and De Belizal for w:nl:Biogeometrie and w:nl:negatief groen. Guaka 17:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Biogeometry

message: If I'm not mistaken, almost the same note on Feyerabend was inserted a while ago:
Feyerabend also infamously claimed that witchcraft and astrology should be considered as scientific as any of the canon scientific disiciplines.
Since it has re-appeared I should perhaps explain a little before I remove it once more.  First of all, it is simply not the case that Feyerabend made such a claim.
In the introduction to Against Method F. says that he thinks it  "necessary to re-examine our attitude towards myth, religion, magic, witchcraft and towards all those ideas which rationalists would like to see forever removed from the surface of the earth ".
If one didn't read further it is possible to imagine that he went on to suggest that such things should should be considered scientific.  This is not the case.  What he does suggest is that science is not an autonomous form of reasoning:
"A scientist who wishes to maximize the empirical content of the views he holds and who wants to understand them as clearly as he possibly can must therefore introduce other views; that is, he must adopt a pluralistic methodology. [...] Knowledge so conceived is not a series of self-consistent theories that converges towards an ideal view; it is not a gradual approach to the truth. It is rather an ever increasing ocean of mutually incompatible (and perhaps even incommensurable) alternatives, each single theory, each fairy tale, each myth that is part of the collection forcing the others into greater articulation and all of them contributing, via this process of competition, to the development of our consciousness." (Feyerabend, 1975, Against Method, p. 30)
In Three Dialogues on Knowledge, Feyerabend went to the defense of astrology in face of rationalist critcism.  Here his fictional interlocutor is forced to admit that he has only a subjuctive bias against astrology and only rhetorical means of attacking it.
Claiming that witchcraft and astrology are scientific is, admittedly, the kind of thing Feyerabend might do.  To my knowledge he stopped short of this claim. Chris 11:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In my reading of Against Method, it was not Feyerabend's purpose to say that witchcraft or astrology were scientific so much as to say that that philosophically speaking one could not easily demarcate between what is "scientific" and what is not. That is, there would be no rigid line separating the two -- which is not the same thing as saying that witchcraft is scientific (rather, it calls into question what makes something rigidly "scientific"). --Fastfission 19:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  In defense of Feyerabend (again) 

message: I have merged the demarcation section with that on the Scientific Method article and extracted it to its own article: Demarcation Problem.  I think that there is still some material to merge from The Criterion of Demarcation, but I'll wait to see if there are any complaints so far. -- Chris 08:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demarcation section merged and extracted 

message: RK removed a part of the article that mentioned exobiology, astrobiology, SETI, and CETI, stating that they are not pseudoscience... which is true, but that isn't what the article said of them. I think the point was made quite well that:
# These fields are "young fields of science."
# They are "sometimes frowned upon."
# The point was driven home: "are not considered pseudoscientific or protoscientific by most scientists..."
I think the section served as a good disambiguation, pointing out that some newer fields of legitimate science are, indeed, sometimes frowned upon, and are often incorrectly labeled "pseudoscience" by those who might wish to criticize them.AdmN 14:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  SETI 

message: I'm still really new here, but I find it odd that an anon IP can come along and place the text "The neutrality of this article is disputed." on the article without discussing it here on the talk page or even providing any edit summary, so I've performed my first wiki "revert". Does anyone believe that the article, in its current form, needs a neutrality disclaimer? AdmN 04:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hit-and-run neutrality disputes like that don't count, reverting is fine. The place an article's neutrality might be disputed is here, on its talk page: a notice without a record of what's being objected to just doesn't cut it. (And no, I don't think it needs it either). - Nunh-huh 04:22, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Disputed 

message: An addition to the demarcation section reads "Newton-Smith has criticized both approaches, arguing that only a rough heuristic is needed...".  Which two approaches are refered to by "both approaches"?  Since I couldn't find much about Newton-Smith on the web it might be an idea for those who know more about him to fill in a few details.  In particular a short description of his "rough heuristic" would be appreciated. -- Chris 13:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, no kidding. How'd that slip in there? --Fastfission 04:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demarcation clarification needed 

message: "The Frye rule is now superseded by this decision. The Court's ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals effectively establishes, as the law of the land, the Popperian principle of falsification as the determinant of scientific knowledge." .
The source deals with the implications of this decision on expert witnesses in cases of child sexual abuse. (They are "experts", too often.) --Moonlight shadow 16:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 

message: Should pseudomathematics be a subsection on this page?  Doing so implies that it is a sub-category of pseudoscience, and perhaps that math is a sub-category of science, while I do not believe that either of those statements are generally accepted.  I would suggest removing the subsection and listing the topic in the "see also" section.  --zandperl 20:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudomathematics 

