This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
I'm not sure i understand this article, as i get the impression he's basically broadcasting social darwinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.86.200 (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alan Liefting recently removed the pseudoscience category from this article. I agree with Alan that removing the category was appropriate. If you read the category page, it says, "This category comprises highly notable topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)." I see no reason to believe that Shermer's book is "generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community" or that it is "obviously pseduoscientific", so the category obviously does not apply. Unfortunately, other users have persistently and wrongly restored the category, most recently with the argument, "Book is about pseudoscience. Would you say a book about WWII doesn't belong in war category?" That argument misunderstands the point of categories completely. They are for what they say they are for, not what users want to use them for. The pseduoscience category clearly says it is for things that are themselves pseudoscientific, not for discussions of pseudoscience. Now, you could argue that the category should be redefined, but if you believe that you should take it to the category's talk page - don't try to unilaterally redefine the purpose of a category or ignore what it says it is for. Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would, of course, be possible to resolve this issue simply by creating a category called "Discussions of pseudoscience" or something of that sort. One may exist already, for all I know. Please use such a category instead of applying an existing one in a way that contradicts what it says it is for. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your argument. The book argues for the use of evidence to de-bunk pseudo-science - this is one of the underlying principles behind modern science and it would be therefore be wholly inappropriate to categorise the article as pseudo-science. VelellaVelella Talk 21:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article does not belong in Category:Pseudoscience. It is cluttered up with all sorts of stuff that is not closely related and it has sent it over the 200 article limit (which does not need to be exceeded in this case). All this makes it next to useless as a navigational aid for readers. I created Category:Pseudoscience literature for, surprisingly, pseudoscience literature. There is already the Category:Skeptic multimedia (which I am trying to rename) that is for books that are critical of pseudoscience as well as other topics. Categories are effective when there is clear demarcation, and while the two categories - Category:Pseudoscience literature and Category:Skeptic multimedia - give a degree of demarcation there will be a bit of a grey area in between. In retrospect perhaps we should create a Category:Pseudoscience-related publications or suchlike and it would be for publications that are both critical of and supportive of pseudoscience. Alternatively, we could redefine Category:Pseudoscience literature (which I think I would want to rename as Category:Pseudoscience publications) as a category for any publication relating to pseudo science. I am warming to this idea since "[subject here]-related publications" is not used as a naming scheme. A Category:Discussions of pseudoscience is a little vague and probably does not fit in with any current categorisation schemes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't actually suggesting a category specifically called "Discussions of pseudoscience", only something with an equivalent purpose. It's helpful to know that an equivalent category already exists, and thanks for your reply. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
