Category talk:Advocates of pseudoscience

message: I think that this page is suffering from a POV problem, of which the discussion above is an example, 
but by no means the only case. Pseudoscience is defined as being "portrayed as scientific but diverges
substantially from the required standards". I don't think many would argue with the inclusion of fantasists 
like von Daniken or Graham Hancock, who co-opt scientific language to lend credence to wild theories for
which there is no scientific basis; similarly, it makes sense (IMO) to include people who attempt to 
use scientific language to defend a religious or political viewpoint (such as creationists).  
However, this page includes a number of people who have a reputable scientific background, are credited with
mainstream scientific work, but also happen to have explored areas that are seen by the scientific community 
as lacking in validity, such as anti-gravity or cold fusion. 
For example, putting Martin Fleischmann on this page includes an implicit assumption that Cold Fusion is
not science. I don't think that this assumption should be made in an NPOV environment. There is a
fundamental difference between Pseudoscience and just being wrong. Even eminent scientists can be wrong, 
but to be a pseudoscientist requires being a charlatan, and I don't think that's a brush with which people
should be tarred lightly. 
Just because an accredited scientist such as Thomas Townsend Brown is associated with anti-gravity
isn't (IMO) sufficient cause to describe him as a Pseudoscientist. If every scientist who dabbled in non-
mainstream science was described as a pseudoscientist, this page would have to include luminaries such as
Newton, Galileo, etc etc. Which I don't think would be right.
Eliot 12:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For more or less the same reasons, the German equivalent of this category is being considered for deletion now. --84.137.54.58 12:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: People can be categorised as more than one thing. A person can be a scientist and a pseudoscientist. They're not mutually exclusive. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: How NPOV is this page ?

message: I changed the definition from someone who advocates pseudoscience to someone who falsely claims to be a scientist. The previous definition was illogical. Someone who advocates science is not necessarily a scientist. "Pseudo" means false or fake, a pseudoscientist is therefore a false or fake scientist. What they advocate would have nothing to do with it. --Lee Hunter 15:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Count my vote too if it ever comes up. It's only used to dump people into a category so their views can be minoritised and disregarded in articles. There's no such thing as a "Pseudoscientist". Someone either has the credentials of a scientist or they don't. Objectively I don't think anybody should even be labeled a scientist but rather as e.g. biologists or physicists, etc. Unfortunately the general scientist category is still needed to group the other categories but people should certainly not be named under it. Biofase flame| stalk  01:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Same as - Pseudoscientists - according to who? is needed to explain the label - delete this attack category - Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be best to keep the category after all. It could be the best possible ammunition against wikipedia admins one could ever hope for - because what you just correctly stated is the perfect illustration for all new users of how there is a tiny pushy and vocal minority cabal running through the adminship with nothing but utter contempt and derision for what the "masses" think and do - a minority of vocal admins using their toolboxes to further their minority extremist agenda that is, as you say, much like the Southern Poverty Law Center and gives Wikipedia much the same "flavor" as SPLC in the experience of billions of users. 71.127.135.136 (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific consensus is, by definition, not a minority. Wikipedia is a place of facts. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  opinionated just like - organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups