Template talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starting this

So I think this is a nice beginning of a navbox. I think dividing the navbox into the three tiers is a good way to keep things well organized. Let's remember to consider WP:PSCI when adding anything to "Examples". I hope this is useful. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that some editors were cross editing with me. Sorry, I didn't notice. Hmm. They want to include text about who edited Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience and the Skeptic Encyclopedia, as well as provide a synonym of a term. I don't think these are necessary in a navbox because one can easily find out who the editor of the resources is merely by clicking the link. The same goes for the synonym. I think brevity and compactness is a concern when dealing with navboxes. We don't want this one to get unruly in size or else we will have to auto-hide it on pages where it appears. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you are treating each entry here as an official Category, per PSCI. I hope you have checked each article and ensured that it is also in the Category. If you are doing this, then this template shouldn't be used anywhere else, not even as a substitute for a See also section. In fact it would be a superfluous duplication of editorially chosen examples from an already existing Category at the bottom of the article. -- Fyslee / talk 05:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are meaning here, but yes, the item listed under example should conform to WP:PSCI. If any item doesn't, then it should most definitely be removed! Thanks for pointing that out. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
My point was that there is a difference between mentioning something as a pseudoscience, and officially categorizing (using the Category tag) something as a pseudoscience. The last is what the PSCI ArbCom decision was referring to, not the former. We've seen too many attempts to protect various psi from being mentioned as such, using the PSCI ruling, when it doesn't apply to such mentions. (Obviously all such mentions are contingent upon sourcing, as in most things here.) -- Fyslee / talk 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I've read WP:PSCI pretty carefully and it doesn't seem to be making the distinction you are claiming it makes. In fact, it discusses both categorization and labeling. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I just realized something. The arbcom ruling does not apply to this template. A cat is different than an article or a template. Alt med is the main article on alter med and homeopathy is a form of alter med. It would help the reader to read the main article by including a link in the template. QuackGuru 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course the ArbCom ruling applies to this template. WP:PSCI applies to not just categorization but to labeling as well. Please read it closely. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Please provide your evidence. Where does it say templates? QuackGuru 00:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It describes how and when we should categorize and label/characterize a subject as pseudoscientific. It certainly is describing this treatment in article space. And as templates appear on articles, WP:PSCI must apply to templates just the same. Now, where is your evidence that PSCI only applies to categories? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

Folks, please remember to discuss controversial issues at talk, don't just battle it out in edit summaries. Thanks, Elonka 05:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I totally edited over a couple of edits from others, which I didn't even realize were made because I was copy-and-pasting my work. I apologize; didn't realize anyone was actually editing this besides me at this point. Anyhow, as I say above, I don't think including the editors' names or a synonym to "Pseudoskepticism" is all that important in the navbox. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Levine2112 removed several links from the original info box I created and continued to remove the links. QuackGuru 05:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you please list the one's you believed I removed here and we can discuss? -- Levine2112 discuss 05:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Levine2112, you have made about 3 or 4 reverts. I would appreciate it if you restored the missing links instead of making reverts. QuackGuru 06:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see which links you are speaking of. Can you please tell me which links are missing? -- Levine2112 discuss 06:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Check the template history.[1] I restored the missing links but it was deleted. By the way, you made 4 reverts. QuackGuru 22:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Please provide diffs of these four reverts? --Elonka 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Why? QuackGuru 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see anything missing other than the editor names and the synonymous term. Please check again and let me know what is missing. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait. Are you talking about Naturopathic medicine? There is no mention of pseudoscience in the article on that one, so per WP:PSCI it shouldn't be part of this template. Is there anything else? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I see I left of "James Randi Foundation" from resources. Again, just an oversight. I think that is it. Anything else is either superfluous (name of a book's editor, synonym) or would violate WP:PSCI with its inclusion (Naturopathic medicine). -- Levine2112 discuss 00:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Does Homeopathy violate WP:PSCI? Homeopathy is an alternative medicine but it is in the template. QuackGuru 18:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Homeopathy is part of alernative medicine. A link to the main article on alternative medicine would be helpful to the reader. Per consensus, the link to the alternative medicine article should be restored. QuackGuru 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There should be a link to the alt. med. page in homeopathy's lead, so I don't think that is necessary. But I'll bow to consensus. II | (t - c) 17:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Alt Med is not an example of a pseudoscience per WP:PSCI, thus we cannot include it in this template. There is no consensus saying otherwise. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We include Homeopathy. Homeopathy is a form of alt med. Alt med is the main article. There was consensus. Only Levine2112 several reverts removed it. QuackGuru 02:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience", so per WP:PSCI we can use it as an example here. Just because homeopathy is one of many medicines/treatments comprising Alternative Medicine, does not mean that Alt Med becomes a "generally considered pseudoscience" example. If that were the case (where parents inherit from their children), we would make Medicine a "generally considered pseudoscience" example. You can keep writing that there was a consensus to include Alternative Medicine as an example of pseudoscience in the main article until your fingers are sore - it still doesn't make it true. There was never a consensus. So what are you trying to accomplish here? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The advantage with homeopathy is that it is a clear cut pseudoscience whereas alt. medicine is a little vague. Since the template cannot possibly contain all the pseudosciences, I prefer to have at least the obvious (and most known) ones on it rather than a list of categories. So I vote for keeping homeopathy. --McSly (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Homeopathy is not usually considered pseudoscience but WP:PSCI does not apply to this template. There was never a consensus to delete alt med from the template or the see also section of pseudoscience. QuackGuru 18:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
"Homeopathy is not usually considered pseudoscience". I disagree. Yes, WP:PSCI applies to this template, because this template is used to appear on article space and WP:PSCI applies to the categorization and labeling of subjects. There was never a consensus to add alt med to the pseudo-template which you authored. I agree with McSly, keep Homeopathy on this template. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[undent] With McSly, myself, and Levine, consensus appears to be that we keep altmed out. And rightly so, because altmed is being studied scientifically with some promising results in the herbal areas. Homeopathy, incidentally, is generally considered pseudoscience. Since we've all said our pieces, there's no reason to keep this discussion going. II | (t - c) 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide your evidence that homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience or we have to remove it from the examples section.
WP:PSCI applies to the categorization of categories and not a template.
If no evidence of homeopathy equals pseudoscience is presented then we can start a new section in the template for critics. See Template talk:Pseudoscience#Critics consider it pseudoscientific. QuackGuru 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In the "list of pseudoscientific articles", it is listed under "scientific consensus". II | (t - c) 00:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. And yes, II, that is the exact evidence we require to label something as "pseudoscientific" here at Wikipedia according to WP:PSCI. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

