Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 8

Reference credibility ?
I have a source (a book) noting that Kirlian photography is pseudoscience. However, the Skeptical Inquirer reviews the source, describing it as
 * ".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout."
 * "It reads more like a collection of opinions "
 * [needs to] "contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts."

Do we include or exclude the verifiable information, or is the credibility of the Skeptical Inquirer sufficient to question the reliability of the source? --Iantresman 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Iantresman. The single reviewer David Bloomberg (no credentials provided) can possibly be taken into account, perhaps in the footnotes. But the source (encyclopedia of pseudoscience) does fullfill the requirements of verifiability and reliability. Book reviews are one thing, but one has to take into account the background and biases of the particular reviewer. Also, as a source corroborated by other sources, it is also perfectly fine.  Whittling away at reliable sources written by collections of professors and other experts does the reader no favours at all.  I noticed you made some rather undue weight additions to the article using Williams. In principle the info is ok, but it will need more info and refs to support and balance it and will need to be more brief. The PS article is not about the EoPS. One other interesting thing about the review is that it seems to want the EOPS to state which is PS and which isn't.  There seem to be no books published that take the appropach suggested by the reviewer. PS is an issue that pertains to certain subjects.  Again, we are not really here just to brand whole fields PS. The reader will benefit by taking the approach of Williams, Lilienfeld, Shermer, and others because that pretty much adheres to the spirit of NPOV on pseudoscience. If a field has PS elements, then the elements should be specified and the discussion made clear, and it should say why those elements are pseudoscientific. That way we are clear and specific and NPOV policy is upheld. KrishnaVindaloo 03:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience categories
Here is the section on PS categories for editors here to work on and discuss:

In his book Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (publ.2000), Dr William F. Williams lists more than 2000 entries. He describes the crtieria for inclusion:
 * "I have to start somewhere, I am going to use this definition of science: 'The practice of generalizing from observations to form a rational explanaion -- a theory -- of a particular part of our world and then testing that theory by experiment, rejecting it if it does not match up, accepting it provisionally if it does'. [..]"


 * "This then, will be my criterion for deciding what to categorize as science and what is pseudoscience, fraud, or something other than true science. [..] there are many distinct categories (1) claims for scientific status that do not satisfy the definition by any stretch of the imagination (2) frauds and hoaxes (3) mistaken theories that are sooner or later disproved (4) ideological presumptions (5) superstition.
 * "The foregoing might be summarized by saying that we have included in this volume, thereby implying that they may be pseudoscientific, matters that are not generally accepted as legitimate science but that are or have been claimed to be so. For good measure we have included topics at the forefront of research that are still controversial."

Another class of pseudoscience dubbed pseudoskepticism by the late professor of sociology, Marcello Truzzi, refers to a non-rigorous skepticism that is itself erroneously presented as skepticism, and taking a stance of denial, rather than doubt. Truzzi noted that while "Many claims of anomalies are bunk and deserve proper debunking .. those I term scoffers often make judgements without full inquiry" The term "pseudoscience" may also be used by adherents of fields considered pseudoscientific to criticize their mainstream critics and vice versa, in which case the appearance is of two opposing camps both accusing each other of pseudoscience.

-- Hi all. I question the particular arrangement of information in this section. Conceptually it really doesn't follow. Firstly, we need to determine whether pseudoskepticism really is a type of pseudoscience. Then we need to state very clearly the differences between the Williams and the Truzzi line. I always understood pseudoskepticism to be a type of skepticism, rather than a type of pseudoscience, at least according to majority view (people pretending to do skepticism). Whereas pseudoscience is about people pretending to do science. KrishnaVindaloo 03:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I suggest that William's categories could possibly be mentioned as a sentence near the opening ie" Williams (2000) states that pseudoscience can be categorized as |(1) claims for scientific status that do not satisfy the definition by any stretch of the imagination (2) frauds and hoaxes (3) mistaken theories that are sooner or later disproved (4) ideological presumptions (5) superstition." KrishnaVindaloo 05:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest that this line from Williams may be useful in the context of discourse on PS. "For good measure we have included topics at the forefront of research that are still controversial." This caters for the idea that pseudoscience is an issue in new and unvalidated practices. It is a common area of discussion in pseudoscience issues. Of course, PS is an issue where there is no evidence for the claims made. This has to be an issue in all areas of science etc. Specifically it is important when distinguishing between PS and protoscience. Views from reliable sources can be quoted. KrishnaVindaloo 05:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If Williams is good enough to use as a source, and one that we use quite a lot, then it seems relevent to use his definition of pseudoscience. I think his definition is important because it uniquely lumps pseudoscience with 5 other categories, his (2) - (5) above, plus (6) controversial research.


