Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 6

message: A number of sources have been inserted in the "fields termed pseudoscience" section with only a short citation form.  (Sarich & Miele 2005), (Hyman 1999:34-43; Kenny et al. 1988:698-704), and (Alexander et al., Select Press; 1st edition, 2005) popped out, but I may have missed one.  These need proper, full citations in the references section. Deleuze 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, upon further consideration, a couple of those seem to be commented out of the main text - any reason why? Deleuze 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Please check Revision as of 03:38, 5 July 2006 by FeloniousMonk - all interwiki where removed with a lot of other data. Gveret Tered 19:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "FeloniousMonk" -- That's good! ;-) Would that be like the rogue Shaolin priest who... Excuse me; I digress. --71.131.9.209 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, my login timed out. The above is me. --Chris 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  all interwiki where removed recently 

message: I'm preparing to post a list of suggested changes. Meanwhile, reading the discussion here triggered a thought: can a practice properly be considered pseudoscientific? Chiropractic has already come up for a lot of discussion, and I think the consensus here is that it does work (at least in part). So if someone applies the techniques of chiropractic, and they alleviate a medical problem, that confirms the validity of those techniques, does it not?
IOW, the techniques of chiropractic are both testable and falsifiable. In fact, they have undergone a century of experimental testing. Reportedly, some work and some don't. (Of course, the procedures of conventional medicine are not 100% effective either.)
Clearly these techniques can be considered separately from any theoretical basis of chiropractic, which may well be pseudoscientific. (I know too little about the field to say one way or the other.)
Another example might be psychic surgery (so ably debunked by James Randi.) As far as I'm aware, it has no claimed theoretical basis: a "psychic surgeon" merely makes passes over the patient's body, holds up some allegedly removed tissue, and assures them they are cured. And pockets a hefty fee. It is nothing but a scam.
So my point is that we might want to delete practices from the article, or at least treat them in a short separate section, while keeping the emphasis on theories and beliefs. --71.131.9.209 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, my login timed out. The above is me. --Chris 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscientific practices?

message: Whoever added Blob Theory, you should really look into it a bit more before adding things like that. For one thing it is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical theory, specifically a epistemological theory (and perhaps ontological depending on how far one is inclined to take it). And its probably not even bad philosophy at that. If  W.V.O. Quine, a well respected logician and philosopher (a respect well-earned), takes it seriously (as the article says, but who knows its wikipedia after-all, and I don't know that much about the theory, admittedly I've never seen him talk about it), its probably worth looking into what the theory is saying if your interested in epistemology. The nature of "properties" is a very deep question in epistemology. The Blob Theory approach to the question may be an odd approach, but there really is nothing wrong, philosophically, with the approach, aside from the fact that it might not be a very fruitful line of questioning (but, then again, it might be fruitful). Brentt 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blob Theory

message: Hello again. These are two very good and clarifying references for anyone who wants to delve further into pseudoscience in psychology.  It bridges over to medicine, and education also. Here are the links: 
*This is an excellent rationale from the perspective of science over pseudoscience in general: . It shows that although some therapies are promoted by various bodies, there is a lot of scientific criticism of that promotion.  This is a crucial point and will impact on this article and all the related articles on the list that are mentioned in the publications.
*Also, an older but still excellent publication:  Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (SRAM) .
Some of it is online, and a some will need ordering or discovering from libraries/databases.  atb KrishnaVindaloo 05:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SRAM and SRMHP

message: I feel this qualifies for definition as a pseudoscience. Ghost_hunting is a growing phenomenon practiced by many part-time paranormal researchers "in the name of science". These folks subscribe to the methodology and protocols used by other part-time paranormal researchers before them: lights-out investigation, EMF detectors to measure "spirits", IR thermometers to measure "cold spots" in ambient air temperature, video to capture "orbs" and audio to capture "electronic voice phenomenona" (i.e. spirit voices).
Due to the popularity of a hit TV show Ghost_Hunters, many casual viewers are convinced they are seeing proof of the afterlife (or at least the paranormal) on TV. The TV show carries no disclaimer. The investigators on TV (The_Atlantic_Paranormal_Society) claim they are skeptics following "scientific procedure" while informing the audience of the nature of 'demons' and 'entities' found in 'hauntings'.
What is the criteria for nominating these pages to carry a pseudoscience tag? I invite examination and comment on these wiki entries. LuckyLouie 17:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria is a little fuzzy. But I'd say this is a pretty safe addition. Brentt 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does one proceed? Is there discussion? Vote? LuckyLouie 06:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghost_hunting

message: Rather than revert warring, I suggest HGilbert discuss their proposed changes. Basicaly this looks very much like WP:Point to me. Can't get rid of list? Then disrupt it instead. The list has numerous references from sources other than Williams. The inclusion of the scientific fields Williams mentions as being once consider pseudoscience has been discussed and they were removed. Jefffire 12:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, inclusion in the Encyclopedia is the sole criterion for many current topics on the list. It would be more honest either to make a list of all topics he includes, or only to include topics that his authors actually criticize as pseudoscientific. In other words, if we do not wish to take the first course, we should take off some presently cited themes that are not actually called pseudoscientific (or the equivalent) by the articles cited. Hgilbert 12:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on list. 

