Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 5

message: We have this. "Near-death experiences are experiences reported by persons who nearly died or who experienced clinical death and then revived. Supernatural explanations are many despite copious naturalistic models that would account for such an experience. We simply do not have a naturalstic model that can account for conscious experience without brain function. Skeptical Express might say we do, but we dont. If you want to include scientific statements of this kind then we need solid scientific sources. The writing is also POV in the extreme. For example, "copius".Davkal 14:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NDEs

message: Just so there is no misunderstanding about the original research tag. It has been added because of these two claims (both of which have had fact tags for several days):
:"The subject has yet find its way into education, law, and/or business to the extent that it motivates an organization to make a statement on it.
:"The subject is not regarded as pseudoscientific by a sufficiently large number of scientists (from multiple fields), which would be necessary for a statement on it to pass.
These points, it seems to me, are highly speculative, misleading and probably wrong. That is, a good reason why, e.g., Elves, Gnomes, Pixies and Fairies have not been identified as pseudoscience by a mainstream scientific body is that they are so far from being pseudoscience that nobody in their right mind would call them such. That Michael Shermer's organisation does call them pseudoscience, is simply an indication of how far beyond the mainstream the pseudosceptics have gone and provides, I think, a strong indication of why the views of such groups should not form the basis for a supposedly objective Wiki article. That last point, however, is secondary. We still need sources for the two speculative reasons identified above. Davkal 08:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Hi,
I realise that it is a pseudoscience but that people are reliant on the current medical treatments. So I'm happy to just put it here rather than on the main page. I can provide evidence. If my religion is in question I am an athiest and I believe in the scientific method. It has all the elements of a pseudoscience. Feel free to prove me wrong. I accept scientific articles and scientific analysis. If there is something wrong with me putting it here such as laws or something then please tell me.
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drugged monkey (talk • contribs) 09:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is original research and therefore forbidden by Wikipedia. You need to have a reference that states that psychiatry is a pseudoscience before you include it in the text. Moreover, by the ruling of the arbitration committee: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, it is not even appropriate to label psychoanalysis a pseudoscience let alone psychiatry. You will have to be content to see your text removed from the article for these reasons. Remember, Wikipedia is a mainstream source of information so we report the mainstream consensus on topics. While we can attribute minority ideas (such as your proposal that psychiatry is pseudoscience), such reporting is covered by policies such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. Good luck and happy editting! --ScienceApologist 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Any evaluation of psychiatry should take place at the psychiatry article and not here. If you can work it out so that the psychiatry article includes a disclaimer about it possibly being pseudoscience then come on back here and we'll work out a way to list it. However, the place to include evidence is not on a page that simply lists pseudosciences, it's on the subject page itself. By the way, the appeal to authority is exactly what Wikipedia demands in its WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. It isn't my rule: it's the community's consensus. --ScienceApologist 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you cannot publish original research on Wikipedia. Read the linked page. There are plenty of other places on the web where you can publish (e.g. a blog of a private webpage or even starting your own wiki). --ScienceApologist 10:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatry a pseudoscience. 

message: I think the way the article is written currently is disingenuous. For example, re the first list, it says that the pseudoscientific status is indicated by a statement from one or more scientific bodies. This is disingenuous because while it may be the case that one scientific body says x is pseudoscience another scientific body may have said that it is not. (This would be the case with parapsychology if you could find a source that says it is pseudoscience - ignoring for the moment the fact that no such source has been found). The point, then, is that we should, I think, mark those topics where we have a difference of opinion from different scientific bodies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davkal (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [], probably not an RS though.  www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.2_mousseau.pdf is an excellent article mainly as displays the mental gymnastics that are needed to justify the dumbing down of items that others have used to describe "science" to state "see Parapsychology matches our (re)classification of science QED it is a science").  [] RS?  "Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with great suspicion because the term has come to be associated with a huge variety of mysterious phenomena, fringe topics, and pseudoscience." from the PA itself [].  But this is just a wander thru google.  Shot info 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Atheism source is not RS.  Wiseman is, since he is a skeptical parapsychologist- I don't know if he would describe himself as a parapsychologist, but even if he doesn't and even if he calls parapsychology pseudoscience, he's contradicted by others of equal or greater stature.  And the Mousseau article is well within the philosophical disputes reguarding what exactly science is and what it is not.  No hoops there. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but we are going round and around again.  Incidently, Mousseau's discussion basically involves redefining "science" and then saying parapsychology equates to this redefined "science", which of course I'm glad we are all in agreeance with :-)  Shot info 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If my memory serves, Mousseau just chooses her definition from among the pre-existing conventional arguments avaliable.  I wouldn't give her article any time if it made up its own definition of science. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fields identified as not pseudoscience

message: I note that the Iowa academy of sciences lists UFO visitors as a pseudoscience. Stanton Friedman is a Ufologist; Dean Friedman has the same surname as Stanton Friedman; The band Half Man Half Biscuit wrote a song called The Bastard Son of Dean Friedman; they also wrote a song called All I want for Christmas is the Dukla Prague Away Kit; Prague is in Europe: Europe begins with an "E"; evolution begins with an "E"; I rest my case. Davkal 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UFO visitors isn't listed as such. Ufology is. Simões (talk/contribs) 04:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution as pseudoscience

message: The definition of a Psudoscience (According to the wikipedia article) is: any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.
Meditation makes no claim to be scientific, so why no earth should it be mentioned here in a list of pusdosciences and related topics?  I find that very offensive.  Meditation is religious / spiritual practice and so it should not be expected to follow the scientific methord (And doesn't claim to).  I will edit the article to remove meditation form the list.  Explanation for how prayer works are hardy "Scientific" either.  Mmeelliissssaa 12:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at reincarnation and meditation (more specifically Health applications and clinical studies of meditation), I see scientific claims at each.  --Minderbinder 13:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meditation as a Psudoscience? 

message: I think this article needs quite a few changes, in some cases I think it is fair to class a whole field as psudoscientific (Homeopathy and Creationisum for instance) because they widely claim to be scientific yet do not follow the scientific methord.  However in other cases we should not label a whole field a psudoscience (or a related subject) just because there may be some unjustificable claims made by some people.  Personally I think even the title of this article should be changed, as its not a "concept" that may be psudoscientific but the methord used to investigate a concept.
I think the list of related subjects should be changed to a list of spesific claims and people that are shaky; generalisations about an entire field are to POV and potentialy hurtful, especially on religious topics (I'm a Buddhist).Mmeelliissssaa 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some significant changes needed? 

message: An editor keeps removing this from the top of the article:
:"Apollo moon landing hoax accusations made by a small number of people claiming that parts of the Apollo program were hoaxed and subsequently covered up."
I don't know this article, so I don't know if he's removing it because it is not notable or broad enough to go here, or for some other reason. Just a heads up. Herostratus 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed above under 'Moon landing'. The way, the truth, and the light 12:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't remove or edit other people's comments.  --Minderbinder 13:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply did not want anyone else to reply under the wrong heading. I would have simply moved your comment, but it would not make any sense under the other heading. The way, the truth, and the light 13:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo moon landing hoax 

message: In case people don't know, "rvv" stands for revert vandalism.  Please don't use this in edit summaries unless it's actual vandalism, otherwise it's misleading.  --Minderbinder 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RVV 

message: If someone can explain how the sources for dianetics count as "assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science" then they can put dianetics back into the section listing those things that have been so described by such bodies. If you can't then don't.Davkal 09:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly a pseudoscience, and there probably are some better sources saying so, but including them would probably be controversial and attract scientology trolls. The way, the truth, and the light 09:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't include good solid sources because we might upset people? Well, I'll be sure to sure that one the next time that I assert that Bigfoot is real by citing supermarket tabloids as sources. If a reliable and solid source exists then it must be used. Accept no substitutes. - perfectblue 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please remain civil and avoid personal attacks, SqueakBox 01:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The inclusion criteria for this article has been set way too high. This is a joke. I had to do a rare self-revert. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very pseudoscience and already ref'd, clearly should be here, SqueakBox 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that Dianetics does not currently belong on this list according to the inclusion criteria but I feel that if the inclusion criteria were neutrally written, it would then belong on this list. So where does that leave us? :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the inclusion criteria are the way they are come from the fact that we're identifying a list of subjects that are described by a derogatory term. This term does have objective measures which can be used to determine what fits (which is what allows this article to exist at all), but it's also used incorrectly by many people (even scientists) in order to disparage alternative theories. This means that if we take the words of any individual scientist in describing theories as pseudoscientific, we'd end up having to include many theories which most definitely aren't (Evolution being the first). So, we have to go by what a consensus of scientists think, and this isn't normally easy to gauge. The solution of taking the words of the academies is pretty much the safest way we can do this. --DrLeebot 14:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the article is currently in two sections. The first section includes those in the academies' statements, though as Davkal has noted, the ASP statement doesn't appear to be an official position. The second includes everything else, which I suppose means Dianetics goes there. The way, the truth, and the light 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. It seems the sources you have here, plus those at the Dianetics article, are good enough. No one that doesn't believe in it could dispute that it is a pseudoscience, anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 07:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed.  Apparently it rates a whole chapter to itself in Gardner. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please not that the article is split into two sections - one for what mainstream scientific bodies have called pseudoscience and the other for other sources. It's not very difficult to understand - do try.Davkal 09:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, given the current organization that admits only the five scientific acadamies' statements for the first section. The way, the truth, and the light 10:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dianetics

message: See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=parapsychology+site%3A.edu&btnG=Google+Search 
and also: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=parapsychology+class+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search--Remi 08:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are college classes in parapsychology. 

message: This section is a huge problem. As the section itself states, these are not notable enough to have been commented on by reliable sources yet. So why the heck is this section in a Wikipedia article? Further, the section lead is full of weasel words, and claims they are "uncontroversially regarded as pseudoscientific". This fails WP:V in its entirety. I would have removed it immediately, but do not wish to give the appearance of edit warring, given the above controversy about the Apollo hoax inclusion. -- Kesh 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed. We've just had several people damnad the inclusion of the moon hoax because of a standard of rigidly adhering to certain sources, yet we have a section that clearly fails that standard. The title is silly, too: if Time Cube is 'obscure', why should it be here at all? It should be renamed 'Notable parodies of pseudoscience', and Time Cube either moved to another section or deleted. But I'm sure any change I make will be reverted. The way, the truth, and the light 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure and parody pseudoscience 

message: As I noted previously, a major problem with the second section using the "unless otherwise noted the entries come from the Skeptic's Encyclopedia of PS" rule is that it makes it impossible for most people (anyone not in possession of that book) to tell whether an entry is genuinely listed there or not. For example, the Breast Cancer Abortion link entry has recently been added without any source. Am I simply to assume that the person who added it found it in the book and thought it should go in here, or that the entrby isn't sourced to that book and maybe can't be sourced at all? So, should I fact tag the entry or simply leave it? As I also noted previously, the solution here is to cite sources for all entries and do away the catch-all source rule.Davkal 10:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources don't need to be online. Buy or check the books out if you want to verify the entries. Simões (talk/contribs) 13:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point isn't about the accessibility of sources but about their absence and about the impossibility of telling whether an entry is supposed to be sourced or not. The simplest solution is to source every entry and then unsourced entries will be easily identifiable.Davkal 14:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A further problem with the second section is that it is hard to believe that the Skeptic's encyclopedia only has about 30-40 entries in it and so a significant amount of "pseudoscience" (as determined by Shermer) must not be listed in that section. Who is making the decision to include and exclude, and why?Davkal 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get the book and see. Simões (talk/contribs) 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll identify the entries individually. Simões (talk/contribs) 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What's the point of identifying all the topics with the same reference, when no other reference is accepted in that section? Simoes's edits removed 1 entry in the main section and 2 in the second section, though they have source, they aren't his strictly limited list of sources. Meanwhile, the third section is left in, though it clearly isn't. The way, the truth, and the light 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Michael Shermer's Skeptics Society is a notable skeptical body. It does meet the criteria. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The out of print book has been tagged. A book is not a skeptical body. It has to go. Hmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Being out of print is completely irrelevent to its verifiability. Also, the book was written by the Sketics Society, and the act of writing it constitutes them verifiably making the claim. On the other hand, if you want to play the ridiculously literal game, the book is trivially skeptical, and it fits the generic definition of [body] (see the tenth definition). Therefore, it is indeed a "skeptical body." --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I individually sourced each encyclopedia entry on the list less than a week ago. The Way reverted the change. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A problem with the second section

message: The following are subjects regarded as pseudoscientific by notable skeptical bodies such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP). Some of these items are not considered pseudoscientific in and of themselves: only certain aspects, explanations, and/or applications of them. See an item's description text for more information on this.
The above is the inclusion criteria. The book fails to meet the inclusion criteria. It should be deleted or the inclusion criteria should be changed. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Shermer's Skeptics Society is a notable skeptical body. It does meet the criteria. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The out of print book has been tagged. A book is not a skeptical body. It has to go. Hmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Being out of print is completely irrelevent to its verifiability. Also, the book was written by the Sketics Society, and the act of writing it constitutes them verifiably making the claim. On the other hand, if you want to play the ridiculously literal game, the book is trivially skeptical, and it fits the generic definition of [body] (see the tenth definition). Therefore, it is indeed a "skeptical body." --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I individually sourced each encyclopedia entry on the list less than a week ago. The Way reverted the change. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion criteria

message: Why is FTL travel listed as a pseudoscience?  No one knows or is saying that it's possible.  It's simply something we're reaching for through our current understanding of physics. - MSTCrow 03:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like some other subjects on this list, this is an area that can be approached both scientifically (use of wormholes, for instance) and pseudoscientifically (such as all those people who come up with new theories of physics due to a misunderstanding of relativity and which they claim will allow FTL travel). Perhaps this note could use a little more explanation, in that not all research in this area is pseudoscientific, however. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a more critical issue is that it lacks a proper source. It needs to be removed unless one can be found. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was assuming that the source was in the Skeptic Encyclopedia, given the default sourcing this section has. If it's not there, however, we should find something for it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I individualy sourced each entry to avoid this confusion, but that The Way fellow reverted it without explanation. I'll restore them today. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FTL Travel 

message: There were a couple entries based on outdated research. There is renewed interest in both hypnosis and subliminal perception with strong evidence. It highlights a problem with this category. I also added links to modularity of midn and faculty psychology to phrenology. --Comaze 11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly those should be removed. The problem is that while there's some legitimate scientific research into these areas, there's also some pseudoscientific work being done, and it's hard to make judgments in those cases. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypnosis, Subliminal perception