message: This view-point is woven deeper into the fabric of the article than I'm able to untangle, but still, the article approaches pseudo-science as a negative of science. That's not NPOV. Basically, if pseudo-science can not be weighed on its own, which judging from the name is what I would expect, then it shouldn't be covered like this at all. Aliter 19:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Close to wiktionary or not, I'm not sure how one can write an article on a contested term which does not in some way acknowledge the history/use of that term itself, as a term... Just a comment. --Fastfission 19:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it were not possible, that could be because it really was just a dictionary entry, rather than an encyclopedic one. Aliter 19:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-NPOV 

message: Exobiology has no place in this article - it is no more a protoscience than the study of DNA (both begun around the same time) and it certainly isn't pseudoscience. It's just applying our knowledge of extremophiles to known planetary conditions, and has been studied in situ by the likes of Viking, and was the subject of the recent Beagle 2 mission. Future missions on the subject include JIMO. Study on Earth continues apace. Dan100 23:00, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
:The question in the context here is not whether it is protoscience but whether it is regarded by some as protoscience -- and I think that certain approaches to it are, in the way that certain forms of cryptozoology are as well. I'm not passing my own judgment on it, the question is whether or not it is sometimes put into that category, and I'm pretty sure that it is. This article is not the place to debate the merits of such classification, though -- its inclusion in this article is only to indicate that it is sometimes questioned on its methodology. There are quite a few non-fringe people who think that speculative observationary sciences of this sort do not conform to the ideals of the scientific method and would thus be considered a form of proto- or pseudoscience.
:As I understand it, the designation of protoscience is not about the age of a field, but about its epistemic status; about whether or not it has the conceptual tools developed to be considered a "true" science. Do I think this is a useful distinction? Not entirely, but that's not really the point. Evolutionary psychology is often included in the same distinction. Again, not necessarily included by me (this is not about what I, or you, think are protosciences). Whether it is supported by NASA influences this distinction depends on whether you take a philosophical approach to the classification scheme (is it based on methodology?) or an operational one (is it based on whether it is done by authorized "scientists"?). I think most people talking about pseudoscience do so with the former (personally, I like the latter, but this article isn't about my view of things). Does it matter that it has been along for 40 years and that you have studied it for two of them? Not by a philosophical definition of pseudoscience or protoscience. The hardcore critic (e.g. Feyerabend) would say, "Alchemy was studied for three times that long, yet it is still methodologically poor today!"
:Astrobiology is listed both on the pages for protoscience and List of protosciences, by the way. I don't have terribly strong feelings on this either way, I have to admit, but it seems more accurate to include it on the list of "thought of by others to be" than to remove it simply because you think it isn't a protoscience. The question that is posed is: "Do some people regard exobiology/astrobiology as being in part or wholly a protoscientific enterprise?" I think the answer is "yes", but I'm most definitely willing to listen to other opinions. --Fastfission 02:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Exobiology

message: "by asserting claims or theories without first verifying them in experiments"
I think this describes a subsection of this subject not mentioned. The wording seems ackward to me though, if anyone can make it sound better, by all means, edit it. GregNorc (talk) 
:I'm not sure asserting theories without experimenting is something only pseudoscience does. One could easily interpret that in a way which would make Einstein a pseudoscientist, unless I'm missing something. It seems to miss the fact that not all science is experiment. --Fastfission 13:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added an example 

message: I will now remove the reference to Newton Smith that reads,
"Newton-Smith has criticized both approaches, arguing that only a rough heuristic is needed to be able to do real science."
The removed sentence has been there for a while, but no extra information has emerged. If anyone feels strongly about Smith's contribution, then this might be a good time to begin an article on him, or add something more substantial here. Chris 08:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone for Newton Smith? 

message: Psychoanalysis is listed as an example of a pseudoscience, but I think it's a poor choice.  I can understand how one might feel that it doesn't fully conform to the scientific method, but psychoanalysis doesn't really purport to be a fully scientific field for the most part.  If there's no objection, I'll remove it from the list.  Deleuze 14:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychoanalysis? 

message: I always thought that pseudoscience was a mixture of science and non-science, the result being something that has not been proven to be scientifically true but has not been proven scientifically false; therfore being a beleif that is supported partially by something that is science-based, but not science itself.
This article describes pseudo-science as something incorrectly assumed as scientific. If that is the definition, then what is the word for my definition, as described above?
--Munchkinguy 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, pseudoscience is not a mixture of science and non-science, it is all non-scientific that tries to seem or appear scientific.  Protoscience may be more like what you say.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somewhat Scientific? 

message: It is an appeal to authority to claim that one field or another is "pseudoscience" because the "medical profession" says so.  Since the term pseudoscience is a value judgment, the burden of proof falls on those who make the judgment to prove their case.  These examples constitute biased polemics written from the POV of the status quo - the same status quo, by the way that thought sanitary methods were quackery not that many years ago.  --Leifern June 30, 2005 23:14 (UTC)
*Thanks for the original research. --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)
**I'm not sure what that comment means.  --Leifern June 30, 2005 23:32 (UTC)
***Wikipedia isn't in the business of changing the world.  We simply summarize those who do. --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)
What the User:Brian0918 may be referring to is the policy of Wikipedia that we should only use information from verifiable sources. We're not here to "prove" anything, just to summarize in an NPOV manner the verifiable sources on a topic. If notable sources say something is X, then we should include that assertion rather than attempting to prove, on our own, that X is true. So, "appeal to authority" is what Wikipedia is all about. Cheers, -Willmcw June 30, 2005 23:36 (UTC)
*That's fine; but there's a difference between saying "X is true" and "Y says that X is true."  --Leifern July 1, 2005 01:15 (UTC)
:*Yes, that's why the page goes to some considerable trouble to discuss the problematic aspect of the term "pseudoscience", whose POV it is, and why a number of people don't believe there even exists such a thing. Re-read the first line again and I think you'll see that the Y says X is definitely the formulation used." --Fastfission 1 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)
It's not an appeal to authority.  Appeal to authority only applies when you're using unqualified authorities  to back up an argument, like using the opinion of a cardiologist on a matter of urology.  This is an appeal to expert testimony (qualified experts), which is perfectly valid.  Nathan J. Yoder 6 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)
Well, what Mr. Leifern has stated certainly appears to be an appeal to authority!  I think Mr. Yoder is referring to the associated logical fallacy, which could be invoked if, say, Tom Cruise was to pronounce on whether psychiatry was part of medical science.  
Also, the policy of no original research doesn't apply to the talk pages.  But where is the authority of the "medical profession" referenced in the article?  I don't see a problem.  If Mr. Leifern is able to demonstrate that a given entry in the list deserves to be called a 'science' because the discipline involved appears to follow the scientific method, I'm sure we would have no objection in removing it from the list, or at least starting a discussion.--Kbk 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my not so humble opinion, medicine is sometimes (or often) well below the thresold of the scientific method (despite its claim). AnyFile 21:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical profession as authorities on what is true science 

message: This is just for anyone who is interested.
The word "consensus" (used in the opening Pseudoscience paragraph) is quite 'flaky' in it's definition. http://www.answers.com/consensus&r=67 gives 3 distinct definitions.
I thought it meant unanimous, only. http://www.answers.com/topic/scientific-consensus?hl=consensus is an interesting read; the definition there is "Consensus usually means overwhelming majority, not simple majority nor total agreement."
I don't suppose there is a single more precise word to use, is there? RossNixon 3 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
*I think consensus is appropriate here. Another possible alternative might be "common", but I'd like to see others' opinions on this before committing to a change. --brian0918™ 3 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)
*Would this make the statement more true?  "OFTEN the consensus opinion of the mainstream scientific community is relied upon to make such a determination." Edwardian 3 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
*Consensus is better than "majority" or "overwhelming majority".  The question is not a simple count of hands, it's whether there is any substantial disagreement.  If *everyone* thinks X but one really prominent scientist in that field disagrees, you don't have consensus.  I also like "often" or "usually" to prefix that sentence as Edwardian suggested. ObsidianOrder
:Given that consensus is a key feature of general wikipedia policy, I think it is an appropriate term for use anywhere in the encyclopedia. It is specifically defined somewhere in the pedia policies, just dig around a little. SOrry, don't mean to beat a dead horse, but had to comment. Shaggorama 09:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus or Majority? 

message: Simply saying pseudoscience is "judged to fall outside the domain of science" raises the question of who's doing the judging. I think it can be replaced with "which falls outside the domain of science". After all, who determines what is in the domain of science? Surely they should also be doing the judging. --brian0918™  16:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Perhaps we could tighted up the whole sentence by saying: "Pseudoscience refers to a body of knowledge or practice that is mistakenly regarded as scientific."  S.N. Hillbrand 18:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've replaced it with the M-W definition which says the same thing (and is verifiable as not being original research). --brian0918™  18:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: How about, "Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice which, while superficially appearing to be scientific, cannot be demonstated to have been developed while following the scientific method."--Kbk 18:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to avoid original research here. Using the dictionary definition is as close as we can get to not redefining a term. --brian0918™  19:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original research topic states that that an entry is disallowed if it "provides new definitions of old terms."  Specifically, in what way is my suggestion a "new definition of [an] old term"?  After all, every dictionary and encyclopedia has slightly different wording for its definitions, and even the current definition in the article isn't exactly the same as the dictionary entry referenced. There is no Wikipedia policy requiring that the definition of a term quote a dictionary.  In fact, that would seem to violate copyright.  'Erroneously' is an ambiguous term which doesn't resolve the issue of authority, and my suggestion is an attempt to clarify what it means. --Kbk 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By using a dictionary definition, we are referencing an "authoritative" source, which is important for such a controversial topic. My other problem with your version is that it only references the scientific method. --brian0918™  23:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Only references the scientific method": What do you think is missing? --Kbk 03:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm ok with pretty much all of the proposed definitions, whether "judged to be" or "is", as long as whoever is doing the judging is not specified explicitly (as we talked about earlier).  A point of interest, I wonder if someone who has an Oxford English Dictionary handy could look that up?  In my experience, that tends to be a better dictionary.  ObsidianOrder 02:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked up the OED definition (several different editions) and it is: "a body of beliefs, practices or theories mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method" (from memory, I don't have a copy with me).  Curiously they all said "scientific method" not "the scientific method".  Well, that's pretty close to the current definition anyway, except for "method".  Close enough.  ObsidianOrder 02:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Judged by whom?

message: The following sentence appears at the end of the aforementioned section: "A number of self-proclaimed alternative medicine treatments have been designated pseudoscience by critics, largely because some of these methods inspire false hope in terminally ill patients, and end up costing large amounts of money without actually providing any real benefit, treatment, or cure for various ailments." Critics of alternative medicine call those treatments "pseudoscience" because they appear to them to be "pseudoscientific", NOT because they inspire false hope, etc. Any suggestions on what to do with this statement? Edwardian 05:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, delete it.  Alternately, "... because they make far-reaching claims not supported by sufficient evidence".  A number of the things this would refer to have some positive effects, however irresponsible people make wildly exaggerated claims about the benefits.  ObsidianOrder 10:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section entitled "Fields often associated with pseudoscience"

message: I removed the tags inserted by User:Rktect as that user did not provide discussion here nor has added any edits to the page (at least not recently). If you dispute, then explain what is disputed here. Just slapping the tag on is absurd and a cop out. Vsmith 19:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed tag 

message: I dispute the concept that any non scientific paridigm or methodology is by definition false. You touch on this in the article ("Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend have argued, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, that a clear philosophical distinction between science and pseudoscience is neither possible nor desirable.") but don't really develop it so that it appears a dismissable eccentricity. The problem is that what is accepted as proven fact is subject to change.
Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific . 
Newton's methods were the very essence of unscientific, the man was an alchemist. By many modern definitions of pseudoscience, which apparently include corresponding with others labled pseudocscientist he was a first rate Loon engaged in original research and the like.
This sentence is bizzare. It starts out correctly asserting that "The term "pseudoscience" often has negative connotations, implying generally that things so labeled are false and deceptive (though a strict interpretation of the term would not necessarily have it mean either). But this part " As such, those who are labelled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" almost always reject this classification, and often the distinction itself." is not saved by the caveat "almost". Labeling is labeling
:Clearly you don't know very much about Newton.  He was part of a circle of (now famous) empiricists inlcuding Boyle, Hooke, Halley, Wren, Flamsteed, & other members of the Royal Society.  He was obsessed with alchemy and mysticism for part of his later life, true, but that doesn't make him an alchemist, nor does it make the rest of his work non-scientific.  ObsidianOrder 21:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: dispute

message: Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:
* by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
Think back to when science was still focused on three dimensions of space and one of time. Where do the previous experimental results for the last eleven dimensions of branes come from?
* by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
Heizenberg's uncertainty principle is pseudoscience?
* by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results; 
Einsteins theory of relativity?
* by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
quantum mechanics?
* by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
Are all scientists who hold their cards close to the vest for reasons of competition for funding pseudo scientists?
* by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
If you claim a theory predicts something thats a prediction. Predictions are necessary to testable hypothesis
* by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict; 
same as above
* by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (and the more egregious the violation, the more likely); or
* by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.
hydrogen fusion?
Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into the physical world by "scientific" means.  
Sometimes people who believe in science seem just as dogmatic about their insights as their religious bretheren. The problem is that anything we believe is a bias against the alternative.
Systems of thought that rely upon "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science.  There are also bodies of practical knowledge that are not claimed to be scientific.  These are also not pseudoscience.
That contradicts some of the other criteria
Pseudoscience is also distinguishable from misleading statements in some popular science, where commonly held beliefs are thought to meet the criteria of science, but often don't. The issue is muddled, however, because it is believed that "pop" science blurs the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public.
The term "pseudoscience" is often used by adherents of fields considered pseudoscientific to criticize their mainstream equivalents. Hence, for instance, supporters of creationism often characterize evolution as a pseudoscience, as do supporters of Dianetics with respect to psychiatry. Such criticisms are, however, generally regarded as fringe viewpoints.
Its the dismissive nature of labeling things we don't believe in as fringe and things we do believe in as mainstream that create the problem. To avoid pseudoscience you need to maintain NPOV but thats difficultif you think you know that some things are just unprecedented and therefore impossible.Rktect 21:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Rktect - none of the examples you give from science apply.  Take a few university courses in physics and you'll find out why.  Quantum mechanics makes reproducible predictions;  Heizenberg's principle is certainly falsifiable; higher dimensions are considered as one of the possible explanations of the results of high-energy particle collision experiments; and so on.  Finally, you misread a couple of the criteria: "If you claim a theory predicts something thats a prediction." - no, the prediction has to logically follow from the premises of the theory (or hypothesis, actually, until it's tested).  If I claim that general relativity predicts that faster than light travel is possible (when in fact it predicts the opposite) that is nonsense, it does not follow, and it is unscientific. "contradicts some of the other criteria" - how so?  It is a very useful distinction, actually.  ObsidianOrder 22:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sympathetic to the sentiment, but this was just a really bad argument for it.  Sorry if I got impatient, the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of physics theories makes me snappy I guess.  Try again: give me an intractable example.  ObsidianOrder 07:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifying pseudoscience 

message: I would appreciate some help editing this. There aren't any active editors that know about the subject from the skeptical side, and are willing to produce an NPOV article. (There is an active skeptical editor who isn't trying to produce an NPOV article, however.) Fortunately, the main editor does seem to be interested in working towards an NPOV article, even if his biases on the subject show. --Prosfilaes 19:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that article is currently in pretty sad shape.  I'll try to help.  ObsidianOrder 06:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[David R Hawkins]] 

message: Prosfilaes: "I don't see how the talk on the Quackery page matters" - it matters because the issue was fairly extensively discussed and more or less settled.  Yes, a number of people probably think it is pseudoscientific.  The available evidence however would seem to indicate it is (proto)scientific.  Yes, I know that this list is prefaced with "often associated with..." and "many consider — to varying extents ...", but I think that's just an evasion;  the list is clearly what the page editors (or some abstract the wikipedia consensus) consider particularly likely to be pseudoscience, based on available sources and evidence.  Also, I think we already settled on this page that people's opinions are not what determines whether something is pseudoscience or not.  If you really want to add acupuncture to the list, please provide concrete evidence (facts not opinions) that it is really pseudoscience.  My evidence to the contrary is here:   and also all the studies that these two sources cite in their bibliography sections (66 in one, 239 in the other).  I really don't want to get into a lengthy discussion here since the topic is peripheral to this page - perhaps we should take this to Talk:Acupuncture?  ObsidianOrder 07:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it should be what it says it is, and not attempt to be some sort of Wikipedia consensus on what pseudoscience is. And given that, it is indeed considered by many a pseudoscience, and says so right at the start of the acupuncture article.--Prosfilaes 07:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice try, but you're seriously misquoting the acupuncture article.  It says that "the traditional theory underlying its mechanisms has no basis in modern scientific conceptions of physiology" - as opposed to the practice, which is what the term "acupuncture" actually means (again from that article: "... is an alternative medical practice and a therapeutic technique" - not a theory, in other words).  I hope that clears things up.  As for "should be what it says it is" - then maybe we should add tons of other things to that list.  How do you define "many" anyway?  How do you determine what goes on the list?  If the list is based purely on opinions, can you actually cite sources (some kind of opinion poll, maybe?) for why any single item should be on there?  This is a stupid position.  ObsidianOrder 07:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it will be accurate if we specify that the reference is to the traditional theory of acupuncture.  Does that work? JamesMLane 09:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: James: yes, that is a very reasonable approach.  Perhaps mention qi?  Or even make qi the primary entry and mention acupuncture under that?  The acupuncture entry in List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories is perfect, as far as I'm concerned, although it is obviously too verbose to include as-is here. ObsidianOrder 14:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  I think that there is no clear line between acupuncture and its traditional theory. The fact that there is no name for its traditional theory besides acupuncture is a good sign of that. I personally would take a look at James Randi's website, and then at a few other skeptical websites, to see if it was considered pseudoscience by the big voices in the field.--Prosfilaes 18:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think if you really want authoritative sources (assuming you don't consider the professional acupuncturists authoritative) you should look at mainstream MDs in various medical fields who have actually done work with it.   Randi is not an authority on absolutely anything except stage magic.  "big voices"? - just as for any of the other entries on the list, you have to look not at what the majority view is, but at whether there is a substantial dissenting group of scientists in the relevant field, and obviously in this case there is.  No consensus -> no entry.  ObsidianOrder 14:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  James Randi has spent decades working on pseudoscience, is very well known and respected in the field, and has published several well-known books on the subject. I'd call him an authority on pseudoscience. You're trying to unilaterly set the standards on what gets listed; I don't see any reason why not to list things that majority view considers pseudoscience, even if it means making another list. There's no need to require consensus here.--Prosfilaes 18:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "decades working on pseudoscience" - heh.  how does one do that, exactly?  develop new kinds of pseudoscience, or...?  sorry, but Randi is a joke and an embarrasment to professional scientists.  "unilaterly" - no, just trying to establish a consistent standard; there isn't one right now.  "majority view" - and you're going to source that how, exactly?  "no need to require consensus" - yes, there is, for two reasons:  one, if there is a substantial dissenting group within a discipline, that makes it presumptively a legitimate scientific dispute and not pseudoscience; two, consensus is much easier to demonstrate (lack of notable counterexamples) than majority (some kind of poll?  which is unlikely to exist).  ObsidianOrder 10:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  acupuncture 