List from Pseudoscience article

Here is the list from which this template was based. I crossed out items which either are superfluous or violate WP:PSCI. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, alternative medicine embodies enough pseudoscience to include it. Naturopathic medicine is not necessarily pseudoscientific depending on how you define it (chewing on willow bark naturopathic?). ScienceApologist (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Rather clearly it does not. Alternative Medicine is not a concept which can be labeled as such. It is category. It is not an example of pseudoscience. That said, there are examples of pseudoscience that may also be accurately characterized as pseudoscience (Homeopathy, Psychic healing, etc.), but the sum total of Alt Med cannot be characterized as such per WP:PSCI and plain old common sense. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added several more to "Examples", mainly based from the first section of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. These are items which have been classified as pseudoscience by scientific consensus. I think if items have been cleared for that section of that list, then they are either obvious or generally considered pseudosciences. That jives with WP:PSCI perfectly and should be cleared for usage in this template without causing any violation of NPOV. I also added some items to "Terminology". I believe this template is looking good and ready to use. Are there any specific reasons any of you all have why we can't roll this one out at this stage? -- Levine2112 discuss 06:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The real list from Pseudoscience article

Here was the last consensus version of the See also section at Pseudoscience. Please add any missing links to the template per consensus.

Here is the real see also section list. QuackGuru 17:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus on this version. Regardless, we have since moved on. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There was consensus but Levine2112 kept on reverting. QuackGuru 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Critics consider it pseudoscientific

Here is an updated list. Please add to the list. QuackGuru 17:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Some critics" are not enough according to WP:PSCI. Please read the criteria at the top of this page. You may wish to take your contention to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Critics is enough if we apply WP:PSCI. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect,... You said we should apply WP:PSCI. QuackGuru 00:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
No, critics is not enough. Like I said, many critics (with PhDs in economics, mathematics, physics, ect.) consider economics to be pseudoscience. Does that mean we should include it? No. This is for obvious and generally accepted pseudoscience. II | (t - c) 01:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:PSCI: Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect,... Critics apply. QuackGuru 01:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You are not finishing the quotation. Let's look at it as a whole at WP:PSCI:

:::::: The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:

  • Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."
So, no, some critics aren't enough. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not generally characterize it. I attributed it to the critics. Some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect. Critics is enough per WP:PSCI. Please honor ArCom. QuackGuru 01:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I am honoring it. Whereas you seem dead-set on gaming it. Alt Med isn't even a theory! It's just a category. So how can a category even be considered "Questionable science" let alone "Pseudoscience? I'm sorry, but the logic here is weak and the argument is poor. If you wish to pursue some form of WP:DR, please feel free, but I consider this matter closed (or at least tabled until we have some other outside input here). Please cease your edit warring effective immediately. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
QG, I support Levine2112 on this one. Alternative medicine is a very mixed bag that includes pseudoscientific ideas, homespun theories, ancient remedies, quackery, fraud, nonsense, metaphysical ideas, religious ideas, debunked ideas, and undocumented ideas. One cannot categorize it all as PSI! Some of it has nothing to do with appearing to be scientific. Reserve the PSI labelling and categorizing for specific forms of altmed that qualify. There are plenty to choose from. Please cease this campaign. -- Fyslee / talk 04:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Documentation

I have created documentation for this template following the lead set forth in other templates such as Template:Peak_oil. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has created his personal argument in the template that does not follow Template:Peak oil. QuackGuru 17:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have? And what is my "personal argument" praytell? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Without taking sides (or even understanding) whatever is going on here, I could mention that {{Peak oil}}'s documentation subpage (Template:Peak oil/doc) follows the instructions in Wikipedia:Template documentation (WP:DOC). Just in case anyone would want to check the primary instructions. --Teratornis (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories

Hello, I vote to remove (or replace) that item from the list. It's definitely a crazy conspiracy theory, but I don't think it has anything to do with pseudoscience.--McSly (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree but I remember the folks at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts having good reason to include it there. Maybe discuss it over there and see if they still feel that way? I wouldn't be opposed to removing it though. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I read their apparently long and recurring debates on the subject. I'm still not completely convinced by the rational. Many if not all conspiracy theories use bad/anti/pseudoscience, that's one of the reasons they are called conspiracy theories. It seems this one is included just because the Astronomical Society of the Pacific says it's a pseudoscience which looks more like a technicality than an actual reason. But Ok, no problem, we can keep it on the list.--McSly (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's cool too. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Can we include this one please in the template? Not only does it fulfil the criteria for pseudoscience but I found a good, notable source calling it one (which is in the lead). Its in the list of pseudosciences already but its a good example of pseudoscientific psychology - and this ones aimed at children. Fainites barley 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinion would be not to include this one as it appears that only some critics have called it "pseudoscientific"; whereas the scientific community at large hasn't deemed it so. Thus I don't think it would make a good example in this template. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:PSCI, we can include it in this template. QuackGuru 20:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Levine the scientific community at large is much agin it - they just mostly haven't specifically used the word pseudoscientific. They say things like "misapplied metaphors from psychoanalysis", "not based on attachment theory" "unvalidated" "concerning" "destructive" "potentially abusive". I tend towards the view that in general there need to be notable sources that actually use the word "pseudoscientific", otherwise it's OR. I suppose that leaves the issue of whether its akin to astrology or psychoanalysis.Fainites barley 19:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Melanin Theory

Melanin Theory was added recently. I investigated it - as I never heard of it before. I see a strong pronounce of "pseudoscience" from a paper published by an Academy of Science. That's good enough for me to make the pronouncement that Melanin Theory can be labeled as a pseudoscience per WP:PSCI. I am certainly open to change my mind if anyone objects to this addition. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually added it, sorry I'm thinking now I should have aired it here first. Its basically the idea that the melanin in people with dark skin tones makes them more intelligent and gives them what basically amounts to superpowers. I thought a biologically orientated pseudoscience would be good to add. It is a developing article though, so at the same time it would give Melanin Theory more exposure on Wikipedia.Pstanton 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that giving an article more exposure is necessarily a purpose of a NavBox; however, all the same, this does seem like a good fit here. Thanks for adding it.
In general, we like to keep things alphabetized in the list.
Another tip, add four tildes ~~~~ after your posts to include your signature and timestamp. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New additions/removal

A few entries were added and one was removed from this template without the benefit of discussion. I am opening the floor to discuss these topics now.

  • Mucoid plaque - shall we add it as an "Example" and why? First, is it an obvious pseudoscience or generally considered so?
  • Colon cleansing - shall we add it as an "Example" and why? First, is it an obvious pseudoscience or generally considered so?
  • Marcello Truzzi - shall we add a person to "Terminology"? Seem weird.
  • Pseudoskepticism - shall we remove it from "Terminology"? Explanation please.

