Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 7

message: I changed the definition to be almost word-for-word what my copy of the OED says (that's the OED, not the Oxford American Dictionary).  The OED says: "a body of beliefs, practices or theories mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method".  The old version said: "... is portrayed as scientific but diverges from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by adequate scientific research to justify its claims."
Rationale:
* the new version is actually sourced (except for minor syntax and word choice changes)
* the old version's use of "portrayed" raises the question of who is doing the portraying.  "claims" is clearer - it only applies if those who propose said theories etc make the claim.
* the old version's use of "required standards for scientific work" is unclear and subject to interpretation - what standards? required by whom?
* the old version's use of "unsupported by adequate scientific research" is utterly wrong - science can and does advance inadequately supported hypotheses all the time, that's how it moves forward.  unless and until those are misrepresented as supported when there isn't enough evidence, they are not pseudoscientific, of course.
* finally, the new version is much more concise and clear.
ObsidianOrder
:OED Second Edition 1989 says
::A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have.
:Mccready 14:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: old edition, I guess.  they kept the "mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method" part in later editions but condensed the rest. ObsidianOrder 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition redux 

message: Just reiterating the obvious solution to reducing censorship and conflict long term:  An intelligent account of pseudoscience will always be specific.  If you ask the general public if they think astrology for example, is pseudoscience, they will say, yeh, its a load of old PS. If you ask a Scientologist what they think of psychiatry drugs, they will say, its a bunch of mind crippling pseudoscience that destroys your chances of human development. If you ask a straight chiropractor what they think of germ theory, they may say, yeh its pseudoscience. Its all very general.  
If you consult a good book or article, or ask an expert what they think of Dianetics, you will hear "Well,,, the concept of engrams is pseudoscientific, as is the theory that we can become "clear".  If you ask whether acupuncture is PS, they may say, "well, qi theory is unsupported, as is the notion that we have a force field protecting us from disease". If you ask whether chiropractic is PS, they say, "well chiropractic rejects conventional theory about the nature of disease in favour of subluxation, and they apply it generally".  It is always quite specific. Williams, Shermer, Devilly, and all the more intelligent and informative sources tend to use this way of explaining things. If we state specific PS concepts and say which field those specifics originate from or are being used, then we are not calling fields PS. We are being specific and fair.  ID, for example, is more of a theory or set of concepts within the field of creation science. We are not saying creation science is PS, but we are saying ID is considered pseudoscientific for specific reasons. We can say vitalism is pseudoscientific and state which fields it is used. That is specific and fair. It also gives people no excuse whatsoever to remove the subject from the article. The article will not be overburdened. There are plenty of good editors and indicators such as notability, explicability, and recognizability that will allow us to keep the article manageable. Anyway, lets just get on with being specific to be fair, and let the reader understand what this article is on about. KrishnaVindaloo 06:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, people seem to be skirting around the issue of long term solutions. Discussion anyone? KrishnaVindaloo 04:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Being specific

message: Hey All, just as a matter of clarity for chiropractic from a chiropractor (take that for what it's worth).  It is not a chiropractic idiom that the germ theory is pseudoscience.   The simple explanation for what chiropractors contend is that the human body's natural defenses keep the body healthy.  When the body's defenses fall, germs are able to take over.  With the advent of HIV, this is (now) a pretty widely held view by all healthcare fields. There are even germs that are more virile than the human body and require medications to prevent illness and death.  Even the field of immunology has felt the boost to its claims in the last 2 decades.  That does not suggest that there are not people that think the germ theory is PS, and some of these might even be chiropractors (and probably even some psychotherapists;). 
Chiropractic does not make statements concerning the cure of anything, much less homosexuality.  They suggest that only the body heals itself.  This does not preclude the possibility that chiropractors may also treat homosexuals.  In fact, all that chiropractic theory would suggest is that the patient would become a healthier homosexual.  It also doesn't preclude the possibility that a chiropractor talks to his patient concerning issues about his sexual orientation, particularly of it is perceived to be affecting his health.  Reparative therapy would be a psychological approach that only those with proper certification in that field would be expected to perform.
Use it for what it's worth.  --Dematt 15:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Dematt. To reply to your assertion on health and chiropractic. You are suggesting the chiropractic notion of holistic health. Of course this is pseudoscientific.  Conventional medicine would not say that a homosexual needs any kind of healing unless there is something wrong with them diagnostically.  Thus, paying a chiropractor to manipulate a homosexual (or any other healthy individual) will not make them any healthier according to conventional medicine. It will not increase their chi, innate intelligence, or mojo, or allow them to utilize the force more effectively. It will have no effect on mental health.  Homosexuality is not recognized as an illness, except by religious dogma and reparative therapists who propose the use of chi machines, chiropractic manipulations, spirit therapy, and so on. These holistic notions are pseudoscientific. KrishnaVindaloo 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KV, what you say here doesn't follow as a logical rebuttal to what Dematt said.  You're knocking down a straw man.  Jim Butler(talk) 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just some chiro clarity 

message: ::"I have the paper (Ford) right in front of me and I read it in its entirety days ago. If you want me to endulge you in your rather destructive conflict game, I can quote word for word so you can see obviously I have read it."  KrishnaVindaloo 04:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Steth. Why should legitimate editors have to put up with this kind of grilling?  Some proponents will simply deny the existence of obvious facts, and make claims and excuses in order to promote their interests. The facts are clear, and the literature shows a significant view that reparative therapy involves all kinds of pseudoscientific charlatanry. Such developments involve new age treatments, fringe psychotherapy, and yes, chiropractic manipulations. Again, the literature is clear on this. 
The Ford article (concerning the PS of reparative therapy) states on the last line of the conclusion: 
 
"I will continue to do anything in my power to expose their fraudulent claims."
KrishnaVindaloo 05:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Gleng.  I should clarify.  The line is from Ford, its not my main intention. I'm here to improve the article, to work with others to reduce the level of censorship, and to make the article look more like it knows what its talking about and less like a rant at various fields. KrishnaVindaloo 09:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please indulge us Krishna Vindaloo 

message: Hi all, further to Kenosis' helpful suggestion, I added to/altered the section on demographics to something more meaningful and explanatory. More can be done with it and additional input is welcome. I believe it could be made more brief, yet more rich in terms of psychology. Any ideas from those in the know will be great. There will probably be quite a lot that scientists say about this aspect of pseudoscience, and I'm sure we can make it more clarifying to all aspects of pseudoscience. KrishnaVindaloo 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "A survey on public knowledge of science in the United States showed that in 1988 “50% of American adults [rejected] evolution, and 88% [believed] astrology is a science". Source: Bunge, Mario (1989). “The Popular perception of science”, Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, series V, Vol. IV, 269-280, as cited in . Have a look at the this PDF for an overview and pointers to further reading. --Pjacobi 06:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much PJacobi. Thats a very interesting find. And Bunge is a fine source. There's also some useful information on various vitalistic "spurious therapies" on page 254. All round a good article. Lets see how we can appropriately include the information into the article.  KrishnaVindaloo 07:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi PJacobi. I also found the Bunge info and its pretty good. There are other concepts and indications that he talks about and he fills a gap in pseudoscience in physics also. Useful stuff. KrishnaVindaloo 12:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi again PJacobi. I added the Bunge ref as is, and will check more closely for page numbers etc. The ref section of the Epistemology of Science, Science Literacy, and the Demarcation Criterion: you posted has turned out to be rich in good sources. Thanks again. Adjustments and further information will be welcome as usual. KrishnaVindaloo 05:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ubiquity of PS thinking

message: Hi all. This first line needs some adjustment, either in terms of its content, or its citations:
A field, practice, or body of knowledge is reasonably called pseudoscience or pseudoscientific when (1) it has presented itself as scientific (i.e., as empirically and experimentally verifiable); and (2) it fails to meet the accepted norms of scientific research, most importantly the use of scientific method.[14] [15] [16]
The line doesn't seem to represent the citations. I'm not saying there's anything in particular wrong with the line, but the citations don't support it. I'll have a good look through the lit to see if there is a better line, but if anyone could provide (or show me) where the line comes from, that'd be great. KrishnaVindaloo 04:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More specifically, there seems to be no line in any of each citation presented, that has any of the lines written above. Can someone please present the correct citations. I'll not remove the line (though I believe the line "is reasonably called" is quite spurious and looks like soneone's attempt at dictating what is absolutely PS and what isn't), but I believe the citations are inappropriate. Any help on this will be welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 03:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: KV - this is almost verbatim from the OED (note: the original, not the Oxford American).  The only changes are the addition of "alleged" and the addition of the definite article in "the scientific method". I think the year on the edition was 2000 but I can check. Also note AHD and MW both have very similar definitions, they just omit "method".  P.S. See also Talk:Pseudoscience#definition_redux. P.S. Sorry, I didn't notice that you quoted a different version which departs from sources... someone must have changed it back to the good one.  ObsidianOrder 09:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much ObsidianOrder. Thats a great help. I'm uncertain of the source you mention though OED. Could you post it here? So far then, I take it that the present citations are inappopriate according to the source you mention? KrishnaVindaloo 09:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OED •Jim62sch• 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First line of Identifying PS

message: Just needs a pause here; innate intelligence here is linked directly to the relevant article that places it as a chiropractic concept. I happen to agree that innate intelligence is not strictly a pseudoscientific concept, but a non-scientific concept persisting as a metaphor from the early history of chiropractic. However this is a content dispute that can be resolved by others. I think it is however correctly placed within chiropractic. My revert is by way of clarifying this issue, I in fact agree with Steth's edit in this case as stated above.Gleng 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Gleng, I am a little confused.  You think it should stay, but agree with my edit to remove it?  If innate intelligence is not a PS concept, then why have it in?  It doesn't add anything except to confuse.  There are other entries that make up a nice list. Thanks Steth 16:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi. Already had second thoughts and edited - sorry. On reflection. It seems obvious (self evident? :)) that it is opinion not fact that innate is PS, and obviously disputable opinion, so if included it would need V RS for opinion and be clearly flagged as opinion not fact, likewise for the others in the list.Gleng 16:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, the edit works!  Cool.  And very funny Gleng.  ;)  •Jim62sch• 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, its perfectly clear that there is a long term problem with a particular group of advocates. The problem will have to be tackled with a long term solution. In the meantime, there are other edits to make. KrishnaVindaloo 03:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Advocacy?  No KV, it is simply that vitalism encompasses all of the separate topics you had listed, so there is no real value added by their inclusion. •Jim62sch• 14:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for me to assume good faith.  There is clearly malice in the above statements, and in the edit. The six subjects considered PS are supported by multiple sources and multiple editors.  Removing them without first seeking consensus is clearly against cooperative editing. It can also be considered a type of blanking vandalism as it negatively effects the integrity of the article.  I have no desire to get into reversion wars over this, and I will leave you to your interests. I have other edits to make in cooperation with other editors until the unnecessary conflict has died down. I now apologise for confusing Ford with Christianson, even though it is a fact that chiro is used in RT according to the latter. If apologies could be made upon the malicious persecution upon myself, and the personal attacks on myself, I'm sure things will calm down even more. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 15:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Innate

message: This article discussion has become vexing to all, and I am suggesting the correct remediation.  RfC is the way to go, but there is a fairly sane earlier option for handling this sort of conflict. I have made a Wikiquet alert in order that someone from the outside intervene. I believe there are other relative "outsider" editors here who could also have helped, but this is a pretty reasonable first step . I am getting tired of people accusing me of lying, and tired of having to repeatedly defend myself. I am sure other editors are getting tired of having to read the same cycle of accusation/defense. I am perfectly willing to go to RfC and RfA on this also and have plenty of literature as support. The literature shows quite clearly that I am telling the truth about the fact (Chiro and RT) and it is extremely clear that there was a confusion over sources (including Jim Butler's confusion). I'm not talking about winning or losing here. Simply moving forward as editors. Lets keep the dispute off the talk page. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 03:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abhor away, but make sure reality plays a part, Mccready.  •Jim62sch• 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Mccready. I appreciate the vote of confidence, though I wouldn't call them a cabal. Their accusations, tone, and unwillingness to obtain literature to back up their claims have already made it impossible for them to stand up straight in mediation or arbitration if it ever comes to that. Thanks. KrishnaVindaloo 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jim62sch. Please be civil. We need to move forward together as editors. Thats the reality of the situation. The sooner that is realized and followed, the easier its going to be for everyone. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But brawly kent I that a' this was but a scoug to keep some ither thing oot o' sicht. •Jim62sch• 23:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquette alert, RfC, keeping it off the talk page

message: I removed this line from the introduction:
Both the theories and methodologies of science evolve, sometimes very slowly, and in other cases quite rapidly.
Its quite misleading (slowly compared to PS?) and there has been no citation added to it even though the citation needed tag has been there for a while.  If anyone can provide a citation that'd be great, but I believe it will also need clarification if it is to be replaced into the article. KrishnaVindaloo 03:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Misuse of fact tag. Alas Kenosis added it back, and I made it less conversational.  •Jim62sch• 14:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable, Jim. KrishnaVindaloo 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science moving slowly and quickly?

message: I propose that we try to move, wherever possible, to sources that are available online. This is, after all, an online encyclopedia - and the problems of verifiability will not arise, though disputes about reliability are inevitable.Gleng 16:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Gleng, I'm having trouble finding the Feyerband ref you talk of. ITs not here, and I can't find it with a search on the article. Could you point it out or present it here? KrishnaVindaloo 09:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Note, "wherever possible".  End of discussion.  •Jim62sch• 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Formal dispute resolution is long overdue.  Suggest RfC or mediation. Durova 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Durova. Thanks for the feedback. I'm more than willing to go to both through the correct channels if that will help the article. As it is though, I see some hope in that editors right now are moving towards resolution and making good suggestions for improving the article. Actually, good edits have been made throughout the conflict, its just a matter of resolving accusation issues on the discussion page. I'm open to suggestion. KrishnaVindaloo 05:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm not confident at all that the problem is so simple.  That's why I haven't tried to mediate informally. Durova 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside feedback 

message: Thanks for the various kind comments; but no I should not return here. But I will make a few minor clarifications.
Yes, I am a scientist and an editor of scientific journals; I am not anonymous. However, probably everything that I’ve written in peer reviewed journals will probably be read less than what is written here, so WP needs to be taken seriously. As an editor and referee, I spend a great deal of time checking assertions against references, and checking for balance, and several thousand manuscripts have passed through my hands in this way. This is part of the discipline of peer review and it is what sets peer reviewed sources above all others. This does not make them perfect, and you can find my own criticisms of those imperfections in the peer reviewed literature if you want. As a scientist, rather than as an editor, the obligation is to find the evidence first and draw conclusions after, you might be guided by a hypothesis but your activities seek to challenge what you think might be true, not to endorse it. Selective citation of references to support a preformed opinion is not good research. As a skeptic, I don’t accept anything without evidence, and then am cautious, especially I don’t accept argument from authority, whatever the subject.
So what should we do to make WP a better encyclopedia? We must resist the temptation to use it to assert our beliefs. Instead we must make it possible for the reader to exercise his or her own reasoning, and make the evidence available to them to do so. We have to select the evidence, but not select it for its message but for the quality of the evidence, and that means simply presenting the best V RS –regardless of its message. If we can, we should use sources available online; in the journals for which I write and edit, virtually all sources are available in this way. They need to be checked, because honest misstatements are easy. The Feyerband citation is an example; it’s available online, check it and it doesn’t use the word pseudoscience. The account of this citation is a reasonable reading, but Feyerband would I suspect not endorse using the term pseudoscience; to do so would be contrary o the view that he is expressing, so to cite him in a way that makes it appear that he would endorse this usage is not correct, imo. This is not a criticism of the editor who inserted it, the point is a subtle one, but it exemplifies the importance of making sources accessible to the reader.
As for the word pseudoscience, it has derogatory implications, but is used in some of the great intellectual debates of our time; these arguments do not deserve to be caricatured by comparing them to online rants about fringe nonsense, however well merited the rants.
We perhaps should also note, despite what KV says, that until very recently the history of medicine itself has been extensively the history of the placebo effect, and that to a large extent its scientific foundations are still flimsy. Replacing vitalism is a continuing process; but some such concepts (like “stress”) are still irreplacable. Many areas of science are inherently irreducible (see emergent behavior). So casual denigration of things we dislike has implications for things we do like, if we resist double standards of argument. Arguing that something is PS because of its history opens a very large field for mischief and disinformation, and we should resist it.
In the end, I can edit happily with those views I do not share but who accept good faith and the discipline of V RS (and yes I have come to appreciate that people who hold very different views to mine can yet be humane, intelligent, interesting, honest, and very well informed); I cannot edit happily with those whose views I do share but who accept neither. So I go, but I wish you well. Gleng 09:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gleng, I think it's extremely unfortunate to lose a highly competent contributor such as yourself.  I hope you'll reconsider and come back after your anger settles somewhat. I'll certainly try to help see to it we don't hold you to your statement just above in the event you do decide to become involved again-- and in any event I should observe that you're under no obligation not to change your mind. Take care for now, OK? ... Kenosis 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, Kenosis. As I said before, there was never any need for him to leave in the first place, though he clearly has his own reasons. Welcome back any time. KrishnaVindaloo 03:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last word on sources and goodbye

message: It says on the article that it has been suggested that this article should be merged with Psuedoscience, but there doesn't seem to be a discussion thread regarding it.  So I thought I'd start.
*Keep: A contraversial theory isn't necessarily psuedoscience.  
--G. McVey 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with psuedoscience discussion