message: I just don't understand why this is listed in this section. It is I believe correctly listed in
List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories but I don't think it sits well at all with acupuncture, astrology etc. While these latter disciplines may or may not be true, they don't use the language or method of science. Whereas the electric universe protagonists, including Noble prize-winner Hannes Alfven are research scientists, submit papers to journals etc. Of course this area is speculative, but that just means it should be listed with the alternative fringe theories list. I think its totally non-NPOV to label their ideas pseudoscience. They are speculative, of course, but so are lots of things in physics these days. Trious 23:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. Remove it.  ObsidianOrder 10:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Sorry about non-informative edit comment, I pressed Enter too soon, I'm fairly new to this! It should have said "Removed electric universe, see talk." It might just get reverted though... Trious 13:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it got reverted. I heard that the recent explosion that a probe created on an asteroid "disproved" the electric universe theory. So I'm adding this back in. RossNixon 01:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Being wrong doesn't make the theory psuedoscience. I thought this issue had been done to death already. "Electric universe" is a current within science. It may be wrong, and the proponents may be guilty of bad methodology, that is not the point. Most of the papers about it seem to be published in the IEEE plasma journals. Is the IEEE psuedoscientific? Would the IEEE be publishing articles about astrology or graphology?? Trious 08:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric Universe 

message: I believe that its time we removed the link to Non-Standard cosmologies from the list of pseudosciences. For a start, it is not a link to a pseudoscience but a link to a page which details a number of theories. Second, the page mainly details theories that are on the fringes of science but are not psuedoscience. They are just hypotheses that have been rejected (e.g. steady state universe) or continue to enjoy fringe support (plasma cosmology). So it doesn't really fit on the list. Trious 16:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Second. Remove them. ObsidianOrder 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard cosmologies 

message: I removed these from the list, but it looks like they were mindlessly reverted by Willmcw. Anyway, my reasons are as follows:
*Metaphysics: this is a philosophical term. As far as I can remember, it comes from the fact that these matters were dealt with my Aristotle after he dealt with physics. According to Princeton's WordNet it is "the philosophical study of being and knowing". It is totally ridiculous to list this as a p-science. It is not a single system, but a general term. It is like having "philosophy", or "epistemology" or something in the list.
* Telepathy, telekenesis: these are activities, which may or may not exist. They are not systems of thought or bodies of knowledge, dogma etc. They are merely activities, like walking, reading etc. (There may of course be belief systems that assert that these activities are real.)
Trious 22:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not mindlessly reverted. This page has been controversial so major changes, like deleting several entries from a list, are scrutinized. As for these examples, telepathy may be an activity like levitating. But the explanations for it are generally pseudoscientific. I agree with your point about  "metaphyscis" and will remove it. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then the explanations for levitating could form part of a psuedoscience. But levitating is not a psuedoscience. If we are going to start listing strange activites as psuedosciences there are a lot more we could add! e.g. spontaneous combustion, extra-sensory perception, raising the dead etc. Compare these to say astrology. This is a body of knowledge, not an activity.Trious 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you prefer we can add the words, "explanations of..." in front of telepathy and telekenesis. If you read the articles they are full of pseudoscientific explanations and experiments. -Willmcw 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I think we should keep the list for systems of organised knowledge, like astrology, accupuncture, graphology. I think over time a lot of things had creeped into this list that shouldn't have ever been there (metaphysics, for example). Anyway, regarding telexxxxx I think it is not right to list activities as opposed to knowledge systems. If there psuedoscientific systems that assert that bizarre activies like these are real, then by all means include them in the list. Trious 23:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If only pseudoscience limited itself as well. Unfortunately, it does not. Since we shouldn't split out the explanations of Telexxxx from their articles, the systems of organizsed knowledge which support them are mixed in with the activities. I'll add the "explanations of..." text. -Willmcw 23:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not p-science: metaphysics, telekinesis, telepathy 

message: Since no other pseudoscience is referenced by it's creator, and is rather referenced by it's common name, of which it is in the alphabetical place of, I changed the awkward:
*Gene Ray's Time Cube
to
*Time Cube (see also Gene Ray)
Someone reverted it (along with my addition of Novelty Theory, see below) and labeled it a minor edit, I thought it would be a rather uncontroversial edit, but apparently not, can you say what's the matter with it before you revert it please? Referencing a theory by it's creator is simply awkward in a list which references the common name of the theory in all other cases.--Brentt 23:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gene Ray's Time Cube (list of pseudosciences)

message: I added Terence McKenna's Novelty Theory a popular eschatological pseudo-scientific theory that is claimed to be on a "sound mathematical" and scientific basis, and then proponents (primarily the late McKenna) go on to say that the basis is a number sequence in the I Ching and the date of the (misunderstood) end of the Mayan Calendar, along with some other pseudo-mathematical rational. I thought it would be rather uncontroversial, (except among Terence Mckenna fans perhaps, of which I am one in some aspects of his work, such as preserving ehtnogenic plants), addition to the list but somebody reverted it. (Along with my minor edit of referencing Time Cube by it's name instead of it's creator, see above.) For that fact I suppose it warrants a discussion: What is the problem? --Brentt 23:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that with Brentt that Novelty Theory should be on the list. (Was it a parody/hoax though? Looking at the page about it I couldn't tell. Either way I suppose it fits the bill as a pseudoscience.) Trious 13:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It most definitely was not a parody or hoax. I think your refering to the printout at the end of one of the programs meant to "demonstrate" the theory mentioned on Novelty Theory wikipedia page? That appears to be the programmer's rather idiosyncratic interpretation of the theory. It is taken seriously by many people, indcluding Terence McKenna, and is responsible for most of the popularity of forecasting 2012 as a significant year.--Brentt 21:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Novelty Theory added to list of pseudosciences

message: Look people, quit adding psychology and psyciatry to the list! They are well-established behavioral sciences in which the scientific method is normally adhered to. --Brentt 03:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quit Adding Well Established Behavioral Sciences to the List!

message: This article is drinking the Kool-Aid big time.  For example, the articles says that science that is not subject to the mainstream peer review process is "pseudoscience".  There is nothing about the established peer review process that is intrinsic to the nature of science - peer review is just a socially constructed mechanism that mainstream scientists happen to accept.  It is particularly ironic that this argument is uncritically accepted by a Wikipedia article, since it the situation is exactly analogous to a situation where someone describes Wikipedia as a "pseudoencyclopedia" because it is not subject to traditional standards of expert authorship and expert review.  The entire concept of pseudoscience is lacking in rigour and it is doubtful whether it deserves an article at all.  Certainly it does not deserve an article like this one, which is little more than propaganda for the existing scientific establishment.  (Unsigned by 146.201.98.89 at 17:06, 29 November 2005)
This article should be outright deleted.  There are several disputes going on, each of which should be happening in a different article.  For example, the debate about the scientific merit of psychiatry belongs on the pscyhiatry page or pages of various mental disorders.  That is an example of why a "pseudoscience" article is a bad idea.  Delete it. (Unsigned by 71.49.21.45 on 19:20, 30 November 2005)
: Please sign your posts with --~~~~. We aren't going to delete every controversial article. The concept of pseudoscience is out there, and people want to look up the article on it. So the article is going to stay. Period. --Prosfilaes 01:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article must stay. Bubba73 (talk), 05:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall condemnation of this article

message: I just put up a NPOV at Roswell UFO incident.  I would appreciat it if some of you would check this article anf give your opions on the POV/NPOV and edit as you see fit.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: request for POV help at Roswell UFO incident

message: Any thoughts on adding chiropractics to the list, or does that already fall under one of the categories that I'm overlooking? 70.108.124.62 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should be added, but I imagine a lot of people are going to complain. --Brentt 04:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, indeed, starting with me ;)  The "subluxation theory of disease causation" is probably pseudoscientific, the actual practice of chiropractic is not.  Seems to be a pretty common problem actually, that while there may be a strong pseudoscientific current within a field (e.g. Qi and acupuncture) the term cannot in fairness be applied to the whole field.  ObsidianOrder 05:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While there does seem to be quite a bit of psuedoscience in chiropractics, not all of chiropractics is pseudoscientific. I wouldn't argue if it were added, but I don't think that it should be added. --Cswrye 05:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No use in starting a big ruckus then, I suppose. 70.108.124.62 10:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more below -- Fyslee 12:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiropractics? 

message: I removed NLP from the list of things associated with psuedo-science.  I don't see how it can really belong on that list because NLP doesn't claim to be a science.  It's purely pragmatic.  They don't propose anything about the way the world works or give any theories.   Early NLP books started out by saying everything we are about to tell you is a lie.  They made it very clear there was no truth or science being discussed.  Just some ideas and techniques to be used pragmatically.   Does anyone disagree?
:Seems fine to me -- if something does not make any claim to be scientific, it can't be pseudoscience. -- The Anome 14:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neuro-Linguistic Programming

message: Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.
Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.
TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking expert eyes on [[Natasha Demkina]] 

message: There has been a long discussion thread on wikien regarding the prejudicial and pov nature of the term "pseudoscience" as SPOV. I suggest we rename this article to parascience, and in all cases but those implying fraudulent science, we should use the term "parascience" as a neutral and nonprejudicial term. -Ste|vertigo 22:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pseudoscience is the word that people use; parascience is an unfamilar and rarely used term for it. We put biographies under the names they're best known by, so we should keep the article at pseudoscience.--Prosfilaes 23:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Right.  Let's open up WP as a platform for "grammar engineering" and political correctness, declaring all insults and dirty words  as POV, and expunge them?  But this makes no sense for an encyclopedia, since even purely derogatory words require definition, ideally a clinical and NPOV one.  While the Believers try to redefine "pseudoscience" or even remove it entirely from WP, Skeptics are just as bad; wanting to get rid of "pseudoskepticism."  But this is abhorrant behavior for any scholar, it has nothing to do with truth and education, and everything to do with HIGHLY DISHONEST persuasion tactics.  The honest course would be to record and clearly define every single offensive insulting term that the hoards of Believers and Skeptics hurl at each other on JREF and sci.skeptic.   Speaking of which, I see that "woo woo" is missing from WP.  So is "skepto-path!"  --Wjbeaty 21:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Nice, a new neologism. Or is it a euphemism? Pseudoscience is a well established and respected term, there's no need to invent a new term, especially for the reasons given. FeloniousMonk 23:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this serves a purpose either. "Pseudoscience" is a widely-known and accepted term. "Parascience" seems to have a completely different meaning, one that overlaps somewhat with "pseudoscience" but generally refers to a different idea. Even if the change were made, I don't think that it would change anything. It would simply make people believe that "parascience" is POV instead. --Cswrye 00:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Terms aren't POV.   If someone thinks that a WP entry is POV, they should rewrite it to make it more clinical.  Trying to REMOVE a widely used slur is a very dishonest tactic: the book-burner mindset.  Note that WP also contains the N word, and all the words you Can't Say on Television, and I'm sure that many people would want to suppress them as well.--Wjbeaty 21:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest we merge the renaming suggestion with this article. --Brentt 08:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another really dumb idea. About as good as the other examples of "alleged pseudoscience" "science of questionable validity" or "something which might be science but the scientific community say is not science"... — Dunc|☺ 14:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Skeptics are just as bad; wanting to get rid of "pseudoskepticism."" I think this is a false claim; please retract or substantiate it in Talk:Pathological skepticism. --Hob Gadling 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Do not rename, it's fine as it is.  This is the more common term by far, and it is accurate.  ObsidianOrder 09:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: P.S. While we're at it, could whoever requested the move please make a real voting section? ObsidianOrder 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pseudoscience being a respected and time-tested term, there is no need to replace it with a neologism that adds noting to clarity, and in fact, merely serves to obfuscate.  Additionally, NPOV does not mean that one cannot call fecal matter fecal matter, it merely means that the subject is presented accurately.  We do not need the language police of the PC barracks (right- or left-wing) "cleansing" and purging accurate terms that someone finds offensive merely because usage of that term casts doubts on a beloved theory.  Jim62sch 13:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Reiterating Obsidian's post script request to make this a real voting section, so we can be done with this suggestion.  Jim62sch 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please do...in fact, I'll do it. Jim62sch 00:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to parascience