Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 5

Parapsychology
Placing a fact tag on the Parapsychology entry is inappropriate. The parapsychology entry cites a statement from the Russian Academy of Sciences published in Izvestiya on July 17, 1998, and republished in the Jan/Feb 1999 issue of Skeptical Inquirer (and subsequently republished on QuackWatch). As a proclamation from an Academy or specialized society, it meets the criteria necessary for the subject's inclusion in the top tier. -- LuckyLouie 02:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation request is for the definition of parapsychology, as the edit summary said. I would have fixed it for you, but any actual edits I do on this page get reverted- they even reverted it when I took "cold reading" out from under parapsychology.  Parapsychology does not study bigfoot.  Look at the parapsychology and paranormal pages.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the statement is not a statement by the Russian Academy of Sciences. The statement is a letter from some members of various organisations (including the RAS) and some other individuals to a newspaper. It is far from clear, and indeed highly doubtful, that it has any official status.Davkal 08:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, that source doesn't use the word parapsychology, not even once! -- Annalisa Ventola (Talk 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. The letter published in Skeptical Inquirer has already been dropped.
 * 2. The main item has already been renamed to be in line with the actual RAS. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the second RAS source? Seemed a perfectly good use of Quackwatch as a convenience link. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't cover anything the first one doesn't also (essentially) cover, and the first one has the advantage of explicitly stating that the letter is from the RAS. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Iowa Academy of science
This appears to be a private organisation set up by a few people with a fancy name. It may be quite a laudible organisation in its way, but how this can be taken to represent a broad consensus of scientific thinking is beyond me. BTW, I'm thinking of setting up the "Stroud Green Academy of Science" next week, anybody like me to issue to a statement saying something is a pseudoscience. Five quid a throw, and you get your Wiki source.Davkal 08:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? The organization set up by "a few people" in 1875. A record of their history is kept by the State Historical Society of Iowa. They're private in the sense that they're a 501(c)3, but as they note themselves:
 * "The Iowa Academy of Science has, from its founding, made an impact on the practical scientific research taking place in the State of Iowa. Academy Members called for a Geological Survey of Iowa at the first Annual Meeting of the new Academy. In 1892, the Iowa legislature established the survey, which continues to serve the State to this day."


 * "Membership had grown to 43 by 1890. Recognizing the importance of recording scientific achievements in Iowa, the Iowa General Assembly began funding the Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science in 1892."


 * And they grew:
 * "In 1919, the Iowa Academy of Science reached 350 members, making it the largest State Academy in the US. By this time the Academy had begun presenting papers by scientific field. There were 60 botanists, 30 chemists, 40 geologists, 18 mathematicians, 12 physicians, 30 physicists, 60 zoologists, and 100 unclassified members."


 * Presently:
 * "Today, the Academy includes more than 750 members. Each member can join up to four of the Academy's 20 sections. The Academy continues to hold Annual Meetings drawing more than 250 participants and involving more than 100 scientific presentation each year. The Academy published the Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science, a peer reviewed and indexed journal. The Academy manages the Iowa Science Foundation which provides $40,000 in research funds each year. Newer IAS programs include the Iowa Science Teachers Section (ISTS) Fall conference and state sponsorship of Project WET and the GLOBE Program."


 * They're even affiliates of the AAAS, a status which the parapsychology crowd here has been so adamant about its apparent indication of scientific credibility. Did you even glance at their website before coming here? Simões ( talk/contribs ) 13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I looked at their website and that's what made me say what I said above (the statement itself is also laughably simplistic). In response to the points you make, a hearty "so what" seems to be called for. This whole article seems to be about cherry-picking a claim from here, there and everywhere in order to support (push) a particular POV. The peculiar definitions at the start for instance: "one or more national- or regional-level, cross-disciplinary Academies of Science" seems to have been chosen specfically to allow such sources to be used, rather than a proper defintion being given followed by appropriate sources. A point here being that what constitutes (pseudo)science is not a scientific question in the first place and so maybe scientists are not the appropriate people to be answering it. "Iowa" statement itself, for example, is full of empty unsourced assertions - it is not at all clear that it would meet any criterion of scientific rigour, and appears to me to be little more than a few people giving voice to their prejudices. Davkal 14:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your response is a little beyond incredible. But you should go ahead and read this article's talk page discussion before suggesting why and how we might have chosen the top-tier standard. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 14:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather I've got it exactly right.Davkal 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Third category
Why don't we have a third category including examples of pseudoscience identified by philosophers of science. Then we can include, evolutionary psychology, Darwinisn, neodarwinism, cosmology, Dark Matter, Eugenics, big-bang theory, memetics, and many more.Davkal 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNDUE. Statements by mainstream groups are more likely to represent mainstream sci consensus.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when was the Church of Scientism a mainstream group?

Since when was an ideologically motivated advocacy group a mainstream group?

Since when was the Skeptics' society a mainstream group?

One answer should suffice. poocDavkal 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I see you are making disruptive edits,, , , and and leaving angry Talk page messages and edit summaries  condemning scientific skepticism (calling it the "Church of Scientism"). It would be better if you read the Talk page history regarding the relevant sections to get a background for reasoning behind how they are currently written. You could then participate in the discussion and put forward your ideas on how to make the article better. Making angry deletions is not the way to go about it. Please reconsider your actions. -- LuckyLouie 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not condemning "scientific scepticism", I am going along with view that Michael Sheremer and his organisation are, or are at least sometimes described as, pseudosceptics. That is, like CSI, it is far from clear that genuine inquiry is at the root of their philosophy rather than denial. I therefore think it POV pushing to describe such groups as "mainstream". Davkal 12:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rv. The entry under "purported pseudoscience" is sourced per section header, and the other material is an accurate statement of how and among whom scientific consensus works. The problems caused by this sort of noncompliant editing exemplify the rationale behind Citizendium. (I may be taking that fork in the road soon and leaving this project altogether, or significantly curtailing my participation. Too high of a signal-to-noise ratio at WP.)  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to note: I long ago advocated either (1) an inclusion criteria based on category inclusion (thereby distributing the arguments to the articles themselves, where they belong) or (2) a "referred to as pseudoscience" inclusion criteria -- either of which avoids these otherwise inevitable and unending arguments. Fireplace 14:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) From WP:CITE: "Wikipedia articles and categories cannot be used as sources."
 * (2) That makes up part of the criterion for the entire list.
 * There's no argument with Davkal so much as waiting for him to do something that will get himself blocked (again).
 * Simões ( talk/contribs ) 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no WP:CITE problem as the proposal was never to use the article as the source, but to reach through the article to the sources found therein, thus distributing the arguments to the editors of the actual articles. The actual objection to that idea was the thought that a list should include more information than the category (and, I didn't find this convincing because the list, unlike the category, would concentrate all the sources in one location). Fireplace 18:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually focusing on using category membership as a source. We can't do that, either. I actually put forth your plan before, but people weren't buying it because there's no real support for that method of citation in WP:CITE or elsewhere. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 21:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good justification for an exception to the guideline. Fireplace 21:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro to the second section is OR. It is speculation from editors here. The obvious answer to why many of the things on the list have not been identified as pseudoscince by mainstream scientific bodies is that they are not pseudoscience at all. That being so, it is not even good quality OR or speculation. And as to all the talk of disruptive or non-compliant editing etc., Wiki has rules, and those rules apply to all articles. Just because a small group of editors feel they are in the right does not exempt them from providing sources. Nor does it make the removal of unsourced speculation disruption. I have no interest what arguments yo have put forward for your research, I want to know who (outside this talk page) said it, and I want the claims sourced appropriately.Davkal 12:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rollback
I just rolled back one edit because it appears that the last edit allowed for a spelling error and deletion of SmackBot's date processing. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed both the OR tag and the pointless fact-tags, cf. scientific consensus (and refs therein) and Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. --Jim Butler(talk) 04:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The way to deal with fact tags is to give sources. The two tags points are, as noted above, highly speculative. I don't belive anybody has said these things and I don't even believe they are true. That is, I think one of the reasons that no statement is forthcoming from mainstream scientific bodies as to the pseudoscientific nature of some of these topics is that nobody in their right mind would call them pseudoscience. If you want the article to say that the reasons given are the actual reasons then it has to be sourfed to a very specific source and it will pobably have to actually be attributed to someone explicitly. For example, "so-and-so suggests that the reason why these topics...." Davkal 11:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I note the tags have been deleted and no sources provided. If these claims have been made then please cite the sources. To say the addition of the tags is POV is nonsense. Davkal 11:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I note also the several other edits by another editor have been reverted along with the removal of the tags.Davkal 11:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be me. I don't much know what the details of this issue are, but there do seem to be some arbitrary definitions in the section in question. Jefffire 12:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Arbitrary" is a very euphemistic way of putting it.Davkal 12:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am personally inclined to agree with Martin's recent edit. They remove the points of contention and in reality the sentences removed didn't really add much encyclopaedic content anyway.  However I find the tactic of adding a tag then deleting the information a few days later rather dubious.  Several weeks seems to be the norm outside of pseudo-world (IMO).  Mind you I think mediation would be proper in circumstances such as these.  Shot info 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well of course Shot info, you are completely right on this, and if LuckyLouie hadn't removed the tags (!!!) here (talk about disruptive editing), that would have been the procedure followed. This kind of disruptive POV editing, which takes advantage of greater numbers, is the reason these pages are in such contention.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is why WP recommends consensus but recognises sometimes mediation is necessary. You should note that "greater numbers" is representative of the WP Community, which while you may not agree with, is a fact of WP.  BTW for the record, I disagree with tag bombing.  Shot info 06:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And reverting tag bombing is not an example of disruptive editing. -- LuckyLouie 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Two citation requests on two paragraphs of OR is not bombing. Removing them is disruptive editing. Please don't do that again.

No matter what the community thinks, NPOV is non-negotiable, and OR is still prohibited. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and sometimes consensus is not necessary. POV and OR removal from articles are two of those times.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true, the policies as laid out by the Community are non-negotiable. But that's per WP:NPOV and WP:OR not necessarily certain interpretations thereof.  BTW, you should come over to Stephen Barrett there are some editors who need to be reminded of the policies :-) Shot info 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Martinphi: "No matter what the community thinks" ... "sometimes consensus is not necessary" ... uh, sorry, WP:CONSENSUS is an official policy, which (as Shot info correctly says) is how content-guiding policies are applied. And you're surprised this exists? --Jim Butler(talk) 07:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No. "Neutral point of view of a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]"  That means, no matter what anyone thinks, NPOV is the rule.  So is WP:ATT which includes no OR.  No matter what anyone thinks, these two stand.  No editor has to seek community support in upholding them.


 * Jim Butler, if you really believe what you say, you need to read the two policies again.


 * Shot info is right that they are laid down by the community, but I'm not so sure that if the entire Wikipedia community besides the board of directors wanted to violate NPOV, that it would be allowed. Also correct that interpretations vary, and aren't all valid. I thought that the two paragraphs in question were pretty clearly OR- though I wouldn't have challenged them if Davkal hadn't done it first.  But removing the fact tags was pretty bad.


 * I'll look at that page when I have time (:  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason for the removal of the fact tags (twice) was that they were POV driven. What POV is this? The POV that unsourced, unbrindled speculation shouldn't be in articles. The point is (the point made above several times) is that the claims that were tagged/removed were simply the thoughts of the editors here. If this is going to be allowed then Wiki just becomes a free-for-all. Being of the opinion that this would be a bad thing seems to me entirely appropriate.Davkal 09:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Skepical organisations
I have changed "mainstream scientific skepticism bodies" to "private skeptical organisations" because that is what they are. There is no such thing, as far as I am aware, of a "mainstream scientific skepticism body" inasmuch as I could set one up tomorrow, and what I set up would be far more neutrally and accurately described as a "private skeptical organisation". For someone who doesn't know about such things (e.g. readers of encyclopedias) the original wording made these private groups sound like they were formal scientific bodies when they are no such thing. Davkal 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by describing these as "private"? --Minderbinder 17:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They are private organisations (same sense as private investigator) for likeminded individuals, as opposed to being set up by governments or academic institutions or as professional representative bodies.Davkal 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So any organization that isn't governmental or academic is "private"? I don't generally see the term used that way.  Do you have any sources using that descriptor?  --Minderbinder 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Private" and "mainstream" aren't mutually exclusive terms. Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To minderbender - have you never heard of private and public sector. No, oh well, too bad.

To Simeos, nobody said they were. "Private" and "organisation" are primarily replacing "body" because that gives the impression of something far more formal and official than is the case. And mainstream is removed precisely because these organisations' views are being contrasted with mainstream science inasmuch as they go well beyond what mainstream science says in labelling things pseudoscience. You can't really have two diverging mainstreams. Davkal 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting theory, but I'm not seeing that as being the case. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What, you think you have two mainstreams?Davkal 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "private" and "in the private sector" (as well as "privately held company" which can be in the private sector). Just saying "private" is vague and doesn't really say anything.  --Minderbinder 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree that an organization doesn't need to be governmental or academic to represent the mainstream view. --Minderbinder 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Inasmuch as the SS deviates from mainstream scientific thinking (and that it does is the only point of including it at the top of that section) it does not represent the mainstream. And even where in other areas it may be in agreement with the mainstream it still does not represent it in an official capacity. That is why "body" is highly misleading and that is why "mainstream" is wrong.Davkal 18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And MB, I think the word you were looking for above is "reflect" rather than represent. That is, which scientific organisations elected Michael Sheremer as their official spokesperson and how do they get rid of him. They don't, because he runs the private company.Davkal 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What specifically do you mean when you say it deviates from mainstream scientific thinking? Could you provide an example?  --Minderbinder 18:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean that if they didn't deviate from mainstream scientific consensus then there would be no need for a seperate section for things are only considered pseudoscince by sceptical orgs and not by mainstream scientific bodies.Davkal 19:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you misunderstand the section. It is for items that mainstream scientific bodies haven't commented on.  That doesn't mean that they don't consider it pseudoscience, it just means they haven't gone on the record, particularly since the more "fringe" a topic is, the less a scientific organization or publication is inclined to mention it at all.  It's wrong to assume that an international scientific considers a topic scientific just because they haven't made a statement declaring it pseudoscientific.  --Minderbinder 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, "scientific" is an adjective for "skepticism." This distinguishes it from, e.g., philosophical skepticism. Using the former is perfectly accurate. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that, but there is significant -and not only fringe group- dispute as to whether some of the organizations meet the scientific criteria.  Truzzi, for instance (see CSICOP page).  I think that is what Davkal is pointing to, and it really isn't necessary to say "scientific" as "mainstream skeptical bodies" seems to do fine.  Especially when we name one or two which people have probably heard of, so they know what the organizations are about.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not significant outside of the pseudoskeptical accusations of (the late) Truzzi. As such, it is generally okay to include at the very least the link to the concept. --ScienceApologist 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good compromise to me. The link but not the claim.  After all, in many cases they are scientific skeptics.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, "scientific" is not a synonym for "skeptic"; quite the opposite, in fact. Skeptics tend to be very non-scientific in the things that they choose not to beleive. Advances in science requires the researcher to be very open to crazy, wild ideas, so as to be able to form a hypothesis. History shows that the most famous and important theories started as the wildest and craziest ideas. Skepticism is required during a differnt phase, it is applied only to the validation of the hypothesis. Science is a balance of these two forces, it is not one or the other. linas 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Read scientific skepticism. And you might want to be a little more judicious with the sweeping generalizations.  --Minderbinder 12:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * An important point here hinges on whether those who call themselves sceptics are actually sceptics in the true sense. That is, many times the accusation has been made that so-called sceptical organisations are actually pseudosceptical. And while there is little doubt that the word "sceptic" has evolved suffiently such that it can be correctly applied to groups such as CSI it is far from clear that they actually do promote or believe in scientific/rational scepticism. A similar situation exists in the UK where the term "conservative with a small c" is used to denote those with political views in line with conservative politico-philosophical ideology as opposed to those who suppport the Conservative party which, after intially being named for having that standpoint, have now moved sufficiently far from it that true sense of the word no longer really applies. It is therefore quite appropriate to say Conservatives are not conservative and, I think, equally appropriate to say Sceptics are not sceptical. To muddy this distinction, or to not even acknowledge it, is, I think, disingenuous. Truzzi wrote a lot on this. Maybe we should all read what he had to say. Davkal 12:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * many times the accusation has been made that so-called sceptical organisations are actually pseudosceptical. --> While the accusation is made, when it appears it is almost always leveled by the people being criticized. Therefore we have an issue of reliability with respect to such sources. The only (arguable) neutral application of pseudoskepticism as a moniker was Truzzi himself. All subsequent labelers are bandwagoning to hope to remove criticism from their pet ideas. Therefore it is a bald violation of WP:WEIGHT to indicate any sort of controversy with regards to the skeptical status of said organizations. --ScienceApologist 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The accusation has been made regularly by some inside CSI (e.g., Truzzi, Rawlins & Kammann) and by other scientists and academics - and not necessarily those involved in any paranormal research. For example:


 * "It is not surprising that the Committee has been involved in a number of heated controversies. These produced internal schisms and provoked rebukes from outsiders. A few examples will give a flavor of some of the disputes. In examining the scientific status of CSICOP, sociologists Pinch and Collins (1984) described the Committee as a “scientific-vigilante” organization (p. 539). Commenting on an article in SI, medical professor Louis Lasagna (1984) wrote: “One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition” (p. 12). Engineering professor Leonard Lewin (1979) noted that in SI articles “the rhetoric and appeal to emotion seemed rather out of place” (p. 9). Rockwell, Rockwell, and Rockwell (1978b) called CSICOP members “irrational rationalists” (see also Kurtz, 1978b; Rockwell, Rockwell, & Rockwell, 1978a). Sociologist Hans Sebald (1984) described contributors to SI as “combative propagandists” (p. 122). Adams (1987) compared CSICOP with the Cyclops; Robert Anton Wilson (1986) labeled CSICOP the “New Inquisition,” and White (1979) called them “new disciples of scientism.” McConnell (1987) wrote: “I cannot escape the conviction that those who control CSICOP are primarily bent upon the vilification of parapsychology and parapsychologists” (p. 191). Clearly, CSICOP has its share of detractors."


 * It is also clear from a cursory glance at CSI's history (i.e., one scientific study of the paranormal in 30 years - and a shambolic one at that), that their primary goal has never been sceptical inquiry. Rather, they are, and always really have been, an advocacy group for scientism. That some cannot see/accept this rather obvious point simply shows the kind of lack of understanding of "scepticism" that Truzzi bemoaned for many years.Davkal 11:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, you have basically proved my point. The people criticizing CSI are those who are sympathetic towards the subjects being criticized by CSI. --ScienceApologist 13:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that it doesn't even support, let alone prove, your point at all. Former CSICOP founders/members Truzzi, Kammann and Rawlins, for example, were all highly skeptical of paranormal claims and in no way could be said to be promoters of, or sympathetic to the paranormal - except inasmuch as they didn't have a pathological hatred of it to the extent they would think it appropriate, for example, to fiddle the results of experiments. Rawlins said as much: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism. I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he might hide the incident from the public (for the public's own good, of course). He might swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an "unfortunate" interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be explained away with "further research." Davkal 13:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Truzzi camp was, what we might call, devil's advocates. They were also philosophical skeptics rather than scientific skeptics prefering to believe that, in a post-modern sense, knowledge was purely a construct. This is in contrast to the fundamental methodological naturalism upon which the scientific method is based. Fundamentally, Truzzi wanted to overhaul human thought, he was skeptical of all people who narrowed their interests by dismissing crackpots. I'm not sure how Truzzi et al. would have treated Gene Ray; from what I understand of his positions entertaining crackpots seemed to be one of his favorite pass-times. Carl Sagan was particularly bemused by Truzzi's unrelenting gluttony for entertaining absurd theses. He writes about it in a few of his books. By the way, Rawlins connection to the UFO-community is undeniable: hardly makes him a reliable source on the status of CSI. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, here is Louis Lasagna who said "One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition”. Hardly a paranormal promoting unreliable crackpot.Davkal 13:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, Louis Lasagna is known for promoting holistic medicine. The man is accomplished, but he isn't a particularly neutral source. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, the old "keyword-search" argument. I think the sense in which "holistic" is used in respect of the "Lasagna Oath" is one which nobody could really take issue with.Davkal 14:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The late Lasagna has been tied to a number of fringe ideas including advocating Vitamin C doses for cancer treatment and other practices of bad medicine. There are instances of respected people being romanced by pseudoscience promotion, you know. --ScienceApologist 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you really represent his position, or the use of vitamin C, accurately, but it is of little relevance anyway - we have numerous criticisms of CSICOP from people who were skeptics. For example, Truzzi, Kammann and Rawlins? What have they been promoting?Davkal 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See above. --ScienceApologist 20:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And "Rawlins connection to the UFO community"?????Davkal 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think from this line "from what I understand of his positions entertaining crackpots seemed to be one of his favorite pass-times", we can see the pseudosceptic approach you take clearly. If one actually bothers to read up on things, be interested in them, and try to critically appraise them then one can simply be labelled unreliable on that basis alone. Far better, you seem to think, to sit in one's armchair safe in the knowledge that such things are impossible. But this is almost the definition of pseudosceptic. And it seems that your failure to appreciate that things cannot be rejected just on the basis of this type of non-investigation shows that you pretty much accept my point but think that your way (the pseudosceptical way) is best. That it breaches all the standards that give science the credibility it deserves unfortunately doesn't appear to register.Davkal 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sour grapes. You wish you could be the only editor at Wikipedia. You aren't. Deal with it. --ScienceApologist 20:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good argument.Davkal 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably better to classify it as an "observation" and a valid one at that. Shot info 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another incisive comment from a member of the little group that is trying to ban everyone who disagrees with them from editing wiki.Davkal 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Persecution complex much? Shot info 23:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry a pseudoscience.
Hi,

I realise that it is a pseudoscience but that people are reliant on the current medical treatments. So I'm happy to just put it here rather than on the main page. I can provide evidence. If my religion is in question I am an athiest and I believe in the scientific method. It has all the elements of a pseudoscience. Feel free to prove me wrong. I accept scientific articles and scientific analysis. If there is something wrong with me putting it here such as laws or something then please tell me.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drugged monkey (talk • contribs) 09:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Your opinion is original research and therefore forbidden by Wikipedia. You need to have a reference that states that psychiatry is a pseudoscience before you include it in the text. Moreover, by the ruling of the arbitration committee: Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, it is not even appropriate to label psychoanalysis a pseudoscience let alone psychiatry. You will have to be content to see your text removed from the article for these reasons. Remember, Wikipedia is a mainstream source of information so we report the mainstream consensus on topics. While we can attribute minority ideas (such as your proposal that psychiatry is pseudoscience), such reporting is covered by policies such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. Good luck and happy editting! --ScienceApologist 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what type of evidence do you need. There are many scientific articles available. Also when you are referring to things from a scientific point of view you state where is the evidence not where is some appeal to authority.


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

Okay, It will take time to write an article. But I shall do that and also provide original research proving psychiatry is a psuedoscience. Then I'll be happy to submit it for arbitration. Is there somewhere on wikipedia that I can publish my findings? Thanks.


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

"I can provide evidence. If my religion is in question I am an athiest and I believe in the scientific method. It has all the elements of a pseudoscience. Feel free to prove me wrong." Ok: you are erroneously claiming that (like many pseudoscience believers I've known)the "belief" in science is the same as the belief in religious assertions or pseudo-scientific claims, right? Well, the difference between believing in something and using the scientific method to gain understanding of something is that one requires testable, repeatable evidence, the other requires only that someone asserts it to be so. To say that "You believe in god, I believe in science" is just silly. One thing is, by nature, immeasurable/unknowble ("god workd in mysterious ways"), the other thing is a method used to understand how things work by preforming repeatable experiments after formulating a hypothesis. 76.174.204.234 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Morningwindow

Sources for this article
The second section of this article says "Unless otherwise noted, the entries are referenced from...". I don't think this is appropriate because, given the nature of wiki, articles change and grow with the work of many editors. If items on lists are not sourced individually then it is impossible to tell whether the source actually supports the claim or is merely an item that has no source. This is particularly problematic here given the poor quality of the sourcing when sources are actually given. For example, the statement from the Russian academy of science doesn't really support the claims it is cited for. Davkal 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a history of repeatedly tag-bombing the same section of this article, over and over. First you claim it's OR. Then you claim it's POV. Next you claim it's not properly sourced. What's clear is that you have as a goal to disrupt this article by any means possible. -- LuckyLouie 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is simply requesting proper attribution for some claims. If you don't have sources then don't put things into the article. The first fact tag is for OR because it looks like speculative OR to me - the claim that the reason scientific bodies have not done something is because.... And the second fact tag is there because the source provided: a) doesn't specify a difference between paranormal and pseudoscience and therefore we can't really tell whether it's saying "X is a pseudoscience" or "X is paranormal"; and b) it doesn't even mention X in the first place. If you have proper sources for these claims then let them be cited. Simply accusing me of disruption does not equate to proper sources, nor does it negate the need for such sources.
 * And in response to your point, the section from the intro is OR, it is POV and it's not (probably can't be) properly sourced.Davkal 23:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue of proper attribution and missing sources is not a joke and will not disappear by simply removing the tags. This is one of the most basic Wiki rules. It is not not up for discussion.Davkal 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry people are complaining of fact tag bombing. I would not necessarily tag all the things which have been tagged. However, we must follow the rules of WP:CITE. It says:

Attribution is required by Wikipedia:Verifiability for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

It doesn't say:

Attribution is required by Wikipedia:Verifiability for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor, unless some people don't agree with that editor, or don't like that editor.

I think that most or all of the things challenged do truly qualify as OR, or as needing citation. I am very disturbed by the willingness of some editors to delete citation requests they don't like. I think it is against the rules: citation requests should be filled, or the article restructured in order to make the citation request unnecessary. Believe me, I've filled dozens or more of citation requests I deemed frivolous. Citation requests should never simply be deleted.

Note that tag bombing is a stub essay, not even a guideline.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to overly quibble, but WP:CITE is actually a guideline rather than policy. Shot info 01:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I note you (Shot info) removed the fact tag from paranormal research. Citing sources doesn't simply mean having a source after a claim - it also requires the source to support the claim. In this case it doesn't. Davkal 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal research
Sorry I took out the header there. Didn't look closely enough. You know, not all things paranormal are pseudoscientific. Paranormal just means that it is beyond what is known to be physically possible at the moment. So if someone, for instance, were to have been trying to focus to a resolution shorter than the wavelength of the light, and the way to do so had not been discovered, then that would be paranormal. But they have discovered such a possibility (I think I have the details right, but you get the point even if I don't). So, not all paranormal is pseudoscientific. Need to find another word to use for a header. There are other things which are acknowledged to happen, which don't seem to have a normal explanation. The article says: "Approaching paranormal phenomena from a research perspective is often difficult because even when the phenomena are seen as real they may be difficult to explain using existing rules or theory." Why do we need these things under a heading?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually your example is not particularly pertinent, as the physics behind light et.al are well known, so even if it where physically impossible, it is theoretically possible, if the technology "caught up". Paranormal subjects don't have a theoretical basis, so rather than being physically impossible, they are theoretically impossible.  Hence not only beyond "normal" but beyond science as well.  Since scientific research doesn't really examine topics "beyond science" the argument for pseudo-science is still valid.  It also needs to be noted that my comment is really only a paraphrase(s) of what has been articulated here several times in the recent past.  Shot info 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believed I chose an example of what people though was theoretically impossible at one time. Even if I didn't, the point is that research into the paranormal is not pseudoscience per se.  So it doesn't belong as a heading here.  Or does it?  In the previous article, you could have a legitimate heading "medicine" or whatever, and then the subjects beneath it.  Is this article the same?  Are Dietary supplements supposed to all be pseudoscience, or is this just a subject heading?  No, it seems that the article does not have legitimate headings with pseudoscientific sub-headings, so the paranormal heading doesn't belong.

Fields identified as not pseudoscience
I think the way the article is written currently is disingenuous. For example, re the first list, it says that the pseudoscientific status is indicated by a statement from one or more scientific bodies. This is disingenuous because while it may be the case that one scientific body says x is pseudoscience another scientific body may have said that it is not. (This would be the case with parapsychology if you could find a source that says it is pseudoscience - ignoring for the moment the fact that no such source has been found). The point, then, is that we should, I think, mark those topics where we have a difference of opinion from different scientific bodies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davkal (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * [], probably not an RS though. www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.2_mousseau.pdf is an excellent article mainly as displays the mental gymnastics that are needed to justify the dumbing down of items that others have used to describe "science" to state "see Parapsychology matches our (re)classification of science QED it is a science").  [] RS?  "Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with great suspicion because the term has come to be associated with a huge variety of mysterious phenomena, fringe topics, and pseudoscience." from the PA itself [].  But this is just a wander thru google.  Shot info 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Atheism source is not RS. Wiseman is, since he is a skeptical parapsychologist- I don't know if he would describe himself as a parapsychologist, but even if he doesn't and even if he calls parapsychology pseudoscience, he's contradicted by others of equal or greater stature.  And the Mousseau article is well within the philosophical disputes reguarding what exactly science is and what it is not.  No hoops there.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but we are going round and around again. Incidently, Mousseau's discussion basically involves redefining "science" and then saying parapsychology equates to this redefined "science", which of course I'm glad we are all in agreeance with :-)  Shot info 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If my memory serves, Mousseau just chooses her definition from among the pre-existing conventional arguments avaliable. I wouldn't give her article any time if it made up its own definition of science.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Levitation
Martinphi, I see you fact-tagged Levitation. The citation for that is from the Iowa Academy of Science, which says:

"Pseudoscience is a catch-all term for nay (sic) mistaken or unsupported beliefs that are cloaked in the disguise of scientific credibility. Examples include assertions of scientific creationism, the control of actions at a distance through mediation, and the belief in levitation, astrology or UFO visitors."

Your comment in the edit summary where you added the fact-tag was "It is really beyond my ability to express how inadiquate the give source is. See talk page". Would you mind elaborating on why you believe the existing source does not suffice? thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm guessing you really meant to fact-tag Paranormal research, which cites the brief statement from the Russian Academy of Sciences. --Jim Butler(talk) 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right! Sorry, I tagged the wrong thing.


 * OK, I'll try and elaborate some more, but below to keep it together.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal research
This citation request I just put in the article is for a source which says that all research on the paranormal, as "paranormal" is defined in the Paranormal article, is pseudoscience. The current source is really less adequate than if you cited skepdic.com. The source should specifically say that it is talking about _all_ paranormal research, and it should define exactly what paranormal research includes. It was a step ahead to take these things out from under the heading of parapsychology, but we still need to work on it.

I suggest that there should be no general heading for these things- or, that the headings be legitimate, and the sub-headings be pseudoscience. For instance, have a heading of "geology" and put quake prediction under it. Then the headings wouldn't have to be pseudoscientific themselves, and all this problem would be solved.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I tagged the wrong thing the first time. OK, why is the source not good enough?  Because (see also above), "paranormal research" is investigation which doesn't seem to be possible under current understanding of natural laws.  Investigation of gravity and dark energy and other things are paranormal investigations, technically. The source is only complaining about certain things, not paranormal research overall.  It doesn't give its definitions.  It is really just a complaint against bunk in general.  But it doesn't say "this is what we mean by paranormal, and anyone who researches such a thing is doing pseudoscience."

Look at the article Paranormal phenomena, which basically says paranormal phenomena are anomalous phenomenon, "which deviates from what is expected according to existing rules or scientific theory. Sometimes the anomalous phenomenon is expected, but the reason for the deviation is unclear (See section on anomalies in science)."

In a nutshell, it isn't pseudoscience to study strange stuff.

I can't think of a general heading which would be suitable here. So I suggest that we give up general headings, and just list things. Or else, make it very clear that the headings themselves are not necessarily considered pseudoscience. For instance, put "Earthquake prediction" under "Geology."

However, we could also use "General paranormal topics" or some such as a heading.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved the other bit out of the way. Hope nobody minds.  Martin you are labouring under a misdefinition of science.  Gravity (for example) kind of works all the time.  Paranormal subjects, don't work all the time, aren't not definable (in a sense that acceleration due to gravity is [|known].  Likewise with dark energy which explains an observable event.  This event happens all the time, and is measurable, deterministic etc. etc.  All these lovely "hard" things that science likes.  Now it may (probably) be replaced by something else in the future, but that in itself will be the explanation for the same observable event.  It is not allegorous to say these unexplainable scientific events equate to paranormal subjects.


 * I like your compromise (: Well, you may be right that no paranormal topic is definable, since it might not even exist.  Then again, it is easy to define the limits of a paranormal event.  Take a very physical one, say spoon bending.  The spoon bends.  Same as dark matter: the galaxy swirls faster than it should.  But we don't know what causes it in either case.  See, the thing is that some events are observable, and smack of superstition or telepathy or something, and some things are observable and smack of, say, a new kind of energy.  Some things are just barely observable, or even totally untestable like string theory, but are widely accepted because they don't have any horrible nasty implications for who we are.  It really has to get bad before you hear about it, as in the case of string theory.  They bleat about how beautiful it is, except, just a small flaw, it would need an accelerator the size of the solar system to test it (I think that's right anyway).  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, your critique is pure OR. No one uses "paranormal" the way you are here except (perhaps) other people trying to give credence to paranormal research. The source is fine, and there will be no compromise. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 04:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I can't believe you said that. You are on Wikipedia not to compromise?  You do not rule here, Simoes.  Don't try. And read the paranormal article for the definition.  I'm asking you for a source that defines all research into the paranormal as pseudoscience.  Find one.


 * Is this an admission about your real Wikipedia orientation? "I have a lot of buddies behind me so I can put anything I want in the article, And if you don't like it I'll RfC the hell out of you?"   I think "no compromise" is an extremely revealing comment. In fact, I think ArbCom will really like it when you take my RfC to them.


 * But wow. No compromise.  Wow.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To all, I'm not compromising on the science, but in the sense of a WP list, yes I am. I don't mind the wording being removed and generally tidied up.  To Martin, I believe the "compromise" suggested in not in the sense of coming to consensus but rather redefining definitions (both WP and scientific).  So don't get your knickers in a knot about that.  BTW the spoon doesn't bend, it is bent, prior to the exercise.  In this case it is known how the spoon is bent and what physics are involved.  The suggestions otherwise are seeking paranormal explanations for a normal event to justify a lack of paranormal ability.  Unfortunately for paranormal subjects, dark matter and dark energy have pages upon pages of complex mathematics which actually predicted it, but nobody said they existed until the observations started to be seen as technology improved.  Much like your microscope example.  The physics say that you can see smaller then the wavelength of visible light, and now we can.  Paranormal subjects are paranormal because they aren't truly observable (in a scientific sense) nor are they supported by theoretical principles (ie/ no equations to suggest that certain "things" are passable between thinking individuals etc. etc.).  At the moment all we have are unsupportable theories which all internally clash with one another and tend to have a basis in magical or religious (or wishful) thinking.  Nevertheless, I am a full supporter of the research of such things and WP should reflect this :-) Shot info 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You support paranormal research? I don't really understand why you'd support research into something you already know for sure doesn't exist.  If you already know that, which paranormal research would you not support?  Would you support research into the hollowness of the earth?

I don't know of "unsupportable theories which all internally clash with one another" because I don't know of any theories. There is a lot of hocus-pocus stuff comming from laymen, like people who call themselves psychics.


 * Fine about spoon bending, and I don't want to make you mad, but that's pure OR. Maybe you're right.  Still, the problem with debunking some paranormal phenomena is not how many people you have to call deluded, but how many people you have to call liars.  It's just too many, in my opinion.  And there are lots of cases where lots of people would have to be plain liars.  And never recant for a lifetime. This assumes a pernicious stability of personality which I don't believe is supported by other research.  To explain paranormal phenomena, we need a new theory of psychology or a new theory of physics.  People who experience, say, bending a spoon, do not seem to be different from people who don't.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Martin, we have had a discussion elsewhere about my personal predilection for research to be pursued for research's sake, even into paranormal subjects. Obviously it is up to individuals and their employers to which, what and how their time and monies are spent.  BTW, there are a lot of people who say their religion is right and real and the only one.  This tends to sentence a lot more people than those who believe in the paranormal into the "liar" category.  And last time I looked, it is normal human nature to see patterns in inexplicable events and to seek "rational" (in the sense of internally self evident) explanations (ie/ religion, aliens, Atlantis...whatever).  Most of these beliefs are so self evident to themselves that when presented with the relatively mundane counterproof, they cannot accept this and spend the rest of their lives wondering why the poor soul believes in all those little funny squiggles and "-ologies" :-)  Shot info 06:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hang on Martin. I see what you have been doing here is straight from your "Paranormal Primer": if X is criticized, change X to "all X", then place a fact tag on the new definition, then rewrite the sentence to be more favorable to X. That's called POV pushing. -- LuckyLouie 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh?? That was an unfinished essay that was just my first draft of my thinking.  It was probably very incorrect.  I never expected to have someone come along and take it as the word of God, or to read that and not any other policies on Wikipedia.  I warned everyone it was unfinished.  It had a template saying it wasn't policy.  Geez, I have no idea what you're talking about. But it sounds like whatever it was maybe it was totally wrong.


 * Oh, I know maybe what you mean. You mean Tom Butler's essay, where he is describing what the pseudoskeptics actually do? BTW, I never discussed strategy in the Paranormal primer.


 * Alright, I just consulted the copy I have. That first draft should merely have read, "ask yourself for a citation."  I did use that strategy one, and only one, time that I know of, and that was a violation of POINT- a mistake, to make it perfectly clear.  But what I was thinking when I wrote that was that one should ask one's self for a citation.  Seriously, taking a first draft written so long ago as representative of my thinking!  I don't even remember most of what is in there.


 * And I am not planning that here.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Martinhphi here that the Russian Academy of Sciences statement is not at all clear, and likely inadequate for our purposes here. They list "astrology, shamanisn, occultism, etc." as examples of "pseudoscience and paranormal dogmas". As a statement from a cross-disciplinary scientific body condemning pseudoscience, it's great. As a source for saying that any particular topic is pseudoscience, it's pretty vague. --Jim Butler(talk) 04:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology revisited
Parapsychology having a "broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status" definitely needs a source beyond what is listed for general paranormal topics. It doesn't belong where it currently is. Right now it is listed as a paranormal subject. Parapsychology isn't a paranormal subject. It's a methodology applied to paranormal subjects. I have no doubt that someone out there thinks parapsychology (the methodology) is pseudoscience, but I seriously doubt that it has a broad consensus within the "Academies of Science". It certainly isn't sourced as such. The source talks about paranormal subjects, not what is considered (at least by some) to be a scientific approach to studying paranormal subjects.

Either it needs a rock solid source to make that claim that "Academies of Science" think it is pseudoscience, or it needs to be moved to a different section and sourced to who actually says it's a pseudoscience. I have no problem with a list saying such and such says this and that is pseudoscience, but it is a negative claim. Here it doesn't say at all who is making that negative claim. Readers need to know who it is so they can decide for themselves whether it's true. -- Nealparr  (yell at me 05:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggested solution: we dispense with the Russian AoS source since it's so vague, and if these topics are mentioned by Skeptic Encyclopedia or something similar, just move them to the second section.  --Jim Butler(talk) 05:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly have a problem with the Russian AoS source being applied to general paranormal subjects (personally). I don't think it has carte blanche on all paranormal research though. I'm sure most reasonable people can see a difference between so-called psychics hanging out at a haunted house trying to pick up on vibes (not parapsychology) and people applying statistical analysis (parapsychology). Both are considered paranormal research, but they differ greatly in approaches. If there's going to be a claim that there's a broad consensus in the academies of science against parapsychology, the source needs to specifically say parapsychology rather than just paranormal research. Either that or it needs to clearly say that any research at all on a paranormal subject would be considered pseudoscience (because that would include parapsychology). In both cases, the source needs to be clear as to who is saying what and what they are talking about.


 * The other problem with the Russian AoS source (besides ambiguity) is that 30 or so Russian scientists don't equate to a broad consensus. Considering that there are about 500 members of the Russian AoS, 30 doesn't even equate to a broad consensus within the academy : ) If there's a broad consensus, I'm sure you could find hundreds of thousands of scientists with multiple national backgrounds.


 * Moving it to another section is fine, but it still needs a clear source saying who is making that claim. Readers need to know who is making the negative claim so they can decide for themselves whether or not to agree or disagree with them. That's why this POV article stands as NPOV. Wikipedia isn't calling these things pseudoscience. The people sourced are. Parapsychology needs a clear source from someone that can be evaluated independently from Wikipedia.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So would sourcig it to a particular person or people be OK, if it were in the second section like Jim Butler says? That way it could have a source which would be good for that section.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The second section does require an official statement from a group, just a sci-skept group as opposed to a body of scientists. --Jim Butler(talk) 17:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It can be put anywhere as long as the source accurately backs up why it is there. If there's a source that reflects "broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status" it can stay exactly where it is. There isn't now, and I seriously doubt there is a source that reflects a broad consensus, but if there is, there is. If not, it does need to be moved or removed. If moved, it needs a source justifying it's placement in the section it is moved to. If it's moved to the CSI section, for example, it needs a source saying CSI said that. If a whole new section is made for it, that's fine. It still needs a source where a notable is making the claim. Under no circumstances can the burden of the claim be left to Wikipedia, however. That would be a non-neutral, unattributed, and possibly false point of view (the false part is because it's possibly just a fringe science -- as I pointed out before it can't be both fringe and pseudo simultaneously).
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 07:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally (as previously discussed for many hours in Parapsychology and the Pseudoscience cat), I personally don't believe that Parapsychology in the sense of that discipline that studies various pseudoscienctific subjects, is necessarily a pseudoscience. However originally on this list, it was a linkfarm to areas of interest.  It has evolved since then and now the Parapsychology as defined by parapsychologists is in itself not a pseudoscience.  However mainstream scientific organisations don't really concern themselves with defining pseudoscience.  There are plenty of examples of skeptics and others labeling parapsychological subjects (and even Parapsychology the discipline) as pseudoscience.  However outside of parapsychologists (and paranormal supporters) Parapsychology isn't really labeled as a science either.  For that matter most academies and bodies don't label subjects really as science either.  So finding the "killer quote" is nigh impossible.  However as I pointed out earlier, even the PA in their own FAQ believe that they have an image problem ("Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with great suspicion...").  BTW, CSICOP tend to use the expression "fringe science, pseudoscience and paranormal" as a catchall.  Shot info 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A minor point, outside of the AAAS, the word "parapsychology" isn't very popular (or returns zero results) when reviewing academies and learned societies websites (for example, Royal Society). Shot info 07:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with that. The sources that consider parapsychology a pseudoscience tend to not even use that name, instead just calling it paranormal research or something similar.  --Minderbinder 12:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you could find plenty of killer quotes to keep it in the second section. I'd start with the refs on the skepdic entry.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has guidelines for dealing with a lack of solid sourcing for negative claims. When in doubt, leave it out. If there isn't a solid source for broad consensus, take it out of the main section. Really, if you look over the list in the main section, parapsychology is the only item where there's at least a little consensus on it not being pseudoscience. Doesn't it seem strange to leave it there?
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 07:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I may be wrong. I can't find a match on CSI site.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to take the sub-categories which used to be under paranormal and put them in the second section. But someone needs to. That or find a general heading that will work for them. Parapsychology doesn't encompass all of them, and study of the paranormal (the previous heading) isn't always pseudoscience. Right Nealparr?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm only talking about "parapsychology" itself. A parapsychologist might take offense to Wikipedia invalidating their work unsourced. I doubt an EVP would take similar offense : )
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 08:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The NSF source is a great source for covering paranormal beliefs as pseudoscience, but it doesn't do as good of a job talking about paranormal research, academic or otherwise, and doesn't address parapsychology at all.

Minderbinder said: "The sources that consider parapsychology a pseudoscience tend to not even use that name, instead just calling it paranormal research or something similar."

We can take a look at those. They don't have to say parapsychology by name if they show "broad consensus" and clearly state that any research whatsoever on the paranormal would be pseudoscience, because that would include parapsychology. They'd have to draw that distinction, though, to be a solid source. Even applying science to debunk claims of the paranormal is paranormal research. There has to be a clear distinction. I'm pretty sure debunkers would take offense to being called pseudoscientists. -- Nealparr  (yell at me 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

paranormal subjects
The first section supposedly only includes those items where a scientific consensus exists - indicated by at least one mainstream scientific body identifying something as a pseudoscience. We now have the heading "paranormal subjects" with no source at all (mainstream scientific body or otherwise), followed by a list of topics which, in the rare cases where there actually are sources, are sourced only to the those skeptical groups whose views are supposed to be dealt with in the second section.Davkal 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that two sources have now been added for this heading - the Astronomical Society of the pacific and the Russian academy of sciences. The RAS source is so unclear that I don't think it supports the claim at all - for example, it mentions both pseudoscience and the paranormal but it is far from clear whether the authors regard these two terms as synonymous or not. It also "defines" these terms (one of them, both of them, who knows?) by reference to only a few specific things (astrology, shamanism, occultism) and so it not clear that it is a good source for a non-defined catch-all heading which subsequently includes none of the things specifically mentioned in the source and many things that are not. Similarly, The ASP are an astronomical society dealing with astronomical pseudoscience. The table of contents from that source makes no mention of any of things on the list following the header for which the ASP is a source. It is hard to resist the conclusion that this 6-degrees-of-separation sourcing system is little more than some clumsy sleight-of-hand designed to include things as pseudoscience for which you have no direct (nor even really an indirect) source. The general point being that if academies of science have explicitly stated that EVP, or Dowsing, or Parapsychology or Seances are pseudoscience then let us have these sources and be done with it. If they have not explicitly said that these things are pseudoscience then get them off the list.Davkal 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that a third source has now been added to the heading "paranormal subjects" - the Iowa academy of sciences. Extraordinarily (or not so), that source doesn't include the word "paranormal" and the topics explicitly referred to in it are UFOs, creationism, astrology, levitation and something to do with meditation - none of which fall under the heading for which it is a source. We now have the ludicrous position where three sources are cited for a heading and subsequent list, which between them do not mention once any of the items on that list nor even the catch-all heading they are cited in direct support of.Davkal 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The word is "mediation," and it is referring to, at the very least, psychokinesis. Also, levitation (of the paranormal sort) is considered to be under the auspices of parapsychology. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so I made a typo, but it doesn't change the fact that nothing in the heading or in the list is explicitly mentioned in any of the sources. This interpretation of "control of actions at a distance using mediation" as meaning psychokinesis, even if true, is of no consequence because PK is not in the list anyway. Neither is levitation. I don't see why it should be so difficult to stick to what we have sources explicitly saying rather than engaging in fanciful connection making like that illustrated below.Davkal 15:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Levitation was there, and I just rectified the omission of psychokinesis. Thank you for pointing that out. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Levitation wasn't in the list and you don't really have a source for PK yet - the Iowa source may be about PK but it may be about something else. The use of "mediation" suggests that it might refer to some of the effects attributed to mediums in, for example, seances - effects not normally called PK. But in any event it is far from clear what the Iowa source means. Does it really not concern you at all that you are now just making up any old thing and attributing them to sources that barely offer any support for them. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.Davkal 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Levitation was on the list. Also, I reject a premise of your question, so I'll be unable to answer it. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 16:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Levitation wasn't on the list of "paranormal subjects" that was being discussed above. Re your not answering the question. Perhaps you might take a minute to consider the way you are editing the article in line with your POV and with a total disregard for what the sources actually say. You don't even have a source for paranormal yet. And yes you can stretch the definitions/sources beyond breaking point and insert anything you like and you will probably even get backing from a number of other editors. But the question really is, should you do these things?Davkal 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I do agree that levitation wasn't under the paranormal header. It is now. Also, I've taken your thoughts into consideration and reject those as well; I therefore still reject a premise of your question. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the source that says "paranormal subjects" are considered pseudoscience - none of the three sources offered support this claim? Where are the mainstream scientific sources saying any of the items on the list of "paranormal subjects" (except levitation) are pseudoscience? If apprrpriate sources are not cited that section will b removed.Davkal 17:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The National Center for Science Education doesn't have the word "para." The Iowa Academy of Sciences one doesn't have the words "paranormal" or "parapsychology." The NSF source is the best, but does not say that all things paranormal are pseudoscience.  No one is disputing that some paranormal things are pseudoscience.


 * However, the sources are being used to act as if the sub-headings don't need their own sources. That won't work.  If there is not an extremely excellent source which says specifically "this is what paranormal means, and all things paranormal are pseudoscience," then items under the heading need individual sources.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we merely source the individual items or move them to the lower part of the list. There shouldn't be any problem keeping them on the list.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution as pseudoscience
I note that the Iowa academy of sciences lists UFO visitors as a pseudoscience. Stanton Friedman is a Ufologist; Dean Friedman has the same surname as Stanton Friedman; The band Half Man Half Biscuit wrote a song called The Bastard Son of Dean Friedman; they also wrote a song called All I want for Christmas is the Dukla Prague Away Kit; Prague is in Europe: Europe begins with an "E"; evolution begins with an "E"; I rest my case. Davkal 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can list UFO visitors as a pseudoscience because whether or not it is true, it is not a science in the sense of the word. A science or pseudoscience attempts to explain the interaction of different things within its universe. A religion is neither a science nor a pseudoscience, but some of its beliefs may qualify. For exmaple, Scientology teaches that premarital sex is wrong (a moral judgement, neither a science nor a pseudoscience) and also teaches that reading through certain word lists and concentrating on them in certain ways will remove harmful elements from the body. This teaching might qualify as a pseudoscience as it's part of a system of beliefs about interactions that, if true and provable, would almost certainly qualify as science. 75.37.15.56 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)AndyDaniel
 * UFO visitors isn't listed as such. Ufology is. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 04:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NSF reference
That's an interesting reference, Minderbender. I think it even strengthens the main item enough for it to be renamed back to "Paranormal research." Any objections? <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the endorsements of the US National Science Board  contained in its survey findings which characterize a broad range of paranormal subjects and beliefs as pseudoscience  meets this article's requirements for 1st tier attribution. -- LuckyLouie 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That source does carry some weight, but two caveats:
 * The Indicators 2002 report cites a couple of notable sources but doesn't amount to an official endorsement of their views regarding which topics are PS. The Indicators 2000 discusses "Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience", and addresses both of those topics, but doesn't equate them (perhaps this is to the extent that paranormal topics, however bogus, aren't portrayed as being scientific).  It does give as examples of pseudoscience "astrology, ESP, alien abductions" and "unproven health-related therapies".
 * (2) It makes me a little nervous, at least in theory, that the 24-member board is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  That's not prima facie evidence of bias, but it may not be the greatest precedent to rely on political appointees to say what science is.
 * No strong objections here, but the more independent and explicit the sources are, the stronger the article is. --Jim Butler(talk) 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a great source. I do recommend that instead of "paranormal research", it be changed to "paranormal belief", which is what the NSF article deals with. It makes the claim that paranormal beliefs are pseudoscience because they aren't based on science. It doesn't actually spend much time talking about paranormal research and definitely doesn't cover parapsychology at all.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem here is that many of the sources say, quite rightly, that for X to be pseudoscience X has to in some way mimic science - to be non-science disguised as science. However, as soon as they start to give examples it is clear that many of things do no such thing. It seems clear, then, that there are several different senses of pseudoscience at play in most of the sources. One with the strict definition above and another which is simply a pejorative for things people belief that scientists/sceptics think unlikely or impossible or that they just don't like. The article on pseudoscience makes this distinction but I think that if we are going to have a list of pseudosciences we must be clear what we mean.
 * A second problem is that the article itself is structured in a way that makes NPOV almost impossible. That is, NPOV says that all significant viewpoints should be presented, but by determining the content of the article by reference to one viewpoint only (positive identification as pseudoscience) and demanding only one source, the article effectively blocks competing views even if those views were in the majority. For example, if one inconsequential scientific body said X is pseudoscience then even if we found 750 other sources that disagreed we could still include X in the article as if it was a consensus view and we would, at present, be unable to even acknowledge the existence of the other views. This seems to me highly undesirable, particularly in light of the problem of the pejorative sense of pseudoscience being used so widely in many of the sources.Davkal 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Arguing about hypotheticals is somewhat irrelevant to the article at hand. It is fairly clear that pseudoscience is demarcated by mainstream sources rather than fringe sources, and per WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SCIENCE, etc. we do a good job of following the mandates of Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience with regards to labeling and categorizing pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, there is no controversy or grey area at all. If Michael Shermer's Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience says Multiple Personality Disorder is pseudoscientific, then it is, regardless of the agreement of scientists who compiled the ICD-10 and DSM-IV.  Heeding their classification over Shermer's would be a gross violation of undue weight.  --Jim Butler(talk) 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that there is considerable disdain within the medical community for the multiple personalities disorder diagnosis. Sure there are scientists who support pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean that they represent the consensus. --ScienceApologist 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Controversy isn't the same as consensus, of course. If there were scientific consensus that MPD were pseudoscientific, it wouldn't be in the ICD-10 or DSM-IV.  I'm sure you're not arguing that those sources are less reliable than Shermer (who, FWIW, self-identified as a global warming "skeptic" long after scientific consensus on that topic existed), since that would be an absurd position for any scientifically literate person to take.  I'm fine with the article's present form, and the tiering system, but am just sounding a cautionary note about overreaching.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out that the Encyclopedia doesn't label the disorder-as-such as pseudoscientific. As the entry says, the critique targets a particular explanation of it that is popular among psychotherapists. This is an example of the qualifier given in the section lead; namely, "[S]ome 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." <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little new to this article, but I'm wondering how some of these things actually made the list. What is the exact criteria for inclusion here?


 * Tut's curse? Was that ever actually misrepresented as scientific? How about elves and fairies? Elf and fairy photographs definitely, but elves and fairies themselves? Neoshamanism? Isn't that a religious belief? These are just a few off the top of my head. I think there should at least be a base-line criteria that something has to notably be misrepresented as science to be included on a list of pseudosciences at Wikipedia. If we're going to list every single mythological, religious, or simply unscientific belief as being pseudoscience, we're going to need some more servers. Sure, those beliefs aren't scientific. The point is that they aren't often claimed to be scientific. How about just sticking to the things that are often misrepresented as being a scientific belief. The scientific basis for gnomes, fairies, and dragons isn't all that notable.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nealparr, the lead section and subheader intros give those criteria. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, in principle, we should stick to attributable claims. --ScienceApologist 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would append that to notable attributable claims myself.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --ScienceApologist 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience as conflicting with science
Here is a proposal that may resolve the matter. For a topic to be listed here, it should fulfill two criteria:


 * 1) The proponents of the idea should have made statements that directly contradict the theories or observations of natural science.
 * 2) There has been criticism of the idea as pseudoscience.

What we should strive to explicate are both points. So, for example, if we were to include the psuedoscientific aspects of ghosts, we would include information regarding claims of apparitions emitting electromagnetic radiation and light or material-less beings engaging in momentum transfer, as well as the resources which indicate its pseudoscientific character. In other words, we should have both the claims that are relevant to science and the attribution of the labels available.

What do people think?

--ScienceApologist 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I highly support this as described. It's much more Wikipedia-like than what is currently in place. Dropping Tut's curse in without a sourced explanation of why it's pseudoscience doesn't make a great article.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think such stuff as Tut's Curse was likely transplanted verbatim as an effort to be faithful to the cited source (The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience), however, I agree that entry in particular doesn't serve the article well. Regarding SA's proposal, I would hope such criteria would not invite endless wikilawyering debating who is a "proponent" and which "criticism" represents the mainstream, etc. -- LuckyLouie 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be easier than that if attributed well. An example (totally made up) entry might be:


 * The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has said that using EMF detectors to look for evidence of purported ghosts is pseudoscience because... (insert their reasoning) (source)


 * Totally factual neutral statement. Readers can agree or disagree with CSI's reasoning, and can click to the CSI article to decide for themselves whether CSI represents mainstream views. Leave it all to the reader to determine through attribution and sourcing. Doing it this way actually relieves the burden of overly solid sourcing because Wikipedia isn't saying all of science says this. They're saying CSI says this. Readers decide if CSI represents mainstream science or not. It's a lot different than saying all of science says this because 30 Russian scientists say it.


 * I think it's a lot easier, neutral, less inflamatory, and more Wikipedia-like doing it this way.


 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To show that I am unbiased about what should be listed and attributed, I offer this example of how parapsychology should be included in the new revision:


 * In the January-February 1999 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, thirty-two members of the Russian Academy of Sciences stated that parapsychologists "assert untested claims based on pseudoscience."
 * Source:


 * That's a proper Wikipedia-like entry in my opinion. The difference is that it is well attributed, clear as to what's said and who said it, and doesn't make any unsupported claims as to it being a widespread opinion or majority opinion. It can be supplemented by other similar references if they can be found. In other words, if CSI has a similar opinion about parapsychology, cool, add another sentence and source that too.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's preferable for a standard article, but this is a list, not prose. The section leads as they are now give adequate information on inclusion criteria. Also, ScienceApologist's proposal is effectively identical to the current one (sans division of source types based on reliability). <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 23:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If we take that approach then we need to question the appropriateness of items on the list in relation to their headers, and based on their sourcing. Many of the items on the list aren't sourced and (in my opinion) aren't appropriate to the header. Parapsychology isn't sourced and isn't appropriate to the header "broad consensus". Tut's curse doesn't make any sense beyond LuckyLouie's suggestion that it was copied over verbatim. Fearing reverts, what is an appropriate way to fix these things?
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 23:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Subitems are supported by the main item's references, making every entry sourced. As for Tut's curse, I didn't copy it over verbatim, but it is indeed an entry in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. The article treats it as a pseudoscientific concept primarily of historical interest rather than something held by pseudoscientists today, discussing the "evidence" for the curse that was spread by 1920s-era mass media. But regardless of whether anyone thinks an entry is appropriate or not, the standard for content inclusion on any Wikipedia article is attribution, not truth. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll give you that one. I don't have the Encyclopedia myself, so I can't flush those entries out to make more sense. There's still the question of parapsychology. A lot of editors have commented here without commenting on that one. If we're going to go with subitems sourced through main item's reference, parapsychology isn't in the ASotP source, the RAoSciences source, the IAoScience source, nor the NSF source. Each of these sources talk about belief in the paranormal (again why I suggest it be renamed to "paranormal belief") and not parapsychology, which is a study of. Again, fearing reverts, how do I fix that?
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Parapsychology is a subitem under "Paranormal subjects." And as Martinphi has repeatedly pointed out, there is a consensus in the parapsychology community that some paranormal phenomena (of the psi type) are real. Critiques of the scientific status of parapsychology most often tend to focus on this; i.e., they actually think their experiments are procedurally-sound and that many yield statistically significant positive results.
 * More importantly, though, the sources mention these beliefs as pseudoscientific, not merely false. To illustrate, note that the IAS statement names metaphysical levitation and psychokinesis as examples of pseudoscience, which they define as "[any] mistaken or unsupported belief that are cloaked in the disguise of scientific credibility" (emphasis added). Thus, parapsychology is a natural subitem under the Paranormal entry. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Without proper sourcing it doesn't really matter what Martinphi thinks (sorry Martin). To meet the section's lead requirements, a " mainstream, specialized scientific bodies " or an " Academies of Science " must have a " broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status ". That must be in place and it must be sourced. Martinphi's statement that there is a consensus in parapsychology doesn't mean anything in this list because 1) it isn't sourced here, and 2) parapsychologists aren't mainstream, so their consensus doesn't meet the criteria of the section. There's nothing in the sources making a statement that parapsychologists are required to believe in the paranormal (the best source) or that the majority of them do (weaker source). Even if those sources were present, they would have to come from a mainstream scientific body or an Academy to meet the section's criteria. All we have to go on are sources. Nothing in these sources say anything about the beliefs of parapsychologists. Yes, I'm going on technicalities.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems appropriate to consider parapsychologists' published demographics of their own community as reliable. This isn't among the fringes claims that are under question. Admittedly, I don't know where Martinphi got his information on the consensus among them, though, so we'll have to see when he gets on. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Got a link to that? Scratch that. It still needs a reference from a mainstream scientific body or academy saying that the beliefs of parapsychologists makes parapsychology a pseudoscience in order to meet the criteria of the lead. The reason is because there's nothing in the sources that makes a solid link between parapsychological work and the belief of parapsychologists themselves. If we go just on the assumption (original research) that the belief of scientists dictate their work, we'd have to question the work of the two-thirds of all scientists who believe in God as being pseudoscientific just because they themselves have supernatural beliefs. The sources don't warrant inclusion of parapsychology based on the beliefs of parapsychologists.-- Nealparr  (yell at me 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the spirit of your proposal, SA, but I agree with Simões that the article as it stands already implements it adequately. I'd leave exposition of (1) to each article, since this is a list, and covering the rationale for each topic is likely to bloat the list and invite edit warring.  Also, it's hard to imagine a V RS that would say (2) without verifiable evidence of (1).  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes I propose
I propose changing "Paranormal subjects" to "Paranormal beliefs" based on the sources for the entry. I also propose dropping parapsychology as unsupported by the current sources in relation to the lead which states "The following have broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status. Indicative of this are assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science." Paranormal beliefs are certainly supported by the sources cited. Parapsychology isn't. I plan to make these changes, but I don't make WP:BOLD edits. Please, if you have an objection to this edit, let's discuss it before I make the change. I don't want any silly revert wars or accusations of POV-pushing. I didn't set up the article this way. I'm just applying WP:ATT and WP:NOR to its current format. -- Nealparr  (yell at me 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the heading "Paranormal subjects" is probably better than "... beliefs" only as when you click on the link it doens't take you to a "...belief" but a "...subject". Shot info 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it has to say "beliefs", but I think it's better than "subjects" based on the sources. I took the time to read through every source listed, looking specifically for references to parapsychology, but also looking for wording about paranormal research. Each of these sources deal with paranormal beliefs. I just thought that would be a better wording since that's what the sources are talking about.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that they are a subject of an article that WP links to (internally), I thought the matter would be self evident? Shot info


 * I'm not pinned to the word beliefs. It's just a suggestion. If everyone else likes subjects instead, I can live with that.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I like ScienceApologist's suggestion as written. It's just so hard to explain that not all the concept is opposed to science. For instance, not that it actually happened, say a materialization is said by one person to be matter from nothing. Well, this violates conservation of energy. But others would say it is merely matter which is taken from other sources. How do we explain something like that? What we'd be getting into is a list of concepts or pseudosciences part of which are pseudo, part of which might not be, part of which the status is unknown. But I like the idea of explicitly attributing things in the text: "CSI says that..." That is really a very good idea. I have no problem having parapsychology in the article if phrased as Nealparr said it.

I don't think it is easy to keep it as a simple list and have it well sourced and attributed.

Sub-items are often not supported by the main item's ref. That is the problem here.

The problem is that even though the PA says basically that there is a consensus that some paranormal phenomena exist, study thereof isn't necessarily pseudoscience. Nor is it pseudoscience to study a pseudoscientific belief. Parapsychologists have a very wide range of beliefs about the existence of the paranormal. Are you going to call the parapsychologist who studies paranormal belief, but does not hold such belief, a pseudoscientist? Merely because of the general consensus? This is probably the reason the sources mention the phenomena as pseudoscience, but not the scientific field itself. So how can we extrapolate that parapsychology is a pseudoscience because there are sources which say that some of the phenomena are pseudoscientific concepts? I think it may be clear from the fact that parapsychology as a field is generally not mentioned in the sources that the people who compiled those sources made this distinction, or something like it.

And Nealparr is right that "The sources don't warrant inclusion of parapsychology based on the beliefs of parapsychologists."

Changing the heading to "paranormal beliefs," and then sourcing each entry individually, would be a help. Paranormal subjects is also OK, individually sourced (unless someone can find a heading that works).

Parapsychology clearly isn't sourced for the first tier. Put it in the second, and phrase it for attribution as Nealparr says. But, really, I doubt that this will work properly, because to put it simply and hopefully not to make anyone mad, that Russian source is dreadful. It uses the word "parapsychology" once, and it looks like it might not even be a proper translation. So a better source is needed. I think one could be found, but the reader will probably have to be informed what it is.

I hope I got everything right. Long absence....  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another thing I should mention again, is just that maybe there ought to be general topics, like "physics," and then under the genuine thing, have pseudos. If we were doing that, we'd have no problem with headers like "Paranormal." That was a good part of the former article.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see catering to the paranormal crowd as a reason to make a change. At least one source explicitly label the paranormal as pseudoscientific. That is sufficient to have a section by that name and place important concepts underneath it. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, that's not the reason. The reason is that the change needs to be made.  Per above.  Lots of scientists study the paranormal, from other perspectives than belief in it.  So that rules out "Paranormal research."  Paranormal includes (according to the best sources I know of) anything which is not currently considered possible under current scientific understanding.  Thus, since physics is not complete, we can confidently expect that some things which would now be considered paranormal, will exist in the future.  Thus, why is it pseudoscience to study effects which might be taking place outside the currently laws of physics?


 * Martin, your knowledge of science (especially physics) surprises me if you actually believe the above. Shot info 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Example: Applications of, or even detection of dark matter and energy would have been paranormal a few years ago.  It is basically certain that when physics is complete, there will be applications which would now be considered paranormal.  I assume here it surprises you negatively.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As expressed to you in other places, Dark Matter and Dark Energy were predicted long before being "looked for" (and partly found). This cannot be used for your analogy as what we consider paranormal is not predicted.  Nor is it explained.  Nor can it be readily found.  This is why paranormal subjects are (by definition) paranormal.  Now if somebody just invented Dark Matter and said years ago it would bind together the galaxy (say like the Force), with no clear idea, theoretically or practicle evidence eitherway, then yes it would qualify as paranormal.  But the fact is, it didn't and it hasn't and it generally has been accepted (see the article for more information, I don't need to describe it here).  Your example is flawed which is why I am surprised you continue to use it, especially after it has been pointed out to you several times by others and myself.  Moral is, find a better example.  It should be noted that physics will probably never be "complete" but this is only due to weight of history :-)  Shot info 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Use whatever analogy you want, and will satisfy you. But the fact remains that the paranormal has become the normal in the past.  Yes, dark matter was predicted long before it was found, by the motions observed.  So what?  If everyone had said "Theory doesn't predict dark matter, therefore your observations and calculations must be wrong," then it would have been a paranormal prediction.  An observation of the paranormal, like what people say psi is. No difference here, except in the reception given to the prediction.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, your analogy is false, and since you are the one making the supposition, we need your analogy. I personally cannot find an example of "the fact remains that the paranormal has become the normal in the past".  "An observation of the paranormal, like what people say psi is" simply put, zero observation, just confirmation bias as real observations have shown but ignored.  As I said, your knowledge of science (especially physics) surprises me.  Shot info 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why they have the term "perinormal." The rest is just POV, contradicted by good science. And try to be nice.  Occasionally it slips out how impatient you are at talking to true-believing idiots. Another example would be continental drift.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I know you try to be nice. You do, and I like and respect that.  It's just sometimes it slips out how much it costs you. It really HURTS. Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Continental_drift again is not a good example. It was a scientific theory yes.  Paranormal maybe in paranormal circles?  Shot info 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Continental drift started out paranormal and became normal, just like a lot of things. Read  this.  You need to study how science really works, not just how it is supposed to work.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it is amusing that you change your examples to suit your arguments. So Continental drift started out as a oddball fringe theory, not paranormal (at least not the paranormal definition either in a dictionary or in WP). Wegener is an excellent example of how science works. Theories are proposed to match the evidence. They are tested. If they are found wanting, they are ditched. Continental drift was saved by Plate Tectonics. Now before you launch into a "see an new branch of science" you might want to have a look at the actual science behind tectonics. Heat transfer, radiation etc. etc. All known processes. No "magical" energy transfer or "new" physics. Just old basic math and science applied to match the evidence. I guess you are redefining what paranormal means??? Shot info 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it very bizarre to call things like continental drift and dark matter "paranormal". Is there any evidence anywhere that either of those was ever described as paranormal?  There have certainly been plenty of scientific theories that were initially considered impossible, even pseudoscience, but I'd love to see a source describing say, a physics theory initially rejected being described as "paranormal".  Source?
 * I also removed the "perinormal" section from the paranormal article. It's a neologism with barely any use, doesn't appear in dictionaries, doesn't seem otherwise notable, and that section was poorly sourced.  --Minderbinder 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, which source specifically calls the paranormal pseudoscience? Not this one.  It says "Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience  Two different things.  That is upheld in the definition [37] at the bottom.  It also says "that people who believe in the existence of paranormal phenomena may have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality."  Quite so.  But this is not saying that the paranormal is always pseudoscientific.  Is this the source to which you are referring?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * [], [] Shot info 00:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean one that's used in the article?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting (to me anyway) that Martin asks for a source that specifically says the paranormal is pseudoscience and we are then provided with two sources which clearly don't do it.Davkal 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For those who find self-evident not so evident: "any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis. " and "of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena. " kindof sound the same don't they :-) Shot info 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You have an interesting (to me anyway) notion of "self-evident". I think the inclusion of "methods, systems or theories" in the pseudoscience definition and it's absence in the paranormal definition shows where your reasoning has gone astray.Davkal 11:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We mean a source which will work in the article??  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure we can. I cannot find where dictionaries are not RS nor V (I have heard it but personally cannot find it).  Shot info 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Read how this article in particular is sourced.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, we can talk about "Paranormal" and pseudoscience some other time or place. Here, I'm talking about the unsourced "Parapsychology". The attribution is very important because the word "pseudoscience" is a pejorative term. There's guidelines for that and those guidelines are further compounded by the lead wording which states "broad consensus" and "mainstream, specialized scientific bodies" "or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science."


 * It's pretty simple. It doesn't matter what is pseudoscience and what isn't. It doesn't matter what we personally think. This is a list, and in that list are terms, and those terms are attributed to some external group meeting the lead wording. "Paranormal" (in my opinion) is clearly sourced to several mainstream academic bodies. That makes complete sense considering the definition of the word paranormal: "exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." It's not hard to find an academic source calling things that are by definition outside science, but claiming to be scientific, pseudoscience. If it's outside of science, it can't be science. Maybe the definition is flawed, but that has to be taken up with the sources.


 * I'm not talking about "Paranormal" here. My proposed change, which I haven't seen any reason not to make, is to drop "Parapsychology" from the list. I can't find any sources anywhere (and I've been looking for the past week or so) that says parapsychology and comes directly from an academic body, much less shows a broad consensus. The only one that comes close is the RAoS quoted in the Skeptical Inquirer. The only problem with that one is that it's second party and 30 out of 500 members isn't a broad consensus. Paranormal, keep. Parapsychology, drop. If anything, put it somewhere else. If it's listed in the Skeptical Encyclopedia, for example, list it there. There's no sources anyone's presented to put it in the main section.


 * Preemptive responses: 1) Parapsychology isn't a paranormal subject, it's a method applied to paranormal subjects, 2) Parapsychology doesn't require a belief in the paranormal, 3) I can't find any mainsteam academic sources showing a broad consensus that parapsychology is a paranormal subject or requires a belief in the paranormal, 4) I can't find any mainsteam academic sources showing a broad consensus that even suggest that parapsychology is dependent on paranormal beliefs, and 5) I can't find any mainsteam academic sources showing a broad consensus mentioning parapsychology in relation to pseudoscience at all.


 * Let me know if I haven't justified this change completely (just dropping or moving parapsychology).
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought we already agreed that parapsychology isn't sourced. And I solved the problem of paranormal not being sourced properly, but Simoes, typically, just reverted me, per his "no compromise" position stated above. Nealparr, if you never make bold edits, let me assure you that you can talk on here all you want, and it will do you no good. Although maybe you could get Shot info to do the editing for you.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just giving everyone a chance to say what they want to say. I don't want it reverted. I want it sourced, moved, or removed. Plus I don't know if it's in the Skeptics Encyclopedia just yet. Haven't gotten to the library. So I can't just move it there. Right now I'm inclined to remove it, but if it's in the Skeptics Encyclopedia, it can just be moved instead.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 03:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a source that mentions parapsychology as a pseudoscience at CSI. The source says "It may seem paradoxical, but I learned the scientific method investigating parapsychology, a pseudoscience." and the guy writes for CSI, and it was published at the CSI website. That at least shows that CSI endorses his characterization of parapsychology. If anyone can find a better source for inclusion in the CSI section, feel free to modify it.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They disagree. Randi disagrees with that.  Where is the source?  Anyway, it doesn't matter here if you are right.  It matters if you are going to get reverted by Simoes or others.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Nealparr's point: what of the notion of undue weight. We now have parapsychology identified as a pseudoscience on account of one mention in an article in the magazine of a sceptical group. It's not as if the point of the article was that parapsychology was a pseudoscience and yet this one (throwaway and seemingly "paradoxical") statement is taken as evidence that CSI (as a whole) endorses the view. What about all the other things that are said. What about Hyman and Honorton's joint statement about the difficulty of explaining parapsychology's findings in conventional terms and their suggestions for further safeguards for future experiments and their conclusion that research should continue. Even Carl Sagan (in the Demon Haunted World, I think) suggested that the Ganzfeld experiments were interesting and should be continued. Why, then, do we have these arch-skeptics (Hyman and Sagan) advocating pseudoscience? We don't, they are simply advocating good science be done investigating some aspects of the paranormal - exactly the aspects of the paranormal currently being investigated in a rigorous scientific way by parapsychologists.Davkal 12:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the notion that any investigation of paranormal phenomena is by definition a pseudoscientific one - ie. parapsychology is a pseudoscience because it investigates the paranormal - has interesting repercussions for all the scientific tests of the paranormal that skeptical organisations claim to have done. I look forward to seeing some of the skeptical editors who are making this point here buzzing through wiki like busy little bees changing all the references to, say, Randi's scientific testing of paranormal claims to Randi's pseudoscientific testing of paranormal claims. I look forward very much to reading that Randi has offered $1m dollars to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities under controlled pseudoscientific conditions.Davkal 12:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If the sourcing for this section is inappropriate, it can be better sourced or the entry can be removed. If there's an entry in the Skeptic's Encyclopedia, that's good enough for this section. I don't have that book just yet. Can anyone check it?
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Has this turned into playing with semantics?
So let's recap.
 * Parapsychology is the study of "psi" experiences, basically the study of paranormal things.
 * Aside from the definition itself, it seems that pretty much everything parapsychology studies falls under paranormal (is there something that wouldn't?).
 * We have sources calling many paranormal topics (including many topics studied by parapsychology) pseudoscientific.
 * We have sources calling "paranormal" itself pseudoscience.
 * Many mainstream academic sources simply don't use the term "parapsychology" and just refer to it as studying the paranormal.

There doesn't seem to be much dispute that we have sources calling the paranormal, and a number of specific paranormal topics pseudoscience. And there doesn't seem to be dispute that parapsychology studies these topics that have been called pseudoscientific. The question is then, is studying something pseudoscientific a pseudoscience? If it's not, then would "Time Cube" be pseudoscientific while "Timecubeology" is not? Would "perpetual motion" be pseudoscientific while "perpetualmotionology" is not? I don't agree with that logic.

The other defense of parapsychology is that we haven't found sources describing that term as pseudoscience, although we have sources saying that paranormal is pseudoscience as well as many individual topics studied by parapsychology. It seems a bit ridiculous to insist that a source that describes something that fits the definition of parapsychology isn't talking about parapsychology just because they don't use the term. Do we really need a source describing "ufology" as pseudoscience if we have many sources describing UFO study as pseudoscience? I also disagree with the notion that a source needs to say that ALL paranormal things are pseudoscience - it seems the equivalent of going to duck and insisting that any mention of ducks quacking be removed because while there are plenty of sources documenting ducks quacking, no source says "ALL ducks quack". After all, this article hasn't ever listed "All paranormal stuff", has it? --Minderbinder 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Where are all these mainstream scientific sources that say studying the paranormal is a pseudoscience? I think they have pseudoexistence.Davkal 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The National Science Foundation. --Minderbinder 14:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, pseudoexistence! That chapter is about belief in the paranormal and how evil The X-Files is! (My friend used to go out with Gillian Anderson BTW.) At no point in the entire document are the words or phrases "parapsychology", "paranormal research", "paranormal study", "study of the paranormal" or anything like it even used, let alone labeled pseudoscience.Davkal 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed the word "studying" in your post above. Your post just goes back to what I said above - you insist that studying pseudoscience isn't pseudoscience.  I don't agree with this semantic distinction for reasons explained above.  By your logic, do you consider studying UFO's, bigfoot, or Time Cube pseudoscientific or not?  --Minderbinder 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends how you study them. If you study them scientifically then no, and if you study them pseudoscientifically then yes. Science is a method, and that method can be applied to to many things. Now, my question to you: do you consider language and thought to be paranormal (because, scientifically, we haven't got the foggiest yet) and therefore any attempt to study them pseudoscientific? Davkal 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but no, I don't consider language and thought to be paranormal. Do you?  --Minderbinder 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The point I'm trying to make is that they fit almost perfectly with this: of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation. Which, as we all no know, is the definition of paranormal. The point being that arguments from dictionary definitions don't often get you very far.Davkal 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Minderbinder, I think you are correct regarding the semantic gamesmanship going on. The warping of word definitions (e.g. "paranormal") is a good indicator that POV is being pushed. Thankfully, WP articles must reflect the most conformist view possible, i.e. the mainstream view. -- LuckyLouie 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only people playing semantic games are those trying to combine two dictionary definitions, an article translated from Russian, and a variety of other sources to try to claim that, taken together, they show that parapsychology is a pseudoscience.Davkal 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold up a sec. It was I that originally drew the distinction, so let me please explain why it isn't semantics. Each of the mainstream sources refer to pseudoscientific beliefs. That is, beliefs claiming to be scientific that aren't based on scientific evidence. UFOs. Great example. Belief in UFOs having to do with science is pseudoscientific because there's no scientific evidence for UFOs. Psychic abilities. Another great example. Belief in psychic abilities having to do with science is pseudoscientific because the mainstream feels that there is no scientific evidence for psychic abilities. Astrology. Great example. Belief in astrology having to do with science is pseudoscientific because there's no scientific evidence for astrology. I can continue, but you get the idea.


 * Things like the Time Cube and perpetual motion aren't pseudoscientific as merely terms. You can verify that the term exists. It's the belief in the Time Cube, or that perpetual motion is possible, and specifically the belief that those beliefs are supported by science, that is the pseudoscience. Any belief that is misrepresented as being supported by science is a pseudoscientific belief. Sources for those abound.


 * So what the sources here are refering to is lack of a scientific foundation to support the belief in paranormal subjects. That's totally fine. The non-semantic distinction I'm drawing is that parapsychology and parapsychologists are real. They're easy to believe in. They're scientifically verifiable by walking up to one of them and touching them.


 * Parapsychology is not necessarily a belief system. Studying subjects based on a pseudoscientific belief may or may not be considered pseudoscience. Certainly those guys who applied science to astrology and determined it was pseudoscientific aren't considered pseudoscientists themselves. It's all a bunch of gray area. You guys are absolutely right to ask these questions. They've been asked and debated since parapsychology came about.


 * The sole point and distinction here is that mainstream academia has not ruled one way or the other on the matter. That's what I'm saying, but more importantly that is what isn't sourced. Paranormal beliefs, certainly. Some paranormal research, certainly. The pseudoscientific nature of parapsychology. Not remotely. It's a tough question involving the epistemology of science, what qualifies as scientific research, and so on. Of course no mainstream academic group is going to make a ruling on that. It's not obvious. It requires a philosophical stance that rules out many other so-called sciences.


 * You can come down on paranormal beliefs all you want to without lumping parapsychology in. I think the mainstream sources have done that. Like I said, the scientists who ruled out astrology using science are still considered scientists. To make the non-semantic leap to pseudoscience, a source has to say it. There's plenty of sources that make that leap. The section it was in, however, required a broad consensus in academic societies.


 * No source will say "ALL ducks quack", but I really doubt you'll find a source that says ornithologists are ducks either.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the request for a source that says "all things paranormal are pseudoscience": .  Do you agree with that claim that for paranormal to be listed, there must be a source saying "all things paranormal are pseudoscience"?  --Minderbinder 20:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're asking me, I only fully agree with the things I say (most of the time). I support, or rather I think the sources support, inclusion of "paranormal" in the main section, but not parapsychology. Sources don't have to be as strong when they aren't being used to lay a negative term on a group of people that have at least some support. That's a controversial use of the term, and controversy requires better sourcing. Whatever controversy there is on listing paranormal, it's against a nonspecific, general, and vague group of people. It still needs to be sourced, but I think the sources here are fine for that.


 * Again, I would change it to paranormal beliefs myself, because that's what the sources are talking about, but that change would be semantic.


 * I'm not lawyering here. I'm trying to keep Wikipedia from making a bullshit claim that isn't supported by the sources, because I happen to be very interested in that debate personally. Wikipedia articles get regurgitated everywhere. This is a fairly recent article and already it's copied to a number of sites . There's a long running debate over the pseudoscientific status of parapsychology and that debate should not be determined by Wikipedia and regurgitated around the web. It's a bogus claim that mainstream academic science has a broad consensus against parapsychology.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This debate I keep talking about that hasn't been decided in mainstream science is actually one of the Great Debates of Science. Can science be applied to subjects that aren't supposed to exist according to current scientific models? The hot paranormal article on Wikipedia about two years ago was the Anomalous phenomena article. In fact, "Paranormal" used to redirect there. I can't say that I wrote the current incarnation of it because all I did was splice together writings from other science articles on Wikipedia, but I am responsible for most of what is there now (which has been stable for some time now). This Great Debate I am talking about is perfectly summed up by that article. Can science deal with anomalies in a scientific model? The article uses the example of white and black swans (borrowed from the Falsifiability article). We can make the observation that swans are white, but we have to be prepared for the remote possibility that there are black swans, and can't make the statement that all swans are white factually. We can assume that all swans are white until encountering a black swan, but that's all we can do. There's a huge debate about how to approach this in science. How do we move from assumptions to facts? Popper's suggestion only came as recently as the 1930s. It's an ongoing debate that hasn't been fully decided. Can science study things that aren't supposed to exist? Is science only pure science? Pure science still hasn't come to grips with things like consciousness and how that works. It's ongoing debate. Paranormal claims that attempt to be scientific, there's a solid consensus on that. Parapsychology, however, is part of the overall debate. There's varying opinions on whether it actually is science, and it's not like it's the poster child for how science can approach the idea of anomalies, but that's the debate. There's two sides. It's ongoing. It hasn't been decided by the mainstream. To say it has been, even in a simple list, requires a pretty good source that says that this Great Debate is closed. Pseudoscience is a term used to dismiss subjects as unscientific. There's no cause here to make that dismissive ruling.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"would "Time Cube" be pseudoscientific while "Timecubeology" is not? Would "perpetual motion" be pseudoscientific while "perpetualmotionology" is not? I don't agree with that logic."

Well, I do. That is why a shaman can be practicing pseudoscience, but an anthropologist who studies the shaman is not.

"The other defense of parapsychology is that we haven't found sources describing that term as pseudoscience, although we have sources saying that paranormal is pseudoscience as well as many individual topics studied by parapsychology."

Here is the relevant paragraph:

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

As the experts who put together this article and its definitions know, parapsychologists agree that a lot of trickery and pseudoscience go on in the paranormalist milieu. They study some of these things scientifically, even though some parapsychologists don't even believe in them. The fact here is, you haven't sourced parapsychology as a pseudoscience, especially for the first tier.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

anthropology:shamanism::parapsychology:paranormal belief. Sorry, that syllogism I just do not buy. First of all, parapsychology is not an academic discipline and furthermore parapsychology attempts to study paranormmal phenomena while anthropologists study the human characteristics of shamanism. They are very different in their goals. A better syllogism might be creation science:creationism::parapsychology:paranomral belief. That would be awarded a score of correct by the ETS. --ScienceApologist 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"parapsychology is not an academic discipline". Except for the fact that it is, what you say is correct.Davkal 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? What university has a department of parapsychology? --ScienceApologist 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't put forth a syllogism, and you are wrong that parapsychology is not an academic discipline. At least put the syllogism in proper form so others can see what you are talking about. I don't even recognize that as symbolic logic.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have put forward an analogy which can be written as a syllogism if you want. In any case, it doesn't much matter: the comparison is inappropriate and incorrect. --ScienceApologist 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally
Personally, I don't have any major problems with this article as it now stands. My major problem with the article was the lack of a decent source for 1) putting parapsychology in the first tier, and 2), putting all the other paranormal stuff under that heading. As it now stands, I'm pretty comfortable with the article.

My second major reason for being involved in the article was merely to support other editors who were trying to improve it. I thought I could be of service in helping them to persevere in the face of disruptive gang editing. This editing included deletion of citation requests; reversion when material -which had been unsourced for weeks (with citation requests)- was deleted; use of an RfC to try to get rid of me; threats to do the same to others; and comments like "there will be no compromise."

I have observed that these un-Wikipedia-like tactics have abated slightly recently, and the article has undergone most of the major necessary changes. Thus, I find myself mostly satisfied with its status.

I would suggest only that we should have general headings such as I once inserted (a reverted edit). This would help both with NPOV and understanding.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF is always something to consider rather than "disruptive gang editing" etc. etc. Shot info 04:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

-- Winston Churchill


 * Keep walkin'  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia" - Wikipedia Guildline Shot info 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Who assumed bad faith? I am observing actions, and overt statements of intent.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest you (re)read WP:AGF before declaring actions by a fellow editor(s) un-Wikipedia-like (and the other examples). Curiously even with all the negativity you expressed the article was improved.  Shot info 05:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got a right -even a duty- to say exactly what is going on. Beyond a certain point, ignoring things is counterproductive.  The article improved not in spite of my persistence, but because of it.  It didn't improve until I persisted. Don't accuse one side of negativity, while ignoring the disruptive and highly negative actions of the other.  I stand by what I said 100%, and I will repeat it: the actions of the power block on this article constituted highly disruptive, un-Wikipedia-like gang editing, and also the use of power-tactics to try and get me banned: all in order to avoid sourcing the items, in controversion of Wikipedia rules.


 * I also admit to making mistakes. This does not mean that I should ignore the editing tactics of others- especially others who defend their actions.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User talk pages guys. -- Nealparr  (yell at me 06:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Or at Requests for arbitration... --Minderbinder 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Moon landing?
This article is supposed to be limited to pseudoscience, right? If the moon landing conspiracy is listed, why not the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 conspiracy, etc., etc. ? I removed it, but anyone may revert. The way, the truth, and the light 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because of the attributed reference. --ScienceApologist 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know it's just a list, but there's got to be a better way to explain inclusion. I'm sure the reference says something like the moon conspirator's idea that the shadows are off is pseudoscientific, or that the whole idea is pseudoscientific because of the scientific evidence that they actually went or something. Can't there be a one-line summary of what the reference says is pseudoscientific? I really need to get that book.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Re scienceapologists point. The references are rubbish. Erich von Daniken said the pyramids were built with the help of extraterrestrials, but we don't have a wiki article called "things built with the help of extraterrestrials" where the pyramid are cited. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience regardless of who says it and Wiki's job is not to promote such nonsense.Davkal 00:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has yet explained why it should be considered a pseudoscience, I think I will remove it again. Everything other example on this page has something to do with science except this one. The way, the truth, and the light 12:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem that TWTT&TL is encountering here is that the article has a breach of NPOV (and to a large extent the possibility/probability of including complete nonsense) written into the very fabric of the article. That is, Simeos keeps pointing out (during his edit-warring edit summaries) that there are sources for all the things in the article and that that is all the article, given its set-up, requires. And while that may well be so, all it means is that any old source has said any old nonsense in any old context where one of the many senses of the word "pseudoscience" has cropped up in the vicinity and, hey presto, in it goes. That we are not allowed to discriminate sense from nonsense here, or to be alert to different senses of pseudoscience, on account of the set-up of the article, does not mean we should just accept this and its consequences. On the contrary, the inclusion of obviously non-pseudoscientific things in the article shows clearly what the problems with the structure of, and reasoning behind, the article are. Davkal 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The moon landing hoax is already listed at 'List of conspiracy theories', which is where it belongs. There may be further problems with this article, but I don't understand your explanation of them. The way, the truth, and the light 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is set up such that all that is needed for an item to be placed on the list is that someone somewhere (not quite as bad as that, but nearly) has called it a pseudoscience. This is why Simeos keeps reverting and saying only that it is sourced. It is sourced and in that respect Simeos is right. Your point, I take it, is that the moon hoax isn't really pseudoscience. But as things stand, on account of th way the article is set up, and on account of a source, that point is irrelevant. We are not allowed to debate entries on any basis if a source saying "x is pseudoscience" can be found. This is built into the fabric of the article and it is precisely what is wrong with the fabric of the article. Davkal 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm now removing Reincarnation for the same reason. If some spesific people have been using psudoscientific tactics to argue reincarnation then those people should be refered to spesificaly when mentioned on the list. Listing the docterines of a religion as psudoscience is absurd and offensive, vast majority of people who believe in reincarnation make no claim that their believe is scientific.Mmeelliissssaa 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at reincarnation and meditation (more specifically Health applications and clinical studies of meditation), I see scientific claims at each. --Minderbinder 13:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Like you said the the Health and meditation article contains "Scentific" claims, not psudoscientific. There are references to peer reviewed literature and clinical studies, hardly seems like quakery to me. The mind and body are closely linked and each affects the other in ways that are not yet well understood, so some research on the subject seems sensible. I'm sure somebody somewhere has made unjustifiable claims about meditation, that happens in every field and doesn't make the whole subject a psudoscience, or a related subject. Take stemcell research for example, it has rescently been discovered that a study by a respected research group was fradulent, and there are suspisions about the integrity of several other studys and (I think) even other research groups, but that doesn't make the whole field a psudoscience, or a related subject does it?Mmeelliissssaa 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

some significant changes needed?
I think this article needs quite a few changes, in some cases I think it is fair to class a whole field as psudoscientific (Homeopathy and Creationisum for instance) because they widely claim to be scientific yet do not follow the scientific methord. However in other cases we should not label a whole field a psudoscience (or a related subject) just because there may be some unjustificable claims made by some people. Personally I think even the title of this article should be changed, as its not a "concept" that may be psudoscientific but the methord used to investigate a concept.

I think the list of related subjects should be changed to a list of spesific claims and people that are shaky; generalisations about an entire field are to POV and potentialy hurtful, especially on religious topics (I'm a Buddhist).Mmeelliissssaa 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Apollo moon landing hoax
An editor keeps removing this from the top of the article:
 * "Apollo moon landing hoax accusations made by a small number of people claiming that parts of the Apollo program were hoaxed and subsequently covered up."

I don't know this article, so I don't know if he's removing it because it is not notable or broad enough to go here, or for some other reason. Just a heads up. Herostratus 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is discussed above under 'Moon landing'. The way, the truth, and the light 12:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove or edit other people's comments. --Minderbinder 13:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I simply did not want anyone else to reply under the wrong heading. I would have simply moved your comment, but it would not make any sense under the other heading. The way, the truth, and the light 13:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag
I had replaced the "disputed" tag on the page earlier, after it was removed. My reasoning is that this list, while much improved over QuackGuru's previous versions, is still rather indiscriminate. Even scrolling up this talk page there is plenty of semantic debate over what should or should not be included. Further, many of the items listed are given descriptions that either are not neutral, or provide no citation beyond (beyond the implicit "read this article").

I'm the first person to object to unscientific views shrouding themselves as medicine or science, but I cannot think of a way to make this list encyclopedic or discriminate in what is listed. If nothing else, I believe it does not have a place in mainspace, but in a Project. -- Kesh 18:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Kesh. However, I think this article is salvagable if it was to only source from the highest level of academic scientific scholar organization (e.g. the Academy of Science) and not skeptic organizations (often declaring verdicts based less on science and more on politics). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't think this is a bad article, in its current state. But the tag should remain so long as this is in mainspace. Heck, there's even a tag at the top of this Talk page to that effect! -- Kesh 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is not a single item on the list that isn't sourced (and I don't mean "implicit" sourcing, which is really no sourcing at all). The "debates" above are the result of paranormal advocates fighting to keep their pet hobby off the list. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 19:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is a valid argument and it seems to violate WP:AGF. This is a highly sensitive article which aims to associate a pejorative label with a concept or discipline. I like the first section which pulls from the Academy of Science. It's the following section (which sources "skeptical bodies") that I question in neutrality. I can easily see why a "totally disputed" label has been placed on this article. (And why are Elves and Faeries listed here. Are those really masqueraded by anyone as science?) ;-) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You've missed quite a bit since your last visit here. Assumptions of good faith can only go so far when faced with certain patterns of conduct. There is a chronic pov-pushing problem on several related articles: see Requests for arbitration/Paranormal for more. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to catch up and I hear you about AGF. However, if you don't want pov-pushing, then why should this artilce push the pov of so-called skeptical bodies? Seem like the weak part of this article and not very encyclopedic. Again, I am all good with the Academy of Science portion. That is a respected body of science with no policitcal agendas (that I know about ;-) ). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The material from the mainstream skeptical bodies is no more pov pushing than the main section items. We separated out the items sourced by them because they do seem less likely than academies of sciences to represent the consensus of the scientific community. But scientific skeptical bodies not fringe groups by any means. Their membership is dominated by scientists&dash;scientists who publish in mainstream journals. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Davkal's point below on this regarding scientism and soapboxing. Makes sense to me. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 00:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote the scientism article. Davkal is using it as the article describes&mdash;a pejorative. This is just a part of his campaign of personal attacks and disruption. His activity has been well-documented in the arbitration case. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. I was unaware of your history with Davkal. I see. (I don't think it is fair to the other editors who work on Scientism to say that you wrote it. ;-) WP:OWN, anyone?) Anyhow, you say that the "skeptic bodies" are less likely to represent the scientific consensus than AoS. Given the pejorative nature of the "pseudoscience" label (and its controversial misuse throughout Wikipedia and beyond), I don't think that "less likely" should make the cut here. We should hold out for the highest standards of science, and not let the sensational opinions of societies trying to sell their books and magazines clutter this article. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 00:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about owning the article. I'm not exactly sure how you made such an inference: I was just pointing out my closeness to the subject. As for the scientific skeptical bodies, they're not sensationalists. Like I said, they're composed of well-respected scientists. Furthermore, Academies of Sciences only declare things pseudoscientific when they see something as a threat to education or government (e.g., intelligent design). They're not a good resource for filling out a list of this type. You supported the current source tiering system earlier this year. What changed? <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, the WP:OWN was a joke! Because you said you wrote the article on Scientism. Hence my emoticon. ;-) Second, where do you get your information about AoS only declaring things pseudosceince when it becomes a threat to government? I like that they step in when it is a threat to education. That is exactly the standard we should use here. Afterall, Wikipedia is a tool of education. I don't want to speak out of my arse about "skeptical bodies", but aren't they in the business of selling books and magazine and collecting membership dues? I just think that they may represent a POV other that the empirically scientific and educational. Earlier in the year I was in favor of limiting the sources to that of the Academy of Science and such. I definitely think where we are at is much improved thanks to editors such a yourself. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not catching the joke. As for the scientific skepticism bodies, none are commercial entities. Some don't even have official memberships; at least one has a membership but does not collect dues (their revenue comes from donations and subscriptions to their quarterly magazine). And, as far as I am aware, none of them engage in lobbying. Many academies of sciences have publications and collect dues. So you'll have to forgive me for not understanding your objection to the reliability of mainstream skeptical bodies. Look at the editorial board of The Skeptics Society's magazine. At least half of the board is composed of mainstream, working scientists, not political or corporate figures. Hell, I'm pretty sure even Michael Shermer has more publications in Nature than all parapsychologists combined. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 01:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I may be speaking out of my arse. Interesting that there are a couple of magicians and a comedian on their editorial board as well. Hmm. FYI, I'm a scientific skeptic in the purest sense of the word, so don't think there is any personal bias in this for me. I just think that we should let the groups of qualified and totally objective scienctists declare what is and what isn't pseudoscience (for our purposes here). It's a faint line which when crossed opens the door to let anyone label anything pseudoscience and find a source that supports it. We've been down that road before, and I'd just as soon steer clear. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Magicians such as James Randi sometimes take an interest in pseudoscience investigation. Randi has famously exposed a few con artists by calling their slights of hand. As for the comedian, she contributes pseudoscience-related entertainment content to the magazine. The point is, though, that there aren't politicians or salespeople running these organizations. These are reliable sources.
 * One more thing: is it just a coincidence that you have taken an exclusionary stance on this article or do we have WP:COI issue here (since your profession is often a target of skeptical critiques)? <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These people are entertainers too. They entertain people and the publishers probably sell more magazines due to their entertaining contributions.


 * I am confused by your WP:COI accusation. My profession is not often a target of skeptical criticism. Criticism? Yes. (Whose profession isn't?) Skeptical criticism? Not that I have ever heard of. What are you assuming to be my profession? With all due respect, I think perhaps we have less of a WP:COI situation and more of an WP:AGF situation here. Perhaps you are just confused about something.


 * Finally, you said earlier that these sources (Skeptic bodies) are less likely than academies of sciences to represent the consensus of the scientific community. Why do you feel they are less likely? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Bermuda Triangle - no source given
 * Cryptozoology - no source given
 * Laundry balls - no source given
 * There are many more. I have no doubt that most of the items on this list are pseudoscience (or at least blatantly unscientific), but you cannot claim that all the items listed are sourced. -- Kesh 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are all sourced. Observe the bit in the lead paragraph of that section which reads, "Unless otherwise noted, the entries are referenced from The Skeptics Society's The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience." <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hardly call that "sourcing." Try getting away with that in a high school term paper, much less an encyclopedia. Right now, this would be requiring anyone who wanted to verify these to go through the whole book and assume certain passages constitute a proper source for the inclusion on this article. -- Kesh 02:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's the case for any print publication used as a source. And if they go through the book, they wouldn't have to assume anything. I'm not sure what your point is here. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 02:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The point being, as it stands, the "source" for over a dozen entries on this list is an entire book. That would not fly for any statement made in another article. If we're going to include these items in the list, and use that books as a source, each item needs to indicate where in the book that comes from so that others can verify it. And that's without going into a debate about the validity of using a single source for virtually this entire section. -- Kesh 02:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't belive anyone has called Fairies pseudoscientific. I think Fairies may have appeared in a book that had pseudoscience in it's title - but his was probably only a marketing ploy - I doubt anyone has made the explicit claim. I therefore replace the tag for that reason alone. Also, I don't believe in fairies - I just object to pseudosceptic mischaracterisation for political ends. Wiki is not a soapbox/pulpit for the church of scientism..Davkal 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC):

Cleanup tag
I don't think the problem is the sourcing. I think it's that some of the entries don't appear to make sense. This article will probably continue to be questioned until they do. I'm certain the SEoP mentions why they are considered pseudoscience. Couldn't that be summed up in a sentence or two per entry? That way people won't scratch their heads wondering why Tut's Curse is in there, wondering how it was ever considered science to begin with. If the SEoP says that people explain the curse as a real virus (just a made up example), to pose it as science, I'm sure that can be summed up in a line or two without getting heavily prosaic. The elves and fairies can be changed to elf and fairy evidence (like photos) so that people don't wonder who the heck thought elves were scientific. The reincarnation entry can say something (if it's what the SEoP says) like so-called scientific evidence of children remembering past lives is anecdotal and not empirical. I don't know, hopefully you get the idea.

I think this article needs a lot of work, not necessarily to be more neutral, but just to clear things up. I don't think it's enough to say it's sourced. The wording is the part that needs work. Unfortunately that can only really be done by someone who has the source being used.

Note, if there's a better tag to use to address the above concerns, please let me know. On the WP:CLEAN page it said "Please report messy articles below, and explain why they need to be cleaned-up (ex. grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.)." This is the only tag I know of that addresses "confusion". My concern doesn't have anything to do with punctuation, grammar, etc. -- Nealparr  (yell at me 23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Attribution, not truth, is the standard for content inclusion on any Wikipedia article. That someone has personal disagreements with a particular entry on this list is irrelevant unless they're also challenging the reliability of the source. So far, this hasn't been done by the likes of The way, the truth, and the light: there has only been repeated reverting without heed to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 01:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's fully attributed though. Attribution's partially about showing sources, but guidelines also cover quoting the source correctly and showing relevance. I think there is some confusion in this list because the source hasn't yet been fully quoted to show that relevance. I assume all the things in the list are in the book and agree that they are properly listed through that source. The tag I added about cleanup is about drawing more from the source to make the list make more sense. None of the items need to be removed.


 * The timing might have led you to think it's about the Moon landing thing, but it's not about that. If Moon landing is in the book, I say keep it. If parapsychology is in the book, the citation tag can be dropped from that.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 01:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to disagree with the cleanup tag. The confusion in this article simply derives from a lack of information, and this information is easily obtained from other articles which are directly linked to. People could easily find other comments in other articles confusing if they don't understand what's being addressed. This is why we provide wikilinks, so people can go to the other article and relieve that confusion. Sure, maybe this article could be made better by adding more information in places, but what article couldn't?
 * Why an article might require cleanup for confusion is when the confusion is caused by some source other than that. The article might contradict itself, make misleading or bizarre statements without justification, etc., or be or very poor quality otherwise. In this case, we need to go in and pay direct attention to it. Here, we should probably also fix things, but it's much more productive to just fix it yourself or ask someone who knows something about the subject to fix it than to just slap a cleanup tag on it. If people did that to every article they thought could use more information, the tag would fast lose its meaning as the encyclopedia gets flooded with it.
 * Also, it seems that this article was rated as being B-quality. It seems incongruent at the least that an article that "requires cleanup" would be rated this well. If there are no obvious messy parts that have been introduced since the rating (there haven't), the template probably shouldn't be on there. (Edited to add: Never mind that, I was misinterpreting the rating system. It seems that B articles often do require cleanup. So, let's discuss whether and how this can actually be better.) Note that I'm not going to go and take it off just yet (don't want to turn this into an edit war), but I do support taking it off and probably will at some point unless you provide a good reason otherwise.
 * Note: When applying this template to a page, you should also list it on Cleanup. --DrLeebot 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

soapbox for scientism
Here, for the Skeptics dictionary:


 * Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Shermer 2002).

If wiki is really to become a soapbox for this kind of religio-philosophical ideology then let it be stated clearly. Don't try to smuggle it in through the back-door as "mainstream".Davkal 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Byrnes, Sholto. "'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town'" New Statesman 10 Apr. 2006. Shot info 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Davkal, how do you feel about the first section (Main Topics) which relies on sources from the Academy of Science and such rather than the second section (Other significant topics) which relies on "skeptic bodies"? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 23:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Levine's point - I think the first section is not too bad, in principle, but: a) the "scientific" sources have the feel of barrel-scraping in the extreme to them (e.g., the statement from the Russian academy of sciences); and b) some of the sources aren't even in the barrel at all (e.g., those used in the list of topics under the heading of "paranormal subjects").


 * Re Shot info's point about when it comes to facts, science being the only game in town: well, my user name here is Davkal (fact) because that's the name I chose when I first signed up (explanation of fact), and I chose it because it is the first three letters of my first name and surname (further explanation of fact). A trivial example of a fact and explanation of a fact pretty much insulated from scientific investigation/revision. For other facts/things insulated from scientific inquiry/revision see art, literature, poetry, morality, meaning, legality, ethics, aesthetics, politics, faith, hope, charity, compassion, love, honour, dignity, liberte, egalite, fraternite, etc. etc. etc. - as Wittgenstein nearly said, a main cause of scientistic disease - a one-sided diet: one nourishes one's thinking with only one kind of example. And as I said, above, I have no objection to anyone worshiping at the church of scientism, but if Wiki is going to made to do it then at least be honest and state it clearly; do not sneak it in through the back-door as some kind of mainstream scientific viewpoint.Davkal 07:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So Davkal, does the "barrel scraping" you refer to include the National Science Foundation? --Minderbinder 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless Davkal has a serious comment to make about improving this article then make it, but ranting against "scientism" is a waste of bandwidth and is not what the talk page is for. Jefffire 12:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * why not just point Davkal in the general direction of the article on Materialism which seems to encompass his definition of "Scientism" without the negative connotation. Why make up a word when one that covers the territory already exists?  Mind you, I am not personally a materialist and I don't advocate materialistic POV pushing on wikipedia.  I am only pointing this out because it meets his basic definition of scientism.LiPollis 13:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Minderbender's point. No, the RAS is bad enough and no reference should really be made to it. The IOWA source is a pretty poor piece of work too and the ASP sopurce is just an article on a website rather than statement on behalf of.

Re Jeffire's point. Delete the second section - Wiki is not a soapbox/pulpit for the disciples os scientism to preach from. And, I'm not just ranting against scientism on a unrelated talk page, I'm asking why this peculiar religion is getting so much bandwith devoted to it in this article, without even the slightest suggestion that it's a pretty extremist religion whose devotees are few and far between.

Re Lipollis's point. I think materialism is quite different from the brand of scientism espoused by Shermer and the like and since Sheremer openly acknowledges his allegiance to scientism I don't see why we can just use that - assuming, of course, that the second half of the article doesn't get deleted because of it's utter crapness.Davkal 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to User:Simoes
Here's a policy for you: WP:NOT. Wikipedia articles are not indiscriminate collections of things that might be related to the subject. You are abusing policy in claiming that it entitles you to add anything that has a source, and not be reverted.

The moon landing hoax is not pseudoscience, but a general conspiracy theory, and doesn't belong here.

Meditation and reincarnation are religion, not pseudoscience, and were removed by another user for that reason. If there is reliable evidence that a significant number of people believe in these as science, and not religion, then they can be added back in. The way, the truth, and the light 02:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * TWTTATL seems right that the moon landing hoax theory is better classified as a conspiracy theory than a pseudoscience (I'm surprised this is controversial?). If the inclusion criterion mandates bringing it in, that's evidence that the criterion is faulty, not vice versa.  (The meditation/reincarnation argument seems to me less plausible, as people often claim objective validity of religious theories.) Fireplace 03:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your problem appears to be with WP:ATT, then. It doesn't matter whether the moon landing hoax theory is in fact a conspiracy theory and not a pseudoscience (though I'm not sure how these are mutually exclusive terms). We have a reliable source saying it is pseudoscience. That is the necessary and sufficient condition for inclusion. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 03:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and this seems like a good candidate. More generally, if your reading of policy tells you to include a claim that seems clearly false, you might want to step back and ignore all rules. Fireplace 03:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also don't see the label of pseudoscience for the moon landing hoax theory as clearly false--I think it's arguably accurate. Where are we to go from here? <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 03:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Scientific-appearing claims are used in Moon-landing conspiracy arguments, but also in 9/11 conspiracy theories, among others. This isn't a useful criterion. The way, the truth, and the light 03:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * From here, we need more sources to attribute it as pseudoscience. We can't just take one source's word for it when there's a dispute. That was part of my concern in the discussion above about the "disputed" tag. After all, I'm sure we could find at least one source claiming that Evolution or Heliocentrism are pseudoscience. Such claims would be absurd, but they exist. Which is why WP:RS wants multiple reliable sources. -- Kesh 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing the reliability of the source. This just has to do some editors' personal opinions. It amounts to pushing a particular, sourceless POV. There's no need for more sources on account of that. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 17:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Simoes, you said above that these Skeptic bodies are less likely than Academies of Sciences to represent the consensus of the scientific community. Why do you feel they are less likely? Does that make them less reliable of sources than AoS? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's because skeptical bodies' memberships aren't as broad as the AoSes. Only scientists who have an interest in the problem of pseudoscience join these groups. Hence, they're less likely to be an accurate sample of the broader scientific community. If we could make a robust list out of the AoS sources alone, that would be great. Unfortunately, the academies aren't in the business of labeling fields as pseudoscience: they only do so under special circumstances. I was even happy to settle for a smaller list, but several people from Wikiproject Physics (I think) were directed to this talk page and promptly freaked out. Using scientific skepticism bodies as sources was a compromise. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should necessarily regard a source which is in the "business of labeling". For something this pejorative, this controversial, we need to rely only on the best sources which most accurately reflect the consensus of the entire scientific community. Once we let in the opinions of magicians and comedians, we are opening the floodgates to a whole host of other sources (or we are being hypocritical by not allowing those sources). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't mean to imply that the scientific skepticism bodies are in such a "business." Like I said before, many magicians are imminently qualified to investigate claims of paranormal ability (they're illusionists, after all, just like the people they've exposed). And, once again, the comedian for Skeptic magazine is an entertainment writer for them. I addressed all this in a previous post. There really are no grounds to challenge the reliability (by Wikipedia standards) of the skepticism bodies. Especially in this case of the second section of this article, all proclamations of pseudoscience were written by working scientists (and endorsed by the group as a whole). <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But you have given us the grounds. They aren't broad enough to reflect a consensus in the scientific communtiy. That needs to be our minimal standard here. Otherwise we have a WP:WEIGHT issue. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't as broad as academies of sciences. They're still composed of mainstream, working scientists. They easily pass WP:ATT. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not they are composed of mainstream scientists (and comedians, journalists and maginicans), how do we know that they represent the consensus of the mainstream scientific community as a whole? And if they truly do, then why the separation into two sections in our article? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 18:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As these organizations are mainstream bodies composed largely of members of the scientific community, they can be considered a statistical sample. The separation is to acknowledge the difference in reliability. And before you continue unproductively ridiculing the work of investigative magicians, note that the most famous of them, James Randi, has multiple publications in Nature, one of which has been cited in other mainstream, peer-reviewed journal articles at least 74 times. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, whoa! Where is this coming from? What ridicule? WP:AGF please. And perhaps a little WP:CHILL too. Don't you see? I totally agree with you. I too don't think the skeptical bodies are as reliable as the AoS entries. Just like you say above. But rather than separating these two into the most reliable (section 1) and less reliable (section 2), I think we should just do away with section 2 entirely. Once you open the doors a little to allow less reliable sources in, it is easier to push the door wide open and let in all of the junk. Next we are going to be citing sensational pseudoskepticism such as Penn & Teller's Bullsh!t as a reliable source. See what I mean? And please, I don't mean any disrespect to you nor to the skeptic organizations. As I said, I am a skeptic too. I am just trying to see past my personal views and keep this article fair. Peace. :-) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no policy saying that something must be in Wikipedia if it's in a reliable source. The way, the truth, and the light 03:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't, but someone already put the material in the article. Removing it merely because you disagree with its inclusion is a violation of WP:NPOV. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 17:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Scientific" theories are asserted in the Moon landing conspiracy regularly. Some examples include that the shadows are off because of whatever reason. Wind caused the flag to move and there's no wind on the Moon. Science didn't have the technology yet to actually make a Moon trip. There's a number of them. They contradict accepted science because accepted science asserts that a Moon trip was made, that the technology was in place, that whatever shadows or flag movements and so on actually occured on the Moon. The science asserted by conspiracy theorists lacks the important verification part of science, where theories that the Moon landing actually did occur are verified by the science establishment. The problem is that all of that is WP:OR without it coming from the source.


 * In meditation it is asserted that regular meditation alters the brainwaves in the practitioner, moving them from beta and alpha states to theta and delta states. This is pseudoscience because of a lack of accepted experiments that verify the assertion. But again, that's WP:OR without it coming from the source.


 * In reincarnation it is asserted that past life regression can be done through hypnotism and that this is scientific evidence. Hypnotism itself is often seen as pseudoscience and past life regression is definitely seen as pseudoscience. But again, that's WP:OR without it coming from the source.


 * The list isn't flawed, nor the source the list comes from. The flaw is a lack of explanation for the entries that would cause a reader to stop and think, "Oh, that makes sense. I might not agree, but I can see where the book is coming from."
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 04:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What book is this? The article lists several. The way, the truth, and the light 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the section those items were in, the header says, "Unless otherwise noted, the entries are referenced from The Skeptics Society's The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience." That's a WP:RS that reflects a notable view.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 04:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the moon landing hoax was not in that section, but under 'Main topics'. The way, the truth, and the light 04:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I was looking at the reincarnation/meditation ones that were removed. For the Moon landing hoax, here is what the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, a WP:RS that reflects a notable view, has to say about it being a pseudoscience:


 * "From the many moon rocks brought back by the astronauts to the instruments they left on the Moon, there is ample evidence that the moon landings actually happened."


 * That's the scientific viewpoint. It's my contention that if a blurb like that were added to the item's description in the list, readers would have a better understanding why it's listed.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 05:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unmanned mission???? Davkal 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? Are saying the evidence could come from an unmanned mission too? Beats me. For all I know a monkey did it. I assume it happened and I'm pretty sure science assumes it happened, but I don't really care if it did or didn't. I just want better explanations in the list for why things are on it. If such and such source says something, fine by me. I just think it would be less confusing if it said why they said it.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 18:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, see exceptional claims require exceptional sources (claims that appear to be blatantly false are exceptional, and a skeptic's society's lone book is not an exceptional source), and always look at WP:IAR before including claims seem blatantly false. Also, people here need to chill out -- the constant stream of POV accusations, wikilawyering, and edit-warring is off-putting. Being off-put myself, this will be my last comment for the time being. Fireplace 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Regarding creation science and intelligent design
This has probably already been discussed, but I think it is unfair and biased to call creationism a pseudoscience or to place it in the same category as astrology. Regardless of whether the author of this article likes creationism or agrees with it, Wikipedia articles ought to have a neutral point of view. This represents a clear point of view on a controversial topic that many people would disagree with.

The comments regarding intelligent design are both biased and factually inaccurate. Intelligent design advocates have repeatedly argued that they're not creationists; who should define intelligent design, intelligent design advocates or their opponents? This "definition" of intelligent design is nothing but a straw-man that represents a clear point of view. If the author thinks intelligent design is creationism, fine, but he should spread that opinion through some other medium. This article also shows a common misunderstanding of intelligent design, and in particular irreducible complexity: the argument is not "such-and-such is so complex I just can't imagine how it could have evolved," as the article seems to imply. Rather, the argument is that certain things could not possibly be any less complex than they are now and still function. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.226.68 (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Intelligent Design has been judged as being religious in nature in several courts, whatever its supporters say. While there may be some ID proponents who don't support the theist interpretations, it's hard to deny that the vast majority are firmly theist.


 * The description of Irreducible Complexity is only needed to give a brief overview of the idea; the full treatment, including your points, are included in the main article. --Werrf 17:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Intelligent Design has not only been judged as being religious by several courts, it is also admitted to be religious in intent by the historical instigators of the ID movement. That there is no actual scientific process involved, no peer review, no published methodology, and so on, should probably qualify it as pseudoscience, if not a completely dishonest hoax. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

List of topics referred to as pseudoscience
The current article suffers from a number of problems. First, it's a troll magnet. Second, even among non-trolls, it's a revert-war and ownership magnet. Third, it makes a mysterious distinction between "main topics" and "other significant topics" leading to near-arbitrary categorization based on whether an Academy of Science has bothered mentioning that XYZ is pseudoscientific. Four, arguments over the use of the skeptic's society's book as a central and authoritative source will recur ad nauseum.

All this can be avoided if we switch the article to "List of topics referred to as pseudoscience" (along the lines of List of purported hate groups and List of groups referred to as cults). Two obvious problems are (1) this will sweep in topics fringe groups call pseudoscience (e.g., evolution), and (2) this will not distinguish topics by quality of source. The (optional) solution to (1) is to specifically exclude item where there is a scientific consensus that the topic is not pseudoscientific (e.g., evolution). The (optional) solution to (2) is to use a table (such as this) to create a visual representation of the rough quality of source. Fireplace 13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: As further evidence... take a look at this talk page. Then, take a look at the elegant way Will Beback is able to resolve each and every issue at Talk:List of purported hate groups. Fireplace 17:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually like your draft a lot. It has a good organizational and aesthetic quality to and will probably lessen confusion over inclusion standards. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the most sensible path of action I've seen for this list in a long time. I'd support this change. -- Kesh 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose I wouldn't mind a table of that sort if it could be complete. As I see it, 'pseudosciences' are different from 'cults' and 'hate groups' in that 'pseudoscience' has an objective definition. That's why I've judged certain entries to not be pseudoscience: it's impossible that anyone could rationally disagree - and no one has. The way, the truth, and the light 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. If this survives for a week or so, let's move the article to "List of topics referred to as pseudoscience" or somesuch. Fireplace 00:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FeloniousMonk reverted without explanation... it would be helpful if he commented at the discussion here, as so far there's only been support. Fireplace 01:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: now people are edit-warring over this, again without engaging in the discussion here. This is unhelpful.  Fireplace 03:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I put it back, but it got reverted again. The reason was "Replace mass deletion of material". I don't think anyone's reading the talk page. Good luck Fireplace.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you need a column for the description that was in the previous version. I don't personally think that's needed. What I think is actually needed is a short blurb from the source explaining why they think it is pseudoscientific, so there's no confusion. But the extra column might appease those who think that you are deleting something important. Or maybe you might want to wait for them to pop over here and tell you themselves.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, I think your format is OK. However, as you presented it, it both lacks sources for most of the claims and does not give an explanation like the ones on the old page. That's not acceptable. The way, the truth, and the light 04:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sources, there are about 100 entries on the list... wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if there's agreement that this scheme is preferred, we should go ahead and collaborate on gathering sources/removing items. I'm not going to do it all by myself :-)  Regarding the explanations, I'm not convinced they are necessary -- they are so short as to be often misrepresentative of the actual view.  I'm also worried about how to include them in the formatting scheme.  What do other people think? Fireplace 04:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion is that it suffers from several flaws, and serious attempts to fix it will be shot down instantly. Per WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, and Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ it needs clear statements, clear sourcing, and extra-special care to not be controversial. I hate to be cynical, but I have little confidence that there is a consensus to go that route.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? The whole point of the proposal is to cut down on NPOV/ATT disputes -- it's no longer a "List of pseudosciences", but a "List of purported pseudoscience."  A single ref saying "X is a pseudoscience" is the sole inclusion criterion (unless there is a clear scientific consensus that it is not pseudoscience -- like evolution).  There's no NPOV/ATT problem.  Fireplace 05:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I sort of disagree with that, but I'm not going to press the issue. A [ref] link doesn't really give any context or provide any explanation for the entry. What it really needs is "X says Y is a pseudoscience because of Z" so the reader can either agree or disagree with the statement (neutrality) and it clearly spells out who is saying what (att). Like I said, I'm not going to press it. Instead, here's one way you can still cleanup the list using your table and the existing descriptions (note the new column).

-- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I meant that the existing article suffers from serious flaws, not yours. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Moon landing again
Clarification with regard to this entry: my contention is that, although the moon landing conspiracy theories contain scientific claims, that is no different from others like 9/11 conspiracy theories. They are all properly listed at List of conspiracy theories, regardless of their content. The way, the truth, and the light 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it's also a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean it isn't also a pseudoscientific theory. For an illustration of why this does (also) qualify as pseudoscientific, compare it to the Tunguska event:
 * Event occurs, either a claimed moon landing or a massive explosion over Siberia.
 * Scientists come up with an explanation of said event, either a mission planned by NASA or an exploding meteor.
 * Others dissent from this view due to a poor understanding of the science involved. In the case of the moon landing, they misinterpret events such as the waving of the flag (actually caused by its inertia and the lack of atmosphere) and the formation of impact craters. In the case of the Tunguska event, the scientific explanation was initially tentative due to lack of an understanding of meteors, so other theories were proposed. However, these theories were even more implausible and also generally went against other accepted tenets of science.
 * Despite explanations of the science to these people, they insist on their claims and try to back up the faulty science they used. This is the key step to being pseudoscientific, right here.
 * But you know what? All that I just said is pretty much irrelevent. We have a verifiable source that calls the moon landing hoax belief pseudoscientific, and that's what matters. There would be a case to argue against it if the claim seemed obviously false, but my illustration above does show plausibility of it. So, we've got verifiable and plausible (so we don't need an exceptional source to add verifiability). It's in.
 * I'll also address your other point: the comparison to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Personally, having seen some of the truly bizarre claims made by these theorists (holographic airplane projectors for one), I'd actually say that that also qualifies as pseudoscientific. However, I haven't seen a verifiable source saying so, so it's not going in (at least yet). Besides this, we should address each case on its own merits, rather than comparing it to other cases that have never had their merits addressed. The comparison to another case can be relevant if that other case was previously discussed and the reasoning there is applicable here, but that's not the case now. --DrLeebot 14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, you can't remove content just because you personally disagree with it. Your own arguments have no bearing here unless you can get them published in, e.g., some respectable, academic journal. We have a reliable source cited. That's really all that matters. From the first paragraph of WP:ATT:
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."
 * <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First, it's questionable that your list of sources should be accepted as the reliable sources here. Second, you're misusing the reliable sources policy: editorial judgements about what to include are not subject to that policy. Anyone intelligent enough to know the definition of pseudoscience can see that the examples on this page generally are, and the examples I removed are not. Third, in any case, guidelines do not override common sense.


 * Also, I see that all of your edits for the past 2 days have to do with this controversy - why are you so obsessed with it? I have many other edits, and frankly, I only stay in this dispute for honot as I really don't like dealing with people like you. The way, the truth, and the light 04:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is the issue of the correct place to put notable things though. This article is going to get very long indeed by the time you've got Holocaust denial, every historical denial, Global Warming Denial, every claim made about vacinnations, Fluoride in drinking water, AND every conspiracy theory in it. Good luck. --BozMo talk 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks? The Astronomical Society of the Pacific says moon-landing hoax theories are pseudoscientific. That makes this list the correct place to put it. The inclusion standards of the list are such that we've found no sources also calling your examples pseudoscientific. List length is not really a salient concern right now. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct place is List of conspiracy theories, as I've said twice now. The way, the truth, and the light 04:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why can't there be more than one "correct" place to put things? I see no reason a theory can't both suspect a conspiracy and be pseudoscientific. I know of plenty of creationists who accuse mainstream science of a conspiracy to cover up or fudge data, and that suspicion doesn't stop them from also being pseudoscientific. --DrLeebot 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it belongs in both places. Problem solved and stop warring. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 13:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Astronomical Society of the Pacific source supposedly justifies the inclusion. What do they say? Or, rather, what does he say, since the source in question is just an article by one man that appears on the ASP's website and is not really a statement by the society at all despite the mischaracterisation of this in the article. Well, here is what the source says, in total:


 * A small group of "true believers" who claim that NASA never landed on the Moon got a big boost in 2001, when Fox network broadcast a long paranoid show about their ideas. The web sites below provide a skeptical examination of this claim and the so-called evidence for it. From the many moon rocks brought back by the astronauts to the instruments they left on the Moon, there is ample evidence that the moon landings actually happened. So far, all the information to refute the "moon hoax" claims in on the Web:


 * A detailed scientific account of the pseudoscientific nature of the claim? No! It doesn't even make the claim that it is pseudoscience. It is, by contrast, just another pseudosceptical rant from a disgruntled individual using emotive language to decry an idea they don't like. If this source is really representative of a the kind of thing that "mainstream, specialized scientific bodies" put out in their statements then those statements lack everything that gives science the authority it currently has (and should have) on Wiki. It does science a serious disservice to associate it with this kind of thing.Davkal 11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right about the source; it doesn't give any sign of being an official position of the ASP. In the absence of any convincing reason to believe otherwise, I claim that there are no reliable sources for this article, so we have to go by common sense. Wikipedia has an article on Pseudoscience, and one of the requirements is that a pseudoscience claims/appears to be a scientific theory. Conspiracy theories don't qualify because their basic claims are not scientific in nature, even though they may use science (or claim to).


 * Probably the reason that he included it in his list is that his topic was specifically astronomical claims. That's also why he includes crop circles and the 'face on Mars'. I removed these too (the former is in List of conspiracy theories). I went through the rest of this page and all the remaining entries seem to be genuine pseudoscience, except possibly the Bermuda Triangle. The way, the truth, and the light 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The list also said it was a list of "Astronomical Pseudoscience." Since it's a list of that material, he doesn't have to reiterate that each entry is pseudoscience. We're not doing that here, are we? --DrLeebot 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Crop circles is a slam-dunk. They call it "cerealogy" - if that ain't pseudoscience I don't know what is. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In case you were unaware, the journal Physiologia Plantarum has previously printed at least two peer reviewed cerealogy papers. This gives the field in general, though not as a whole, mainstream credentials. Physiologia Plantarum is a mainstream biology journal that deals exclusively with plant life, and is not in the remotest sense pseudoscientific or a promoter of pseudoscience- perfectblue 15:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Never heard of that. If someone has a scientific theory to explain them other than 'aliens did it' I suppose it is. The way, the truth, and the light 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe. That news article you provided does seem to show believers treating it as scientific. But that's just one news article, and it smells like a hoax or joke to me. The Wikipedia article on them supports that only weakly, and it seems that more believers may see them as religious-type phenomena than scientfic ones. The ASP article doesn't have those claims at all. The way, the truth, and the light 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned the moon landing hoax isn't a concept or a single identifiable (pseudo)scientific hypothesis, instead it is a collection of conspiracies that sometimes use pseudoscience (But aren't in themselves pseudoscience) but which more often are simply displays of directed ignorance (for example, ignorance of light bleeding and the effects of light source contrast in photography, or ignorance of the effects of radiation in space). Calling it pseudoscience would be an upgrade, which it doesn't deserve. - perfectblue 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop the edit war
I'm not going to report anyone for it unless it continues, but I noticed a couple of people hitting the 3RR limit in a short period this morning. It's technically not against the the 3RR rule, but it does qualify as edit warring. Could we please get an agreement to stop warring on the actual article and keep it confined to the talk page until there's some form of consensus?

As for the changes themselves, seeing as it might look like the source for the Moon Landing "hoax" might not actually say it's pseudoscientific, I'm alright with leaving it off if and until we find a source that does say so. Please stop the wars over the myriad other notes that are bouncing on and off the page, however. --DrLeebot 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ASP lists it under the list of pseudoscience. What's wrong with that? --ScienceApologist 12:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * who is the asp? crop circles claim to be a science? moon landings a science. i think those are hoaxes. ProtoCat 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Please read other notes on crop circles on this page for an explanation of why they can be considered to be pseudoscientific. Also, just because something was a hoax, doesn't mean it the supporters of it can't also be accused of pseudoscience (even after the hoax admission, many still believed the crop circles weren't hoaxed). --DrLeebot 12:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to entertain the rationale that it was put in not because it qualified as pseudo-science, but because it was astronomy related and was appropriate in a "Skeptic's Resource List." Skeptics don't always simply attack pseudoscience, but also antiscience, nonscientific conspiracy theories, and religion. Some internet skeptics are fond of using the term "woo" to group this all together, but it's not a widely known term. This means people who want to communicate with others who wouldn't understand it have to use other less inclusive terms such as "pseudoscience." As has been noted, this article was just written by one person and we can't say for sure that the thought that it wasn't technically pseudoscientific didn't actually go through his mind when writing it, but then he shrugged and put it in as it fit his general intent. --DrLeebot 12:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, leaving it on there with the tag seems like a good compromise until we can decide whether it should stay. --DrLeebot 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me sum up the disputed entries:


 * As mentioned above, crop circles can stay with a tag.
 * The moon landing is still just a conspiracy theory.
 * The face on Mars/Cydonia is just a general weird idea, I don't know how it could be scientific.
 * Meditation and reincarnation do indeed seem to have scientifc claims, but they aren't explained on this page and until they are, listing them wouldn't be appropriate. Also, the meditation entry contained a POV claim.The way, the truth, and the light 16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just tried to fix the meditation and reincarnation entries. The way, the truth, and the light 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We currently have the moon landing hoax theory included as a pseudoscience, and this presented as a fact having a broad consensus amongst the mainstream scientific community, simply because it appears in an unpublished article with pseudoscience in the title written by some completely non-notable guy on the non-peer review website of a totally non-notable organisation. Yet any attempt to remove this, or to fact tag the claim (which should be written as a claim and not as a fact in any event) is called disruptive. This is surely an all-time low! Davkal 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I went out and did a quick Google search to see how common it is to classify this as pseudoscience. Here are a few samples I found:   . One somewhat more official one from a professor of physics, which lists moon-landing hoax belief among other pseudoscience: . And another from a course at Michigan Tech:  (see slide 9). I think the result here is that while our original source is probably still the best reference (given its widespread use online, found multiple times in my search), it's not the only one. Calling the moon landing hoax belief pseudoscientific is quite common. --DrLeebot 17:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The largest astronomy society in the world is "totally non-notable"? This is part of your argument?? <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 18:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The point hardly turns on that. The simple fact is that you have a single source that doesn't even fully make the case that the moon landing hoax theory is pseudoscientific and it is not a statement issued by a mainstream science body as required by the extraordinarily POV rules of the article. So, given the rules of the article (which I also dispute) allow you to include just about anything you like on the basis of any source, no matter how unsupported the claims, you still can't find the kind of source you want, and the source you have found doesn't even really support the claim you want to make. That is why it is an all time low!Davkal 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See my other links. I provided two cases of professors of physics specifically saying that moon landing hoax beliefs are pseudoscientific, and that was in a very quick search. It's not just a single source; it's just that that's the only I feel it's worth including in the article. --DrLeebot 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen you provide any rationale that the moon landing is not pseudoscientific. Sayign that it is a conspiracy doesn't accomplish this, as there's no inherent contradiction between the two. As for the face on Mars, the attempted identification of formations seen on other planets is a big part of astronomy (a science). Doing this in extremely abnormal ways (as Richard Hoagland, one of the big proponents behind the face theory, does) then makes it pseudoscience. Also, there's no reason we have to explain why everything on this page qualifies as pseudoscience on this page. Compare to other lists, like (picking a random one) List of Buddhist topics. This one is just a list with no explanations of what anything on it has to do with Buddhism. --DrLeebot 17:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to include an item on a list that is clearly pejorative it is surely not too much to ask that there be some sound reason for inclusion - whether or not that reason is subsequently included in the article. One guy (not quite) saying something is so doesn't make it so. Especially when that one guy shows, in the introduction to his article, to have a very flimsy grasp of the meaning of the terms he bandies about such as "fringe" and "pseudo" science. Davkal 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that I have contributed this comment before, but perhaps now is a good time to repeat myself. We are dealing with a highly sensitive label here, often misapplied or too hastily applied. If we don't set our standards as high as possible here, this article will always be contentious. My proposal remains that in order for something to make the cut here, we have to see if the most widely respected body of scientists agree that it is pseudoscientific. I was under the impression that the various Academies of Sciences were these bodies; that they represented the mainstream scientific consensus better and more that any other group or organization. I may be wrong about AoS, but if such a body could be identified and applied soley to the article, I really can't see anyone having any contention here -- err, there would be less contention here. (You can't please all the people all the time, right?) ;-) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 18:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, as long as this article exists it's going to be contentious (unless we cut it down to just the parodies we mention at the end, but then there might be contention of why it exists at all). Someone who believes in one of the theories we leave up will of course take offense to this. In their mind, it's perfectly reasonable even if every scientist in the world says they're wrong (in fact, this might just lead to them comparing themselves to Galileo).
 * The reasoning I draw from this is that given that it's always going to be contentious, so we might as well just learn to live with it. Let's find good sources for everything we have up there, add more as necessary, remove any that run out of advocates or we decide were placed there in error, and patiently revert every time someone removes their pet theory from this list. What we shouldn't do is back down in the face of pressure from advocates of the Farting Raccoon theory of universal creation (hypothetical if you can't tell, pretend it's notable but ridiculous) simply because the AoS considers it beneath their dignity to mention it in a list of pseudoscience. --DrLeebot 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several points I think should be made. Firstly, the reason the article is contentious at the moment is simply because half the entries are poorly sourced even by the incredible POV nature of the article's requirement for sources - one strike (however crap) and it's in, indisputably, forever. Secondly, many of the items aren't sourced at all but are merely implied through various dictionary definitions being faultily combined to show a synonymy between paranormal and pseudoscience and then many non-scientific sources are used to follow this through and include items on the list. Thirdly, the pseudosceptics here simply want a list to include all their pet hates and you (and others) continue to mischaracterise this as believers trying to get their pet theories out - it is in fact the opposite. And finally, a significant number of things on the list (reincarnation, meditation, elves, gnomes fairies and pixies) are so obviously not pseudoscience that the article itself is a joke.Davkal 19:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's go through your points one-by-one:
 * "Firstly, the reason the article is contentious at the moment is simply because half the entries are poorly sourced even by the incredible POV nature of the article's requirement for sources - one strike (however crap) and it's in, indisputably, forever."
 * This is the last time I'm bothering to write this out for you; after this I'll copy-and-paste what I said before: We are not talking about a single source here, and this isn't even a single, bad source. Consult my links.
 * "Secondly, many of the items aren't sourced at all but are merely implied through various dictionary definitions being faultily combined to show a synonymy between paranormal and pseudoscience and then many non-scientific sources are used to follow this through and include items on the list."
 * This is a new issue, as far as I can tell. Honestly, it's possible to test for "paranormal" phenomena in a scientific way. We've done so. We haven't found any satisfactory evidence of any existence of any of it. But even though that's over with, you still have people claiming they exist in contrast to what science has told us, and they use their own bad logic to rationalize it away. This is what makes it pseudoscience. Now, my explanation here is broad, but if you want to discuss specific examples, go ahead.
 * "Thirdly, the pseudosceptics here simply want a list to include all their pet hates and you (and others) continue to mischaracterise this as believers trying to get their pet theories out - it is in fact the opposite."
 * Resorting to the old pejorative of "pseudoskeptic," are we? The motives of the people here are irrelevent. Whether you like it or not, there are objective criteria for what goes into this list, and the fact that the people you think of as "pseudoskeptics" are opposed to pretty much everything that meets those criteria is also irrelevent (and practically a tautology).
 * I've been coming to this list sporadically for a long time, and I see the same thing happening. Some person comes along and sees their own pet theory in the list (most often it happens with creationism). Then, they take it down as they see it as not fitting. It's promptly put back up, and it stays up because consensus is that it fits. There have also been cases in the past where things that "we" hate have been taken down from the list and stayed down for a variety of reasons. Go back through the page history to see this yourself.
 * "And finally, a significant number of things on the list (reincarnation, meditation, elves, gnomes fairies and pixies) are so obviously not pseudoscience that the article itself is a joke."
 * It may be humourous to you and me, but there are actually people out there who believe fairies or what-have-you actually exist and try to find "scientific" evidence for it. It's actually not all that far removed from Bigfoot. They're the ones living the joke, we're just reporting it. --DrLeebot 19:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe in any of these theories. I do believe that, since the term can be pejorative, that all listings should be backed up by outside sources, but there is no reason to assert the reverse. The way, the truth, and the light 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, all you're saying here is just because we can verify it doesn't mean it has to go in. Well, that's where notability comes in. Are you saying the moon landing hoax belief isn't notable? --DrLeebot 19:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The moon landing hoax is notable as a conspiracy theory, which is why it is in Wikipedia. The way, the truth, and the light 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I know I didn't warn you about this, but I've repeated this one just as many times, so I'm going to start copy/pasting till you address it: "I haven't seen you provide any rationale that the moon landing is not pseudoscientific. Saying that it is a conspiracy doesn't accomplish this, as there's no inherent contradiction between the two." --DrLeebot 19:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just a personal feeling, so take it with a grain of salt, but I think the Moon Landing Hoax theory is most notable as a conspiracy theory not as an example of pseudoscience. Shouldn't it just be included where it is best suited? I mean, I'm sure that there are a lot of conspiracy theories that misuse science to explain a "rationale", but that doesn't make them notable as pseudoscientific theories. What makes them notable is that they are "conspiracy theories". Again, this is more reason to only list things here that have been deemed as pseudoscientific by the highest source of consensual science. Otherwise, we are just playing the labelling game and we'll wind up with things such as "Psychology" and "Immunizations" listed here. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Phew! Getting an actual response to that is refreshing, so thanks. That being said, check out this link, which I provided a bit earlier. The professor lists it in his best six examples of pseudoscience. To him, at the least, it's obviously notable as an example of pseudoscience. Now, this isn't a good source for us to use to verify that it is pseudoscience (though we have another for that), but we can use it to judge its notability among pseudoscience. --DrLeebot 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dianetics
If someone can explain how the sources for dianetics count as "assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science" then they can put dianetics back into the section listing those things that have been so described by such bodies. If you can't then don't.Davkal 09:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's clearly a pseudoscience, and there probably are some better sources saying so, but including them would probably be controversial and attract scientology trolls. The way, the truth, and the light 09:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't include good solid sources because we might upset people? Well, I'll be sure to sure that one the next time that I assert that Bigfoot is real by citing supermarket tabloids as sources. If a reliable and solid source exists then it must be used. Accept no substitutes. - perfectblue 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Re JzG's restoring of Dianetics without discussion. please see above (if you can read).Davkal 21:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and avoid personal attacks, SqueakBox 01:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria for this article has been set way too high. This is a joke. I had to do a rare self-revert. :) - <b style="color:#669966;">Mr.Gurü</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very pseudoscience and already ref'd, clearly should be here, SqueakBox 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit that Dianetics does not currently belong on this list according to the inclusion criteria but I feel that if the inclusion criteria were neutrally written, it would then belong on this list. So where does that leave us? :) - <b style="color:#669966;">Mr.Gurü</b> ( talk/contribs ) 01:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason the inclusion criteria are the way they are come from the fact that we're identifying a list of subjects that are described by a derogatory term. This term does have objective measures which can be used to determine what fits (which is what allows this article to exist at all), but it's also used incorrectly by many people (even scientists) in order to disparage alternative theories. This means that if we take the words of any individual scientist in describing theories as pseudoscientific, we'd end up having to include many theories which most definitely aren't (Evolution being the first). So, we have to go by what a consensus of scientists think, and this isn't normally easy to gauge. The solution of taking the words of the academies is pretty much the safest way we can do this. --DrLeebot 14:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why the article is currently in two sections. The first section includes those in the academies' statements, though as Davkal has noted, the ASP statement doesn't appear to be an official position. The second includes everything else, which I suppose means Dianetics goes there. The way, the truth, and the light 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Move it to a different section if you want, but it is not hard to find sources identifying Dianetics as pseudoscience and indeed the Dianetics article identifies it as such. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. It seems the sources you have here, plus those at the Dianetics article, are good enough. No one that doesn't believe in it could dispute that it is a pseudoscience, anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 07:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Apparently it rates a whole chapter to itself in Gardner. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please not that the article is split into two sections - one for what mainstream scientific bodies have called pseudoscience and the other for other sources. It's not very difficult to understand - do try.Davkal 09:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, given the current organization that admits only the five scientific acadamies' statements for the first section. The way, the truth, and the light 10:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Section on disputed "Pseudoscience"
I was thinking, in the interest of NPOV, it might be a good idea to add in a section listing theories which are accused by some prominent person (or prominent scientist) of being pseudoscience, but which are not considered to be pseudoscience by the majority of scientists. This would be a place to put Evolution, for instance, which is called a pseudoscience by a small minority of scientists (yes, including some biologists), but is accepted as legitimate science by the vast majority.

Hopefully, putting a section like this in here would help resolve some NPOV disputes, and would discourage people from trying to push their views by inserting extra theories they disagree with (since it's already in the article that some people consider it pseudoscience). Now, of course we'll make clear that these articles are not commonly considered pseudoscience, but simply called that by a minority. So, what's the opinion on this? --DrLeebot 14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that if the article is to stand then that section is needed. It should also be noted that many of those who say, for example, that evolution is pseudoscience are only talking about certain aspects of the theory or its use. The philosopher Mary Midgely, for example, makes a compelling case that many authors have used evolution (and cosmology) to make dubious ethical/political points. She notes that because they do this (usually) in the final chapters of books otherwise devoted to fairly straightforward scientific accounts this gives the false impression that neutral science supports those claims and this is, almost by definition, pseudoscience.Davkal 14:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I wouldn't call that 'pseudoscience', it's just the misuse of science. The way, the truth, and the light 14:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Two problems with that. First, where do we stop? Including everything that anyone has considered pseudoscience is too inclusive; we'd still need a strict standard that anything without a source is deleted. Second, although evolution is an easy case, how do we show that a consensus does or doesn't believe in any given thing?


 * I'm thinking of things like the water fluoridation controversy, where both sides have been called pseudoscientific by scientists. We don't want debates like that about this page. The way, the truth, and the light 14:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The standard I'm thinking of is that we need a source of some scientist calling it pseudoscience, or even multiple ones (as it's easy to find one "scientist" who'll say anything). The point of using the word of a scientist is that they should have some knowledge of what the scientific method is and how it works, and as such should be able to identify false science (though notable, too few universities actually require courses that teach this). They of course might be wrong for a number of reasons, and this section is for cases where there's a good chance they are.


 * If we get even stricter, we might even want to narrow it down to scientists who trained in the appropriate field. For instance, to put Evolution up, we'd need someone with a Ph.D. in Biology.


 * I also don't really see a problem if we happen to put both sides of a debate in here, though we should be clear which side the consensus is currently on (if a consensus has formed). However we do it, this part of the list is likely to be quite full, but that's not necessarily a problem (as long as we're clear that just because something is in the list doesn't mean it is a pseudoscience, just that some notable scientist called it one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrLeebot (talk • contribs)


 * What I expect, and I believe most people looking at this page would expect, is a listing of things that are undeniably pseudoscience. I don't know if you meant it, but you used the term 'false science' which is far too broad.


 * I also don't think we can always determine consensus without controversy - see the global warming articles. There seems to be no way to adopt your suggestion without arguing over scientific consensus.


 * Finally you haven't stated strict standards you would use for this section. I don't believe the word of one scientist alone should be enough, principally because not all scientists will be using the standard definition of pseudoscience, some scientists may use the accusation as a political weapon against stuff they don't like, and sources may misinterpret their words. The way, the truth, and the light 15:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we need a scientist to say something is a pseudoscience. Someone like Mary Midgely who is a highly regarded philosopher and who has written many academic papers on precisely the issue at hand seems to me a much sounder source to judge pseudoscientific support for ethical theories than, say, a biologist who has never studied ethics at all. The point here is that science/pseudoscience is more a philosophical point than a scientific one.Davkal 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by 'ethical theories'? That doesn't sound like something that should be on this page, which is about ostensibly scientific theories. The way, the truth, and the light 15:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is about pseudoscience - i.e., something that is not science masquerading as science in order to claim a legitimacy is does not have. So, I am saying that when a scientist uses science to try to push a certain ethical theory or to make philosophical claims that go well beyond what that science can support they are engaging in pseudoscience. Davkal 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't consider that to be pseudoscience, as it is not scientific in nature. Again, adding such things would be too controversial for this page. The way, the truth, and the light 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not making this particular suggestion to include subjects that are verifiably pseudoscientific; instead, this is for ones which probably aren't but are notably accused of being so. The use of a scientist's word is simply to show the notability of the claim. If Joe Blow in the coffee shop says Quantum Mechanics is pseudoscience, no one cares. But if Michael Behe, who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry, says evolution is pseudoscience, then it's notable (sorry to keep bringing up the same example, but it's a prominent one).


 * To sum it up: This is basically an attempted solution to the inherent controversy of this article. Some people legitimately think that certain subjects are pseudoscientific, and they'd expect to see them mentioned here. When they don't, they see the article as POV and perhaps try to add them in themselves. However, if we put it in but point out that it's a minority view, they could hopefully accept this fact. --DrLeebot 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I think people such as Mary Midgley count as pretty notable too.Davkal 17:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. We should just say that there should be some plausible reason that the source would have a view on what qualifies as pseudoscience. Even for this section, we wouldn't but subjects in if a complete outsider, however notable, were to call it pseudoscience. --DrLeebot 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. What exactly do you think would be notable for that, though? I want to see if the standards you have in mind will work reasonably. The way, the truth, and the light 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't have hard and fast standards for this, and I'm not sure we really should have any. A case-by-case basis might be the best way to handle this. Roughly speaking, it might divide like this, however:


 * Scientists, doctors, philosophers of science, prominent skeptics - In. (Since skeptics don't have an objective standard like having to have a Ph.D., we have to use a flimsier standard of being somewhat prominent (If they have a Wikipedia entry, they probably are).)
 * Engineers, politicians, clergy, pundits - Not in (unless they have significant background in science.) --DrLeebot 19:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion, being dominated by POV-pushers of a particular stripe, did not arrive at a consensus for such a section to be included in this article. I will point out that WP:RS is of the utmost importance here and I saw not one reliable source for the section that was inserted. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Not one"? So, a book written by a neurologist in which he states quite clearly that psychiatry is pseudoscience isn't reliable evidence that a neurologist said that psychiatry is pseudoscience? As for evolution, I simply forgot to add on a source there, but I'll get it up this time.


 * Also, be careful who you accuse of being a POV-pusher. I'm just trying to make the article better, and I honestly believe that to make this article NPOV we have to make a mention of subjects which are considered by a minority to be pseudoscience. If you disagree, join in the discussion; don't just revert. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I went back and double-checked my references, and it looks like I got my authors mixed up. The book which said evolution was pseudoscience was written by a layman, while the book written by a scientist never made that claim. There could well be a good source saying this somewhere, however, but I haven't found it (yet). Psychiatry, however, stands, though it seems a little silly to have a section with only one entry. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fred A. Baughman is a notoriously problematic advocate for his own brand of spiritual medicine and is therefore easily excluded as being unreliable for these claims and since you have no source for the evolution bit this nonsense is excluded. --ScienceApologist 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The argument isn't over whether his claim is reliable; it's already been granted in the introduction to the section that it's not commonly accepted (which implies words of the claimants might not be reliable). All we need is reliable evidence that it was said, which we have. Agree with him or not, Baughman still qualifies as a scientist, and theoretically should know what pseudoscience is. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Before edit conflict) However, I am willing to entertain the notion that a medical degree does not necessarily imply being a scientist or knowing the scientific method. On the other hand, even purely scientific programs at the best universities often don't cover the philosophy of science, so we then might have to exclude most well-respected scientists as well. This goes back to our problem of where we set the bar for inclusion, and I listed a rough proposal above. I included doctors in the acceptable category as they usually have an undergraduate degree in some form of science, and have experience with the scientific method. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't just allow for the existence of an idea to be the standard for inclusion. Notability must also be met. Aside from being unreliable, he is also not notable enuogh for inclusion. --ScienceApologist 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Baughman himself might not be, but claims that psychiatry is a pseudoscience are (thanks to the prominence of Scientology). With notability of the subject, is notability of the source also required? I'm not sure if that question has been addressed. As for his reliability, the only part on that page that might not fit is "trustworthiness," but we really can't make that claim without it being original research. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Scientology is not a reliable source for demarcation between science and pseudoscience. We can discuss the opinion of that religion on pages devoted to that religion, but this isn't a page devoted to any religion's perspective: this is a page devoted to the demarcation that goes on vis-a-vis the scientific community and not the weird individuals who hang out on its fringes tilting at windmills. --ScienceApologist 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The title of this article is "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts," not "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts according to the scientific and skeptical communities." If you think that's what the article should be solely about, then the title should reflect that, and we can discuss yet another page move. Otherwise, the article is governed by NPOV, not SPOV. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And here's where I start arguing with myself: If a reader is reading up on psychiatry, would they be surprised to find that it's in the Pseudoscience category at the bottom? Yes, they probably would, given what's in the article (unless they have a previous bias). Therefore, it shouldn't be in a list of pseudosciences.


 * But then this still leaves us with the problem of how to handle the alternative POV that it is indeed a pseudoscience. Yes, it's fringe, but the NPOV guidelines say that fringe POVs should still be mentioned, but noted that they're fringe.


 * Perhaps then it's better to note this in the Pseudoscience article than in a list. Maybe we should keep the list pure to what we're sure of.


 * If we do that, will the tag ever come off? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a number of precedents for dealing with pseudoscience in an NPOV fashion: WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV/FAQ, Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience are some good reading. --ScienceApologist 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've actually been reading through a lot of that already. About the only conclusion I've come to is that the problem is in that the precise nature of this list is the issue. Looking back, it looks like this list is intended to be simply those subjects which are actually pseudoscience by the definition of, as judged by those who are capable of judging this. It's unfortunate that this isn't clear in the title, but we have to strike a balance between accuracy and wordiness. With that, I'm going to go take off the NPOV tag if and until someone raises a valid complaint with this list in the context of that purpose. (And yes, this is implying that I'm fine leaving that section out; I only thought it should go in under a different interpretation of what this list should be.) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I put the tag back because the main problems with the article have still not been addressed: 1) some of the items in the first list are not attributed to the types of sources claimed; 2) the title of the article is misleading inasmuch as should make it clear that this is not an actual list of pseudosciences but merely a list of things that have been called pseudoscience by scientistic pressure groups (the article also excludes the views of many notable commentators who do not belong to such groups but who are nonetheless well qualified to identify pseudoscience, e.g., philosophers (of science)); and 3) many of the items on the second list are obviously not pseudoscience (fairies, elves etc.) but are included merely simply because they appear in books with pseudoscience in the title (quite probably in the title as a mere marketing tool rather than as anything stemming from any reasoned argument).Davkal 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) 1) That's a citation issue; not an NPOV issue.

2) As I addressed before, the title is the way it is for brevity. If you have an alternative title that isn't overly wordy but which gets across the intended meaning, feel free to suggest it.

3) Would you consider the search for Bigfoot scientific? Since it's in the list and you haven't argued with it, I'd assume you have no problem with this classification. Just as the search for this mythical creature is pseudoscientific, so is the search for other mythical creatures. And yes, there are indeed people out there searching for and trying to prove fairies, elves et al. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Point 1) is a factual accuracy and a neutrality issue. Certain items are being labeled pseudoscience without sources (this may be factually incorrect and POV) and other sources are being misrepresented (factually inaccurate and again POV). Point 2) is not really about a new title for this article but about a new article (a neutral one) for this title. The title issue is merely meant to bring to light one problem with the article. On your point 3, you don't really address my point which was that it is possible (probable) that nobody has even claims elves are pseudoscience - they simply appear in a book with pseudoscience in the title. I don't think that's a very good reason for inclusion and it raises further serious issues about the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article. Davkal 12:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On 1 and 2, before getting to my response, I'd like to ask you to clarify something: Do you consider calling something a "pseudoscience" to be a POV, with there (probably) being an alternative POV that it isn't a psuedoscience? One other note though, both sections have an "unless otherwise noted" note on citations, so it's not necessary to cite every entry when it's just this source. Apply this source to all without it, and none are left without citations.


 * 3) This isn't just some book with "Pseudoscience" in the title, the book is called "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience," which directly implies that the author (Michael Shermer, a very prominent skeptic) believes everything in it to be a pseudoscience. If it were a conjunction of, for instance, "Pseudoscience, Hoaxes, and Myths," you might have a point, but it isn't. An Encyclopedia of the Paranormal would imply that all subjects in it are paranormal, wouldn't it? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean about just calling something a pseudoscience being a POV. In some cases it would be, in others the point is fairly clear although almost no example would have total agreement. My view is that the way PS is now used is so loose and sloppy that it is nothing more than a pejorative and as such there probably shouldn't be article anymore than there should be an article called "arseholes" which lists people who are (have been called) an arsehole - there is no fact of the matter in either case and when PS is applied strictly enough to make it a fact of the matter then the list would dwindle to almost nothing. The way round this has been to turn the article into the current "PS according to..." but that has its own problems - some of which are identified below. Secondly, the first section does not have an "unless otherwise noted" note. The first section is supposed to include only those things labelled PS by mainstream scientific bodies but some on the list are not attributed to such bodies and some are not attributed at all. On this point, then, the article is POV inasmuch as some people have added their own pet hates and are trying to pretend that they are supported by mainstream scientific bodies. If such support exists then let the sources cited. Thirdly, I am not interested whether something implies (to you) that something is PS or not. If we want an encyclopedia to say that fairies, elves and pixies are PS then I would expect there to be some source saying it straightforwardly. To say that they appear in a book with PS in its title just doesn't seem good enough - especially when some of the things listed in that book (e.g fairies elves etc) are clearly not PS. Finally (still not addressed) the article excludes many things that have been labelled PS by other notable authorities and it is far from clear that this is appropriate. That is, it is fairly clear that the two groups whose views are presented in the article do not account for "all notable views" and as such the article breaches NPOV. In short, then, the article's content is slanted towards a very particular POV by a series of stealth tactics, and even then those who have slanted the article in that way can't abide by their own rules. The whole thing needs significant work before the flag should be removed.Davkal 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was trying to guess at your position there, and I think I've got a pretty good grasp of it now from what you've just said. Essentially, if your beliefs about the article were true - that any perfectly NPOV treatment of it would cause it to dwindle to almost nothing ("...when PS is applied strictly enough to make it a fact of the matter then the list would dwindle to almost nothing") - the article would be a good candidate for deletion, not for existing with the tag permanently on it. In fact, the article was previously nominated for deletion for this very reason, and the result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. This shows that consensus is firmly of the belief the we can indeed verify whether something is pseudoscience, and that this isn't simply a "list of arseholes." I'm not going to bother with the rest of your arguments; I've already replied previously, and you're just repeating myself, so I'm not going to join in and repeat myself as well. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

More Edit Warring?
Okay, I'm not going to get into any edit warring, and I wish others felt the same way. This is precisely what got the article locked previously. The Way: Before taking down the note on the moon landing, please address the arguments for why it does count as pseudoscience. They're all up there in the previous thread, still unanswered. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All the reasons that it doesn't are also there, unanswered. The way, the truth, and the light 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We gave you our answers; you merely find them unsatisfactory. This is unfortunate, but it also means the material will stay for now. If you continue to remove the same content, you face the possibility of being blocked again. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 18:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? I thought I covered all of them. Would you mind repeating down here any points you feel haven't been addressed adequately? (Either way, it still isn't a good idea to get into an edit war before the issue is resolved.) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this one again to remove the Apollo hoax bit. While specific accusations of the moon landing hoax accusations do use pseudoscience, some hoax claims don't use any science at all (eg. financial or political arguments). Others simply rely on a poor understanding of how things work (eg. the "no stars in the photos" argument; not pseudoscience, just a poor understanding of photography). It's far too general a category to include in its entirety. -- Kesh 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:V; "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". Your argument could be mae about any of these items; that not every single thing in them is pseudo-science, therefore they can't be included. However, your original research is irrelevant. We have a reliable source describing the Apollo hoax as "pseudo-science". The end. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * People keep making the claim that we have a source for the Apollo moon hoax theory being pseudoscience. We don't. Here is what the current sole source cited in the article says in total on the subject:


 * "A small group of "true believers" who claim that NASA never landed on the Moon got a big boost in 2001, when Fox network broadcast a long paranoid show about their ideas. The web sites below provide a skeptical examination of this claim and the so-called evidence for it. From the many moon rocks brought back by the astronauts to the instruments they left on the Moon, there is ample evidence that the moon landings actually happened. So far, all the information to refute the "moon hoax" claims in on the Web."


 * I see nothing in the above to show, or even suggest, that any aspect of the moon landing hoax theories are pseudoscience or anything like it. All it really says, in a nasty sniping way, is that they are wrong.Davkal 03:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The page is title "Astronomical Pseudo-Science" and lists "Apollo moon hoax" as one example. That couldn't be clearer. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's extremely weak reasoning. There is an inference, but not a statement in the source. -- Kesh 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It couldn't be clearer; it lists it as "Astronomical pseudo-science". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the burden is verifiability. However, certain parts of the Apollo hoax phenomenon are verifiably not pseudoscience. So, how can the concept as a whole be? This is not WP:OR, it's erring on the side of caution. A single source is not sufficient to label the entire phenomenon pseudoscience. As a side note, saying "The End" does not end the discussion.
 * As a side-side note, I think all the Apollo hoax claims are quite silly. It's been scientifically demonstrated how it worked. My disagreement here is purely on the extremely loose inclusion criteria this list has. This particular example is more of a gray area, but I think we'd be better off breaking down the specific pseudoscientific claims included in Apollo hoax claims, rather than the blanket label of the whole phenomenon. -- Kesh 03:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you're using your own arguments to refute what the reliable sources say. That's original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * THE SOURCE DOES NOT SAY IT!Davkal 04:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The source lists it as "Astronomical pseudo-science". That's very clear. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And then the source immediately starts talking about things at the fringes of science, ie., it says "This is a selected list of resources for those who want to examine with a skeptical eye some of the claims at the fringes of science that seem connected to astronomy." Which shows either an almost total ignorance of what PS really means or demonstrates that the word is being used in a very loose and sloppy manner. The section on the the hoax theory also says nothing to clarify the matter. The point, then, is that the source says nothing to make the case: no argument, no specific identification, nothing. Again we simply have a catchy title for an article being used to make a case. This is hardly sound reasoning, if indeed, it is reasoning at all.Davkal 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the individual claims are worth inclusion on such a list. However, I agee that they may be considered pseudoscience; as I have repeated several times, similar pseudoscientific claims are found in other conspiracy theories also. The way, the truth, and the light 03:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Jayjg, just saying it's "very clear" does not satisfy the burden of proof. The source has it under that heading... and? This is the best source we've got for including it in this article? Please understand, this is a serious concern. I do not consider this verified. Apparently, I am not the only editor with this concern. Do you have any better reasoning, backed up with reliable sources to include this extremely large category of hoaxes in the pseudoscience list? One extremely vague allusion is not sufficient. -- Kesh 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's what I'm going to do for the time being: I'll put/leave it in, but with a note that only some aspects of the hoax allegations are pseudoscientific (others are political/idiotic/etc.) I know this will probably make absolutely no one happy, and people will just rail on about the verifiability of the source, saying "It's clear, it's under the heading of 'pseudoscience'!"/"It's not clear, he later uses words which soften his intent and turn it around into an extremely vague allusion!" but in the end, screw you, this is probably the right way to handle it anyway. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Obscure and parody pseudoscience
This section is a huge problem. As the section itself states, these are not notable enough to have been commented on by reliable sources yet. So why the heck is this section in a Wikipedia article? Further, the section lead is full of weasel words, and claims they are "uncontroversially regarded as pseudoscientific". This fails WP:V in its entirety. I would have removed it immediately, but do not wish to give the appearance of edit warring, given the above controversy about the Apollo hoax inclusion. -- Kesh 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. We've just had several people damnad the inclusion of the moon hoax because of a standard of rigidly adhering to certain sources, yet we have a section that clearly fails that standard. The title is silly, too: if Time Cube is 'obscure', why should it be here at all? It should be renamed 'Notable parodies of pseudoscience', and Time Cube either moved to another section or deleted. But I'm sure any change I make will be reverted. The way, the truth, and the light 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A problem with the second section
As I noted previously, a major problem with the second section using the "unless otherwise noted the entries come from the Skeptic's Encyclopedia of PS" rule is that it makes it impossible for most people (anyone not in possession of that book) to tell whether an entry is genuinely listed there or not. For example, the Breast Cancer Abortion link entry has recently been added without any source. Am I simply to assume that the person who added it found it in the book and thought it should go in here, or that the entrby isn't sourced to that book and maybe can't be sourced at all? So, should I fact tag the entry or simply leave it? As I also noted previously, the solution here is to cite sources for all entries and do away the catch-all source rule.Davkal 10:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources don't need to be online. Buy or check the books out if you want to verify the entries. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 13:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The point isn't about the accessibility of sources but about their absence and about the impossibility of telling whether an entry is supposed to be sourced or not. The simplest solution is to source every entry and then unsourced entries will be easily identifiable.Davkal 14:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A further problem with the second section is that it is hard to believe that the Skeptic's encyclopedia only has about 30-40 entries in it and so a significant amount of "pseudoscience" (as determined by Shermer) must not be listed in that section. Who is making the decision to include and exclude, and why?Davkal 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Get the book and see. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll identify the entries individually. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not case of getting the book. I (anybody) shouldn't need to do anything other than look at an article to see what the sources are. I (anybody) shouldn't have to infer that all new entries without sources have been added in line with a caveat that may or may not have been read. In case you didn't know, people do sometimes add unsourced claims to articles. You can even see some of them if you look at this very article. And given the appalling history of this article re sourcing, and some of the appalling sources used, I would be suspicious of anything that further clouded the issue of (un)sourced entries.Davkal 16:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


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

Inclusion criteria
''The following are subjects regarded as pseudoscientific by notable skeptical bodies such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP). Some of these items are not considered pseudoscientific in and of themselves: only certain aspects, explanations, and/or applications of them. See an item's description text for more information on this.''

The above is the inclusion criteria. The book fails to meet the inclusion criteria. It should be deleted or the inclusion criteria should be changed. Have a nice day. :) - <b style="color:#669966;">Mr.Gurü</b> ( talk/contribs ) 17:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael Shermer's Skeptics Society is a notable skeptical body. It does meet the criteria. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The out of print book has been tagged. A book is not a skeptical body. It has to go. Hmm. :) - <b style="color:#669966;">Mr.Gurü</b> ( talk/contribs ) 19:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


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

In the last few days a number of entries have been added to the second section without sources. Are these listed in the Skeptic's encyclopedia (and so legitimately included) or do they come from some other unnamed source (which needs to be cited) or are they pure speculation/opinion by editors (which means they should be removed)? Nobody knows! And this is the problem with the way the second section works. As an encyclopedia where anyone can come in and add content, Wiki is a wholly unsuitable place to have an "unless otherwise noted" sourcing rule. The problem being further compounded by the fact the Skeptic's encyclopedia includes clear examples of things that are in no way pseudoscientific and so we can't even use a well-that's-obvious-nonsense rule of thumb to identify potentially unsound (unsourced) entries. Davkal 14:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I individually sourced each encyclopedia entry on the list less than a week ago. The Way reverted the change. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 21:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Near death experience and homeopathy
-I question the existence of near death experiences in this article. How can a near death experience be pseudo-science? When someone is declared Havard or Minnesota dead (which ever has the highest standard: brain and heart activity cessation) for more than 5 minutes or more and comes back to life... how can we say that the near death experience is pseudo? He died and came back! The methods used to study the event can be debated, but the stub makes no effort to mention what is being debated concerning this subject.

-The homeopathy stub inscinuates that all homeopathic treatments are somehow diametricaly opposed or contradictory to modern medicine. I guess this is what you guys call "lack of neutrality". In fact, nothing prevents the combination of treatments since homeopathy by itself (not naturopathy) does not have negative reactions to modern medication. (According to nay sayers, their just sugar pills with diluted products that have no effect on the body.) My point being: someone who prescribes or purchases a homeopathic product is not necessarily a modern medicine anarchist as the phrasing seems to imply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisme (talk • contribs) 12:07, 18 June 2007

Personnaly, I think adding a couple of lines of information on what the skeptic's books used as reference perceives the pseudo-science to consist of in each subject would give this article a sense of being more precise and complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisme (talk • contribs) 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict)NDEs: The study is exactly what we're talking about on this list, not the event. Just like crop circles, we know that there's a physical phenomenon. The problem is that some people then go crazy with explanations of it when something simpler would suffice: Aliens versus hoaxsters for crop circles, religious experiences versus misfiring neural signals for NDEs.


 * Homeopathy: The principles behing homeopathy are what are opposed to the principles of modern medicine. Homeopathy dictates that diluting a substance to ridiculously low levels should cause increased effect, which is exactly the opposite of what modern medicine says. Homeopathy also believes that "like cures like," whereas modern medicine says that "like makes like worse." --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

FTL Travel
Why is FTL travel listed as a pseudoscience? No one knows or is saying that it's possible. It's simply something we're reaching for through our current understanding of physics. - MSTCrow 03:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Like some other subjects on this list, this is an area that can be approached both scientifically (use of wormholes, for instance) and pseudoscientifically (such as all those people who come up with new theories of physics due to a misunderstanding of relativity and which they claim will allow FTL travel). Perhaps this note could use a little more explanation, in that not all research in this area is pseudoscientific, however. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a more critical issue is that it lacks a proper source. It needs to be removed unless one can be found. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that the source was in the Skeptic Encyclopedia, given the default sourcing this section has. If it's not there, however, we should find something for it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I individualy sourced each entry to avoid this confusion, but that The Way fellow reverted it without explanation. I'll restore them today. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosis, Subliminal perception
There were a couple entries based on outdated research. There is renewed interest in both hypnosis and subliminal perception with strong evidence. It highlights a problem with this category. I also added links to modularity of midn and faculty psychology to phrenology. --Comaze 11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly those should be removed. The problem is that while there's some legitimate scientific research into these areas, there's also some pseudoscientific work being done, and it's hard to make judgments in those cases. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)