Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 2

message: Please add interwiki fi:Luettelo näennäistieteistä --Zzzzzzzzzz 11:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Natalya 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: :NB bottom post please
::sure, why not.Kmarinas86 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, we'll only add "K. Marinas' Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis" if anyone actually cares enough about it to condemn it! — Dunc|☺ 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kmarinas86's comments 

message: I've made a new page: List of minority-opinion scientific theories. I've done this because this list is now strictly about pseudoscientific theories, and not about "alternative, disputed, and speculative theories". Since the move there have been a bunch of theories that have no list to sit on. Like all the other "list of theories" pages the name is not fixed, and may be changed later (perhaps to "List of speculative theories").
Anyway, I invite everyone to help build the new list. Cheers. —Pengo  talk · contribs 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minority-opinion scientific theories !! 

message: Rather than merely a pillory for ideas which a few vociferous individuals happen to dislike, the article has improved beyond recognition.  Well done to all concerned.
Gordon Vigurs 09:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Word of Encouragement 

message: I moved this page in order to make it in line with Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory. Simões (talk/contribs) 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: The quantum mind article says that the theory is protoscience, not pseudoscience, and I'm not really in a position to say which it is. Little help?
--Awesome 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't claim to be an expert, either, but until someone can point to a claim from a reliable source that most in the physics and/or neurology consider it a pseudoscience, I think it's best to err on the side of it not being on this list. I'll remove it now. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the participation of Roger Penrose does give the theory a bit of a bump toward respectability, so, to me, protoscience would be appropriate.  (My personal opinion is that the theory will be falsified eventually, but my opinion and 60 cents will get a cup of crappy coffee out of a vending machine).  •Jim62sch• 14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction: quantum mind 

message: I would like to get some comments and help with my own addition here:
* Pseudoscience as stubbornly held obsolete or prescientific ideas
I'm not totally satisfied with my use of the word "stubborn" in this connection. It's true enough, but doesn't fully express reality. Many people who are true believers are't "stubborn" about it, but simply ignorant. How can this be expressed so as to include them, along with the "stubborn" believers? -- Fyslee 10:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubborn 

message: I made a bold edit because this list is becoming part of the Pseudoscience article and is an attempt to be as all inclusive as possible.  The PS label is used for all sorts of reasons (including by the scientific community) but by taking this sentence out, we should be able to safely include more without debating weasle word "scientific community".  Each on the list can be presented in a NPOV manner, including describing who it is that is claiming they are PS.  Hope this helps to decrease anxiety related to this issue, as that was the purpose of the edit. --Dematt 18:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point. This should help to ensure more stability to the article. -- Fyslee 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  all inclusive list 

message: Add this to the end:
* Thus, while valid scientific reasons may exist why concepts listed here are pseudoscientific, scientifically speaking inclusion here is due to opinion rather than methodologically correct and peer-reviewed scientific research.
-- Martinphi 03:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that this entire statement is flawed to the bone. The inclusion of any given pseudoscience here may in fact be specifically due to the results of methodologically correct and peer-reviewed scientific research having proved the pseudoscience's claims untenable. Flat Earthism, for an obvious example. — coelacan talk — 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is also flawed by implying that inclusion due to opinion is somehow improper, when in fact Wikipedia is all about documenting POV (opinion). Since this is the way Wikipedia works, it doesn't even need to be mentioned, as it is a given for all things here. Inclusion here is because scientific critics and scientific skeptics consider the scientific evidence to be strong enough to consider the item to be pseudoscientific, or the claims made by proponents to be so unscientific and/or unfalsifiable as to be pseudoscientific on the face of it without any need for scientific evidence proving their falsity. -- Fyslee 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I re-submit addition to intro for consensus 

message: This article casts its net too wide.  Not all nonsense is pseudoscience.  To be a pseudoscience, the nonsense must have scientific pretensions.  For example, astrology in its common form is not pseudoscience.  But astrology cloaked in a theory of lifelong inexorably persistent biorhythms is pseudoscience.  I think the mere superstitions should be culled from this article.
OinkOink 16:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Pseudoscience?

message: Should string theory go in this article? Theoretically, since it can't be proven, it's not science, but there are plenty of people who believe it. It's not exactly alchemy, but... 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. None of its proponents claim it's a theory-proper except in the sense of it being a mathematical model. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  String theory should not go here.  String theory predicts particles that are partners to the familiar particles.  The new accelerator at CERN that is to be finished this year may be able to detect some of those particles.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: String Theory

message: Should reincarnation be included in the list? I think people tend to see it more as a religious belief--closer to, let's say, the way some Chritians literally understand resurrection or some Roman Catholics see Transubstantiation.
:I'd say it probably shouldn't be here. The Reincarnation article doesn't mention any pseudoscientific invocations of the idea. I'll go ahead and drop it from the list. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reincarnation