message: I have finally obtained a copy of Williams' Encyclopedia. I find the inclusion of him as source for individual topics misleading. First of all, he did not write the articles; unnamed authors did. His name should not be used, just the Encyclopedia title. Second of all, many of the articles actually do not imply that the topic is pseudoscientific; only their inclusion in the Encyclopedia does this. But he also includes many topics that are clearly not pseudoscientific. A more differentiated approach would improve things...could we not aim for at least one quote per topic demonstrating the character of the critique? Hgilbert 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations from Williams 

message: I have removed the following topics from the list. They either have no citations (after a long period when these were requested) or the citations do not support their inclusion here.
*Acupuncture (Williams 2000:3-4 - calls the Yin/Yang theory pseudoscientific but claims that acupuncture's validity may stand independently of this)
* Biblical scientific foresight
** Baraminology
** Creation biology
** Creationist cosmologies
** Flood geology
*** Irreducible complexity
*** Specified complexity
* Duesberg hypothesis  (Claims that HIV is a "harmless agent" unrelated to AIDS)
* Hutchison effect
* Megalithic yard and other pseudoscientific metrology (Williams 2000:210 - article actually supports the concept of the megalithic yard!!)
* New Chronology
* Novelty Theory (aka "Timewave Zero")
* Orthomolecular medicine
* Palmistry (Williams 2000:256 - article actually supports the validity of palmistry)
* Remote Viewing (Williams 2000:301-2 - article presents a complex picture)
* Synchronicity (Williams 2000:338 - article is negative but probably does not justify the term pseudoscientific; someone else might want to review this one)
:Well, there are refs for each one according to my readings:  eg in a review and further experiment by, Streitberger et al 2004:149 to identify the placebo effect of acupuncture. (accordint to them accupuncture is pseudoscientific in theory and as a practice in eastern and western countries). 
:Streitberger K, Diefenbacher M, Bauer A, Conradi R, Bardenheuer H, Martin E, Schneider A, Unnebrink K. Acupuncture compared to placebo-acupuncture for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Anaes. 2004;59:142-149.
This article shows effectiveness of acupuncture for certain treatments; for another treatment, efficacy near placebo level. It suggests as a hypothesis that acupuncture operates through conscious suggestion and then says that this hypothesis is actually discounted by the results (acupuncture under anaesthesia is more effective, counter to expectations). There is no suggestion of a pseudoscientific nature.
Please note that a study showing that a particular treatment is not effective for a particular illness (under a particular testing regime) is not evidence for calling the treatment pseudoscience. Many medicines are found uneffective in the normal course of scientific study. 
:Both palmistry and rving are pseudoscientific according to many sources. The EOP is actually very clear on both of them. Removal from the article is quite absurd. Editors here are working on a large body of pseudoscience. Collecting references will take time. KrishnaVindaloo 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the addition of birth control to the list of pseudosciences. Was that "maintaining high standards"? Criticise if you must but please -do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point-. Jefffire 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics removed for improvement 

message: I've removed the following paragraph from the end of the section on Pseudoscience#Pseudoscience_contrasted_with_protoscience for analysis and reconsideration of its content and placement. ... Kenosis 03:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Ultimately, whether something is pseudoscience or not has less to do with the ideas under study than the approach used to study or justify them. Acupuncture, for instance, while it involves a prescientific system, is not inherently pseudoscientific. This is because most of its claims can be tested scientifically, so to the degree its claims have not yet been verified, acupuncture could be viewed as a protoscience.  (There is some scientific evidence for certain claims of acupuncture.)  Of course, scientific investigation might fail to support other claims. In the presence of a number of tests that successfully falsify a particular claim, insisting that the claim is still scientifically supported becomes pseudoscience." ... 03:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *"Popular pseudoscientific theories tend to be liberally simplified and/or emotionally appealing, more in line with fact-based storytelling than actual science. This is arguably fueled by the common misconception of science simply being the search for truth, as opposed to the carefully refined methodology that it is." ... 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed paragraphs

message: I'm just wondering if classifing Technical Analysis as a pseudoscience is accurate anymore. As a whole, I would agree, but there are scientifically verifiable results from using neural networks to produce a greater than average return from a market. So while a human may not be able to analyze technical factors to obtain a profit, neural networks can. Seems to me that this is reasonably arguable that it should be left off the list. Any other thoughts? Timbatron 07:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have removed it. -- Fyslee 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical Analysis as Pseudoscience?

message: Hi I created this section because I feel it is important and encyclopedic to have a simple title for the section, but with more extensive clarifications below. It is never the case that a field is "a pseudoscience". Some sources may state that, but it requires clarification in this Wikipedia article. It is always more accurate to talk of a subject in terms of its pseudoscientificness. It will also be a good opportunity to explain the variable nature of pseudoscientific subjects and issues. KrishnaVindaloo 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple title, with caveats below

message: You guys might want to consider archiving some of this. The page is getting rather enormous. --DanielCD 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: The shear volume of original research I have just removed from the article is astounding. This is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for personal musings. Original research gets removed, it's as simple as that. Don't do it. Jefffire 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Jefffire!  This is much better. --Dematt 13:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I changed this subhead to "Well known allegations of pseudoscience". No matter how many citations there are, and no matter how people believe the examples may be pseudoscience, it does not make them pseudoscience. The original subhead may be accurate... or inaccurate; but the new subhead is verifiable. --Iantresman 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed "by the scientific community" since there is no such entity that judges with one mind and speaks with one voice. There are dozen of peer-reviwed papers published on mainstream subjects which are not proven; this is not the same as being disproved, and the same must apply to subjects considered pseudoscience. --Iantresman 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull. Read scientific consensus and scientific community. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific consensus is not the same as the scientific community; one is a significant subset of the other. --Iantresman 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of which is beside the point. By our policies all that is necessary for a topic to described as pseudoscience here is whether a notable source per WP:V in the scientific community is available per WP:RS that says a topic is pseudoscience, per WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. The significance of the source will dictate if any additional supporting sources are necessary. FeloniousMonk 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we suggest that the scientific community considers a field to be pseudoscience, then at the very least, we should provide a scientific source, not sources from a popular book, and a Web site. And even if we have those scientific sources, that does not imply that the whole scientific community concurs with the source --Iantresman 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well known examples of pseudoscience

message: I took out VS because it really goes with chiropractic.  I assume that is why chiropractic is there and VS is not really the field like the section title says. --Dematt 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make sense if chiropractic had been list here at the time too, but it wasn't:  FeloniousMonk 18:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertebral subluxation 

message: The EOP entry on chiropractic simply describes the history and concludes "Mainstream physicians who accept the validity of c. treatment will refer patients who need relief from lower back pain." There is absolutely no reference to any pseudoscientific nature of the field, or even any critique of (or claim for) its effectiveness. I would suggest that if these two sources, not known for their reticence, are so noncommittal, it doesn't belong in the article's list. Hgilbert 13:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Books on pseudoscience are often non-committal. That is a good way to handle such subjects. That is the way this article can handle the subject: Show the pseudoscientific character of the subject, and mention any validated aspects if any, and let the reader come to their own conclusions. KrishnaVindaloo 02:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience on Chiropractic

message: Hi. I've added some more characteristics. If they overlap with the prior ones, then lets merge them somehow. I noticed a lot of the prior list were a bit obscure for most readers and require explanations and clarifications. There was also that bit about Devilly I posted yesterday. Well it got removed, and I reckon because it was a bit hot yesterday. Its well sourced and complies with NPOV policy. I think we can put it in the characteristics section though rather than having its own section. I see no problem with merging things but cutting is a little silly as there is certainly some clarification to be done on this article. Cheers Harristweed 03:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Lilienfeld and Ruscio with explanation for the reader

message: *Regarding pseudoscience fields, the text notes:  "a significant portion of the scientific community faults " If I suggested that it should read "an insignificnat portion", citations would be demanded. Likewise the statement as it stands requires citations, for each field. --Iantresman 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, we should identify what part of a field is considered pseudoscience, the reason why, and a citation. --Iantresman 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that is our long term objective. There is no way we can keep that complex set of information on the list itself though. The relevant information is linked directly to the article in question. It is easy for the reader to click the link and read the article. That is what hyperlinks are for, after all. KrishnaVindaloo 06:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fields regarded as pseudoscience

message: I see there's been a lot of debate on what goes in the list, but can I ask why Theology is in it? 
1) There is no reference it
2) I don't think theology even counts as a pseudoscience
3) In agreement with #2, we have the section "Non-scientific fields that are not pseudoscience", which directly lists theology as something that isn't a pseudoscience on the grounds that it doesn't try and pave over existing scientific work, and is concerened only with spiritual stuff
I think it should be removed. If I'm wrong, than the condtradictory statement in this article should be removed instead. Any ideas?--JakeParker 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done took it out :-) - Unless there are some claiming it to be a science? In which case we'd need some super refs. Personally don't know much about it though. Vsmith 02:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensible. I don't think we can include all subjects with "ology" in the title:) KrishnaVindaloo 06:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology 

message: Since no citations are forthcoming, I removed the following statement from the section ""Fields regarded as pseudoscience":
:"a significant portion of the scientific community faults as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another."
*I have searched the scientific literature for validation, and while there are sometimes references to subjects such as "Vedic", "Spiritualism", many of the fields listed do not appear to be mentioned, and those that are, make no suggestion about scientific standards.
*The most critical citation I could find, in relation to "UFOlogy", notes that ".. it is difficult to see how UFOlogy could be adapted to the tradiational scientific method while it lacks coherent predictive theories". But since this is a book review in which the authors are trying to make the case the UFOlogy is worthy of scientific study, this appears to be a tacit acknowledgement that the subject is not scientific, hence it is not potrayed as scientific, and hence can not be classed a pseudoscience, in this example --Iantresman 09:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, again, pseudoscientific is enough. Pseudoscience is inaccurate in some cases. Pseudoscientific is accurate in all cases. KrishnaVindaloo 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant portion of the scientific community

message: Evolution was added to the section "Fields regarded as pseudoscience" citing, as only source, a non-scientific publication: Tradition - ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM. This entry must be removed. Dermeister 14:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Killed it dead. Blatent POV. Jefffire 14:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes this POV-pushing, and not say "Morphic resonance"? Both use a Web site as a source? Neither push one view at the detriment of any others --Iantresman 15:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Morphic resonance was criticised as pseudoscientific by reliable, scientific sources. Take a look at WP:RS. Jefffire 15:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard for me to believe there's even a question about this. •Jim62sch• 15:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's WP:Point, Jim. Jefffire 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're referring to the article by David F. Marks and John Colwell , I can find no suggestion that they consider "Morphic resonance" to be pseudoscience; "An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization" is how they describe it. And surely skepticism does not equate with pseudoscience? --Iantresman 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the references used in the article itself, and ignoring the consensus agreement that statement from a scientific source that the field is demonstrably untrue yet work continues is sufficient for the category of pseudoscience to be applied. Jefffire 15:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The references just support the various statements and data in the article. They DO NOT say that "morphic resonance" is pseudoscientific. Can you find ANY quote in ANY of the articles or references, which effectively say that the subject is considered pseudoscience. Criticism is not pseudoscience. --Iantresman 15:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, which quotes in each citation claim say that "morphic resonance" is pseudoscience? --Iantresman 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're missing the crux of the matter, that is not a scientific criticism, it's a pseudointellectual one. It would make as much sense to reference the AiG. Jefffire 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's a better criticism, your saying that one source is more reliable than the other. --Iantresman 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS, read it. Jefffire 16:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And presumably you'd expect the same standard of reliable sources for all citations? So if as Davkal suggests, Midgley is a qualified academic, but Carroll who does the Skeptics Dictionary is less qualified, then presumably you wouldn't accept any of Carroll's citatation? --Iantresman 16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, mes amis, virtually all of the critiques of fields as pseudoscientific cited in this article stem from philosophers, not scientists; in fact, the whole topic of pseudoscience is one chiefly treated by philosophers of science, not scientists (Popper, Kuhn, Williams, Carroll). We are having parallel discussions on the :Category:Pseudoscience page. Both historically and in contemporary discussions, it is not a scientific distinction, but a philosophical one, hard as that is for some of you folks to believe. (Oh, yes...sociologists sometimes write about it, too.) Hgilbert 21:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And furthermore, the main sources used to categorise certain fields, eg. Carroll and Williams, do not appear to be either scientists or philosophers, but skeptics. --Iantresman 09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution as pseudoscience?? 

message: KrishnaVindaloo, I would be remiss in not letting you know you are already up to four reverts on pseudoscience.  Three different editors have disagreed with your assertions on an issue that has been extensively argued on the talk page by many editors including but not limited to Dematt, Jim62sch, Levine2112, FeloniousMonk, and others.  Any further reversions on the issue of chiropractic in this article will perhaps result in a block of your access in accordance with WP:3RR. ... Kenosis 05:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kenosis. I understand the 3RR. My last edit was a correction, and not a revert. Re-parenting is not mentioned by Lilienfeld. Lilienfeld classes chiropractic as pseudoscience and he criticises chiropractors for using spinal manipulations for such "ailments" as mental "imbalance", the vapours, add, dyslexia, mental trauma, and increasing "human potential". Your so called extensive discussion is completely unclear, as is the description and title of the section in question in relation to the entries already there. Plus, in order for you to be consistent with your deletion of chiropractic, you must delete other entries from the list. Now, if you are interested in being even halfway convincing, perhaps you would like to discuss and refer to the literature in question. I know consensus is important here, but being tag-teamed by the Marx brothers is hardly Wikipedia convention. KrishnaVindaloo 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marx brothers? Levine2112 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comedians or Communists?  Either way, you have to admit, that was good!  The Karl brothers would be impressed, too(Popper and Marx).  I would complain about uncivil and ad hominem attacks, but I'll have to admit that was funny, I don't care who you are, that was funny! --Dematt 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, this is just becoming a regular Night at the Opera, no? •Jim62sch• 11:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Kenosis, I'll give you a hint: I used different contexts, added verifiable references that added different contexts, and clarified the article in every case. I discussed. Three other editors have not even tried to discuss this new improved issue. KrishnaVindaloo 06:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all too obvious you are looking for a confrontation of some kind, but  why me? when there are at least six or seven editors thus far who have, based on the WP:VER evidence, rejected the idea of chiropractic as an example of pseudoscience. ... Kenosis 06:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, confrontation is not the issue.  It is verifiable from the new source, and from the article itself, that Chiropractic is considered PS.  If not, then remove acupuncture and all the others that have some aspect that is partially supported with weak evidence.  If you are still on the crusade of supplying the article with a list of absolute 100% pure pseudoscience fields, then you are not clarifying the article but making it less accurate. It is extremely easy to see the PS nature of chiropractic. Its like applying phrenology to brain surgery. Nobody has discussed the fact that chiropractic has been applied to a ridiculous expanse of ailments. Now tell me, what do you think is the actual purpose of the list of examples of fields that are "pseudoscience"? Is the purpose to say "these are pseudosciences"? Or is it to show the reader a range of PS fields that have different levels and types of pseudoscientificness? Chiro is a perfect example for the article because the proponents still behave in a PS fashion, even though the main intervention has been dramatically restricted to a specific form of back disorder. You removed the entry and wrote that fabulous explanation in the edit summary. I provided well researched information that satisfied your requirement, and continued to get tag-teamed without any discussion. I clarified by placing the information more usefully in other sections, and continued to get reverted - without sufficient discussion. It is not my POV that chiropractic is A PSEUDOSCIENCE. It is my intention to make the article clearer and more consistent. I don't care how much discussion you claimed to have done in the past. This issue requires fresh discussion. KrishnaVindaloo 06:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You might do better if you gave up on this specific crusade for a bit. •Jim62sch• 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, this is a matter of clarity, reducing confusion, and making sure we are all on the same page. KrishnaVindaloo 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR

message: Hi again, I wish to remind folk that there are plenty of claims made in the article which are not backed up by sufficient citations. There are also plenty of mis-interpreted papers that are easily cleared up with corroborating sources. EG, the Beyerstein source says chiropractic is a grey area in the field of medicine (because it partly works in one aspect of medicine). But his other papers say it is total pseudoscience (when applied in psychology). This is corroborated by other research by Keating et al, and a Benetto also corroborates this. So we need to stop being selective about things also. In addition, I noticed that some editors here tend to rely on single experimental articles, but it is the review articles (reviews of all studies) that are necessary. OR is not an option, let the authors answer the questions for us. KrishnaVindaloo 09:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So then find a way to relate it to psychology, assuming that your post above is accurate.  If you mean as a treatment for specific phycological disorders, the source is likely correct.  But if you mean psychology in a looser manner, I'd be skeptical.  Chiro does appear to have short-term psychological benefits -- even if these results are only in the mind of the patient.  But then, the mind is really what psychology is all about, no? ;) •Jim62sch• 11:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, Jim62sch. The Lilienfeld ref already did that in the pseudo in psych section. He says it is applied to psychology erroneously and in a pseudoscientific manner. KrishnaVindaloo 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: That horrible yet necessary suggestion again - good research

message: OK, here's a solution to the continued problems with identifying "pseudoscience" in this article.  
*The main purpose of this article is to explain to the reader what pseudoscience is about. Explaining clearly does involve using examples. Those have been provided to some extent in list form.
*It would be clearer for the reader to have a characteristic of pseudoscience illustrated by mentioning a particular field and its pseudoscientific aspect (with citations) within the section of that characteristic.
So I suggest those characteristics or identifiers of PS should be expanded, perhaps even to have sections of their own with actual examples mentioned in the section. I realize that requires research and it will no doubt be a gradual effort, but the reasons for doing so will help all sorts of problems on this article.  It will reduce the "pejorative" objection, clarify the characteristics, and eventually may remove the need for that highly disputed (and quite unenlightening) section on so called pseudoscience examples.  It would be helpful if editors were not accused of POV pushing when in fact they are simply doing their best to clarify the article by providing examples for the identifiers of PS. KrishnaVindaloo 07:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if/when scholars use the term, it's still considered pejorative in general usage.  That should be taken into account when we edit.  Agree with the trend toward more citation.  Citation and annotation are good.  Slapping the label on field like chiro and acu which have PS elements but also sci elements, without annotation, is bad.  It's asserting a single POV rather than presenting the range of sig POV's, and should be avoided.  For those who have argued that NPOV allows unqualified categorization in the area of pseudoscience, please read WP:NPOVT#Categorisation.  That's just as much an aspect of NPOV as anything else that's been cited here.  Thanks for considering this.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for discussing, Jim Butler. If a field has characteristics that are PS, then those elements or characteristics are pseudoscience. Which makes subjects such as chiropractic and acupuncture pseudoscientific.  Which is why I suggested to change the title of the section. It is the case that some sources call chiropractic or acupuncture pseudoscience. However, for the sake of clearing things up for the reader, it is far more accurate to say - fields considered to be pseudoscientific.  I know it is only a small change, but the meaning is very different in this context. And I see nothing wrong with showing the reader subjects fully accepted by science, but have small bits of them considered pseudoscience.  The pejorative issue(thanks for the spelling lesson, whoever it was), is neither here nor there. Wikipedia says to handle PS subjects as science sees them, so the label is indellible (hope I spelt that right). KrishnaVindaloo 06:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the real problem lies in the phrase: "a significant portion of the scientific community". That means that not only do ou have to cite that the fields have pseudoscientific characteristics but this opinion must be agreed upon by a significant portion (is that a majority?) of the scientific community. So far, I haven't seen a citation that shows that is true for chiropractic. How about accupuncture? Is there something that can be cited that shows that for sure there is a significant portion of the scientific community agrees with this? What if there is also a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees that something is a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific? Levine2112 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gradual expansion of "Identifying Pseudoscience" section

message: I've just removed the following passage from the section on "Identifying pseudoscience" ... Kenosis 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Kenosis. Do you realize your unreasonable actions are highly antagonistic? You seem bent upon provoking conflict. Editors are to provide reasoning for their actions on the talk page. I have given you examples of such reasoning for each of my actions. Your actions are for the most part devoid of reasoning. Are you to be considered unaccountable? How are we to know the reasons for your actions? Do you wish to remove half the article just in order to avoid the name of chiropractic being mentioned? Are you just trying to prove a point? Is it consensus that examples of obscurantisms are to be abolised from the article? Is it just that you need a nap or an asprin? It would be nice if you could provide some sort of explanations for your rather fact-obscuring actions. KrishnaVindaloo 07:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey KV, you don't have to use chiropractic for every example to "educate" your readers.  Try some examples from other professions, perhaps traditional medicine has a few examples you can use.  If you are only interested in teaching pseudoscience correctly, you only need a list of examples, you don't need questionable and/or controversial issues.  They are questionable or controversial because the scientific community even has trouble deciding.  WP is not supposed to be making that decision. You could use chiropractic to illustrate how the word pseudoscience can be used pejoratively to discredit a profession.  Heck, the Wilk antitrust suit can be part of your argument.  Even Carroll mentioned it.  But I don't see you doing that.   Are you willing to include all ideas that have pseudoscientific elements?  Including a discussion of pseudoscience on the chiropractic page does not make it eligible for inclusion on the list. --Dematt 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they unreasonable?  Are they antagonistic?  If so, how?  I personally doubt (in fact discount) the charge of Kenosis' actions being devoid of reasoning; if they are devoid of anything it is the endless repetition of reasons that remain ungrasped.  If you note what was deleted, and pay attention to the discussion on the page it should become evident to you why it was removed.  This isn't M-theory, you know. •Jim62sch• 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am extremely relieved to see that charges of being-devoid-of-reasoning are being discounted today. ;-) ... Kenosis 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was more of an observation than a charge. Multiple reversions without any discussion is futile and causes conflict. There is still a lot of confusion over various issues on this article and discussion is required. If you are unwilling to discuss, as you mentioned yesterday, please refrain from editing. KrishnaVindaloo 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, now let's stop looking at "Innate Intelligence" as it was described over 100 years ago. Today, in terms of chiropractic, the body's innate intelligence is taught and propounded merely as the living body's self-healing ability. Here's a simple experiment to verify innate intelligence's existence. Cut your arm with a knife and wait. Did it heal? Of course. Now cut 100,000 people's arms and wait. Wow, they all healed as well (except maybe that one hemophiliac who tragically bled to death). Okay, something is at work there. Why did the body heal itself? How did it "know" to do so? Was it the band-aid that we put on the cut which instructed the body to heal? Was it the topical ointment we applied to the cut which commanded the body to self-repair? Okay, let's do another experiment. Let's take a cadaver. Let's cut its arm and apply some Neosporin and a band-aid. Now let's wait. Hmm. No healing... Okay, now before I overstate the obvious, I think it's clear to us what the modern chiropractic usage of the term "Innate Intelligence" is. Has the source or cause of this "intelligence" been identified or quanitified? Perhaps not. The answer to that riddle lies within the question, "What is life?" And who can answer that for sure? Empirically, we can observe "innate intelligence" at work. In a universe where physical laws dictate that things tend to move toward the state of greatest disorder, our bodies seems to "want" to fight against this. There is a prinicple of "survival" at work, but what guides that? Here is where we can as of today only postulate and dream. Is life a coincidence? Is it divine? Who knows for sure? Each person can have their own answer. Some scientific and some not. Some chiropractors may believe its God at work. Some may believe it's all Darwinian coincidence. The same goes for any doctor in any healing art. However, I don't think the "why" is as important to the doctor and the patient as is the "how". Your body just knows to try to heal itself or to cure itself. Chiropractic, like modern Western medicine, explains scientifically how the body heals. Where chiropractic differs is its approach to injury and illness. Chiropractic looks to aid the body's self-healing abilities by trying to clear up obstructions in the nervous system - the body's communication system. Research (which I have pointed to numerous times) shows that chiropractic is effective in doing just this - putting the body in a better place to heal and recover from a variety of injuries and illness. Notice that I didn't say all. There are some illnesses and injuries from which even the healthiest body cannot recover through its own doing. Now is the time for the surgery and the drugs and the more risky treatments. I think the point here is that "innate intelligence" as defined by chiropractic today is grossly misunderstood and confused with its religious roots from over a 100 years ago - a time when even medical science was still rooted in the spiritual. The confusion of chiropractic's innate intelligence still being a religious concept persists today because - despite the vigilant efforts of chiropractic researchers and educators - some people remain ignorant or make it a point of keeping other people ignorant for various reasons (see Wilk v. AMA). However, when looked at empirically, most if not all modern healers would recognize that the body tries to the best of its abilities to recover from all injuries and illnesses. That is "innate intelligence". Now who can disagree with that? Levine2112 18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I encourage those who are interested to looks at the WP entry on innate intelligence especially the first two paragraphs which do a far superior job of stating that which I have stated above. Levine2112 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hey Levine, this indeed appears to be a very smart property of biological entities. Was this designed in, or did it come about by some sort of natural evolution process? :-) (That was just intended to be a smart-ass rhetorical question--please do not answer.)  Of course it's a reasonable way of expressing the concept. ... Kenosis 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said here (not the spirit, don't quote me on the letter); the point I was making was rather that the term innate intelligence was transparently NOT introduced to give an apparently scientific gloss to a concept, but was introduced in a quite different context and the term persists today (with as you say a more enlightened usage as convenient shorthand for a host of endogenous repair mechanisms)Gleng 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent point. Levine2112 21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agrred!  Some scientific skeptics seem to have a very hard time with the idea that such concepts are used metaphorically.  To my mind, terms like "innate intelligence", or TCM's qi, reflect the "art" part of healing and not teh "science".  They aren't to be taken literally, but to the extent that they help the clinician, then they're valuable.  Valuable in a pragmatic sense, cf. the first section of this essay by Rorty.  Dangerous ideas. :-) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jim Butler. Scientists see a problem with such pragmatics because they do not adhere to the practitioner-scientist view. Metaphors are vague. In medicine they would need to be well defined in order to be rigorously tested. Really, your view of skeptics is not what is required here. If you have a reliable source saying that innate is just a metaphor, then present it. The only ones I see that come close are the ones written by professors who say chiropractic remains full of dogma and rhetoric because a restriction to manipulation to back pain only, will severely reduce the income of the majority who use chiropractic as a panacea. KrishnaVindaloo 06:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Critics are frequently the ones taking metaphor or prescientific concepts literally as science, e.g. Carroll with TCM theory.  What reliable source did he use?  Jim Butler(talk) 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If one likes to use obscurantist language as a marker for pseudoscience, one might try cladistics, with its plesiomorphy, synapomorphy, Retrotransposon Markers, etc. This is a bogus criterion that depends on numerous other factors to make an assessment whether the language is merely technical, or obscurantist. Same with evidence-based medicine too, with its massive roster of obscure terminology.  Countless legitimate fields use highly technical language that is quite easily termed obscurantist; indeed that's been the overall trend in most scientific fields, . ... Kenosis 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, if you can get refs to say they are obscurantisms or jargon, then they will do well. KrishnaVindaloo 04:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  KV, this line is simply not sustainable. Every field has its jargon that appears obscure to the outsider, and I doubt if any serious scientist would dispute that their field uses jargon extensively. The issue is do they use apparently precise scientific sounding terms for fuzzy or mystical concepts in order to give something a spurious scientific justification. Innate intelligence as used in chiropractic is a frankly mystical term used for a frankly mystical concept introduced at a time when chiropractic was overtly being promoted as quasi religious. It makes about as much sense to call this pseudoscientific as it does to call the Holy Ghost a PS concept. Gleng 09:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Gleng. I only meant that an obscurantism should be offered for clarity. Of course, if a reputable source states that the term is a pseudoscientific piece of jargon, or an obscurantism, then it will be better. I've seen plenty of examples. It is the view of reputable sources that PS uses obscurantisms though. The basic line (with or without examples) is entirely useful for the reader. KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed passage from "Identifying pseudoscience"

