Talk:Pseudoscience

Feyerabend
I have removed the line about Paul Feyerabend under ===Criticism of the term===, because the cited source does not criticize the term, or even say anything about it. A quick search indicates that the entire book contains exactly one instance of the word pseudoscience, in the preface, when he says that Kuhn's terminology has "turned up in various forms of pseudoscience". Feyerabend using the term without comment does not make sense as a source to support a claim that he criticized the term, and the question of the dividing line between Science (e.g., physics) and Non-science (e.g., theology) does not make really sense for an article that is neither about science nor about non-science nor about the dividing line between the two. I have wondered whether it might have been added primarily as a coatrack for the quotation in the note, which is about a different source. If someone feels strongly about Wikipedia including that information, I suggest that you move it to an article like Demarcation problem instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Should UFO still be categorized as Pseudoscience and fringe science?
I recently got a notification on my talkpage when I edited this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lonestar-physicist#Introduction_to_contentious_topics

So is UFO considered Pseudoscience and fringe science? if so why is US government considers it a national security threat and scientifically analyzing it?

this is from AARO website published today:

https://www.aaro.mil/

"Our team of experts is leading the U.S. government’s efforts to address Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) using a rigorous scientific framework and a data-driven approach. Since its establishment in July 2022, AARO has taken important steps to improve data collection, standardize reporting requirements, and mitigate the potential threats to safety and security posed by UAP."

https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/?utm_content=262515320&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-1450183022616121344

from the article: "When asked why she went all-in on prioritizing AARO as an element under her purview, particularly now, Hicks told DefenseScoop: “The department takes UAP seriously because UAP are a potential national security threat. They also pose safety risks, and potentially endanger our personnel, our equipment and bases, and the security of our operations. DOD is focusing through AARO to better understand UAP, and improve our capabilities to detect, collect, analyze and eventually resolve UAP to prevent strategic surprise and protect our forces, our operations, and our nation.” Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Governments get mislead by pseudoscience all the time. See for example National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health or the ADE 651. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * well that's such a huge false equivalency. So how do you determine when government is being misled or not? And what makes you think you're more intelligent than DOD scientists like Sean Kirkpatrick? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We determine it by following what the best available reliable sources say (this is how we determine more or less everything on Wikipedia). They're pretty clear. Ufology is a field dominated by fringe/pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * there's fringe/pseudoscience in every field, such as vaccinology. is Vaccinology considered fringe/pseudoscience? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have reliable sources that say so, so no. MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So in your opinion editors are supposed to not use their brain, ignore facts and delegate their thinking to so called reliable sources? Great idea! Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what Wikipedia does, and always has done, because it roots our articles in fact rather than opinion. There is a big difference between fields that have some minor fringe/pseudoscientific theories attached to them, and fields (like UFOlogy) that are effectively completely fringe.  And yes, that's what reliable sources say. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And what makes you think you're more intelligent Intelligence does not come into it either. Your whole approach is totally fakakte. Pseudoscience, that is, a thing that pretends to be science, does not stop being pseudoscience just because someone falls for the pretense. That would be like throwing the theories of relativity out of the window just because of one measurement of a speed value above c. Mistakes happen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Intelligence is also irrelevant to this then? lol. that's what I meant about some people here expecting editors to not use their brains.
 * Aren't you just appealing to authority and pretending that your approach is science and fact based? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I ask everyone to not make this personal and stay on subject. This is all to improve the article. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wikipedia is based on appeals to authority, by design. That is the essence of our core policies, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * appeal to authority is a fallacy according to wikipedia
 * An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument against shame), is a form of fallacy when the opinion of a non-expert on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument or when the authority is used to say that the claim is true, as authorities can be wrong
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Lonestar-physicist (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * is a form of fallacy when the opinion of a non-expert - This is why we rely on experts (that is, reliable sources as laid out in WP:RS). MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * you don't make any sense man. read what you write first. you don't know what you're talking about. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Right back at you, my man. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * if you can't act as a grown up, please go play somewhere else. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can always tell an argument is going well when the personal attacks come out. You're right, though, we've accomplished everything this thread is going to accomplish - you now know that per Wikipedia's policies, this article can and will continue to identify Ufology as a pseudoscience. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Creationism vs Creation Science
I understand that the list for pseudoscience's is a quote,

"that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences."

but should the link for creationism be changed to Creation Science rather than Creationism, seeing that that page is dedicated to the specific pseudoscientific claims instead of Creationism, which is more philosophical. Chip K. Daniels (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Creationism has sections on different types. Young Earth creationism, Gap creationism, Day-age creationism, Progressive creationism, Creation science, Neo-creationism, Intelligent design, Geocentrism, Omphalos hypothesis are all pseudoscience.


 * changing the link seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. and if creation science is what we use for that subject on wikipedia, i think it makes sense for the text to also be changed to Creation Science. Handpigdad (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We use the term "creation science" for creation science and "creationism" for creationism. Both are pseudoscience (see my contribution above; I moved yours down because it is newer, see WP:THREAD), so there is no good reason to replace it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal Cargo cult science
I propose merging Cargo cult science into Pseudoscience. Cargo cult science (not to be confused with Cargo cult) it is just a definition (WP:NOTDICTIONARY) and the whole article is based entirely on Richard Feynman speech. A quick mention in pseudoscience would be enough. Another option would be to RM cargo cult science into somehting like "Feynmans's 1934 commencement speech". --ReyHahn (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal to merge. Feynman's thoughts on the topic might merit more than a quick mention here; perhaps a paragraph.--Srleffler (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. I don't think the speech is notable as a speech; unlike, say, "We choose to go to the Moon", nobody talks about the build-up to it, the process of writing it, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One could also compare to Feynman's own There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. I don't think we can write a similar article from references to this speech. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I link to this article frequently. I like it the way it is. WP:USEFUL says usefulness is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for including an article on Wikipedia, so I concede that the mere fact that I find this article useful may be insufficient reason to refrain from putting a thumb in my eye. The reason I look at Wikipedia is because I find it useful. I wish there were a way for the number of off-site links to a Wikipedia article to count for something. My first question is: who or what is being harmed by the existence of the Cargo cult science article? That is, what purpose does the proposed merge serve? And "enough" for what? (With reference to the evidence-free assertion "A quick mention in pseudoscience would be enough.") Feynman made points in this speech that resonate to the current day and which bear on the Replication crisis in social psychology and related fields. Feynman anticipated that crisis decades before it came to light, and he might have prevented it, had more people heeded his advice. The talk was also reprinted verbatim in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (an article that links to Cargo cult science, naturally) and is arguably part of what made that book a best-seller in its niche and keeps the book relevant. Also, the year for the speech was 1974, not 1934. --Teratornis (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The question is about notability, since the whole article is based on the speech itself. Before this discussion, there was some preliminary discussion at WT:PHYS. Btw, WP:NOHARM is another argument to be avoided.
 * That being said, I am a bit uncomfortable with merging to Pseudoscience. That article should focus on the big picture, and a brief mention of Feynman's talk there may seem like trivia. The book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! might be better target for merge. It would also allow more of the current content to be preserved. Perhaps have a section of its own there. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can understand if this is not the right target but an article just to provide a definition does not seem right WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Either the article is about the speech or about pseudoscientific practices. As an alternative I would agree with merging it into Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would you merge it into a 1985 book, when it comes from a 1974 speech (which was reprinted in the campus magazine at the time, and other places later)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * because it is adapted and discussed in that book.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: cargo cult science is such a typical Feynman thing that is deserves its own article, as it has now. It definitely needs to be mentioned and wikilinked in this Pseudoscience article. - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But then if you oppose could you provide your opinion on what the article should be about, is it about pseudoscientific practices or about Feynman's speech?--ReyHahn (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I.m.o. the current article is just fine as it is. DVdm (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you be against rewriting the lead to make it about the Feynman's speech?--ReyHahn (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I just went through the articles that link to it, only 7 article cite it without relegating it to "See Also" but except for one, all the rest link to cargo cult science by making a reference to Feynman "Feyman in his speech...". The article seems to be just an easter egg to Feynman and not about cargo cult practices.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * (deprecated vote) Oppose, Cargo-Cult Science refers to action where researchers do not know what to do and refer to methods where it resembles scientific ones while it is actually an imitation of scientific thought. It does not always happens in fields where it is accepted as pseudoscience, for instance it can happen in physics. Cactus Ronin (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Should cargo-cult science remain as it is? Is it truly a term if it does not refer to Feynman?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While this has become a common metaphorical interpretation of the phrase "cargo cult" it is not what Feynman described in his address. The entire thing is just a colorful description of confirmation bias. 2601:642:4600:3F80:80FC:12CB:6E21:D6E2 (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Vote Change, Support
 * I got scolded by my professor. She and I had a talk about the definition of term. Cactus Ronin (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What was the conclusion?--ReyHahn (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that the term "Cargo Cult Science" is a description of Pseudoscience. Cactus Ronin (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Cargo cult is a specific type of pseudoscience, and a reasonable place to have an article per WP:SUMMARY. It is not (as of this writing) a mere dictionary definition of the term. VQuakr (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you be against rewriting the lead to make it about the Feynman's speech and not about cargo cult science in general (if that even exists)?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Climate science
is this pseudoscience? It cannot be tested repeated, falsified, it uses statistics but averaging averages leads to anything. Is it a sort of primitive sacrifice religion? 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:D843:9A0C:FCCA:F08 (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No. And see WP:NOTAFORUM. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Climate change denial is pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Sj4452 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)