Thanks. :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism doesn't have its own page, it's a redirect to Truzzi's page (specifically a subsection). Either it should have it's own separate page (which I wouldn't support 'cause it seems to be of limited use), or we should link to Truzzi directly. I replaced pseudoskepticism with Truzzi simply because that was where the redirect goes, I wouldn't really care if we simply removed both.
There's two sections on colon cleansing that support its inclusion for me - from the lead "No scientific evidence supports the alleged benefits of colon cleansing. The bowel itself is not dirty and barring drugs or disease, cleans itself naturally without need for assistance. Some types of colon cleansing present potential hazards; the equipment used during colon cleansing has caused damage to the rectum in a small number of individuals, and caused amoebiasis when improperly sterilized. Certain enema preparations have been associated with heart attacks and electrolyte imbalances. Frequent colon cleansing may interfere with the proper functioning of the colon and can lead to dependence on laxatives or enemas to defecate. Some herbs used may also interact with or reduce the effectiveness of prescription drugs. and from history "A 1919 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association[9] marked the beginning of the rejection of the autointoxication hypothesis by the medical community. In the early 20th century, the auto-intoxication hypothesis was discredited as advances in science failed to support its claims. Despite this, the discredited idea still persists in the public imagination, and colon cleansing has undergone a resurgence in the alternative medical community, supported by beliefs about autointoxication and promoted by manufacturers of colon cleansing products. The health claims of colon cleansing advocates have been criticized as relying on the discredited science of the previous century, as well as testimonials and anecdotal rather than scientific evidence."
Regards mucoid plaque, similar issues - no medical support, no anatomical basis, rejection by the medical community. Is there an explicit criteria on what gets included in the template? Orthomolecular medicine also seems a candidate in my mind, but I'm guessing that's an arb hearing waiting to happen. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The pseudoskepticism link should be formed as Pseudoskepticism, rather than list his name. A simple solution to that problem. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't I think of that?! Go for it. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
My preference would be only including those that are separate articles (i.e. there should be evidence that pseudoskepticism is sufficiently notable and used a concept to stand alone), but I'm a ruthless bastard. I may check out the page history for the history of the page, maybe dig for a few more sources. I really don't like the piped link.
Any thoughts on colon cleansing, mucoid plaque? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yuck comes to mind, but that's probably not helpful. --Ludwigs2 02:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, that made me chuckle. But can anyone point me toward guidance on what we can and can't put in the template? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Template:Pseudoscience/doc. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Presumaby, if it is in Category:Pseudoscience it may be considered here. For stylistic reasons, we should keep the template fairly short - Terminology and Resources look alright, but if it gets much longer nobody bother with the Examples section except people who actually want List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. So, one or the other, presumably colon cleansing, but not both unless we want to subdivide. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a good point to keep the Examples section short here. And as WP:PSCI applies equally to Category:Pseudoscience as it does to this navbox, that is a fair consideration. But essentially, the abbreviated examples provided here are limited to "Obvious" and "Generally Considered" pseudosciences - and since it is abbreviated, we limit it to the most obvious and most generally considered (i.e. Astrology, Creation Science, et cetera). Save the "considered by some people to pseudoscience" entries for the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

←Re: Colon cleansing. The problem is always going to be finding valid citations stating whether something is pseudoscience or not. Mostly, scientists ignore this stuff, because there is no sound scientific basis for it. Colon cleansing doesn't work, because it's scientifically suspect. It would be unethical, if not immoral to treat someone in a blind clinical trial using a procedure that has no basis in science. It meets the standards of pseudoscience (everything, really), and should be considered as such. It is obviously pseudoscience, as it meets the standards. There are some better choices than colon cleansing. Orgone is a great pseudoscience topic, but certain editors in here will start complaining. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Parapsychology

An editor recently added this template to Parapsychology. I reverted because the science status of parapsychology is somewhat disputed (especially by editors on that page, but also in reliable sources). Now I'm looking here, at pseudoscience categories, and lists, and seeing apparent discrepencies in the treatment of parapsychology.

In WP:PSCI terms, is parapsychology "generally considered to be pseudoscience" or is it "questionable science"? As a sceptic who has been editing Parapsychology for while now with an emphasis on the scientific demarcation, my opinion is that the sources point to it being "questionable science". In which case, can someone please explain how parapsychology and parapsychological subjects (such as individual parapsychologists, many of whom who are currently categorised under pseudoscience) should be treated in terms of categorisation, labelling, and specifically this template. Should parapsychology be on this template? Should this template be applied to Parapsychology? Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that there is a legitimate case to be made for parapsychology being science, I would not support it being added to this template. It might be, however, that many readers of Parapsychology are also interested in pseudoscience, and would be well-served by this template. Think of it as a See also section that only applies to part of the article. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's discuss whether or not foo should be included in this template here, but let's keep the conversation about whether this template should appear on article Foo over at Talk:Foo. Sound fair? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I made that point in my edit summary, but it bears repeating. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave a general context to my question because there is a discrepency across a number of pages, templates, and categories as to whether parapsychology articles should be labelled or categorised as a pseudoscience, and I'm not aware of a central location to discuss such things. But I agree that we should first determine whether parapsychology should be on this template, then decide where other related decisions should be made in order to clean up the discrepencies.

So, firstly, should parapsychology be on this template? Am I correct in concluding that it is a "questionable science", and if so should subjects of that status appear on this template? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The first and most important threshold for inclusion in this template is WP:PSCI and therefore an example must fit into one of these two categories in order to be considered for inclusion:
  • Obvious pseudoscience: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more [justification]."
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
So the question is: Is Parapsychology an obvious pseudoscience or is it generally considered pseudoscience? This should not be dependent on Wikipedia editors' subjectivity. This is a matter of providing enough qualified sources which makes it clear that the subject is an obvious pseudoscience or is generally considered to be so by the scientific community.
The second and less import threshold is certainly more reliant on editor subjectivity. And that is just a matter of limiting our examples to the most obvious or most generally considered pseudosciences. This template isn't meant to be a complete list of every subject which qualifies as a pseudoscience per WP:PSCI. But rather it provides a limited amount of examples which would be most useful to someone using the template to navigate through Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
In terms of sources regarding the science status of parapsychology, the best reliable sources in each direction I've seen are these: Flew 1982[1], which discusses the question and (roughly) states that all sides have some merit without reaching a conclusion, Blitz 1991[2] which discusses the question, states that parapsychology might have been considered a protoscience in its early days but its continuation despite convincing evidence makes it a pseudoscience, and Cordón 2005[3], which states that "a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists, regards parapsychology as a pseudoscience, due largely to its failure to move beyond null results in the way science usually does." Based on these sources, I think there are 1) some scientists who have looked closely at the issue and consider it an open or borderline question and 2) many scientists who consider it definitely pseudoscience. Exactly where that places it, I do not know. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking only in terms of this template, I don't think that Parapsychology would serve as the best example of a pseudoscience, but it seemingly does qualify a "generally considered pseudoscience" solely based off of the sources you have provided. That said, I am an utter neophyte in the subject area though, and without knowing the breadth of the sources out there, I would be reluctant to label the subject definitively. I certainly would bow to those with more expertise in the area. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess Cordón 2005 does push it towards "generally considered pseudoscience". It's a new source to me, so I'm still getting a grip on it. But I agree that Parapsychology is not necessarily the best example of pseudoscience for the template. Unlike most pseudosciences, it does attempt to use the scientific method, which is why its demarcation attracts debate. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I could scan and e-mail it Cordon if anyone wants the whole entry. This source is old but explicit; much as the the author's opinions are already on the page, it's a very explicit and a lengthy analysis. One thing which could help the pseudoscience page and discussion would be an explicit section that discusses its status as a pseudoscience (i.e. not saying "it is pseudoscience" but discussing they why and why not). Might also be worth having a section on "may be pseudoscience" section (possible pseudoscience?) on the template, with examples. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair to conclude from this discussion that whether parapsychology is "generally considered pseudoscience" is arguable, based on the sources? If so, perhaps it's not an ideal example of pseudoscience to be given on the template. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientology

I didn't remove the scientology link, but I can see some good reasons why it shouldn't be there. Scientology is a religion; calling it pseudoscience as a whole is like calling Catholicism pseudoscience because they use confession rather than psycho-pharmacology to address people's problems. now if you wanted to focus it down on that particular thing they do (I forget what they call it), and call that pseudoscience, I wouldn't have an objection. but labeling the whole faith is a bit extreme. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't looked into the subject of scientology and pseudoscience in detail, but on face value scientology seems like a case of "generally agreed pseudoscience", and for very solid reasons. Scientology does claim religious status, but it also has the word "science" in its name and prominently includes a body of theory and techniques that are claimed to have a scientific basis. Thus, it appears to be using the veneer of a scientific-seeming approach while not actually taking a scientific approach, which is the hallmark of a pseudoscience. If you took all the pseudoscientific aspects out of scientology, you'd be left with very little. The same cannot be said of Catholicism, which makes no explicit or implicit claims to be scientifically based. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
well, the Church of Christ, Scientist has the word 'science' in their name, and their faith revolves around what they claim is a scientifically verifiable principle (that faith in God can overcome disease and other ills). should we list them as a pseudoscience as well? Scientology may or may not qualify as a cult religion (and certainly suffers from a New Age confusion of modalities - I might classify it as a 'scientismic faith') but so far as I know Scientologists have never tried to advance the principles of scientology as a replacement for accepted theories of any field (I suppose psychology would be closest), which is pretty much a hallmark of pseudosciences. I'll grant, this is a borderline case: Dianetics (and Hubbard's earlier works) were clearly pseudoscience (or at least fringe science, if you want to give them that much credit) off the edges of psychology, but the move towards religion that scientology made sort of took them out of competition with mainstream cognitive theories. the only way you can make the case that they are still pseudoscientific is to make some claim that the religious belief is not earnest - that the church of scientology is just a cover for pursuing a agenda in the field of psychology. but then you could say the same thing about buddhism, viewed from a certain light, and about maybe half of the ubiquitous New Age muddles (which tend to toss scientific speculations into the pot with whatever mixed bag of religious tenets they choose to choose). without some source showing that Scientology is actively pursuing a scientific agenda, how can we say it's pseudoscience? --Ludwigs2 23:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion in this template depends on whether the scientific community generally consider a subject to be pseudoscience. Shall we look for sources on whether the scientific community generally consider Scientology to be pseudoscience? Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that the topic Dianetics includes a well-sourced statement that many scientists consider Dianetics a pseudoscience. Given that Dianetics is a core component of Scientology, it appears implicit that many scientists consider Scientology a pseudoscience. But if you think we should look for sources that demonstrate that the scientific community generally regards Scientology as a pseudoscience, we can do that. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
well, that would be best. I wouldn't have a single qualm if you wanted to include Dianetics on the list, but without sourcing, the Dianetics-to-Scientology extension is a bit OR-ish. Unfortunately I don't know enough about scientology to know how much they are still attached to the D. model (and they're such a secretive bunch I'm not sure how readily available that information will be). --Ludwigs2 01:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. In the hope of saving myself some research legwork, I'm asking if anyone on the fringe theory noticeboard knows of sources regarding the scientific community's views on the science demarcation of Scientology. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
perfect. if anyone will know, they will. --Ludwigs2 04:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't find statements in reliable sources that the scientific community generally considers Scientology to be pseudoscience. Only a few statements by individual scientists, see the discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard. Have removed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Two editors does not a major change make. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see the extensive discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard, where numerous editors contributed and there appears to be a consensus that there is insufficient evidence. If you have convincing evidence from reliable sources that the scientific community generally regards Scientology as a pseudoscience then please contribute the evidence. I'm all for adding it back if such evidence exists, as I believe that's the only reasonable conclusion that scientists looking at Scientology could draw. But we need to verify that, we can't go on our opinions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar

I think it would make sense to change the template to a sidebar (or a header if something like that is possible), so that it is visible when you access the article and readers are made more readily aware, that they are reading an article about pseudoscience. What are your opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkusix (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few links in it, so I'm not sure it would work, but you could make a trial version and we can all look at it here on the talk page. -- BRangifer (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have no experience in programming templates. 79.193.197.203 (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that would lead to more fighting among editors on those pages. The subtle template is fine, in my opinion, because "pseudoscience" is typically a later and secondary description of a subject, not its primary characteristic. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Ryan Paddy. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion

What about Cold_fusion? It is clearly mentioned at Pathological_science#Cold_fusion -- and linked to, from there. Just a suggestion. Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Flew, Antony (1982), "Parapsychology: Science or Pseudoscience?", in Grim, Patrick (ed.), Philosophy of Science and the Occult
  2. ^ Blitz, David (1991). "The line of demarcation between science and nonscience: The case of psychoanalysis and parapsychology". New Ideas in Psychology. 9: 163–170.
  3. ^ Cordón, Luis A. (2005). Popular psychology: an encyclopedia. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. p. 182. ISBN 0-313-32457-3.

Time Cube

Do we need Time Cube in the list of examples? It seems out of place in the list... it's listed as "obvious pseudoscience", but I don't find it so. It's just one deranged man's ramblings with no following (and no content); unlike the others which have large numbers believing in them and associated theories that pretend/aspire to be scientific. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It was used by ArbCom as the example of pseudoscience in the Psi Arbcom. If it's not notable enough, then AfD it before removing it.-- Brangifer (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how the two are related. I'm certainly not proposing deleting the article, just proposing removing it from the navigation template's list of canonical pseudoscience examples. Time Cube is certainly notable as an internet phenomenon. Surely not every article notable enough to be kept also ought to be in a navbox. (There are, BTW, 261 articles in Category:Pseudoscience.) The Arbcom used Time Cube as an example of obviousness for the "pseudo" part; I'm only pointing out that its gibberish and lack of consequences make it fail to qualify convincingly for the "science" part, and at any rate — even if we accept it's pseudoscience — it's not a typical enough example compared to the rest of the navbox. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that the list of examples is intended as representative rather than exhaustive, I can see the point to focusing on the most notable examples while still showing the range of topics included. My guess is that ArbCom chose Time Cube as an example unlikely to be disputed by any editor for fear that restricting themselves to an example unlikely to be disputed by any reasonable editor would lead to excessive arguing (but that is the cynic in me talking). While this page is governed by that case, I do not think that it is absolutely necessary that we follow their particulars. Perhaps we could replace it with something from Velikovsky in honor of Martin Gardner? - 2/0 (cont.) 05:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, that was exactly my point, thank you. Time Cube is something no one would dispute is bogus, but it is better to have the template focus on the most notable examples, not an example with one adherent. :-) Let's remove it. It's not necessary to conserve the number of examples, but Velikovsky's stuff is fine (though a bit old-fashioned by now). Other examples that may be good choices are Reiki and Emotional Freedom Technique ("tapping"). Shreevatsa (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Or, to be "close" to Time Cube, one of the more popular entries from he Idiosyncratic ideas section (say Electrogravitics?), though (for perhaps obvious reasons) it seems the Health and medicine ones are the most popular and notable (Biorhythms…). Simplest, of course, would be to just remove Time Cube and replace it with nothing. A shorter list usually has a greater probability of being read. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the best argument for removing it is that there are no reliable sources linked to from the article which describe it as pseudoscience. ArbCom are not a reliable source! GDallimore (Talk) 22:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fringe science link

Fringe science is a substantially related topic, which is all that is being conveyed by putting it in the Terminology section of this template. To understand pseudoscience, it is handy to understand the rest of the spectrum. What is the argument for removal? - 2/0 (cont.) 03:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like one editor thinks Fringe science is a "protoscience" meaning if we just wait long enough, it'll become real science. Actually, never ever hearing the term "protoscience" I'm only guessing. Seems like Kurtan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been in a slow edit war over the term for a few days. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Close! And it may be due to the exaggerated use of "fringe" here on enwp, when accusing an enquiriy for not being proper science. A few years ago we didn't even have a word for it in Swedish, so I invented "marginalvetenskap", which is close to German, French and Spannish use. But none of these are mixing it up with pseudoscience. Sorry for not having the indigenous feeling for the word. Please advice on correct English use. / Kurtan (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The choice to have a guideline called WP:FRINGE was indeed unfortunate because it is used often as an epithet rather than a neutral descriptor. However, I don't think it is possible to simply separate "fringe" and "pseudo-"sciences with a easily definable wedge. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, 140.252.83.232/140.252.83.241 (talk)/SA etc, I have understood there is a difference in common parlance. In other languages I think the separating wedge is simply "scientific method". My user name has been blocked by distinguished user/administrator 2/0 for using your last nick so I will sign by my IP. :) 89.160.124.74 (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletions

Recent deletions by an IP have been reverted and BRD has been explained to the IP on their talk page. Hopefully they will come here and discuss, rather than edit war. That would be better than to have this template edit protected. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. BullRangifer, I have been trying to contact you about your continued erasing of my edits to the Pseudoscience template. I am attempting to erase creationism, intelligent design, and climate change skepticism from the list as listing these issues as pseudoscience is offensive to the many religious readers on Wikipedia, is biased in favor of atheists, and is declaring issues that are still under debate as over. If you could respond on this page or open up a dispute page we could discuss this further. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:174.24.99.93 (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
(The IP's comment above was moved here by myself. It was misplaced at DRN. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC))
There are two things in what you say that need comment before further discussion:
  1. Offensiveness to anyone and bias in favor of anybody are not legitimate reasons for content decisions. Only when dealing with living persons do we take that into account, and even then only if the content is not properly sourced. If properly sourced, we include some pretty awful things in articles, and the subject of the matter has little recourse to get it removed. In fact, if they try to do it improperly, they are sometimes blocked from Wikipedia. I've seen it happen, so there is a proper way to do things here, and numerous improper ways.
  2. Stating that a subject is considered pseudoscientific is not the same as saying that there is no debate or that the matter is settled. There are some subjects which are in a state of flux, but they are still seen as pseudoscientific by many. Depending on who those "many" are, we may or may not mention, state, or even go so far as to categorize a subject as pseudoscience. Sometimes the debate is within scientific circles, and then we don't usually categorize the matter as pseudoscience, even if we mention that it's considered so by some scientists. In other cases the debate is between certain members of the public and scientists, such as is the case with creationism and homeopathy, to provide another example. There is no serious debate in scientific circles about either of them, and they are both considered pseudoscientific beliefs, regardless of how much debate occurs in public. Therefore we categorize them as pseudoscience. All of this is because reliable sources say so, and we follow the sources.
Edit warring, even when the editor is 100% right, is not allowed. That's been the main problem with your edits to this template. We need to discuss the matter. Now that we have gotten two of your objections out of the way, please explain. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. BullRangifer,

Thank you for talking with me. I would like to discuss changing the Pseudoscience Template. I would like to erase Intelligent Design, Creation Science, and Climate Change Denialism from the list for several reasons:

1. Wikipedia aims to be as non-offensive as possible, but there are vast numbers of people who hold these positions and would find it offensive to list them as "absolutely and without question" pseudosciences.

2. These issues are still under debate and can therefore not be yet listed as pseudosciences.

3. Wikipedia has shown itself, at least in my opinion, to have a bias in favor of atheism and Darwinism. Erasing these items would be a step towards making Wikipedia more neutral.

4. In an extension of my concerns from #3, I am worried that people will see, both in this template and in others pages, creationism and climate change skepticism mocked and listed as false and then fail to do their own research to determine if these issues really are false.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.181.102 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(The IP's comment above was moved here by myself. It was located here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

See my comments above before replying below. Currently Intelligent design, Creation science, and Climate change denial are all categorized as pseudoscience by reliable sources. This has nothing to do with Darwinism or atheism, but because of the scientific evidence and the failure of believers to follow the scientific method when conducting research and making claims. That = pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
But that is the problem. There are reliable sources who do defend those three issues and provide evidence for them. Why are they rejected and the pro-Darwinists and Climate Changes believers accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.181.102 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Is anybody there? Can I change the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.243.40 (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No, the appropriate place to discuss this is not here in any case, but at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience as they are in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. You'll have to convince people to remove them from that list first. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for showing me the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.254.10 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Chiropractic has been in and out a few times. I think it belongs in.

  • [2] - article about "serious pseudoscience" that is explicitly discussing chiropractic and identifying it as pseudoscience in the context of what is colloqiually known as "quackademic medicine".
  • [3] article explicitly identifyinf subluxation, the distinctive feature of chiropractic belief, as pseudoscience.
  • [4] Article by an academic again identifying chiropractic practices as psedudoscientific.
  • [5] Article at the Association for Rational Inquiry identifying precisely why chiro is pseudoscience.
  • [6] NCAHF article discussing PBS' identification of chiropractic as pseudoscience.

There are several books that also make the link, I believe this includes Ernst & Singh's "Trick Or Treatment", it's in the Encyclopaedia of Pseudoscience, also the new Philosophy of Pseudoscience.

I can't find any sources other than advocates that identify subluxation theory or any of chiropractic's distinct features as scientifically valid.

It's also clear that most of the "research" supportive of chiropractic follows the pseudoscientific method, seeking to confirm a hypothesis rather than test it. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It definitely belongs. It's already in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Health and medicine, which could probably be pillaged for more references. Kolbasz (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, JzG's case is convincing; this should be restored. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I just put the categorisation on our article, then saw this. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't that Acupuncture? A different yet related case ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Acupuncture, Chiropractic, lets call the whole thing off. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Chiropuncturopathy? It never ceases to amaze me how many of these quacks actually offer several mutually exclusive forms of nonsense. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done then. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Odd physics categories

Can someone explain why M-theory, Grand Unified Theory and Theory of everything are categories in the Pseudoscience template? None of those theoretical frameworks are called pseudosciences by a scientific consensus. The pseudoscience article makes no mention of those terms, and only the ToE article mentions in passing that string theory has been called a pseudoscience by some, and that others disagree. String theory isn't listed in template, I should add. Quaeria (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know this too. These are theories in the field of theoretical physics, but pseudoscience? Actually, I'll remove them until a reasonable explanation is provided. --Mg009 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I added them because I thought they are considered pseudoscience by the science community. Oct13 (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Not really. The theories are pretty speculative and in need of more detail, sure, but not pseudoscience. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

Regarding this edit, I would simply note that the ArbCom case quoted at the top of this page explicitly noted, "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question

This subject includes some examples of pseudohistory or pseudoscholarship, but it's not a scientific topic. Therefore, removed. --Amble (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Quantum healing

The template currently lists Quantum healing, which is a redirect to Deepak Chopra. This sort of non-obvious redirect is problematic in a navigation template, especially when the target is a BLP. Changing therefore to quantum mysticism, which has wider scope but includes quantum healing along with mention of Chopra in suitable context. --Amble (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed unsourced examples. Terminology

I removed these items as they are unsourced and unmentioned in their respective article:

I think most of these should be removed unless "pseudoscience" is RS'ed in the article. There may be others as well.
Should a comment be added to the top of the template: "DO NOT ADD UNLESS THE ARTICLE HAS "PSEUDOSCIENCE" RELIABLY SOURCED"?

The following have a statement "The boundary between fringe science and pseudoscience is disputed"

Should these be left in the terminology section? Or, should the section title be changed or split? Jim1138 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

Kdc612 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Chiropractic should be removed as a category from this list. It is a state and federally recognized health practice that is reimbursable by state and national health insurances. Chiropractic is also utilized within the Veteran's Administration Hospital system. Chiropractic education is made up entirely of State and National accredited and recognized social science, science and technique courses. Nothing about the practice meets Wikipedia's, or any other recognized definition as "Pseudoscience." It's entry on this list appears be to the work of online detractors and has no factual basis.

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Chiropractic is clearly pseudo-scientific as stated in the first paragraph of the article: "Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science". To remove it from this list, the first step would be to remove the mention from the target article. in the meantime, I'm re-adding it--McSly (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree. If some legal or national bodies still support it that is not a valid reason to consider it science when it's not proper medicine. —PaleoNeonate – 10:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2019

Remove Naturopathy from the list of pseudosciences. Aneomon (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)  Not done. That is what sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Pseudoscience/Archive_1&oldid=1088441510"