message: As I understand it, critical race theory doesn't purport to be a science and therefore shouldn't be considered pseudoscience. It draws on philosophy, history and anthropology more than biology. Critical race theorists often map the ways that society's perceptions of race change (in many countries, for example, Middle Easterners are considered white, while in Australia they are popularly considered non-white), and they assert that the tendency to classify people by race can have damaging effects socially. You can disagree, but you'd be entering into a social argument, not a scientific one. 
I'm just a university student, but I've actually read read several journal articles about Australian critical race theory, so please consider this. Critical race theorists don't, to my knowledge, make any assertion like "We have proved that there is no biological evidence for race." They're far more likely to talk about the social understanding of what race means. If there are some that claim that race differences don't biologically exist, they aren't representative of the whole field. Certainly there are more who emphasize race differences, based on my experience.
The book cited in the article asserts that race is a biological reality, not a "social construct".  Thus, it would seem to be attacking a narrow or imagined definition of critical race theory that isn't representative of the entire field. This is called a straw man argument. I think the reference to critical race theory should be removed from the article. --Grace 07:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Grace. Thanks for highlighting a few problems. Sure, I see no particular source on this article or that calling CRT pseudoscientific. I have read in the past that CRT has pseudoscientific ideas such as old PS aspects of Eugenics and odd bell curve misconceptions, and there are still arguments over whether "race" actually exists in reality (genetics and stats) or not. But I am not sure of the sources. If anyone can supply them it may help explain why it is listed. Specificity would also be helpful, so perhaps list the actual concept that is PS, and then the example (CRT). It always helps to state why the field is considered pseudoscientific in some way. If none of these are forthcoming, I see no reason to keep CRT. Regarding claims to science, it doesn't really matter if a subject claims to be science or not. That is not really a prerequisite of PS. Its just one indicator. I know the PS article is misleading in this way, but I suspect editors will come round to making it look a bit less like criteria for inclusion one day. KrishnaVindaloo 07:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Gleng. I'm not sure if anyone has ever explained this to you, but your own research WP:OR does not negate the research of reputable sources. KrishnaVindaloo 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: All the therapies listed are used in fringe psychotherapy. The concepts are used to treat those with all kinds of psychological disorders, even though there is no evidence for chi or innate intelligence, and there is no support whatsoever for the intervention in the context of psychotherapy. Do you want me to look up more sources that state this? Its going to be very easy! KrishnaVindaloo 08:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No Gleng. Whats POV pushing is editors constantly seeking to remove chiropractic from the article, despite the pseudoscietific elements being identified in that and other subjects.  It is extremely easy for the reader to see from this article that orgone is a vitalist concept that is also known as innate intelligence, qi etc. It is important as a pseudoscientific idea within the context of psychology also. The article is clearer with the line left in. KrishnaVindaloo 09:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is critical race theory pseudoscience? 

message: KV, I don't think you've got the point. Scientists do not bandy the term pseudoscience around casually because for us it has grave connotations; others have similar objections to wide use of terms like "Nazi" and "holocaust"  or "evil" or "fraudulent". If the word has meaning, and pseudoscience is a good word and the meaning is important, then don't dilute it or the whole article sinks into disrepute because it's contaminated with opinion driven insinuation. You'll find sources willing to say that chiropractic and all sorts of other things are pseudoscience, just as you'll find people to say that X or Y is a Nazi or stupid; WP is not a vehicle for propogating casual prejudice, but for reporting facts and reporting authoratative opinion. A casual aside that something is classed along with other pseudoscientific subjects is not a reasoned, carefully argued case for something being pseudoscientific. What I'm asking is that you do not make casual insinuations like this. NPOV needs care, our opinions do not matter, but what goes in the article, if disputed, needs a proper V RS pedigree and still some careGleng 08:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I provide good research. I've a pile of papers on chiropractic on my desk, and access to proquest and other such databases. Now in order to make sure I avoid casual insinuation, I have to delve into my sources again. What do you think I am going to find this time? From a cursory view, it is already very clear that my additions to the article comply perfectly well with Wikipedia policy on verifiability and repute. Oh! I just found another such fact. I'll add it to the article. Whatever makes the article clearer for the reader! KrishnaVindaloo 08:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Gleng. You seem to be over-reaching. It is considered by some, a characteristic of PS to dis conventional medicine in various ways. That fact needs clarifying. Dentistry uses conventional medicine. It promotes conventional medicine. Chiropractic and CoS dismiss conventional medicine especially as it relates to the use of drug treatments. Chiro and CoS are very clarifying for the article. Dentistry is not clarifying at all. Your judgment by google is completely unreliable. Lets stick with reliable authors. KrishnaVindaloo 09:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well sorry Gleng, but your trimmings are obviously an attempt at selective editing. Lets keep personal agendas out of this please. KrishnaVindaloo 05:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casual insinuations - Good Research WP

message: In the section "Fields regarded as pseudoscience", I've removed the statement "and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community", as a back-handed way of suggesting "partly" or "mostly" dismissed. As I have highlighted before:
*While there are citations to individuals claiming certain subjects are pseudoscientific, there is NOTHING to suggest that (a) any portion of the scientific community (b) considers ANY of these fields to be pseudoscientifc
* The phase "scientific community" is considered a Wikipedia weasel word to avoid
--Iantresman 10:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Scientific Community

message: Hi all, I have been looking at the article as a whole, and I believe (as its quite a heated subject sometimes) it would be a good idea to conclude by not concluding. Basically, have a summary at the end that states there are still open questions on the subject of PS. It can mention that there is still open debate in the philosophy of science, it can state that subjects are considered PS for various reasons, it can state that there is still debate on the motivation for calling things PS, and it can state that the issue is becoming more important in some folks mind. Right now, it seems to conclude that the list of subjects considered PS, are actually pseudoscience, and I reckon thats the wrong way to end this article.  I also notice the opening is not quite representitive of the article as a whole, and that can also conclude with questions rather than answers. I believe this would be a more intelligent and NPOV way to handle the article. Any thoughts, concerns, and ideas are welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open conclusions/summary