Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 3

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 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can also be considered something philosophical or metaphysical that clothes itself in the garbs of scientific language and terminology, to give it an appearance of being scientific and respectable. Much of the use of the term "quantum physics"   falls into that category. In fact those terms can be considered "red flags" in many discussions of so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM). -- Fyslee 12:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somewhat scientific? 

message: The article says  "Since, historically, it has been applied to competing theories and interpretations of empirical evidence within the mainstream (notably, e.g., to the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics)"   I don't think this is true, but I'm not positive.  That is, I don't think Bohm's theory was called pseudoscientific.   Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, its was never really widely considered pseudo-scientific I don't think; but it was, and still is, considered superfluous by many theorists. There is a difference between saying a theory is superflous and saying it is pseudo-scientific. The example is a bad example. Its a philosophical dispute that is apparently still going on--another way in which the example is misleading--but even so it was not a dispute that is a matter of pseudo-science vs. real science. Thats why they call the different interpretations of QM "interpretations". --Brentt 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it makes exactly the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, so there is no way to distinguish between the two.  Since the original post, I asked a friend who knows a lot more about such matters, and he doesn't know of Bohm's theory being called pseudoscientific, but he says that it might have been.  I think that it certainly doesn't fit our definition of pseudoscience.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bohm 

message: Why does this article have an "introduction" section after the table of contents? isn't the introduciton supposed to come before the TOC? and if not, then what the hell is that blurb before the TOC suppsoed to be? For this article to be properly wikified, I'm pretty sure that anything introducing the topic needs to come at the head of the article. Sound right? Shaggorama 09:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction? 

message: Perhaps phrenology is not the best example of a pseudoscience for the introduction. Although phrenology is a pseudiscience today, it has also served as a proto-science, giving rise to fields in the medical sciences (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology). PJ 13:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section on the phrenology page is silly. Phrenology only bears the most superficial resemblance to modern neurology--and thats even a stretch to say.--Brentt 21:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, and being a protoscience doesn't make it any less of a pseudoscience.  If anything, I think it makes phrenology an even better example of pseudoscience.  --Marco Passarani 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrenology 

message: I think this article has a lot going for it, but some work remains. Here are some thoughts:
* The definition seems to me to convey that pseudoscience is something that presents itself as scientific, but isn't. From there the article describes the difficulties of making those distinctions, and I'm left with the conclusion that pseudoscience is, in the real world, a semantic or rhetorical device more than an exact definition. Which is of course a rich irony, but that's life.
* I think the article is at its most valuable when it helps the readers think critically about claims that are couched as scientific, i.e., helps them be better skeptics.
* I have some problems with the list of fields most associated with pseudoscience, largely because I think it is a matter of time before we get into a tit for tat debate here, where someone makes the case that say, physics is also a pseudoscience. For example, I'd say that the Flat Earth Society is not pseudoscience at all, because it makes no serious effort to pass itself off as science to begin with. That's my subjective interpretation, as it my interpretation that Dianetics is a great example of a pseudoscience. But if I were going to argue the point with, say, Tom Cruise, we would surely never agree. 
* So it's not as simple as saying that critics stamp a field as pseudoscience and adherents reject the stamp - intellectually honest people may disbelieve a theory but still refuse to allow that it's pseudoscience.  Or they may believe it but allow that it remains unproven or even unfalsifiable with current technology.
* It would be great if WP could provide the caveat emptor for pseudoscientific theories, but I think it's going to be hard. --Leifern 18:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list and the definition 

message: * JA: I repeat:  NPOV + NOR means that WP does not originate opinions.  So it is utterly pointless for WP editors to conduct opinion polls about the value of any external matter.  Jon Awbrey 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV + NOR means that WP does not originate Opinions

message: I was a little disappointed by your recent modifications to Pseudoscience.  The section has clearly been marked with comments asking that no one make modifications until a consensus has been reached on the talk page.  This was due to the recent edit warring and disagreement going on in the article.  Please respect WP:CON. --Hetar 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience

message: * JA: (In a discussion this long and winding, it helps to introduce new headings every now and then to cut down on browser overflow and edit conflicts.)
* JA: Conflict resolution in WP is not about coming to a consensus on the scientific status of any subject matter.  WP editors who are under that impression need to abandon the notion that WP is a place for deciding the scientific status of anything.  WP is not the place where claims about the doctrinal, legal, moral, scientific, theological, <fill in the blank>, status of any body of teachings or writings are adjudicated.  It is illegitimate for WP editors to engage in any form of so-called "conflict resolution" that by its very nature conflicts with the overriding principles of WP participation.  Jon Awbrey 17:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What conflict resolution in WP is not about

message: JA: The proper form for sourcing a statement is like this:
: Martin Gardner (journalist) wrote "<insert ipse dixit here>" (Fads and Fallacies, <year>, <page>)".
JA: Jon Awbrey 18:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bubba73 wrote  "I think that the vast majority of scientists view the things on the list as pseudoscience, and scientists have not received them well", (WikiPedia Discussion Page: Pseudoscience, 13 Mar 2006).
JA: Maybe some people would recognize why writing that on the article page is deprecated, then again, maybe not.  So why try to achieve the same effect with less forthwrite means?  Jon Awbrey 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder if judicious uses of the word "pompous" would violate the "no personal attacks" rule.  Probably, but it sure would be accurate, I tell you what.  (Just hypothetical rambling, mind you.) Phiwum 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to source a statement

message: The first sentence is: "The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which their critics criticize as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another."  I don't think it should say "critics criticize", it is obvious (and redundant) that critics criticize.  I propose making a small change to "... endeavor which is criticized as ..." I would go ahead and make the change, save for the current controversy over the section. Bubba73 (talk), 04:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good, thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fields associated - first sentence 

message: JA: Just for the record, it was FeloniousMonk who deleted the Unreferenced tag the first time, and Duncharris who deleted it the second time by reverting to a version of Pseudoscience by Jim62sch.  So it appears that I misread the differential history display and misplaced the Drmmt tag on Jim62sch's talk page when I should have placed it on FeloniousMonk's talk page.  So I make my heartfelt apologies to Jim62sch, but even mistakes can be made by a person acting in good faith.  Also, I still don't know why some people refer to Fact and Unreferenced tags as NPOV tags, as asking for references is a pretty routine thing in source-based research, and it should be possible to do so without prejudice either way.  And I am not trying to make any sort of WP:POINT in the pejorative sense, but continue to ask that statements be sourced.  Finally, all of these events are things that occurred pursuant to working on a particular article, so I do not see the reason why this discussion should be userfied.  Jon Awbrey 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottom line 

message: So are we moving the list to Scientific Skeptics or what? That still is the best proposed answer to all of the contraversy surrounding the list. TheDoctorIsIn 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree.  This is a page about pseudoscience.  I don't see why a list of alleged pseudosciences should go anywhere else. Phiwum 11:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly disagree with the proposed move also, non-skeptical scientists also view conjecture and claims which are presented as science without meeting the criteria for the scientific method as pseudoscience; and skeptical scientists are often skeptical of science which does meet the criteria. This would be conflating two very different things. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: I'd like to add this:
"Pseudoscience" is hard to strictly define, but it is a doctrine or belief that pretends to be science.  Pseudoscience has some common characteristics:
# The most common characteristic is that its hypothesis is not falsifiable.
# The proponents are unwilling to look closely at the phenomenon they claim exists.  Careful, controlled experiments are not done and the reality of the phonomenon is uncritically accepted.
# Usually the proponents of a pseudoscience will not change or update their theory in light of new evidence (Hines 1988:1-6).
--References--
* Terrence Hines (1988).Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence, Prometheus Books, 
but it needs to be incorporated into what we already have.  In particular, there is already a lot of disucssion about falsifiability.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JA: Writing something like "X pretends to be a science", where the verb "pretends" calls for an animate subject, is faulty on grammatical grounds, usually criticized as an instance of "anthropomorphism".  Jon Awbrey 06:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not faulty on grammatical grounds.  Things don't have to make sense to be grammatical; "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." is completely grammatical.  I think "X pretends to be a science" is perfectly clear in any way that merely rephrasing the sentence will help.--Prosfilaes 07:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JA: I am of course using the term "grammatical" in the old-fangled sense which included semantic considerations, as opposed to the new-fangled sense a la Chomsky that abstracted syntactic grammaticality from them.  Those usages are widely criticized, just to be passively weasly about it, you might even call them "pseudogrammatical".  Jon Awbrey 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not even semantically wrong. It is a statement that an English speaker would produce and understand. Some people object to it as a matter of English style, but that's stylistic, not grammatical.--Prosfilaes 07:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Scuse me, Guv, an' har ay ban gang oof a' ha'cocknied an' taut we ban 'ritin' sum kinda high-falutin' 'cyclopede er sumting!  Jon Awbrey 14:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info to add

message: * JA: I count several cyclic reverts as of this point in time.  Looks to me like it's time for RfC, donchathink? Jon Awbrey 04:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: I reverted the move of the list of fields... by anon User talk:68.3.136.145. Such a move without consensus by an anon looks a lot like POV vandalism to me. Vsmith 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List move reverted 

message: I like changing the name of this section rather than moving it to another article, and I think this change (adding "by scientific skeptics") is a step in the right direction.  However, there are other groups of people too, i.e. scientists (much larger number than scientific skeptics), plus critical thinkers outside science.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's a silly idea.  It makes it sound like "scientific sceptics" are somehow unusual or different or be "wary" of them for being scientists, and um experts on science.  The scientific process is largely dependent on the scientists being sceptical of ideas.  Attempts to negociate or "compromise" on WP:NPOV#pseudoscience will get you nowhere. — Dunc|☺ 17:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  All of this concern about the list seems much ado about nothing.  The article is supposed to give an idea what pseudoscience means.  It's hard to give that idea without examples.  Naturally, believers of these alleged pseudosciences will disagree, but one cannot disagree that these fields have been called pseudoscience by influential thinkers (scientists, philosophers, etc.).  So the old title seems perfectly reasonable to me. Phiwum 23:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JA: Finally, something we agree on.  I have gone ahead and made the corresponding change.  Jon Awbrey 03:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I go along with the change you made to the title of the section.  I like "called" better than "associated with", and I like "influential thinkers" better than "scientific skeptics" only, as I stated above.  I am in favor of leaving the list in this article, with its current title.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the problem now. The sentence reads: "The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor which their critics fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another." Okay, there are plenty of critics out there of vaccination. They cite specifically why the science behind it is wrong; how disease isn't prevented but caused; how viruses are force to mutate into things more insidious in order to survive; how the length of plague is extended rather than quelched. Given this and the topic sentence, couldn't "Vaccination" be added to this list? After all, if we are to show one POV in this article, we must then allow them all in order to remain neutral. TheDoctorIsIn 19:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No.  Read WP:NPOV#pseudoscience again.  — Dunc|☺ 19:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fields often associated with pseudoscience by scientific skeptics

message: I asked for a citation of "the theories of plate tectonics and evolution - were criticized as being pseudo-scientific when they were first proposed".  I think this was in this article a long time ago, and was removed by consensus.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed