Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 7

message: 1. As others have said, we have to seperate between stupidity and pseudosciences. Fairies is stupid but not a scientific stupidity.
2. We have to make it clearer that is psuedoscientific about a subject and that is not. To just write Tunguska event and nothing more, makes is seem that the Tungaska event didn't happen. This is wrong.
We should write something like:
Antimatter Tungaska event - the belief that the Tungaska event was not caused by a meteor but by antimatter or similary anomalous causes.
Other subjects that may need rewriting is 
*Ball lightning - ball lightings exist. Only some new age uses is psuedo.
*Hypnosis - exists.
*Meditation - exists. Maybe use "Magical meditation - people that states that they can no magical tricks by meditation."
*Stock market prediction - exists. Maybe use "False economic models. Many parts of modern economics makes predictions they have no sound scientific base to support."
*Out-of-body experiences - is it not better to use "life after death" as the psuedoscience.
Should we not add religion, god and soul as psudoscientific concepts?
3. Some things are not big enough to include.
Laundry balls - never heard about. Delete?
4. We should seperate between obscure and parody pseudoscience.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.108.234 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For God and souls, it seems difficult to find source about people trying to make these concepts look scientific. But yeah, it is not really clear when something is simply unscientific or really pseudoscientific. Kromsson 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You missed the "Finally, 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" bit. Simões (talk/contribs) 14:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both of us did. Kromsson 00:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: Should the bible codes be listed here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible Codes anyone?

message: The list as structured has conflicting purposes. Is it for anything called pseudoscientific by any critic or for areas where there is a clear consensus that a subject is pseudoscientific? If the latter, evidence of this should be on the article's page (and/or presented here). If the former, the article is misleadingly (and leadingly) titled, as are sections thereof. Some clarification is needed - you can't have it both ways (i.e. include disputed areas but title this article as if only undisputed items are included). Hgilbert 10:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose is kind of between those two extremes. The razor we came up with a while back is that we'll include it if it's called pseudoscience (or described as such, the actual word isn't necessary) by either a notable scientific body or a notable skeptic or skeptical organization. So, in the former case, it would likely be representing consensus of the scientific community, while not so much in the latter case. Of course, for something like this, there's the possibility of disagreement (particularly between skeptics when it comes to borderline issues, such as acupuncture). What to do in that case isn't clear, though I think it would be appropriate to leave it in with a note that it's disputed and briefly explain the dispute. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To expand a bit, I really don't think a "disputed" section is a good idea. I've all too often seen pseudoscientists try to fram their subject as being "disputed" in order to make it look better. In actuality, most of these cases have been resolved by mainstream scientists and it's just a few fringe scientists who are trying to keep the dispute alive. Also, to show there really is a dispute in an area, a single source by someone saying there's a dispute or disagreeing with mainstream consensus isn't sufficient. There will always be people out there (even some scientists) who disagree with well-established theories. Just look at evolution - among biologists, it's taken for granted at this point, but there are scientists all over the place who disagree with it and try to frame it as a dispute (see Teach the Controversy). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, you make some good points there. I think the question we have to ask here is along the lines of what this list should be, rather than simply what it is or what it says it is. Once we decide on that, we can rework all sections as appropriate. Personally, I believe the article should include any subject for which the pseudoscientific research into it is notable and not in an extreme minority (and we should of course describe this in the comments about it). My reasoning is simply that if there's significant pseudoscientific research into Ball lightning, for instance, it would make sense for it to be linked from here, no? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We've gone back and forth on this title a lot in this article. If you haven't already, it might be a good idea to go over some of the archives to see what's lead to the current title. I'll probably do that myself as well, since I wasn't around when this last change was made. After that, we can possibly restart discussion on it if you still feel the need. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting  definitions of list 

message: I would like to call into question the reasoning for adding the ref tag to the ball lightning entry.  What would properly satisfy the editor in question who added the tag in order to have it removed?  There are numerous ref's that can added from the ball lightning entry to support the anecdotal evidence, but is it really worth adding more ref's to the page that already has a ton?  From reading through the ref's on the entry, there does not seem to be a single entry that discusses more than 2 specific instances.  Thoughts?  Cheers!!!  Baegis 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both in the main article and in this list entry, there is documentation that ball lightning exists and is a matter of scientific study. However, there is no documentation in either location that documents why it should be included in a list of pseudosciences. (Anecdotal evidence is not per se pseudoscientific.) Hgilbert 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are accounts of people claiming to have seen ball lightning, but I would not go as far as saying that there is documentation of it existing.  As you mentioned, anecdotal evidence is does not qualify it has pseudo-scientific but it also doesn't make a good case for its existence.  The scientific community may be leaning towards acknowledging its existence but until it can be replicated, it is still an area shrouded in controversy.  As to its inclusion on this list, I have my doubts.  I guess it all depends on the the lead.  And from how it reads now, I think that ball lightning might warrant exclusion.  Cheers!!!  Baegis 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience merely states that evidence is anecdotal and varied explanations are given; it does not use any term related to pseudoscience. Nor is it up-to-date; the more recent scientific consensus is that it exists, and the phenomenon is now better understood. The entry should be removed. Hgilbert 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The encyclopedia labels it an "important pseudoscientific concept." Also, the list item and the cited article don't say outright that ball lightning doesn't exist. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind Simoes, could you point me in the direction of the particular entry you are referring to above.  With the ref's being busted, it doesn't help to support anyone's particular case right now and I would like to read it, if possible.  Cheers!!! Baegis 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Volume 1, Section 1 (Important Pseudoscientific Concepts) of The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. The article is on page 48. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't doubt the entry in the SEoP, I do have to ask why a mention of pseudoscience is nowhere present on the actual Ball Lightning entry, yet it is included here.  Methinks that if it did qualify as pseudoscience, it would warrant a mention on it's own page.  Thought we should discuss that on the talk page for Ball Lightning, we need to address that problem here as well.  Baegis 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for this article, we have it properly sourced, so it should stay in. You do raise a good point that we should probably then include this information at Ball lightning, but this doesn't mean we should remove the entry from here until that's done. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ball Lightning 

message: As mentioned above, many of the references in this article seem not to function (those formatted with  templates, in particular). Shall we remove them, or does someone know something I don't? Hgilbert 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone broke these references along the way. I'll fix it in a bit. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems we have at least 55 refs but we only show 49 in the reflist. Some of the refs are formatted as such: . Is this a problem? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: If we stay with the current criteria for entries in this list, I suggest that we change the article title. The situation with ball lightning makes this evident; try this topic in Google Scholar and a host of scientific studies of the phenomenon come up, including book length works. The New Scientist article cited above makes it evident that there is no longer serious doubt about the existence of the phenomenon, only about its cause. The Wikipedia Ball lightning article records no dispute about the topic's scientific validity. Yet, because it is (apparently) mentioned in a single skeptical work, probably with no citations at all to document its pseudoscientific nature, it can be included in this list. 
If an area of serious scientific study can be listed here on such a basis, then the list's title cannot claim that its entries are definitively pseudosciences - only that someone, somewhere, has claimed this, even if the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly against that individual or body. How about "List of topics ever termed pseudoscientific"? Then we get to include psychoanalysis, cryogenics, Zen and sunspot cycles (all in Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience). Hgilbert 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article: "Finally, 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" Simões (talk/contribs) 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one hundred scientists have done serious work in a field but one skeptical writer has called the field pseudoscience, the field qualifies for inclusion here according to the list's criteria. - Well, that depends. Are these scientists or "scientists"? You really have to be careful these days, especially with many pseudoscientific endeavors getting scientific funding. But anyways, it's not just one skeptical writer that's required, it's a notable skeptical writer. It has to be someone who's earned respect as a skeptic (as an easy measure, they should probably have a Wikipedia entry which makes mention of this aspect of them). Even in this case, if you can source significant dissent from this opinion (by other sources which meat the same criteria), then it might be reasonable to not include an entry. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought one of the guiding principles of Wiki was that all notable viewpoints must be presented. How can an article that simply requires one source to state as fact that something is an example of X, irrespective of how many competing (better? more authoritative?) sources exist, and without even mentioning the existence of those sources, itself be allowed to exist? The title should be changed to "things that have been called pseudoscience." As things stand the article is little more than a piece of POV pushing sleight of hand.Davkal 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should come up with a sort of litmus test to evaluate a claim for inclusion on this list.  There are obvious pseudo topics (creationism, magnet therapy) but there are other topics whose qualifications have to be questioned.  I really do think that it all comes back to how the Lead introduces the topic.  I will work on something that will hopefully give a more concrete definition for inclusion in the list.  Cheers!!! Baegis 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an idea: all that needs to happen is a careful evaluation of all reliable sources. If the sources that evaluate a subject to be pseudoscience are more mainstream and more reliable than the sources which claim it isn't pseudoscience then we should include it in the article. Otherwise, I think we shouldn't. ScienceApologist 14:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I don't personally consider eugenics to fall under the definition of "pseudoscience" proper, but it is often, often referred to as such. My thoughts on it might be that it could fall into a somewhat separate category here, if others agreed: things often referred to as pseudoscience, often because specific historical forms of it engaged in what we might call pseudoscience in retrospect, but depending on the current definition of the term may or may not fall under any strict definition of pseudoscience. But maybe that is a bit too wordy. Anyway, just a thought I had. --24.147.86.187 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ours is not to question why, ours is but to report what reliable sources say on the matter. Simply put, we have a source for the claim that eugenics is a pseudoscience, so it goes in. Counteracting this based on our own beliefs is original research. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't actually see eugenics listed on this page.  Baegis 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenics? 

message: Please follow Wikipedia standards for reliability and verifiability. Unless a source does not conform to these, please do not remove it arbitrarily (i.e. because it contradicts your POV). In addition, when an active discussion is in hand, it is bad manners to peremptorily take one-sided action. Hgilbert 11:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, we could give the reader some basis in comparing the worth of the various sources. For example, the author of the Skeptic's Encyclopedia articles quoted here was denied standing as an expert witness on that very subject in a California court of law. In fact, the judge expressed "'grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including anthroposophy'" (from the trial transcript). Shall we continue to compare the strength of the sources? Or just include this last quote in the article so that the reader can make up his/her own mind? Hgilbert 13:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expert witness on what exactly?  What was the case in question?  Baegis 16:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was denied standing as an expert witness on anthroposophy. See more details in the PLANS article. Or see the actual transcript, p. 28. Hgilbert 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: This edit  removes material which is irrelevant to whether anthroposophy is pseudoscience or not. Whether there are benefits to anthroposophy is irrelevant to whether they are considered psuedoscience or have psuedoscientific characteristics. These points can be listed at the relevant pages (anthroposophy and anthroposophical medicine) but do not belong on this page. ScienceApologist 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The points are obviously relevant since they counter precisely the points made against anthroposophy. That is, for example, Carroll - who knows next to nothing about the topic - thinks the underlying principles are akin to sympathetic magic (something else Carroll appears to know nothing about) and is therefore out of touch with science; whereas those who do appear to know something about the subject think its epistemic basis is (scientifically)sound. And when a sound underlying epistemology is allied with research which appears to show benefits to, say, anthroposophic medicine, the conclusion is probably science rather than pseudoscience.Davkal 18:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source quoted regarding the epistemological basis of anthroposophy did not say that anthroposophy had a scientific basis but rather that it had a religious basis. More than that, simply because a practice has benefits doesn't mean that said practice is scientific or pseudoscientific. It is completely irrelevant. Your distrust of Carroll has been noted, but he has been judged by the preponderance of editors to be a reliable source for skeptical demarcation. ScienceApologist 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The preponderance of editors here seem to think the points relevant. I am therefore reinserting in line with this notion.Davkal 19:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I haven't seen anybody but you argue that the points are relevant: and I've pretty much demolished your claims to relevancy above. Simply stating something doesn't make it so. ScienceApologist 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with SA here, Davkal.  Your feelings about Carroll have no bearing on this article.  While there may or may not be benefits, any benefits don't warrant exclusion.  People may believe in Feng Shui and it may "help" some people but that doesn't rule out it out of this list.  Baegis 20:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would accept this argument coming from a neutral party, but since you have a couple of hot pokers in the fire yourself, it's very easy to see your argument for "consensus" to be one based on hoping to preserve a commentary which is basically a soapbox for anthroposophy. ScienceApologist 22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? Proper Wikipedia etiquette is not to impugn the motives of editors but to address the content of their edits or their points. My main point earlier was that properly sourced material was added to the two entries to counter the claim that anthroposophy and anthroposophical medicine are pseudoscience, in order to give due weight to opposing viewpoints and present a neutral point of view in the article. Rather than discuss the merits of these points, or whether they do in fact support the argument against a pseudoscience here in the Talk section, the edits are removed without discussion and the editors suggesting NPOV are criticized for trying to uphold a core Wikipedia policy. Très intéressant, EPadmirateur 00:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthroposophy evaluations

message: In an article with almost no academic sources, and almost exclusively referencing the table of contents of one book as its source, it is a little sad that real citations (to academic journals and books) with clear and obvious relevance are being removed by one user. I am referring to the anthroposophy citations, one about reductions in atopy (through empirical testing and published in the Lancet, which of all sources should be acceptable here) and one about the validity of its epistemological basis. Is it scientific, in order to make a point, to delete Lancet articles and keep citations to people with absolutely no academic or professional qualifications in the field, and who have been judged intellectually incompetent to comment on any field by a verifiable source, as has Dugan, the author of the article in the Skeptics' Encyclopedia presently cited? Hgilbert 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reductions in atopy do not have beans to do with whether the thing reducing the atopy is pseudoscientific or not. The validity of anthroposophy's epistemology is also irrelevant because it simply deals with categorizing the subject as a religion rather than a science. Again, that says nothing about the pseudoscientific nature of some of its claims. Claiming that Dugan is "intellectually incompetent" is quite a bold and unverified statement in itself. It looks to me like your upset that people are criticizing your baby. ScienceApologist 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Your above comments are OR. The source is OK. Better than others I have seen used in wiki. There seems to a problem with a lot of the articles where people can choose what they think is a reliable source. I have seen opinions on websites used as reliable sources. It seems reliability is in 'the eye of the beholder' here. Dontletmedown 16:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we weren't really saying anything here about reliability of the sources, but I point out that there is a guideline on the issue: WP:RS. What's more there just because a source is reliable does not mean it automatically is relevant to the article. ScienceApologist 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dugan statement was not made by me, but by the federal judge excluding him as a expert witness; I'll insert it into the article so it won't get lost again. That the Lancet study showing reduction in atopy is relevant is made clear by a request on this very talk page to demonstrate that anthroposophy subjects itself to scientific study (and, presumably, can demonstrate valid results). Whether something is confirmed by scientific evidence has a good deal to do with whether it is a pseudoscience or not...unless you ignore empirical evidence. Finally, could you make clear how a discussion of anthroposophy's scientific status and basis is not relevant to whether it is a pseudoscience? Hgilbert 00:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of verifiable sources...continuing 

message: What is the point of having an article with a title that says "things that are x", when it is necessary for the first three paragraphs in the article to explain why virtually everything in the article may not actually be an example of x at all. That is, the first para has the qualifier "regarded as pseudoscientific by organizations..." (which means someone has simply called them PS). And this is further qualified in the second para by: "they may have explicitly called a field or concept "pseudoscience" or used synonyms, some of which are identified in the references" (which means they may not have even been called PS, but something like it, some of which we'll tell you about). And this, unbelievably, is then further qualified in the third para by, "Some subjects in this list may be legitimate fields of research and/or have legitimate scientific research ongoing within them" (which is to say that they may actually be scientifically valid after all - ie, not PS). So, in short, we have a "list of pseudosciences" which contains things that have been called pseudoscience, except for those that haven't, and even those that have might not be PS in any event. As Butthead so succinctly put it: STOP in the name of all that does not suck!Davkal 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a valid point. The criteria for inclusion seem very noncommital (I would guess that it is the result of a compromise), but we do need some operational definition of pseudoscience to justify why concept X is on the list, while concept Y is not. For example, there are practices which have been labeled pseudoscience by notable experts and would seem to fit the criteria for identifying pseudoscience, yet are not on the list (e.g., reflexology, craniosacral therapy, aspects of massage therapy, dubious psychology [repressed memories, regression therapy, rebirthing, facilitated communication, 12-step programs, EMDR, Rorchach inkblots], etc.). In one particluar case, psychoanalysis, WP:NPOV specifically indicates that this should not be labeled pseudoscience (it is only "questionable science") because it is "has a substantial following". Plenty of the concepts on this list have a "substantial following"; that doesn't make them (or psychoanalysis) any more scientific. Psychoanalysis has been labeled "pseudoscience" by notable scientists and skeptics (Karl Popper among them), so based on the current criteria, it should be on the list (at the very least, in the "disputed" section). I am aware that this cannot possibly be an exhaustive list, regardless of the inclusion criteria, but if laundry balls makes the list, then important pseudoscientific concepts should also be included also. If this list is going to be useful at all, the criteria need to be clearly defined, and the majority of important concepts meeting the criteria should be included, whether they have a substantial following or not. — DIEGO talk 04:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Davkal, you are misrepresenting the situation.  You are quoting the lead but putting your own comments to get your own results.  Do you think that people just walk around and call things PS all the time?  All of the things on this list have reliable sources for their inclusion as PS.  With regards to the actual name of PS, there are a variety of synonyms for PS, such as junk science which would still be the same thing.  Thirdly, just because there is ongoing research into a topic does not mean it is scientific by any means.  Research does not automatically convey a title of scientific.  I won't go to the trouble of listing examples, but I suppose if you are going to argue, I might have to provide some.  And Diego, I do agree there are many more topics that can and should be included in here but this is where the list is now.  There probably is not a reason that these haven't been listed just the fact no one has thought to do it yet.  The criteria is already clearly defined in the lead.  If we want to rewrite the lead in order to allow the reader to better understand it, that is a solid idea.  But the criteria is already there.  Remember, this is just a list and by no means exhaustive.  Baegis 05:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful, Baegis, if you focused in the points made rather than on other ones. The gist of my point is this: it is consistent with all of the first three paragraphs (the inclusion criteria) that not one single item on the list be PS. It is totally inconsistent with the title of the article that any item in the list not be PS. The certainty of the title is therefore completely undermined by the uncertainty of the inclusion criteria. You need to change the title to something more appropriate.Davkal 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the current title is inacceptable for Wikipedia. Harald88 11:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Again

message: We need clarity about whether evidence unrelated to demarcation is allowed here. In the anthroposophic medicine and EHS entries, for example, studies are included that relate to efficacy or lack of effect found. Do all such studies belong to the articles on these subjects, and not here?
There are deeper questions here, some of which we can't go into due to our limited function as editors drawing upon others' conclusions: is something pseudoscience because it is not testable (in which case no empirical evidence, pro or con, could be brought by definition) or is something pseudoscience because it is tested and found wanting? Can something be pseudoscience if empirical tests show efficacy - do not positive results in rigorous, peer-reviewed trials provide scientific proof? Hgilbert 08:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence unrelated to demarcation 

message: This article seems a bit of a jumble at the moment. That is, it is split into various sections depending on the type of source for the entries, but then in many cases the entries in those sections don't match the sources, and the sources themselves are not alway really what they appear to be. Firstly, for example, Dianetics and Crystal Healing are in the first section, but do not have sources from scientific organizations and so should probably be in a different section. Secondly, almost everything on the list of "paranormal subjects" is sourced to skeptical groups and/or paranormal groups rather than scientific organizations - one of the few science links (32, the "NASA" link) is actually an advertisement for a radio program!. Thirdly, some of the main sources used in the first section could only euphemistically be called "assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science". They are, rather, a motley collection and it is therefore a bit of a stretch to move from these rather singular sources to the conclusion "The following have broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status". One source, (33 - a science source), for example, actually says "according to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include...", which means that the assertion of a mainstream scientific body has, in this case, simply reported (as a report) what "one group" (CSICOP) has said. And therefore this does not mean we have a mainstream science source asserting the pseudoscientific status of the entries, rather than merely reporting that others have asserted this. I've struck out the last section because it seems the source does then go to call many of those same things pseudoscience.
Having read the comments above, it seems that Hgilbert's suggestion should be extended to the rest of the article so that proper attribution can be presented here and the article can then be reordered accordingly.       RedNishin (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the radio program reference (one of four, makes little difference to the list). Hgilbert (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extending Hgilbert's excellent suggestion for corroborating quotations in the body or reference - working on it, as I concur. You can too! I would not venture to hazard what sort of consensus was actually reached the other week, but it certainly makes the article better. These quotes should be from respected scientific bodies or notable skeptical organizations, and ideally may usually be found by checking the extant references or by consulting the main articles. My vision of a perfect entry would be: Name; brief description from main article (including legitimate scientific uses where applicable); quote with reference to scientific consensus (e.g. Multiple well-constructed studies have found no evidence for X, nor is there any known physical mechanism by which it might function.); quote with reference to sceptical organization (e.g. X is pseudoscience / quackery / fraud / woo / casuistry / lies / deception / sham / false / mumbo-jumbo / hoax / hocus-pocus / &c.). Also useful would be a parallel project to get multiple sources for each entry (no more "table of contents" arguments, yes?).
As for the WP:RS assertion of RedNishin - mainstream scientific bodies are usually much more concerned with evidence-based theories, so I expect quotes will be forthcoming only for those theories which have attained sufficient notoriety to require debunking (Apollo Moon Hoax) or spur a series of double-blind trials (electromagnetic hypersensitivity). The list certainly needs to be organized and pruned, but if you find a candidate for removal (an entry for which a reasonable search did not yield anything resembling a scientific/skeptical consensus), please at least consider discussing it here first. Eldereft (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think if this article is to be a list of pseudosciences then the list of things cited above that can lead to inclusion ("X is pseudoscience / quackery / fraud / woo / casuistry / lies / deception / sham / false / mumbo-jumbo / hoax / hocus-pocus") might need to be considerably shortened. My point, and what I take Hgilbert to be requesting with his list idea, is that we cite here the entries along with the source and the relevant quote where each entry is labeled pseudoscience, or junk science, or bogus science, or maybe quackery. To simply cite a source saying something is false, or a lie etc., or to simply provide arguments to that effect, is not really appropriate. It is surely a given for Wiki that where a claim is made we at least have one source making that claim in a straightforward manner. RedNishin (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not mean to suggest that this become some sort of repository for all manner of magical thinking and April Fool's Day stunts (the list is already somewhat unwieldy, and will probably always remain incomplete), but in the context of a statement to the effect that rigorous science denies a purported phenomenon or effect, more colloquial terms should be allowable. Put another way, a free energy corporation would be committing fraud, and backing it up with pseudoscience. A report describing the fraud and why the purported science just ain't so could be a relevant reference. Simply providing arguments to the effect is, of course, WP:OR. Eldereft (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we don't drift into original research. Research that shows the absence of a claimed effect is not grounds for inclusion here, though it may well be grounds for a verifiable authority to conclude that the phenomenon is part of pseudoscience, at which point we can quote this authority. We would be doing original research in making the link ourselves. Hgilbert 15:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused and confusing

message: As has been noted above, the current categorization ("Concepts" vs. "Topics") might be taken to be misleading, and at the very least reduces the utility of the article by splitting the alphabetical list. Pretty close to every entry is considered controversial by at least someone, else there would be nobody espousing these theories. I therefore propose that we:
# merge the "Disputed" section into the main article (and metaphorically salt the earth);
# merge "Topics" and "Concepts", keeping the subcategorization scheme present in "Topics"; if it is felt that this gives the appearance of elevating the standard of evidence against topics which have been denounced only by noted skeptics or skeptical bodies, we could alternatively rename and reorganize the sections to reflect more accurately that not every topic is significant enough to have drawn a statement from scientific bodies;
# integrate into each description at least two WP:RS justifying inclusion (including quotes in-line or as footnotes);
# note any evidence-based or scientific applications, as appropriate;
# Wikipedia:Assume good faith with respect to the inclusion of current entries - at least check the main article and note any concerns here before summary deletion;
# accept that we are choosing to edit an inherently controversial page, and remember to treat co-editors as collaborators, not competitors.
Eldereft (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent basis. I would only add that at least one, and preferably both of the citations should include an explicit linkage of the theme to pseudoscience. One to pseudoscience and one broadly confirming an absence of effect found would also be pretty convincing. Hgilbert 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: I'm happy this entry was made. It just underpins something I've been considering for awhile. I'd say this article is out of control. Everyone get a chance to add whatever they don't believe. So next will add Buddhism, Judaism, Satanism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Muslim, Hinduism, Atheism etc ... I think maybe Levine2112 has the right idea or at least a better idea. Make the page just about what "mainstream, specialized scientific bodies" consider Pseudo and get rid of all this tabloid type stuff. Leave the rest to the wacky websites. --Anthon01 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it has been deleted. It would be just as improper to add Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, as it would be to add Chiropractic. There are certain aspects of them that can be added here, but not the whole thing. It is only the parts that make unfounded scientific claims that belong here. If they don't make scientific claims, they are just beliefs. -- Fyslee / talk 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how does mysticism qualify? Hgilbert 14:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christianity and Judaism have nothing to add concerning the understanding of pseudoscience, though prayer(for health) or similar may be. This is an encyclopedia after all. Its about explaining the sum knowledge of the world. Therefore, something like chiropractic would actually be a prime candidate for this article as there are specific parts that are definitely pseudoscientific. The term chiropractic itself is an obscurantism which makes the subject a pseudoscientific subject if not a pseudoscience per se, which would still have the subject part of this list. The core theory of chiropractic would actually be the main reason for assigning it the label of pseudoscience per se. Just because one of its interventions "works" it does not make the bulk of the mess as pure as the driven chaps in white coats. Please refer to the title of this article. The main reasons for keeping christianity and judaism out is because they are beside the point. Subjects such as homeopathy and chiropractic are totally in the core of the point of pseudoscience, even if they are marginally effective (just one alternative and high risk option) for treating stiff joints in chiropractics case, and dehydration:) in homeopathy's case. Docleaf 13:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But how does mysticism fit here? Hgilbert 13:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some mystics attempt to give their fields the appearance of scientific credibility. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it would need to be more specific than mysticism. Myths tend to be used, and a lot of pseudoscientists do try to mystify their activities. New age mysticism could qualify but only if it were specific to a particular element, such as left right brain mystification (yin yang dichotomania). Docleaf 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ritual invocation of genii loci probably not, but any mention of crystal resonances that is not discussing phonons, plasmons, polaritons, et al. probably qualifies as PS. Eldereft 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loci are interesting in the context of this discussion. Drawing magical circles while including the four directions and five elements of the pentagram, and possibly the more superstitious elements of mnemonics () are related to the PS associations relevant to loci. Sure, crystals are the most glamorously flaky pursuit.  I truly love the babblingly pursued notion that crystals have some sort of beneficial resonance. I grew up in an area where certain parts of the countryside (glades etc) were good for your tripes etc (who didn't?). Nothing better than reading a good book to raise the spirits though:)  One could speculate that the brilliance of the author (eg, Richard Dorkins) is captured between the lines and when you open the book it just blows your hair back with the invigorating wind of inspiration  - (probably something to do with the bards and drewids of the previous milleniums, the silk road, Atlantis, qi, the good side of the force and so on).  I believe the pseudoscience related articles of Wikipedia could be about the most engaging pages on the internet as long as certain financially concerned editors didn't try to sanitize them so thoroughly.  The wierd and wonderful beliefs of the world seem to be what vives le difference. I would truly love to report the chiropractic beliefs about levitation of the spine, NLP beliefs of the communicational field, and scientology beliefs concerning the aura. Or is it just the spirit of alcohol talking? What's the difference? Mysticism in general I suppose! Will it happen? Fat chance! We'll just have to put up with mediocrity until we get the web marketeers under control. Docleaf 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity added to Mysticism, religion and belief 

message: I would like to delete the current subheadings under astrology. At the very least, the wording which seems to imply that the only reason Western astrology qualifies as pseudoscience is its lack of a sidereal calendar smacks of nNPOV and needs to be corrected. Both of the references I added tonight explicitly do not rely on any particular tradition. Alternatively, a better list of subheadings could be generated using List of astrological traditions (checking against Category:Astrology for completeness), but I think the current main heading text would suffice. Possibly another sentence could be added briefly outlining why this cannot be scientific. Eldereft 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone object to an assumption of consensus on this issue? After, say, another week to allow sufficient time for any opposing viewpoints to be expressed, of course. Eldereft (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wouldn't say there's consensus, but I would say that Be Bold gives you leave to go for it, especially at this point. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say go ahead and delete the subheadings.  A link to the main topic is fine.  Linking to every subtopic would be excessive clutter, imo. --Jim Butler(talk) 07:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, I just expected contention given its popularity. Eldereft (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology 

message: There has been extensive discussion about needing clear citations that point to the pseudoscientific nature of subjects listed here. This included the need to remove items that do not have such citations. If verifiable citations cannot be found - and there have been months to do this - the items should be archived and brought back in when/if verification is possible. The discussion has been sitting on the talk page for several months and no one has expressed any doubts about the policy. I proposed on Dec. 4th to wait one more week and then begin archiving. It's 12 days later, and I began. One editor is reverting the archiving. What do people think about this? Do we want unverified items on this list? Hgilbert (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be deleting items that are sourced. Is it because you don't consider the sources good enough that you are doing this? I think you should deal with them one at a time right here, since discussions may vary depending on the item. Make a header for each one and discuss the sourcing. -- Fyslee / talk 18:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion. It was implemented a month and a half ago, however; see Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Awaiting_wording_that_justifies_classification_here. We had a problem that many "citations" were absent any reference establishing the relationship to pseudoscience beyond the fact that the subject had an entry in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience (as do meteorites, vaccinations and a host of other non-pseudoscientific fields). So we asked that the actual terminology linking the fields to pseudoscience be included here, and suggested that if this was not able to be found there was a problem with verification - and that the items should then be removed from the list. This was 6 weeks ago, and no one objected at any time; several editors got involved and began finding verifiable connections to pseudoscience. We can take a little more time, but if there is no one claiming a connection why should a field be on this list? Hgilbert (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All you need to do is read the entry in the encyclopedia of pseudoscience to figure out whether the item is an actual pseudoscience or not. Do you have a copy? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be a WP:UNDUE violation and mere mention in this book doth not a pseudoscience make. Again, before identifying something with the pejorative "pseudoscience" label, let's push ourselves to find the best sources out there (i.e. peer reviewed literature and Academies of Science). -- Levine2112 discuss 01:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup