Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 12

Religions are arguably pseudosciences, right?
After all, many of 'em chalk stuff up to a god without doing rigid experimentation to determine actual causes. That's how we get gems such as Young earth creationism. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Most religious beliefs are not presented as if they were scientific at all.  They are non-scientific, not pseudoscientific.  Phiwum (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Intelligent Design", anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.184.209 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * hmmmm... has anyone considered the fact that perhaps science is itself a pseudoreligion?   -- Ludwigs 2  22:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

...where did that can of worms go? It was here a minute ago...Oh, hey, there it is. Wait! put that can opener down! &mdash; Scientizzle 23:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum. Is anyone proposing specific text based on some reliable sources? If not, then this discussion would be better held on a forum or in a dorm-room.   Will Beback    talk    23:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're right; I was just kidding around. maybe it's best to just close this thread, since it looks like it was never intended as serious in the first place.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

religion can not be considered Science until the god/goddess/gods/goddesses are proven to exist. One must also consider the difference between religion and Spirituality, as they are completely different belief systems, as is Science. The comparison of religion, Science, and Spirituality should be conducted elsewhere and not under the already POV-hot pseudoscience banner. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if a god were proved to exist, that wouldn't make religions scientific, even if it made scientific theology scientific. Religiously motivated "scientific creationism" is pseudoscience, but religion making no claims of being science is not pseudoscience.  Modes of religious worship and religious claims about how people ought to live don't usually claim a scientific basis.  (And what about atheistic religions?  Proof that a god exists wouldn't make them scientific?) Michael Hardy (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Source request
It would be helpful if someone with access to the source could post here what it says in support of the sentence. It doesn't sound quite right as written.

"Science educator Paul DeHart Hurd wrote that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to tell science apart from pseudo-science, such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition."

Source is Hurd, P. D. (1998). "Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world", Science Education, 82, 407–416. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's freely available here. The term pseudoscience appears exactly once, as follows:


 * This supports the second part of the sentence (to the point that it verges on copyright violation), but "a large part" seems to be misquotation for one item in the middle of a list of 25. The problematic passage is hard to rephrase because of its slight ambiguity (does it count all four as pseudoscience or perhaps only astrology?) Hans Adler 10:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I've removed large part, and also removed the examples, because it's oddly worded: astrology might be an example, but quackery and superstition are either just words for pseudoscience, or he means them as subsets of it. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And I reverted that edit. Don't underestimate our readers or deny them the opportunity to read it for themselves. Your personal beliefs and confusion (I read "ambiguity" and "oddly worded" thrown around above) shouldn't be influencing you to the point where you manipulate a quote in that manner. Those words are sometimes subsets of and/or synonyms for pseudoscience in that concepts that are labelled pseudoscience can sometimes be described with several or all of the terms. Let the reader be the judge. It's all on-topic. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I made this change to fix the confusing text. QuackGuru (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see nothing confusing about the text you changed.
 * "a large part" is highly inappropriate interpretation of the source. Look at the literal text in the box above. The list of 25(!) items is the only place where pseudoscience is ever mentioned in the paper. If we are very generous we can say this particular point probably contributes about 1/25, i.e. 4%. Hardly a "large part".
 * You re-introduced a passage of 9 words lifted literally from the source. Without quotation marks that's plagiarism, even if the source is given.
 * After introducing the quotation marks I also removed the links in the quoted text, although that's not entirely satisfactory for quackery, which does not occur elsewhere in this list article. Hans Adler 06:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a bit worried that the Hurd reference is being given excessive weight. First, it's not particularly exact. It suggests very strongly (doesn't actually claim it, because the sentence could be parsed in an unusual way so that only astrology is claimed to be pseudoscience) that superstition is pseudoscience – which it is obviously not. So he appears to be using language in a loose way that makes the source unsuitable for this article. Second, it gets hardly any weight at all in the source, with "pseudo-science" appearing only once in the entire text, while here it gets promoted to the lead. Finally there is the issue of authors' notability. Is Hurd really in the same class of thinkers as Feyerabend? Does it make any sense to pretend that Feyerabend contradicted Hurd? Even if we ignore the fact that Feyerabend died before the paper was submitted, this doesn't sound at all reasonable to me. Hans Adler 06:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also wondered about Hurd being included. The article we're citing looks quite casually written (hence the imprecise language), and having him next to Feyerabend and now Popper looks odd. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 07:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Hans Adler and SlimVirgin. There is no good reason to use ambiguous or eccentric quotations unless the ambiguity or the eccentricity is the issue. PYRRHON  talk   16:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Any preceived problem was fixed. It is better to make minor tweaks instead of deleting text and sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the problem remains that we are pretending that Hurd is somehow in the same league as Feyerabend and Popper. That's ridiculous. One casual mention of the word "pseudo-science" in an article by the guy who coined the term "scientific literacy" (and who doesn't have a WP article) hardly deserves the same weight as Karl Popper, who initiated the philosophical study of pseudoscience.
 * I think I have identified where the passage was first added to the lead. It was in this edit by ScienceApologist in October 2006. The original version of the text said:
 * I think it's better to attribute this to Hurd himself than anonymously to "science education research", and "a large part" overstated the weight in the source, but apart from that I consider this wording much better than what we have now, as it side-steps the inaccuracy, avoids the literal quotation, and IMO is a better reflection of what Hurd says in the article in general (as opposed to just the quote-mined sentence). Hans Adler 18:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to attribute this to Hurd himself than anonymously to "science education research", and "a large part" overstated the weight in the source, but apart from that I consider this wording much better than what we have now, as it side-steps the inaccuracy, avoids the literal quotation, and IMO is a better reflection of what Hurd says in the article in general (as opposed to just the quote-mined sentence). Hans Adler 18:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I am having too many problems on other pages right now for me to think. Wikipedia has turned into the most disruptive place on the Internet. If you think a change will imporve the article without deleting text or sources then go ahead and make the change. I prefer if any changes that tweak the text rather than deleting text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hans that it should be attributed to Hurd and the paraphrased version still does justice to the original source. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The passage is of course a typical example of lead-doctoring. It only appears in the lead and doesn't appear to summarise anything in the body. It's not clear how it could summarise anything in the body because there isn't much more in the source that we could say while staying fully on topic. It's also redundant because it's obvious. For these reasons I propose moving it somewhere to the body. For reasons given above I also propose rephrasing it as follows:
 * This will attribute the statement to Hurd himself rather than anonymously, and will give a hint why he is relevant in this context: As someone who has written about scientific literacy. Mentioning as an aspect seems to be a good description of the way in which this appears in the source: As one of 25 closely related items that together describe scientific literature. Hans Adler 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not state it in the sequence it's presented by Hurd rather than reverse the main independent and dependent clauses, e.g.
 * ... Kenosis (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing the order might be acceptable, but saying that he "asserts that one aspect [...] is" would not be covered by the source. He gives a list of 25 items, he doesn't "assert" for every one of them that it is on the list. It's important not to give the impression that our sources go into much more detail about what we quote them for than they actually do. Unrelated example:
 * "In his State of the Union speech, President Obama asserted that tens of thousands of Americans are 'cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders'."
 * Do you see how this absurdly overstates the weight of the statement in the speech? The following would be much better:
 * "In his State of the Union speech, President Obama mentioned 'cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders' as examples of tens of thousands of working Americans."
 * Hans Adler 11:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, your POV is pretty clear. If "asserts" is objectionable to you, use "stated", "has said", "wrote" or equivalent. The word "mentioned" is frankly ridiculous, and is a fairly transparent attempt to minimize Hurd's assertion. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC) ... Incidentally (sorry to have gotten a bit snippy), I should mention that Hurd teaches a yearly course seminar titled "Science and pseudoscience", so it's not, for him, just an off-the-cuff mention of the word. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to know more about the background of that source than I do. It's simply not in the source. Perhaps there is a better source that we can use instead?
 * This is not a question of my POV (and I am not sure what a POV that I could be fighting for in this way could even be – perhaps that pseudoscience is a legitimate activity???), it's a matter of representing the source accurately. I used to be less strict about these things, but after weeks of having to deal with BullRangifer's complete carelessness (explicit claims that a source that barely mentions something intended to express "scientific consensus") I am currently a bit pedantic.
 * "Wrote" etc. is slightly better but still a slight misrepresentation of the source, because in your formulation you still create the impression that Hurd has singled out the specific line, when he has done no such thing but has hidden it in a list of 25 such aspects. It's acceptable, but I would still prefer my construction, perhaps with a different verb ("named"?) instead of "mentioned", if you don't like that. Hans Adler 12:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What you have to realize here is that Hans seems to have a very specific definition of 'Pseudoscience' in mind and will fight any source that conflicts with that narrow definition.  Expect a suffocating volume of text that will wear you down, and a continuing series of insults.    Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind WP:CIVIL. By the way, I have not noticed any of Hans's opinions unusually narrow regarding the demarcation problem, nor his discussion in the previous debate insulting.  Phiwum (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "My" "narrow definition" is that pseudoscience is something that masquerades as science. That's how every single contributor to the philosophical debate of pseudoscience, every single dictionary and every single encyclopedia defines it. Including this one, in this very article. People disagree about the details, about the demarcation between pseudoscience and science, but nobody seriously argues that cooking, love or superstition are pseudosciences. It's remarkable that ScienceApologist's wording "distinguish pseudoscience, quackery, and superstition from understanding [...]" already takes this particular problem into account by rendering the source's slight ambiguity and imprecision in just the right way. Hans Adler 16:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "My" "narrow definition" is that pseudoscience is something that masquerades as science. That's how every single contributor to the philosophical debate of pseudoscience, every single dictionary and every single encyclopedia defines it. Including this one, in this very article. People disagree about the details, about the demarcation between pseudoscience and science, but nobody seriously argues that cooking, love or superstition are pseudosciences. It's remarkable that ScienceApologist's wording "distinguish pseudoscience, quackery, and superstition from understanding [...]" already takes this particular problem into account by rendering the source's slight ambiguity and imprecision in just the right way. Hans Adler 16:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

science and naturalism
The change was simply putting the sentence in line with the Science article. Shouldn't the articles be in agreement? GCgeologist (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are. Your edit resolved no conflict between the two articles; rather, it introduced a grammatical error which added a distinction between science, and... science. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The notion of "naturalistic science" is redundant--a red herring so to speak. Scientists don't deal in the supernatural--only in empirical phenomena as a community of professionals that depend on double-checking one another's results, on falsifiability, replicability, etc. . Occasionally you'll have folks claiming to be scientific, e.g. w.r.t. paranormal, occult science, etc., but that's not what the scientific community as a whole does as their stock in trade. Therefore there's no need to differentiate between "naturalistic" science and anything else... Kenosis (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Clean up external links
I checked each link in the external link section and a few which I thought added little to the article. If you link any of these links should remain please let me know. See my diff. Action potential discuss contribs 11:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in clinical psychology and mental health
The current clinical psychology subsection does not adequately address the debate over science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. I think it could be expanded to include the field of mental health more generally. We could start with the book by Scott Lilienfeld et al's "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology". Actually this book is broader than just the traditional areas of mental health. Here are some recent references to get started:

Action potential discuss contribs 12:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction to the special issue: Pseudoscientific policing practices and beliefs. By Snook, Brent Criminal Justice and Behavior. Vol 35(10), Oct 2008, 1211-1214.
 * What's wrong with believing in repression?: A review for legal professionals. By Piper, August; Lillevik, Linda; Kritzer, Roxanne Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol 14(3), Aug 2008, 223-242.
 * Psychotherapy on trial. By Arkowitz, H.; Lilienfeld, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Scott O. (Ed); Ruscio, John (Ed); Lynn, Steven Jay (Ed). (2008). Navigating the mindfield: A user's guide to distinguishing science from pseudoscience in mental health. (pp. 103-110). Amherst, NY, US: Prometheus Books. 634 pp.
 * The positivism​-​based negative psychology movement. By Farley, Frank PsycCRITIQUES. Vol 54(28),2009


 * Thanks for the excellent suggestions. It's not my field at all, so I am not going to immediately start work on this, but these are great sources. Hans Adler 12:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-scientific belief prevalence outside US
We should cover the prevalence of pseudo-scientific beliefs outside of America including Europe, China and other countries. This article from USNSF contains comparisons of various countries beliefs in various pseudoscientific practices. Action potential discuss contribs 08:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes: Thagard and Popper in identifying pseudoscience
I made some changes to the second and third paragraph in the "Identifying pseudoscience" subsection related to Popper and Thagard. I did not think the previous statements attributed to them really reflected their criterion for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. I've tried my best to paraphrase closely the cited sources. Please give me feedback. Maybe we can even change the subtitle to "Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience". Action potential discuss contribs 11:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added some case examples from Popper (1963) which sums up his criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Unfortunately, the examples might be a little dated but it still illustrates the point well. Perhaps we can expand the Stephen Jay Gould's criterion. Action potential discuss contribs 07:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion is NOT Pseudoscience
Posted on Wikipedia on 05 June 2010, 1210 hrs Article: Pseudoscience" under Heading "Boundaries between science and pseudoscience" ...

(Uppercase letters imply stress, not shouting) WHAT FOLLOWS IS ACTUALLY A FACT.(UNFORTUNATELY, THIS WILL BE DELETED SOON AS MODERN SCIENTISTS NEVER ALLOW THE TRUTH TO PREVAIL!) MODERN SCIENTISTS! DELETE THE ADDITION, BUT ONLY AFTER A FEW DAYS. LET OTHERS READ IT.

A simple definition of "science" is "Knowing or understanding things exactly as they are". Unfortunately, most modern scientists refuse to believe in something which they cannot comprehend with their own five material senses and the mind. They do not understand that there are subject matters beyond the scope of these five senses and the mind.

Hence they do not accept the soul, re-incarnation, and God which are the most important of all truths. The statements presented in the ancient most authentic Vedic scriptures are all facts and not pseudo-science.

One cannot prove or disprove all of the statements of the Vedic scriptures using methods of modern science, or with the help of modern scientific principles. In fact modern science itself is pseudo-science.

So these foolish modern materialistic atheistic scientists/psychologists/doctors etc. call the FACTS presented in the most authentic ancient Vedic scriptures (because they actually originated from God (The Supreme most Perfect and Complete Personality who has no original cause, and who Himself is the Cause of absolutely everything), and remain in ignorance, while they themselves think that they are in knowledge and others who have an opposed view are foolish and ignorant.

However the real truth does not depend on what these modern scientists agree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.162.172 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, religion is not pseudoscience. But religion isn't empirical either, and it is known to assert pseudoscience.  I see your fervor in your stress-ful capitalization above, but I would like to point out that faith is a choice and is often a good choice to make and is not always at odds with science.  I know I go a little off-topic here, but let me suggest that strength of ones convictions is not demonstrated nearly effectively in railing against a perceived refutation of those convictions, but rather in quietly allowing the opposing view have its own place in the world.  It's a big world, and there's plenty of room for different perspectives on the capital-T Truth.  Namaste.   Erie  lhonan  07:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * just a clarification: some forms of religion are empirical, they simple use standards of evidence different than those used for scientific purposes. Scientific investigation is intentionally designed with a very restrictive set of legitimate forms of observation, and takes a conservative stance that makes no claims which cannot be demonstrated from inside that set.  there are people on both sides of the fence who abuse that process (non-scientists who make positive claims that cannot be justified within the conservative limitations of science, and skeptics who make negative claims that cannot be justified within the conservative limitations of science). Science is good at what it does, but very easy to abuse for other purposes.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am the person who posted the section on 05 June. I will now restrict my views only to talk pages.

First I would like to point out that by using the word foolish in the fourth para, no offense is intended to anybody.

Empirical knowledge cannot get us anywhere. Neither will any amount of systematic logical argument(even though one may enter into the most esoteric of topics). We have to understand that we as human beings are very, very, very, very (it can go on!) limited. We have imperfect senses (many other creatures on earth are equipped with better senses than us). We have limited intelligence. The instruments or aids we manufacture using our senses also will be imperfect. We just will not be able to understand the real nature of the whole universe, and the purpose of our existence.

So we have to turn to a very reliable, authentic source of knowledge. Now the Vedas (Vedic scriptures) claim to be just that. The contents of the Vedas must be heard from authorized, bona fide spiritual teachers/scientists (Vedas propound actual science). Empirical methods are "ascending" (experiment, research etc.), while the Vedic process of acquiring knowledge is "descending" (All that is to be known has already been established by God in the Vedic scriptures (No further experiment or research is required at all), and the knowledge is passed down "as it is" through a chain of bona fide spiritual teachers (authorized by God), beginning from God Himself (God has been defined in the previous post: that is the most basic definition the Vedas give).

Now strictly speaking, the Vedas (in their original, pure form) have nothing to do with religion as is understood by most people today. The word Veda just means knowledge. And the Vedas contain facts ("real knowledge"), because they come from the perfect source (God). Now this certainly requires faith. But that faith need not be blind or unreasonable. If one thinks well, one can see that a certain amount of faith is required at every step in this world, whatever one's pursuits may be.

One who does not give even a little thought to understanding the "descending" process is foolish according to the Vedas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.1.195 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, to my knowledge one of the core teachings of the Vedas is that one has to experience higher states of understanding. They can not be taught (though a teacher comes in handy at many points in the process to guide one away from misunderstandings).  In the Hindu worldview, of course, it might takes many lifetimes before one is at a stage capable of experiencing the higher states, but still...  the fact that you may spend your whole life devoted to a given teacher is not a goal in itself, but merely a step towards the eventual experience.


 * It doesn't matter what domain of life you're talking about, really - it's the height of the human spirit to live in an effort to understand. -- Ludwigs 2  19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, but you cannot experience higher states, unless you are first taught the basics (beginning from atman or soul)(I am June 5 first person)210.212.162.172 (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know - you have a static IP. you should really get yourself an account - account users are actually more anonymous than IP users (i.e. I can tell from your IP that you are in Goa India, and even localize it more than that if I choose).  just an FYI.


 * You're right about the importance of a teacher (a teacher needs to provide you with information, and more importantly with the discipline you'll need to pursue the matter), but when it comes right down to it, no one can do it except you. Both the teacher and the teaching (at some point) have to fade away, otherwise you'll be stuck in dualism.  But we really shouldn't get into a full-scale religious discussion on the talk page.  Drop me a line in my talk if you want to continue this.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers missing, Cover and Curd (eds)
The following text is attributed to "Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues" by J. A. Cover and M. Curd, but this is just a collection of philosophy papers by different authors including Popper, Thagard, etc. So, we don't know who's criterion this is. The current text in the article states: "A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.". Does anyone know what page number this is from so we can check the source? Action potential discuss contribs 06:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

theoretical and practical perspectives
I paraphrased this from the Stanford article on science and pseudoscience. I think it would be a good frame for the article as it makes the distinction between the theoretical reasons and practical reasons. I think we could incorporate this into the current article even in the second paragraph in the introduction. Feedback would be appreciated...

The demarcation of science from pseudoscience can be considered from theoretical and practical perspectives. Theoretically, "the demarcation issue is an illuminating perspective that contributes to the philosophy of science in the same way that the study of fallacies contributes to the study of informal logic and rational argumentation. " Practically, the distinction is important to direct decision making process for individuals and the public in general. Due to the position of science as the most reliable source of knowledge in modern society, it has become commonplace for the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products to be exaggerated. It has become increasingly important to distinguish between science and that which simple appears superficially like science. The demarcation issue has been brought to the forefront of many disciplines such as health care (e.g. Pseudoscience produce inefficient and potentially dangerous interventions and, therefore, governments, insurers and patients need access to be able to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific medicine.), expert testimony (e.g. it is important that the facts that are accepted as evidence in course are based on the best available knowledge.), environmental policies (e.g. prevent hazards) and science education (e.g. adherents of creationism attempts to introduce it into school curricula). Action potential talkcontribs 10:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's definitely some value in this, but I don't think this actually gets at the problem we have on wikipedia, so I'm not certain this will be of much help. The wikipedia problem is a conflict between conservative and radical interpretations of the demarcation problem.  to explain: few people have any real problem distinguishing "real science" from "real pseudoscience" (the former is based in established theoretical models and supported by empirical results, the latter casts itself as superseding established theoretical models but cannot provide empirical evidence to back up that claim).  There is, however, a vast gray area of theories and practices that rely on non-competing non-scientific models, or that haven't been evaluated scientifically in any meaningful way, or that have a partial list of minor positive empirical evidence, or...  The conservative (scientific) interpretation of the demarcation problem ignores this gray area - it is neither science nor pseudoscience.  the radical (political) interpretation either casts this grey area as pseudoscience or casts it as proto-science (depending on the inclinations of the advocate).  How will this passage help resolve that?  the passage seems to lean slightly towards skeptical advocacy (e.g., anything that does not represent 'best available knowledge' is pseudoscience).  Is that true?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That passage was really about the purpose for pseudoscience demarcation. The practical reasons does seem to lean towards advocacy. This could be highlighted. Later on in the article the source says: "This picture is oversimplified. All non-science is not pseudoscience, and science has non-trivial borders to other non-scientific phenomena, such as metaphysics, religion, and various types of non-scientific systematized knowledge." The author also discussed pseudoscience in the wider sense, that is any science that conflicts with "good" science. Action potential talkcontribs 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
ID meets the criteria for pseudoscience, and has no scientific backing. It is notable enough to be included, and should be.96.55.192.119 (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Depends on which set of criteria are used. If our definition of pseudoscience refers only to Physical science, then you might have some thing there. Even so, better to attribute that viewpoint to a named source.


 * Also, one measure of pseudoscience is its "status", which means that a theory such an continental drift did meet the pseudoscience definition for a few decades. But it later became part of mainstream science. If I recall correctly, more of the change came from other scientists finally agreeing to compare theory with observation, than from theory proponents doing a better job of explaining or proving their theory.


 * I don't know if the 19th century counts - was that a "pre-scientific" era - but just consider the difficulty Semmelweiss had getting anyone to look at his work. On the basis that the mainstream according his ideas no scientific status at all (and other doctors hounded him out of the profession), his notion that an invisible substance might cause disease would qualify as pseudoscience - even though (A) it did correspond to physical reality, and (B) it wasn't subjective.


 * Let's be careful about our definitions, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Term
I've undone an anon's changes. The article is not about the "term". Also restored the "peer review" avoidance bit. Vsmith (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This was the second paragraphs... None of it is cited, and it all has it's own section in the wiki...  I started to try and rewrite it to be less accusative, but it wasn't cited in the first place, its inapplicable & only makes the summary too confusing.

''Pseudoscience is easily identified by the inherent lack of objectivity due in part to the observational bias of human abstractions. Such abstraction can be vague, exaggerated, misunderstood, unique to each individual & completely unobservable outside ones own subjectivity. This subjective mentality often leads to an over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, & suppressed theory development''

--Lawstubes (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I liked most of your changes, but the first sentence was better as it stood previously. For one thing, we cannot assert that the reason an idea lacks scientific status is that it "fails to observed objective change within the physical universe [and] is subjective". There are many well-known cases where a theory succeeded in describing observed, physical changes objectively, but failed to achieve scientific status in various places and times. The history of science is filled with such examples, and philosophers of science have debated how to tell the difference between real science and pseudoscience. Not everyone agrees that it's as cut and dried as you made it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe what you are referring to is innovation... Science is founded on objective observation, whether through the use of preexisting law, or simply through observation, one can not observe in an unbiased manor unless they observe objectivity...  I did cite the Encyclopedia Britannica... --Lawstubes (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

are you working for a black hole of something?--Lawstubes (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I really don't think you get it. The OBJECT must be observed by our subjectivity! All legitimate science is backed by an OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION that is subjectively unbiased. All Pseudoscience is the Subjective observation of Subjectivity. Only objective observation is seen by everyone, subjective is based in an individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

All you did was take out the explanation & made it vague —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of article
I recently restored the article to the version prior to the flurry of (mostly) bad edits that it has seen over the past couple of days. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time understanding how edits including material from the NSF and other reliable sources constitutes 'bad edits'. can you explain?  -- Ludwigs 2  15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All (nearly all?) of this was pasted in from elsewhere in the article.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more careful breakdown of the removed content, recently added by IP (and removed by myself): If there is no objection, I think these should once again be removed. At least someone should make a case for their inclusion and, with the exception of the first item, near exact duplication of the contents of the lead paragraph. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Common knowledge: This is unsourced and poorly-written twaddle.  The issue is expressed in a more encyclopedic fashion in the second paragraph of the "Background" section immediately before hand, and is sourced to H. G. Gauch.
 * Oxford English dictionary: This is a word-for-word reproduction of the first sentence of the article. We don't need to have it stated a second time.
 * Hansson, Sven Ove: This reproduces part of the contents of footnote 1 in the article. It is unclear how the article is improved by having this included as a separate subsection.
 * Addison Wesley: This appears in the first footnote, and is clearly material suitable for a footnote, but is clearly inappropriate as a standalone paragraph of text.
 * National Science Foundation: Again, part of the first footnote.
 * In Education and Laudan, Larry: A copy of the second paragraph of the article.
 * Hurd, P. D.: A copy of the third paragraph of the article.
 * Etymology: Again, a copy of content from the lead.


 * A bit reluctant to use a baseball analogy, but as currently written the section has three content-policy strikes on it, so it's out. It's got POVs, failed or nonexistent V's, and lots of OR. And it's a mess. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed newly-added material, placed here for analysis and comment
I've removed the newly placed section on "Interpretations". Such a section might well be a good idea--don't know. But this is presently a complete mess, full of OR, stuff that's not in the associated citations, POVs (especially first subsection), redundancies from the rest of the text, formatting errors, etc. Here it is, immediately below. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The previous section addresses some of these concerns.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ==Interpretations==


 * ===Common Knowledge===


 * A pseudoscience fails to meet any combination of the four basic scientific principles.    Firstly, Science is observing what is outside our selves.  Next, Science is taking these observations and replicating them.  Then, Science is experimentation with these replications.  Finally, Science is the Knowledge we gain from these processes.  Science must include all four of these principles.  Taking part in any of these aspects is considered to be scientific research.  However, Science is often poorly defined.  For this reason, many individuals do not even fully understand what science is.


 * ===Oxford American Dictionary===


 * Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.


 * ===Hansson, Sven Ove===


 * Hansson, Sven Ove (1996). “Defining Pseudoscience”, Philosophia Naturalis, 33: 169–176, as cited in "Science and Pseudo-science" (2008) in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Stanford article states: "Many writers on pseudoscience have emphasized that pseudoscience is non-science posing as science. The foremost modern classic on the subject (Gardner 1957) bears the title Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. According to Brian Baigrie (1988, 438), “[w]hat is objectionable about these beliefs is that they masquerade as genuinely scientific ones.” These and many other authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996): (1) it is not scientific, and (2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific".


 * ===Addison Wesley===


 * For example, Hewitt et al. Conceptual Physical Science Addison Wesley; 3 edition (July 18, 2003) ISBN 0-321-05173-4, Bennett et al. The Cosmic Perspective 3e Addison Wesley; 3 edition (July 25, 2003) ISBN 0-8053-8738-2; See also, e.g., Gauch HG Jr. Scientific Method in Practice (2003).


 * ===National Science Foundation===


 * A 2006 National Science Foundation report on Science and engineering indicators quoted Michael Shermer's (1997) definition of pseudoscience: '"claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility"(p. 33). In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation"(p. 17)'.as cited by National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics
 * "A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have," from the Oxford English Dictionary, second edition 1989.


 * ===In Education===


 * As taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.


 * ===Laudan, Larry===


 * The term is inherently pejorative, because it is used to assert that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science, and those labeled as practicing or advocating it normally dispute the characterization.


 * ===Hurd, P. D.===


 * Pseudoscience has been characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development. There is disagreement among philosophers of science and commentators in the scientific community as to whether there is a reliable way of distinguishing pseudoscience from non-mainstream science. Science educator Paul DeHart Hurd wrote that part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to tell science apart from "pseudo-science, such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition", but philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend argued that it was unrealistic and pernicious to insist that science run according to fixed and universal rules. The philosopher Karl Popper wrote that science often errs and that pseudoscience can stumble upon the truth, but what distinguishes them is the inductive method of the former, which proceeds from observation or experiment, and that its theories are falsifiable.

A Question
Why is religion not considered a Pseudoscience? Generally speaking religion has little or no scientific backing and is generally based on the limited belief of those who are in a religion. Religion falls into many of the categories that define a pseudoscience:

"Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements." (As measurements are generally defined by those who experience religion)

"Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them)." (A.K.A. Heaven and Hell, soul, spirit)

"Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible." (Lack of proof, we make assumptions based on what we see or "feel")

"Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design." (How is a control even possible?)

"Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment."

"Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict[33]. Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience""

"Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa."

"Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience. This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification."

"Presentation of data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.[37] This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect." (Although this is not always true, this is done to a great extent by some members of religion.)

"Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to explain negative findings.[39]" (As is stated by an example "I bared my soul to God, and God has made me whole again")

"Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims." (Where is the proof?)

"Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[45] By contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence." (I admit that some progress has been made by religion, but very little has been made)

"Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[46]" (TA-DAAAAAA!!!! This is a big religion clincher.)

"Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[47]" (Calling those who disprove them "God-Haters", etc)

Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[48] (See above)

I have found that 13 of your 24 identifiers for pseudoscience identify religion as a pseudoscience. With this identification, can you either disprove or explain why religion is not considered a pseudoscience. 71.37.184.250 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * religion is not a science, and generally doesn't pretend to be a science, therefore it can't really be a pseudoscience, can it? There are better ways to bash religion if that's what you're after.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not an attempt to bash religion, I would be thankful for you to be unassuming.216.161.218.170 (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No? then I fail to see what value any of it has at all, since it seems tautological.  I mean the argument boils down to "anything which is not science is not science" which is tautologically true, but goes onto imply "therefore it must be pseudoscience" which is just plain silly.  I mean, come on - replace the word 'religion' above with - say - the word 'baseball', and look:
 * Makes assertions of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements - do you know how many specious statistics sportscasters pour out in the course of a baseball game?
 * Failure to make use of operational definitions - how are RBI's and ERA's operationally defined within the context of predicting particular outcomes in a game?
 * Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony - How many frigging stats does a baseball game need?
 * Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design - double-blind baseball games are not a normal practice (though maybe they should be), and while I will grant that baseball works better as a sleeping pill than a placebo, I'm not sure that's helpful to your case.
 * Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment - again, listen to any sports broadcast and count the number of unfalsifiable claims made (feel free to stop at ten, which you should reach before the 3rd inning)
 * etc, etc.
 * Therefore baseball is pseudoscience. Now, try it with politics, the stock market, movie reviews, dog breeding... pseudosciences, all of them.   There's no obvious reason to single out religion as being different from any of these other non-sciences, but since you do so single out religion you must have a non-obvious reason for doing so.  What would that reason be, if not to engage in a bit of religion-bashing?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another objection, apart from Ludwigs', is that not once did you define the concept of 'religion' and what it is. You offered plenty of fanciful quotes that contain ambiguous assertions regarding incoherently applied concepts but not once did you define the very concept you wanted to dissect. This is sloppy thinking and indeed appears more politically driven than anything regarding the philosophy of science and it's methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the poster that Religion DOES belong here, and that Ludwigs arguements are incorrect. Now, it is a little apparent that the poster does not like religion, but regardless of his baises, it is still fact. First off - the moment that Ludwig said "Religion does not pretend to be Science" made it apparent that he did not put any time into his thinking - and therefore his arguement that "all non scientific fields are non-science, and this they are pseudoscience" is wrong. Sure its true - we should not classify every non-scientific idea as pseudosciencem like Baseball - as he mentioned. Now baseball, THATS something that doesnt pretend to be science. And all pseudoscience fields aren't "pretending" - they either acknowledge that they don't follow the same protocols as rigourus scientific method, or (more likely) they really believe they ARE a science and ect...

And another person said that the poster did not "define" religion. Well that doesnt even make sense. First of all, why should he define it? Everyone knows what it is - and it doesnt have any single definition. The "definintion" of Bhuddism is nothing like Islam, for example. And many ideas that we call "Myth" or "Creation Myth" are, to many cultures, current and extinct, Religion. Such as the Great God Bumba, and the Greek and Roman Mythologies.

Religion does indeed pretend to be science - but they just don't walk around talking about how they are a science. They use the word "Religion" instead. But Religion and Science are almost identical in their fundamental goals - an explanation of the Universe, the Earth, Life, and Humanity.

That is pretty much everything Science is - Science has goals of establishing and a foundation and understanding on the origin of the Universe, the formation of Galaxies and Solar Systems, the formation and history of Earth, and its processes. The origin of life, of evolution and the early history of humanity. The study of Human consciousness and psychology. Philosophical sciences try to find meaning and reason to certain aspects of life - and underlying causes and types of morality and so on... Sciences aims to explain many other things as well - Lightning, Magnetism, Ocean Currents, Weather, Insects, Mating Habits, Communication, Politics, Law, Government, Health, Life and Death, and it goes on and on

Religion does the same thing - sure it has its differences, but the main objective of Religion throughout history is very much the same as science. Early religion was intended to give Humans and understanding of How they arrived on the planet - how the planet came to be, where the stars and the sun comes from and why they move in the sky. (Didn't Religions teach that the Earth was the center of the universe? Wrong or not, that is a scientific idea which requires scientific observation). Early religions even sought to explain things like lightning, rain, wind, weather, and so on. Some went so far as to credit the Gods for the answer behind Beauty, Lust, Jealousy, Love, and other emotions and traits.

The Current Religions, like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and the rest of them, are all different in their Story and Principles, but again - they share a common link between each other and Science.

For example - Christianity aims to explain the origin of the Universe and the Earth - the origin of Life and the Living Plants, Animals and Marine Creatures on the planet. The different types of life and why they are different. The origin of humanity and the answers behind life and death. It gives and explanation for human emotions, and for the reasons behind greed, suffering, poverty, ect... It also (especially a cpl hundred years ago) aimed to give the answers to poor health and disease, citing the need for spirtual healing and opposed to physical healing. Christianity explained the orbits of the planets around the sun due to Crystal Speheres, and offered the Geocentric universe. Things like morality, society, governing issues, politics, relationship and communications were ALL attempted to be answered by Religion.

And MANY MANY Religions then and TODAY offer schools that aside from religions learning, teach THEIR VERSION OF THE EVENTS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, TO THE ORIGIN OF LIFE AND HUMANITY, TO TODAY - and I assure you THATS where the difference lies between Religion and Science, and what qualifies Religion as a pseudoscience.

Religion teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old, contrary to ALL evidence and research - that Evolution does not exist, again ignoring the overwhelming evidence. And Religion does not seek to gain this evidence, it does not have research labs that day in and day out try to prove the God-given unchanging clockwork of living things, or attempt to explain why Galileo was condemmed for saying the Earth moved in the sky - and why the even taught the Geocentric model when it was wrong, which they should have known because of the word of God cannot be wrong - instead, they just shift to the next unpovable theory and move on. They do not have files and files of evidence, and particle colliders, and rigorous research, and thousands of books of Mathematics backing their theories.

Mostly EVERYTHING that above poster said was true. And yes - he is baised and was doing a little religion bashing in the process. But youll see none of that in my post - only true statements.

I do not believe in Religion, and I believe they are wrong in their explanations for the universe and the origins of earth and life. For example - I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old, but christianity does teach it (and many other religions teach similar - I believe the oldest, withone exception, is that the universe is a few million years old. the exception is at least one religion i know of that believes its eternal). But like I said - there are true teachings of religion, and they REALLY do go against a MASSIVE collection of evidence. In many cases, especially christianity, they have tried to find proof (not of their own research, but by seeking out unanswered questions in science, such as Mercury's liquid core) of their claims, and in nearly all of those cases, the proof is either erroneous, or shows a heavy misunderstanding of the subject (croco-duck, enough said).

Making claims based on faith, based on un-proved past teachings, traditions, and so on... that make an attempt to explain scientific ideas such as the creation of the universe, the origins of life, the biology of life, and many other topics, without even coming close to the scientific method, would - by wikipedias definition of pseudoscience, certainly have religion fall into that category.

I will wait a little while, and if no one is convincing against these arguments, then I am adding a section for Religion (ALL religion, not just one or two, and all past ones as well).and if people complain and make good points, Ill change the article as needed and make sure there is no obvious bias in the actual article, because of course for me, I do not believe in Religion so some of that can show, and I certainly dont want that on the article.

Thanks173.62.181.145 (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:TLDR and WP:TALK ("Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikireason proposal).")
 * I have not read your entire post because it is so long and doesn't appear to be very original. I am an atheist myself, but I agree with Ludwigs2 that religion is not pseudoscience. Otherwise you would have to include cooking in pseudoscience because the art of cooking is full of factual statements which are mere beliefs, in no way grounded in an observation of nature, and more often than not, wrong. A good example is the oft repeated claim that alcohol used in cooking evaporates completely. (In fact, most of it stays in the food.) Most religions have some pseudoscientific aspects, but that's not enough, because they are primarily about something else.
 * Of course, if you have a lot of contact with biblical literalists (creationists) and other religious fanatics, then you are going to see more of the pseudoscientific parts of religion, and they tend to stand out because they are so zany. But most religious persons in most parts of the world (America may be an exception) are able to keep religion (what makes them feel good) and science (what explains the world) apart very well, even though the figurative language they use when speaking about religion may obscure that fact. Hans Adler 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you guys keep comparing Religion to things like Cooking and Baseball? And why on EARTH would you comment on something you admitted that you didnt read - how can something "appear" non-original if you didnt read it? That to me shows that you are ignorant, 100% ignorant. What I said is not unoriginal or original - its not meant to be classified as either - its a part of a discussion agreeing with someones belief about an omission from the article. I look up to at this page, and yep - it says Talk:Pseudoscience. Alright - thats what I was doing, so no need to quote wikipedia rules... which is again strange because you didnt read what I wrote. I know I know, its long, it would take a whole... 2 or 3 minutes MAX to read it! I mean come on... in a generation of kids who find Fred from Youtube funny, masterbate while choking themselves, and playing Nintendo Wii, I could NEVER expect you to read something more than 5 sentences long.

So cooking - it is not like Religion, Cooking is about cooking - it makes no attempt at explaining the origin of life, the universe, and so on - read the above statement from me for more info. Cooking and Baseball have NOTHING to do with anything - they are aweful arguments against this idea, and all the more reason why Im preparing to add religion to this article. Not because I want to piss of religious people - but because its true. Religion makes attempts to explain almost every single thing Science attempts to explain - from why humans do what they do (philosophy) to allieviating ailments (medicine) to human history (anthropology) to the scope and creation of the universe (cosmology) and the solar system and other aspects of space (astronomy) to the origin of the Earth and its processess (geology) to the origins and explaintions of life (biology) to the process of life and death and what happens beyond (health science, psychology and philosphy) to the explanation of suffering, human behavior, and social concerns (sociology) to the creation of laws and morals (law and legal science) to the assisting of governing bodies (political science) and so on....

If anyone tried to dispute that religion has not made MAJOR attemtps in history, and in modern times to do the preceding, I will cite a guaranteed 10 different reliable examples of how that is been done for at least 90% of the above stated.

Why do you think Religion and Science Clash?????? Because they have NOTHING to do with each other? NO - of course not.

Why do you think Baseball and Religion have never clashed - or why no one ever wrote a book on the war of Cooking and Science and so on...

Religion and Science go hand in hand - and if Religion was EVER disproved, it would be by Sciece, and Science would take its place

if the Natural Sciences were ever disproved, it would be by Religion, and Religion would that its place.

You guys are going to have to do better than comparing it to cooking, which makes no sense, and not reading the articles, and calling me unoriginal. Someone can ACTUALLY give me a nice, educated, REAL example of why Religion should not be included, wonderful, I'd love to politely discuss with you - everyone else is wasting their time 173.62.181.145 (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A true, qualified pseudoscientific project must claim first to be science but then fail to meet the requirements of reproducibility,Intersubjective verifiability and falsifiability. A true religion does not claim to be science, does not claim to meet those three core requirements, but claims to explain the same things both science and pseudoscience attempt to explain. The fact that both religion, science and pseudoscience attempt to explain the same things does not mean religion is science or pseudoscience because religion doesn't make any attempt to meet the requirements of science.


 * It may be confusing when "religious" institutions bring in pseudoscience to support their non-scientific explanations. When that happens the pseudoscience is genuine, qualified pseudoscience but the religion is still there hiding behind a pseudoscience mask (with it's lack of faith exposed for all to see). Certainly Intelligent Design is pseudoscience but religious institutional interest in ID or other pseudoscience (or even in science!) is political or neurotic not scientific (and certainly not religious). A religion that depends on science or pseudoscience for achieving its ends is really a failed religion since it is not founded in faith and raw belief.


 * Here is a quote by Kenneth Miller from the ID article: "[T]he struggles of the Intelligent Design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures - rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God." Joja  lozzo  03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violations
I notice that the Oxford Dictionary is extensively referenced in this article. I can only find information pertaining to the Oxford Online dictionary, however I don't 'think' the policy would be any different. Someone needs to double, triple, quadruple check this, and if my assumption is correct, remove all references containing text from the Oxford dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The OED is quoted briefly in a footnote of the first paragraph. Copyright law in the United States allows for brief qoutes such as these under fair use.  Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind also that the qoutes are for verification purposes, and should probably be kept for this reason.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Perfect Lead
Just to make it clear, I am not promoting myself, I wrote this because I recognized the necessity for such a modification. If you want to reword it, that is fine, but I wrote it with the help of an English Major... SO, yeah... The lead should be Pseudoscience is unverifiable, does not adhere to scientific methodology & consequently lacks its status; often presented in a scientific context by scientists, it appears scientific, but is not It says it all! Every source that is referenced as to this meaning, in the very first citation, is simplified in my rewrite. Furthermore I have already reorganized the example farm into sections, so you don't have to do that if you change the lead. I don't want to anymore because someone threatened an edit war. But I will probably sandbox the sanity back into this entire article.Lawstubes (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good! That's better than the current lead claiming that "pseudoscience is a methodology". No, never a methodology! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this proposal has not received much attention because it lacks an object: "Pseudoscience is an unverifiable [the object goes here]..." The lead should say what it is, e.g. a claim, a theory, an explanation, even a methodology (albeit a faulty, unverifiable one). "Unverifiable" is one of it's characteristics but not what it is. Joja  lozzo  14:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Improvement PLEASE
It appears to me that we need to simplify the lead to contain a more straightforward explanation. Break it into different categories, such as etymology, origin, controversy,  opinions, interpretations & so on. The basic explanation of a pseudoscience is pretend/false science. Although, this should not be all that is stated in the lead, I can not ignore that the current lead is redundant. Repeating the same paraphrased interpretation of pretend/false science in two or three ways, emphasizes the word origin rather than meaning, is poorly transcribed & therefore is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead should emphasize the importance of Observation of Objective phenomena (in SCIENCE) rather than subjective views (of pseudoscience). This should be done in such a way that the following EXAMPLES such as metaphysics, Astrology, Religion, Alchemy, Phrenology need no explanation as to WHY they fall into the category pseudoscience. Perhaps, further detailing possible scientific status, if the context of such practices would submit to scientific method & accept terminology such as "theory", yet in such cases as religion, this is not likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tried to remove redundancy and enhance flow in the lead (albeit without changing much in terms of content). Whatever the lead does, it would be heading into metaphysically murky territory if it were to attempt a distinction between "objective" and "subjective". (Well, if you think that metaphysics is pseudoscience, then I guess we have a little problem here.) The most basic illustration of the problem might be found in psychology, whereby the human objects of study are always--even in the published literature--referred to as "subjects". (Things really start to get fun in quantum physics, with stuff like the uncertainty principle and wave-particle duality.) By "objective", people generally mean something like "personally detached" or "emotionally apathetic". Still, this common sense of "objective" would apply to parapsychology, even though parapsychology is widely considered pseudoscientific. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

NavBoxes?
Would it be appropriate to also include NavBoxes for Alternative Medicine and Conspiracy Theories? I wouldn't want to guilt-by-association Alt Med, but it seems that having only the Science infobox misses the complex overlap between pseudoscience and the fields that it usually pops up in. Ocaasi (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro re-write
I tweaked the intro in a bunch of minor ways, hopefully for the better. Thoughts?

One specific question: I wanted to wikilink the terms valid and reliable as they apply to scientific methods. Reliable links to reliability_(statistics), but validity could go to validity, the logic entry, or validity_(statistics), the data/statistics entry. I think they both apply, but if you had to pick either logical or statistical validity, which is more on point with scientific methodology? Ocaasi (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Internal validity may work, as it's directly discussing causal inferences in scientific studies... &mdash; Scientizzle 14:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a good one. The problem is that validity--logic/statistics/internal are all important and none are particularly well written.  Maybe those articles need to be fixed up first.  If you like internal validity, go for it.  I'm going to leave validity statistics as is, just because it matches reliability statistics, and I'm not convinced it's any better or worse than internal validity.  Maybe there's a way to include both links in appropriate places. Ocaasi (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point about the quality of those articles...I'm not sure any of them is a superior choice. Maybe I'll devote some efforts to cleaning some of those articles up a little. From the edits I've looked at, I like what you've done in this article. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Major copy-edit
So, the intro re-write turned into a whole article clean-up. Substance changes were minimal to non-existent, but here is a summary of what I did.


 * integrated the overview section with two new History and Definition sections
 * cleaned up the historical examples from Popper and Thagard
 * moved smaller topic mentions to a separate section on Specific Fields, including religion, pop-science, and psychology
 * added some tags for possible prose-ification of the Indicator section and expansion of the section of psychological motivations

Here are some questions: Ocaasi (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * is it better?
 * should the Demarcation section be at the bottom, like a criticism, or immediately after/a part of the Definition section?


 * I've reverted back to this revision by Ocaasi, prior to the sudden major overhaul. My main reasoning was given in the edit summary, but I might add that it attempted to turn much of the content into essentially a customized definition section that contained new statements like "the easiest way to identify pseudoscience is to show the ways in which it differs from valid science"-- this is way too much of a personal-POV. Please, if it ain't seriously broke, please don't seriously 'fix' it, especially not all at once with a sweeping reorganization of key sections giving implications that we've somehow managed to solve the demarcation problem that has vexed some of the best philosophers of science. This article has long been a tar pit and it took a lot of work to bring it into some kind of reasonable shape such that the POV battles are no longer constant as they were several years ago. Basically, it's more-or-less fine as it is. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly willing to discuss issues, but not just to avoid the tar pit. If the article can be improved, then its worth doing even if it will take some mending and tweaking.  Aside from a rare phrasing like "easiest way", the vast majority of the changes involved nuts and bolts organization.  Articles aren't really supposed to have "overviews"; that's what introductions are for.  Please look closely at the prose in a few of the content sections to see if there's actually more than a few phrases you disagree with.  Also, what 'content section did I turn into a list'? Ocaasi (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a rephrased version of the sentence you thought was OR. Rather than say 'the easiest way', just rephrase it to 'Thus, identifying pseudoscience involves showing the ways in which it differs from valid science.'  It really follows from the definition, so it wasn't OR as much as a poor choice of words to use easiest rather than just state it. Ocaasi (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the reorganization was not an improvement but rather a diminution of quality. Importantly, as I mentioned, it attempts to substitute a customized Wikipedia definition of pseudoscience comprised of a composite of separate sources (e.g. in this revision)--that's original research. It took a number of editors substantial time to organize it into its basic current form showing the various pecks that various published RSs have had at pinning down this difficult topic, and it's remained remarkably stable for several years with only occasional bickering about the lead. Leaving aside various minor quibbles and occasional differences about the language of the lead, the relative stability of the body text over the course of several years reflects a significant degree of consensus for the existing version. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I read through the [old] article (though not the Talk archives) and found it to be a reasonable, stable, poorly organized and fairly written piece.  Lack of change is an indication of a lack of problems but nothing more.  Although there might have been a few changes that stuck out at you as OR, I think you're not quite seeing the other things that weren't perfect prior to the edits.


 * I'd like to look at changes section by section to see if there's really as much of an issue as you think. Meanwhile, as I refine my version, it'd be helpful if you could look through it and point out 3 or 4 of the edits that you think were problematic.  I already rephrased  (in draft) the "easy to show" phrasing.  Are there others?  I don't have much reverence for precedent, so you'll have to bear with me in an attempt to look past status quo justifications; of course, I wasn't/am not looking to disrupt the article, only to improve it where improvements seemed like the could be made.   Ocaasi (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Should Chiropractic at least be mentioned?
I often hear the practice of chiropractic adjustments cited by people discussing pseudoscience. Should it at lease be mentioned in the article? Zegoma beach (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be mentioned. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be mentioned if you have reliable sources discussing it in those terms, and only then if it is relevant. There are hundreds of 'pseudosciences', and it wouldn't make any sense to discuss all of them.  Why chiropractic?  Also, if you were going to discuss Chiropractic, you would have to identify the specific aspects within the field that have been characterized as 'pseudoscientific'.  Spinal manipulation for lower back pain is not pseudoscientific; vertebral subluxations for energy flow may be.  The amount of nuance required to accurately describe the situation might make it more appropriate for Chiropractic than here.  Ocaasi (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Ocaasi (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the recent UK court case on the issue, I'd be surprised if we can't find a RS to back this up. Chiropractic controversy and criticism has a referenced statement in its first paragraph that "For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not support using this article to list or discuss specific cases of pseudoscience. This article should remain focused on the theory and study of the subject without going into particulars. There may be a need for a portal article that would connect this article with articles about instances but I see no need to expand this one to include specifics. In that case I'd suggest renaming this article to something like "Pseudoscience theory". Joja lozzo  16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Would have to agree -- List of topics characterized as pseudoscience alrwady exists, and already includes Chiropractic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Process vs Substance
It seems to me that much controversy and disagreement could be avoided by focusing the article on the practise of pseudoscience, rather than fields and disciplines in which pseudoscientific practices are perceived to be common. The reason is that deciding which fields and disciplines to include as pseudoscience is undefined. The particular area of study in which pseudoscience is used is not particularly relevant to the debate and classifying these as bogus or genuine seems to fall outside the mandate of an article explaining pseudoscience. For example I could make up a pseudoscientific method for studying a respected science like physics or biology, and yet labelling physics or biology as 'pseudoscience' because of this would be innacurate. It is quite clear when the scientific method is not being followed however and this leaves us with plenty of material for defining and explaining the concept of pseudoscience in an encyclopedic way. What I am proposing is that the article focuses solely on what constitutes bad scientific practice (it already covers this very well) and remove references to specific examples of fields of pseudoscience. Where examples are necessary it would be more accurate to cite actual pseudoscientific work which is demonstrably flawed rather than sweeping generalisations about areas of study. The introductory paragraph would then read something like:

"Pseudoscience is the practice of presenting non scientific information, claims or beliefs as scientifically established, without adhering to a valid scientific methodology. Pseudoscience often fails to produce supporting evidence or plausibility, and cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. The term "pseudoscience" is inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[2] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.[2]

According to Paul DeHart Hurd, being able to distinguish science from pseudoscience such as often practised in astrology, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and other superstitions is part of gaining scientific literacy.[3][4] There is, however, some disagreement among philosophers of science and members of the scientific community as to whether there is a consistent and meaningful way to distinguish the results of pseudoscience from those of non-mainstream science.[5][6]"

I think this works better as a general tone for the article as it removes the neccessity for people to defend their area of study, without removing necessity for people to be accountable for actual failures to adhere to rigorous scientific methodologyDrunkenduncan (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't tell what's changed in your proposal - I find it very difficult to switch back and forth between the two versions. Perhaps you can highlight the differences. Joja  lozzo  15:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead needs Organization
Repeated attempts too reorganize this page into manageable sections have been thwarted. IT would be appreciated if editors begin discussion here, and remember to use the "edit/summary" box when editing a page. Issues include:

Bias Lead
Article requires unbias lead. current lead is over defined and presents multiple viewpoints of the same concept. Such a topic as this can be adequately defined in a single sentence, such as the one by user:Lawstubes which was Pseudoscience is unverifiable, does not adhere to scientific methodology & consequently lacks its status; often presented in a scientific context by scientists, it appears scientific, but is not. This sentence contains all necessary info to classify the topic, WITHOUT BIAS!  This is key in understanding the modification by lawstubes, it is, in fact unbias while the current lead is a number of different biases all mashed up into one. This is not to say the current lead is inadequate, only that it is overqualified for the job & should be categorized in an overview.

Sections
The current Lead has already been broken up into sections throughout the article, such as is already done in the sections interpretations & Etymology. Editors appear extremely attached to the current lead, and are denying its transformation into an overview, which would be ill advised as the article needs an overview section.

References/Citations
Certain references/citations within this article contain relevant subtext & this subtext should be embedded into the text of the article itself, rather than tucked away in a reference and USED by editors in bias manor.

Overall citation/reference oversight may be necessary, as there may be infringement...Not sure.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Boundaries between science and pseudoscience
The section Boundaries between science and pseudoscience merely discusses the mis-labeling of things as pseudoscience when in fact they were potentially scientific, others cite theorems for which there is no proof as being pseudoscience. The misuse or abuse of the term does not make something which is pseudoscience no longer so. Other references have shown that something is not science if it does not provide evidence (i.e a theorem without evidence, proof or any possible proof), this merely lays the boundary then at distinguishing pseudoscience from non-science. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Science, verb or noun?
The lead seems to presents a case whereby some things are scientific facts and some things are not. It's my contention (as a neuroscience researcher), that science is not a list of facts but rather a defined process as to how one should go about formulating and testing theories. And how one should present their observations to the greater scientific community. Any thoughts on this? —―  —― Niubrad (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 02:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Kenosis, while you're cleaning things up, would you check in here to discuss.


 * I'm not sure why the Paul Hurd requires attribution. I'm not a pusher of ASF, but I think this claim about pseudoscience and scientific literacy is pretty uncontroversial. Ocaasi (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the rationale for having an overview section?


 * Is it better to have the small mentions about religion, pop-science, and clinical psychology separated in different sections?


 * Can the histories of Popper and Thagard be cleaned up, per the copy-edit. Ocaasi (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Very quickly and somewhat incompletely at the moment (and I'm not implicitly promising to deal with every component here). for convenience I'm numbering your four "bullet points": (1) I'm not sure why the Paul Hurd requires attribution. I'm not a pusher of ASF, but I think this claim about pseudoscience and scientific literacy is pretty uncontroversial. WP:ASF no longer exists, but since you're a regular at that page perhaps you could figure out how to rectify that situation regarding editors who come to rely on long-standing provisions in core content policies. (2)What's the rationale for having an overview section? The "overview" presents the general "lay of the land", so to speak, for the unfamiliar reader because scientific method itself is very commonly a tough subject for them. And as numerous RSs have made eminently clear, the demarcation problem has proven over the course of a century of attention by some of the best minds on the planet to be a vexing one with many twists and turns and myriad facets. (3) Is it better to have the small mentions about religion, pop-science, and clinical psychology separated in different sections? This definitely seems to me worthy of further discussion, but IMO it definitely should be accompanied by careful analysis of the RSs. You've noted three entirely different areas about which various RSs have attempted to separate science and, as you've noted, religion, pop science and clinical psychology. My gut hunch is that it's a very ambitious project if it's to be at all stable and sustainable in this article. (4)Can the histories of Popper and Thagard be cleaned up, per the copy-edit. I apologize for having caught up your cleanup of, e.g., the paragraph about Thagard (which in my view you unnecessarily turned into a subsection because it needed only a brief paragraph to tell the reader what Thagard contributed to the debate in 1978). I've since copyedited that paragraph a bit, and my revert of your major reorganization took care of your own self corrections of your revisions of the Thagard material (diffs available upon request, in case you don't recall or can't find your specific edits to which I'm referring). If you have a more specific complaint about what I did there, I'm all ears, but I apologize that likely can't promise to respond until about a day from now. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ASF or no, in-text attribution is only needed in certain circumstances. Why do you think this is one of them, is all I'm asking.  (NPOV policy still includes: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.")
 * I disagree that the overview section is needed; I think it's a crutch for a topic that could just be better edited. There are many subjects as complicated or controversial as this and I can't recall any of them having overviews.  I think we should incorporate it into the lead, history, definition/identification sections as fits.
 * Thagard might not need his own section, but I think the copy-edits for clarity and concision are still useful.
 * I might try and redo some of the edits I made without getting into the broader issues you are presenting objections to. When you get back, we can see how you think it looks.  It should be easier to judge piece by piece (I'll make smaller changes at a time) than all at once.  I think the article is already improved, but could be morseo.  Ocaasi (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ocaasi, I want to quickly add the following to what I just said a short while ago: You requested of me about three or four specific examples of edits. I'd already given you an important example concerning your sweeping reorganization and rewrite of the context of what this WP article presents to its readers, your having offerred to the readers essentially an assertion that WP has solved the demarcation problem by way of offering a synthesized definition of how readers can best go about identifying pseudoscience, about which I've just commented twice. Maybe you might start by actually reading just my edit summaries before demanding an encounter on Talk, of which, by the way, your recent edits seem conspicuously lacking. IIRC, the point of the section on "Identifying pseudoscience" wasn't to imply that we WP editors as a group can say to readers how to do it, but that the section is presenting the cited reliable sources' various views about how they attempt to identify pseudoscience. Personally, I'm open to suggestions about how to better title this section so as not to imply we collectively as WP editors have "defined" pseudoscience, as you appear to me to have taken it. But... Ocassi, I now see better that you're determined to do something, and something significant here. However it appears to me that despite your good very faith efforts to solve and define the issues for the reader in a way that readers can go forward into the world and know best from this WP article how to clearly separate and define the difference between science and pseudoscience, you've not actually beenreading the citations already provided before implementing what you've considered to be improvements here, and also appears to me that you do not well understand the complexities which have vexed some of the best minds for a century with no clear end to the demarcation problem in sight ((diffs in support of this current conclusion of mine about your apparent overreaching might be available on request, though you'll likely need to wait a day or two). In the meantime, I want to repeat that I acknowledge all your efforts appear fully in good faith... Kenosis (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ocaasi, I'm now outta here to check on other WP stuff and then get back to the inevitable RL (that'd be "real life") stuff, OK? Will talk with ya' later on as may be potentially helpful or otherwise appropriate. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Kenosis, could you lay off the personal assumptions. I did indeed read your edit summary.  I Immediately offered a change that matched your objection and said that my phrasing was intended to be a simple statement rather than a creative invention or broad assertion.  The word 'easy' was misplaced, but that's it.  Don't confuse a poor word choice for anything more.  I grasp the broader complications, and if you let go of the 'easy' example, the rest of the edits make for little drama.  The word 'Definition' doesn't imply instruction, just a section on how RSs define pseudoscience.  That's just a word-choice issue again, not a sign of the intent you are presuming.  I didn't alter the Demarcation section, and I actually suggested moving it from the bottom of the article where it currently lies as much of an afterthought.  As for reading citations, editing takes many forms and one of them is organization; verification is another that I was not focusing on at the time, and nitpicking about edit summaries seems silly.  Making a bunch of assumptions and then claiming good faith seems a bit of a mixed message as well.  But back to content, what about the issues I mentioned above? Ocaasi (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That appears to me to be a request for specific diffs in support of my, as you say, "assumptions". Duly noted. Talk with ya in a day or two. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of my diffs, and you don't have to waste the time. I meant assumptions you were making about my intentions or whether I had been reading your comments.  There's a difference between how an edit appears to you and what I was trying to accomplish by making it.  If we can drop those kinds of inferences, I think editing will be easier.  Ocaasi (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to say: "Your first sentence" appears to me to be a request for specific diffs in support of my, as you say, "assumptions". Duly noted. Talk with ya in a day or two. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC) To which I quickly add: The rest of your statement is also duly noted, but as I said, I'm outta here for awhile for RL, and will get back to it in a day or two, including, if appropriate, an apology for my pointedness and/or for any outright mistakes I made. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. This process of editors posting reams of diffs to prosecute each other is one of Wiki's lesser qualities.  We're both interested in this article being effective and thorough, and spending time impugning motivations... seems to focus on the wrong things.  Let's just stick to the content and see if the article can be brought up to better standards on both fronts.  Cheers until then... Ocaasi (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The original intent of ASF no longer exists and now editors can do this? Mass changes to NPOV policy will eventually result in mass changes to Wikipedia articles. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What, you mean attribution of a opinion to its author? why is that problematic in this case?  -- Ludwigs 2  06:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I stated: "Mass changes to NPOV policy will eventually result in mass changes to Wikipedia articles." You are asking me if in-text attribution is problematic when you eliminated core ASF policy. If there is no ASF then it may no longer be problematic at least as far as ASF is concerned. According to you, you disapprove of the fact/opinion distinction. So I assume you think attribution in the text has your approval. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * QG, I agree with you that attribution is not needed here, but I don't think we need ASF to fix it, just some discussion. We still have guidance not to lessen assertions by suggesting they are contested if they're not; attribution can but doesn't always do that.  In this case, I think that attribution unnecessary, since the view seems commonplace and uncontroversial.  Why can't we just figure it out with reference to reasons rather than an explicit policy. Ocaasi (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You assert you don't think we need ASF to fix it. You don't think we need policy? Just some discussion of what policy then? I don't know if I can say the in-text attribution here is a violation of ASF when ASF no longer exists. QuackGuru (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need policy for every kind of edit. Discussion of NPOV, in light of its continuing guidance on attribution should suffice ("Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.").  As editors we can still think and be reasonable without an explicit policy to tell us exactly what to do. Ocaasi (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not ASF. That is vague and random text without even the examples of what is an inline qualifier. I agree there is no explicit policy to tell us what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey QG, I think that's taking the situation to an extreme. There is great policy in NPOV and V which require that this kind of situation be cited, proportionally and neutrally presented, and not given attribution when it would make a passage appear contested if it is not.  That's great policy, and claiming that recent changes are merely IAR is as baseless as saying that any policy at all is instruction creep.  Ocaasi (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean that there was a great NPOV policy? I hope editors prefer the rewritten instructions and the new NPOV policy. QuackGuru (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * QG, I am not interested in hearing you rant about revisions of NPOV. I had a very simple question: Why in this particular case is attribution to the author unneeded? If you give a good reason, then I will support removing the attribution.  However, it seems to me that this opinion is not a commonly accepted fact in the scientific community or the greater world, but rather a argument being made by this particular author.  I happen to think it's a good argument, but it is an argument nonetheless, and ought to be attributed to its source.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When there is no longer ASF policy because of you what are you basing your argument on. When it is not commonly accepted fact in the scientific community that seems to mean there is no serious dispute. If there is no serious dipsute can editors add attribution in the text whenever they want now. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, would having another source as well make it seem like less of a single person's argument? I guess that's like asking if instead of proving that X's argument is contested by coming up with a competing RS, it would be sufficient to show that it's not 'one guy' to resolve the attribution issue.  Is that an approach that will work in situations like this? Ocaasi (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ocaasi: the issue with this particular phrase is that it is - obviously - a pedagogical construct that this researcher has developed, as opposed to a research result. That's not a bad thing, mind you - academics and educators are always coming up with pedagogical rubrics that help in education, as well they should.  But pedagogical rubrics are not matters of broad consensus, they are subject to change, and educators use them or not at their own discretion. Attribution is called for.  It's not like (in this particular case) the phrase is actually being contested (e.g. "Hurd says that ... while Schultz says ...").  But since the next line points out that there is disagreement over whether meaningful distinctions can be made we shouldn't imply in the first line that there is a universal consensus that a distinction can'' be made.
 * QG: I didn't ask for a generic assessment of NPOV issues, I asked you about this particular case. -- Ludwigs 2  19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I pretty much fully agree with Ludwigs2's first paragraph just above, which well describes my reasoning for specifically attributing the just referenced sentence currently in the second paragraph of the lede to Paul DeHart Hurd (1905-2001). With or without WP:ASF, it's essentially the same editorial reasoning, which is that the statement "being able to distinguish science from pseudoscience such as astrology, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and other superstitions is part of gaining scientific literacy' is, at least on the evidence presented thus far, pretty much solely attributable to Hurd. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I readily admit I was being very conservative in that attribution, and am open to other reasonable alternatives, examples of which have already been suggested elsewhere in this thread. ... Kenosis (talk)
 * Yeah, I did notice the slight tension between the sentences, but the demarcation problem is not typically something taught alongside the scientific method, while identifying pseudoscience is. Maybe we could split the difference and say "Educators consider identifying pseudoscience... part of scientific literacy".  Though there is an argument being presented here, I don't think it's one limited to Paul Hurd, even if he might be most well know for promoting it.  It seems like the solution, rather than taking a just-assert-it or just-attribute-it approach, either of which have logic behind them, that we find out who else shares this view and how broadly it is considered--either by finding a source which addresses the scope or just more sources which echo the argument. Ocaasi (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have more sources that convince you it's more of a general belief than Hurd's particular perspective, then I'm open a more general form of attribution. as I said, I don't find the phrase problematical, it just doesn't strike me as the kind of thing that can be offered as a transparent truism.  It's just too obvious that it's something being argued for, not something that is.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with QG it probably should be stated more factually. Agree with Kenosis and Ludgwigs we need to do more to show the is-ness of the statement.  I don't have sources to do it, but I would be surprised if we couldn't find some very authoritative descriptions regarding scientific literacy and pseudoscience.  Where to look? Ocaasi (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see this discussion is going nowhere becuase the NPOV policy mass rewrite is gone down the wrong way to nowhere. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * QG: Pull the CD out, blow off any dust, and reinsert it. This track keeps skipping at the same point in the song.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of policy supports or does not support the attribution in the text when NPOV is vague and misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * QG: allow me to point out that while you've been complaining about what's been happening at wp:NPOV, the rest of us have discussed the case here and come to a reasonably informed decision about the matter. You can (and I assume will) continue to complain about NPOV, but why?  there's no problem here - stop trying to make one.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Allow me to explain no serious disputed has been presented per WP:ASSERT. QuackGuru (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And allow me to comment that the phrase "no serious disputed has been presented per WP:ASSERT", even setting aside the grammatical errors, is devoid of meaning. What are you pointing to, and why does ASSERT come into play, and what resolution are you suggesting to the problem that you claim to be seeing?  Don't just say these things because they sound cool.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:ASSERT comes into play when a statement is implied it is controversial when there is no serious dispute. If you can't show there is a serious dispute then don't imply there is one. Your asking too many questions when you rewritten ASSERT against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please choose which argument we're going to have; I'm not going to discuss changes to this page and changes to NPOV at the same time.


 * With respect to this page: it is your obligation to show that this opinion about the relationship of pseudoscience to scientific literacy (and the later claim about the dangers of pseudoscience) are general enough to be presented in wikipedia's voice. So far as I can tell the first is the opinion of one author, and should be treated and attributed as such, while the second is clearly hyperbolic (only a small proportion of pseudoscience poses any danger to the public, unless you're worried about attacks by bigfoot and space-aliens) and requires more careful contextualization.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. When in doubt, attribute. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)