 * Pseudoskepticism is obviously a type of scientific skepticism. As it does not meet the required scientific standards, nor necessarily follow the scientific method, it makes it a type of pseudoscience too, as it illustrated by some of the characteristics of both practices. --Iantresman 10:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Iantresman. Your own OR is unacceptable. You will have to provide some very substantial evidence to prove that someone states pseudoskepticism is actually a type of pseudoscience. I believe it is more similar to confirmation bias, which is related to pseudoscience and has issues of pseudoscience. But to state that pseudoskepticism is a pseudoscience will need quite some reliable and explicit statements probably from corroborating sources. KrishnaVindaloo 14:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, Original Research is unacceptable, and I will try and find a decent source, the only one I have to hand is from a science writer, who notes that "the 'skeptics' who censor and ridicule in the name of science, whether they know it or not, are the agents not of knowledge but of pseudoscience. "
 * Conversely, I think we also need to show explicitly that the subjects mentioned by Williams in his Encyclopedia are indeed meant to be labelled as pseudoscience. While Williams says this is so in his definition (provided above), I also note he includes Antimatter, Big Bang, Black Hole and Chastity belts.
 * Incidentally, now would describe a scientific skeptic who does not follow the scientific method? --Iantresman 14:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Iantresman, the link you provided doesn't even mention the term pseudoskepticism. The specifics of Williams have been shown below. I don't think anyone is particularly interested in showing chastity belts as pseudoscientific, though they may help in explaining some of the more superstitious foundations of PS thinking. Would you please clarify your last line. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. KrishnaVindaloo 09:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Referencing problem
I removed from a section from the article that appears poorly researched and poorly vetted. First of all, it is claimed that current scientific theories were once rejected as being pseudoscientific. However, the evidence for this is an "encyclopedia" where the author isn't named nor is a page-number provided. I would like to see quotes that illustrate, for example, that somebody actually called these ideas "pseudoscientific". The only reasonable quote that was made available was that of Stephen Hawking, but even that read more like an off-the-cuff statement rather than a rigorous support to the point the section was trying to make. I couldn't find, for example, mention of this peculiar idealization in The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions and so I'm submitting that EOP may not rise to the level of a reliable source. The removed section is below. Please improve the citations, references, and provide the actual quotes that support this extraordinary prose before placing this section back in the article. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ===Scientific theories once criticized as pseudoscience===


 * A number of presently accepted scientific theories were once rejected by some as being pseudoscientific, irrational or obviously false. None of these fields are generally considered as pseudoscientific any more. These include:


 * Big Bang theory
 * Black holes
 * Continental drift
 * Cosmology


 * Fields can also reject their pseudoscientific notions in favour of the more limited range of scientifically supported element/s of their field. For example, Atwood (2004) suggested that "osteopathy has, for the most part, repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings and joined the world of rational healthcare.".

..
 * I would suggest reading the section "Reference credibility" (above) where I also doubt the reliability of the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (EOP).
 * I note that you have not removed any of the other subjects labelled as pseudoscience that are also sourced to Williams' EOP?
 * Do we need a source to say explicitly that "a subject is pseudoscience"? For example, there are sources that indicate that the French Academy, Antoine Lavoisier, and Thomas Jefferson all ridiculed the idea of meteorites in a "psedoscientific" or "pseudoskeptic" manner.
 * I note that you criticise Stephen Hawkins for not providing a "rigorous support" of Cosmology as pseudoscience. Bearing in mind that pseudosciene is not a scientific term, and there is no agreed definition, do we all remove those subjects laballed as pseudoscience, but not "rigorously"? --Iantresman 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have focused only on the removed section. Williams, by the way, is the editor and so it really isn't "his" EOP. There are actual authors who contributed to the work.
 * We only need a source to explicitly say a subject is pseudoscience if we are reporting on which subjects have been reported as pseudoscience. If we wish to report those who "ridiculed" in a "pseudoscientific" or "pseudoskeptic" manner, we should actually state that.
 * I only criticize using Hawking as a source for the claimed fact that cosmology was once considered pseudoscience. I wouldn't call Hawking's analysis rigorous as to this point, it's more of a causal comment. I don't have any opinion on the rest of the article, just this section right now, so I can't help you with whether you want to remove other subjects. --ScienceApologist 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello ScienceApologist. I'd like to do some work on this section also. I believe it is inappropriately written. There are obviously areas once considered PS and scientists do have specific things to say about them. I did notice some discrepancies before in this section. I have a copy of Williams so I can check it up thoroughly, and if possible, will find more specific literature on this matter as soon as possible. KrishnaVindaloo 04:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well to be specific, Williams states that "Albert Einstein's theory of relativity published in 1915 provided the impetus for the big bang theory. After lemaitre proposed it, the big bang theory was itself rejected as pseudoscience by some researchers. Scientists at the time believed the universe was infinitely large and infinitely old. They believed though the stars aand planets moved, the universe as a whole was motionless. Einstein's theory overturned this model, suggesting that the universe is expanding constantly presumably from one individual event".


 * So I believe its inappropriate to make a bald statement that the theory was generally considered to be PS. Some theorists do not have much to say about evidence etc. The line may be well placed as it is quoted above though, outside of a list.  KrishnaVindaloo 04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Black holes: Williams states that a black hole is "a theoretical construct. a hypothesis; there is no direct evidence of one's existence. Such ideas that violate common sense, inevitably attract even stranger associations. John Taylor in his 1973 book Black Holes, goes into flights of the imagination. He imagines black-hole energy driving spaceships, beings being sucked into blackholes, exiting into alternative universes. Several other writers have joined ini the speculation (white holes, antimatter).  There is nothing wrong with indulging in speculation providing it is seen as speculation not given such authority as to mislead the non-scientific public. To quote from Martin Gardner on Science Good Bad and Bogus (1989) Today black holes are the fashionable playthings of clever astrophysicists. Tommorrow their models may colapse to take their place alongside phlogiston and the epicycles of Ptolemy".


 * So thats pretty specific and shows that Williams (and co) are actually writing a book full of nuance and clear explanation. Its not a good reason to add black holes to a list though. It needs more specific explanation in brief sentence form. KrishnaVindaloo 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Continental drift: "Once considered pseudoscientific, this tenet is now part of mainstream science. Before the modern revolution of plate techtonics of the 1950s and 60s, the idea that the continents might move horizontally around the globe seemed ludicrous, yet prima facie evidence had long been known. A very full case for continental drift was made known in the early 20th century by the German glacial meteoroligist Alfred Lothar Wegener. He assembled much of the evidence of fossils and rock strata on the maching coasts of Africa and South America. His arguments were discussed in the 20s. Most who considered them rejected them as the work of a crank, in part because he did not have a satisfactory theory of the mechanism of the movement of continents. Wegener also totally ignored counterarguments and counterevidence and appeared too willing to interpret ambiguous evidence favourably. In the 1950s improved techniques for measuring the Earth's magnetism gave some ........"


 * Again, this is a case for being clear and specific. Williams (2000) gives some very clear ideas of pseudoscientific thinking. Sure, Wegener was proved correct eventually, but ignoring counter evidence is PS thinking. This is a good example of the advancement of science and very well presented. It can be made more brief for the article. KrishnaVindaloo 04:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe this is another good case for making far more specific explanations for why subjects are considered PS. I understand that some want to state baldly that some subjects are PS, and others want to make counter statements that imunology etc are total PS. But thats not going to be very helpful to the reader. We need to be far more careful and focus on specifics. If a subject is or was considered PS, then we need to specify which part exactly, and why. The article has already had improvements in that direction, so all we need to do is keep moving that way. KrishnaVindaloo 04:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Here is a new version of the section on theories once criticised as pseudoscience. Please offer constructive suggestions. KrishnaVindaloo 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it really Williams who suggests that the big bang theory was once rejected by some or is it a contributing author? Remember, Williams is just the editor of the encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 11:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello ScienceApologist. I don't think it really matters that much. Most peer reviewed publications involve more than one author.  If the citation is, for example, Lilienfeld et al (2004), then we really have no idea who's view a particular paragraph or line is, apart from the fact that the publication is a group effort. If you look at the requirements for reliable sources, you will see that the editor usually sees to reviewing and proofing etc.  In this case (Williams) there were many contributors, and judging by the specific descriptions in the text, there is most likely enough nuance and explanation to satisfy the co-authors. We could state "The encyclopedia of pseudoscience (2000:56) states that........" instead. That may be a more accurate description of the source. I notice the opening of the vitalism article has something similar, with a dictionary being quoted as a definition. KrishnaVindaloo 12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well a dictionary is the right place to go for a definition but for a disputed fact then you need the source. ScienceApologist has questioned whether the big bang theory was rejected in this way, (and it would only be noteworthy if it was prominently rejected by serious physicists) - so what is the source that Williams cites? Gleng 14:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A dictionary can conflict with other definitions. The solution there is to see if a definition from another dictionary contradicts another's definition. The same is true with encyclopedias. If there is another encyclopedia that contradicts Williams, then something needs to be done about it. So where's your contradictory source?  KrishnaVindaloo 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ===Scientific theories once criticized as pseudoscience===


 * A number of presently accepted scientific theories were once rejected by some as being pseudoscientific, though they are not considered pseudoscientific any more.


 * For example, according to Williams (2000) the big bang theory was itself rejected as pseudoscience by some researchers. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity published in 1915 provided the impetus for the big bang theory to be accepted as it suggested that the universe is expanding constantly presumably from one individual event. Also, continental drift theory was once considered pseudoscientific (Williams 2000).  This tenet is now part of mainstream science especially since the 1950s when improved techniques for measuring the Earth's magnetism showed evidence to support the theory.  According to Hawking (1993:1), "cosmology was once considered pseudoscience where wild speculation was unconstrained by any possible observations". Modern technology and improvements in theory have improved the standing of cosmology as a science.


 * Fields can also reject their pseudoscientific notions in favour of the more limited range of scientifically supported element/s of their field. For example, Atwood (2004) suggested that "osteopathy has, for the most part, repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings and joined the world of rational healthcare.".

-


 * The sentence says " pseudoscientific, irrational or obviously false." "OR" is a big word there.  It doesn't mean that everything that was rejected by science was considered pseudoscience.  A lot of people are wrongly trying to equate "not accepted by science" with pseudoscience, and t5hat's not the case.  Continental drift was not considered pseudoscience, see the book "Drifting continents and shifting theories" by H. E. LeGrand.  There is a lot of material in there I need to put into the continental drift article.  As far as cosmology, I don't think Hawking means pseudoscience in the literal sense.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks much Bubba73. I'm with you on the first line. I believe simply stating the term "pseudoscientific" is sufficient.  I'll make the adjustment now.  Also, it states "none of the fields are considered generally pseudoscientific any more".  Removing the "generally" makes sense also, as these fields were not generally considered PS anyway. It was often just a minor debate or a transitory stage, whereas true pseudoscientific subjects are persistently PS (they fail to ditch the PS notions). I believe that this is the main benefit of the section; it does show some difference between subjects that are called PS for a short while, and the other subjects on this article which for one reason or other (wrong-headedness or fraud etc) which retain their PS characteristics long term. This may also call for merging with the protoscience at some point. That may help clarify the difference in the way the terms are used. ie, cosmology may have been called PS or proto, and the reader will be able to see the complexities, but also the differences between subjects that were undergoing serious research, and others that continue to foster confirmatory PS strategies. Williams states that continental drift was considered PS. I believe we should leave that it as it fulfills NPOV policy, but if you can find any other nuances or qualifications in your literature, it'd most likely help the section.  Concerning Hawking; I do think that he does explain some useful notions of PS in his lines though.  I would be inclusive in this case. He does kind explain that cosmologists were a bit wild with untestable claims, and now the situation has been remedied. Perhaps you are right about Hawking's loose meaning of PS, but it is more or less a straight quote, so perhaps the reader can make up their own mind there.  Perhaps we could solve some of these issues by simply linking to the appropriate article. I do think we can help the article a lot though by fulfilling the NPOV on PS more thoroughly by briefly explaining why such and such is or was considered pseudoscientific. Any other lines of literature you have will be great. KrishnaVindaloo 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a brief comment, because it is after my bedtime. (I got up to check something.)  Right.  Pseudoscience is something that is wrongly considered to be pseudoscience.  The big bang, continental drift, and cosmology never fit the definition.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks again Bubba73. This is an inconsistency to some degree, though to some extent the above subjects were wrongly considered to be science according to some critics at the time (at least if thats what the critics meant by pseudoscience).  So your suggestion does show that some more clarification is needed.  I suggest we could write something along the lines of "these subjects fit the definition of pseudoscience of the critics of the time, though there may be variations in the usage of the term". And related to this, we can re-iterate or make clearer the fact that according to certain science philosophers, persistence of PS notions over time is a key attribute of pseudoscientific subjects.  Either way, I think its best to leave it up to the sources to say whether or not a subject fits the definition of PS, and leave the rest up to the reader to decide for themselves. Useful qualifying statements are always handy though. KrishnaVindaloo 07:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I do suggest that if these facts are added and corroborated sufficiently on the specific articles in question (ie cosmology, big bang theory, etc) then those articles can be added to the pseudoscience category so that readers can browse subjects with pseudoscience issues and they can gain a clearer understanding of the matter. KrishnaVindaloo 09:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology was labelled as once pseudoscience by Stephen Hawking, and one that he felt (in 1999) was still not a "proper science". Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman note that the some people consider the anthropic cosmological principle as pseudoscience.

Continental drift has been associated with pseudoscience by a number of commentators, --Iantresman 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, all useful info. Though the Alpher info seems a little weak, we could still add it in as a full quote and leave it up to the reader to decide. As long as there's no OR or editorializing it will probably be ok. KrishnaVindaloo 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to add the section back into the article. If anyone wants to add any more sources to back these up, then go ahead, NPOV and due weight in mind etc. KrishnaVindaloo 03:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the cosmology and Big Bang commentary as Williams is not a reliable commentator on the history of the Big Bang's acceptance and Hawking was making a comparison rather than stating describing the actual thing. Continental drift and osteopathy are left because I'm not as familiar with those subjects, but they may need to go too. --ScienceApologist 20:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is Williams a reliable source for labelling the other subjects as pseudoscience, but not Cosmology?
 * Hawkings says:
 * "Cosmology used to be considered a pseudoscience .."
 * "Cosmology was thought of as a pseudoscience where wild speculation was unconstrained by any possible observations."
 * "Cosmology used to be regarded as a pseudo science.."
 * In other words, cosmology was considered a pseudoscience, and Hawking confirms that view. --Iantresman 22:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My objection is to Williams description of the history of cosmology. I cannot verify his assertion that the Big Bang was once considered pseudoscience. It doesn't seem to be true. We've discussed the issues with Hawking before. I don't think these quotes belong on the pseudoscience page because Hawking wasn't writing about pseudoscience, he was making bold statements about cosmology. They might do well on a history of cosmology page. --ScienceApologist 12:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. ScienceApologist, Do you want to keep your citation to Velikovsky as pseudoscience when it incorrectly calls him an Austrian; it doesn't inspire as a reliable source. --Iantresman 22:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it as a source for Velikovsky's nationality, if that's what you're trying to insinuate that I'm doing. --ScienceApologist 12:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure SA. I just doublechecked on the Williams quote. He does make that statement, but that was really early on, and the idea of a static universe is pretty daft by todays thinking. Its a bit like saying the earth is flat. I believe the Hawkings info is fine also. It fits NPOV policy. I'd say we need input from others on the Hawking point though. As long as its quoted correctly it should be fine. KrishnaVindaloo 12:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the "Hawkings info" is not "fine" because Hawking wasn't trying to demarcate pseudoscience in his books but was making a glib tour of the history of cosmology. It's akin to using Sagan's preface to Intelligent Life in the Universe which he wrote with Shklovskii where Sagan writes that "there are occasional ideological differences" as a source for Cold War conflicts over science. It is a basic misinterpretation of the text to claim that Sagan is positing that there is necessarily an ideological divide between US and USSR, even though he glibly remarks that there are these differences. It's very amateurish to take the popular-level work of a notable scientist who is writing "off-the-cuff" as it were and try to use this as evidence for a larger thesis.


 * Williams unfortunately does not reliably report about the Big Bang vs. static universe formulations. I think he is confused in this regard. Just find another source if you would like to discuss this. --ScienceApologist 13:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You could be right SA. If I or someone else finds another ref, then we can reconsider. KrishnaVindaloo 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience
I have created a new article: Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and would welcome its review. --Iantresman 15:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
Poppers position is greatly misrepresented. He himself objected very clearly and very explicitly against this misrepresentation in Logik der Forschung, chapter *XIV. Poppers demarcation criterion is purely based on a logical property of theories, not on experiments. The article claims that Popper demanded verifiablity for hypotheses and theories. Actually, Popper argued for the impossibility to do this. Popper also argued that theories can never be refuted in a strict sense, since observations are 'theory laden', so empirical statements are tentative, too. In Popper empistemology, everything is a conjecture. Please do not misrepresent his position. --Rtc 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ohh, not correct. Popper in his earlier years (1930's) argued for falsifiability in large part via modus tollens (denying the consequent) which was his positioning om arguing for verifiability in the logical-positivist environment of that day. Since then, statistical methods have developed to the point where this strict-logical-construction is obsolete.  The principle of falsifiability has since become widely reinterpreted to mean verifiable, that is, falsifiable not in the strict logical sense, but by statistical methods of analysis of verifiable observations and quantifications.  No doubt this section of the article could have been, and can still be, written better than it currently is in terms of effective explanation for the reader of the article.  Nonetheless the existing language, in my estimation, explains it more effectively than reducing Popper's advocacy to a mere logical construction divorced from the reality of contemporary scientific method. ... Kenosis 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Poppers work is a harsh criticism of contemporary scientific method. The claim that "statistical methods have developed to the point where this strict-logical-construction is obsolete" is actually so absurd that I am asking myself which literature you have this claim from. 2/3 of Popper's first publication, Logik der Forschung are devoted to statistical methods and prove that they are inadequate for verification, and that every theory can only have probability 0. The book has been extended by several proofs that even under the incorrect assumption that the probability would for some magic reason be greater than 0, the statistical positions would undermine themselves and would be doomed to fail. To claim that "The principle of falsifiability has since become widely reinterpreted to mean verifiable" is an abuse of Popper to argue for the position he objected primarily and strongly. Can there be anything more perverse and more POV than something like this? --Rtc 07:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: However I just see that the English version of Logik der Forschung is missing all these significant and clarifying chapters, *XIII–*XX. Strange. Perhaps that explains it. Yet I think Poppers position should be described fairly, and not in the multitude of mistaken and wrong ways in which it has been received.
 * Pardon me, but Popper passed on in 1994 and his productive work ceased substantially before that. It is clear that he understood in his later works that science had begun to progress beyond his original strict-logical-constructionist view of falsifiability. Today the word falsifiability is used in a far more statistically based sense, retaining the essence of the original proposal by Popper, which was that if the theory is false, the other independent researchers need to be able to determine whether or not it's actually false, which essentially means verifiable today.
 * That said, the second paragraph of that section could be written a great deal more effectively than it has been to date, and still explain to the layperson the essence of the main issues involved, foremost of which is the ability for other researchers to double-check the results and show contrary examples to the extent that such contrary results are empricially observable. ... Kenosis 07:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you repeat the nonsense and add new one it does not become more true. The last chapter to Logik der Forschung was added by him in 1994, only a few months before he died. The claim that "his productive work ceased substantially before that" is incorrect. He worked until he died. The weasel account you provide of your personal opinion remains incorrect, abstruse POV. I do not know where you get your claims like "it is clear that he understood in his later works that science had begun to progress beyond his original strict-logical-constructionist view of falsifiability" from. Would you please provide a source for such statements (and please sources that explicitely say so, and not sources that could perhaps merely be taken as evidence of this statement – no original research and no synthesis of published material to promote a point of view please) --Rtc 07:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so. He recognized even before he first published the Logic of Scientific Discovery in the mid-1930s that he needed to adapt.  Adapt he did, as statistical methods progressed though 1959 (the major English translation if I remember correctly) and well beyond.  In the interim, statistical methods gained credence, so that one whacko observing one contrary example would not permanently falsify an otherwise robust theory.  Popper quite plainly understood this throughout his lengthy career, and by the period of the 1990's he was giving primarily lipservice to the immense gains in statistical methods.  Well before the 1990's the notion of the original strict logical construction of falsifiability had become totally obsolete. ... Kenosis 08:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, which sources make this absurd claim? If you would have read the Logik der Forschung, which you obviously have not, you would see the absurdity of your statements. From the very beginning Popper never claimed that anything at all can permanently falsify a theory. Where "was [he] giving primarily lipservice to the immense gains in statistical methods"? Nowhere; in fact, he opposed them strongly until his death. You are obviously talking rubbish and you make your claims ad hoc without any source. I provided unambiguous sources. You did not provide a single one. Take back your revert. --Rtc 08:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (Re indenting)My understanding of Popper's position is close to Rtc's, although the differences with Kenosis may be more semantic than real. Popper's key criticism of the scientific method relates less to the structure of theories than to the design of experiments - he argued that hypothesis testing is the key to good science and that this involves determined attempts to falsify predictions (deductions from a bold hypothesis) that arise from a theory. He recognised that you do not falsify a theory itself so easily, and that theories also contain many elements that are not falsifiable. However he argued that progress in science depends upon attempted falsification, and that progress came by success in falsifying; disproof is logically sound, support by induction is logically unsound. "Verifiability" in Popper's view was not the object or intent of science, just a weak by-product of a failed attempt at falsification. There is an important school of Bayesia statistics that seeks to provide a statistical basis for suport by induction, and some areas of science use these approaches; but in much of science this approach is not tenable because of the difficulty of attaching a priori probabilities in any meaningful way to the alternative predicted outcomes of an experiment. Popper was a mathematical logician, and argued very strongly against Bayesian approaches. Associating Popper with support for a concept of verifiability is not really true to his reasoning, certainly not to the main theses for which he became influential; however any idea that he (or anyone else of any seriousness) has argued that all elements of a theory must be falsifiable for it to be scientific is nonsense. After all, take this literally and virtually the whole of mathematics becomes unscientific (see Godel's theorem; major theorem in mathematical logic and Popper certainly was acutely aware of this). He did however argue that we should prefer theories which are more falsifiable (although this is certainly not his only criterion).


 * Kenosis is right in that Popper was interested in how "support" for a theory could be measures by quantifying the degree of corroborative support, he did not dismiss statistical approaches lightly and explored their utility in detail. But as Popper makes it clear in appendix ix to The Logic: As to degree of corroboration, it is nothing but a measure of the degree to which hypothesis h has been tested...it must not be interpreted therefore as a degree of the rationality of our belief in the truth of h...rather it is a measure of the rationality of accepting, tentatively, a problematic guess

Gleng 09:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gleng's description is a little bit better than mine in that it is more complete. I can fully support what he says. --Rtc 09:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rtc, I apologize for getting so snappy earlier. Gleng's comments help greatly to integrate our earlier exchange, as I see it.  Consistently with WP:VER and WP:RS, for a source emphasizing the use of statistical methods in verifying or falsifying (confirming or refuting) hypotheses, maybe it's useful to also refer to something like Hugh Gauch's Scientific Method in Practice (2003). Perhaps the explanation in that second paragraph of the WP article could possibly be aided by some way of mentioning that each additional data point helps to "support" or "weigh against" a well-formed hypothesis; hopefully without getting bogged down in the technical aspects of confidence intervals and the like.  And yes, Popper's more recent language in the appendix of the Logic rings a bell now; thanks to both Rtc and Gleng.  I trust this integration of perspectives will manifest in a clearer summary-explanation for the reader in due course.  Good regards; will talk later when I have more time. ... Kenosis 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. If there is a way to explain the common adoption of these ideas, that may help. Also, Kenosis, if this gives you any ideas for improving that point then this may be a good time to propose something or just try it out. If you can give us some idea of the literature that may be relevant that could also be useful. I imagine a line on Popper's theory in use at the end of the second para of the intro section could help clarify things. KrishnaVindaloo 07:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, moving forward with your suggestions; I believe Kenosis is totally correct in reverting this rather argumentative tennis match style:.

So here is an alternative that takes into account Kenosis’ suggestions to some extent, while avoiding Rtc’s argumentative writing:

Karl Popper suggested the additional criterion of falsifiability.[7] Some theories cannot be proven false under any circumstance, for example, the theory that God created the universe. Such theories may be true or false, but are not scientific; they lie outside the scope of (at least present-day) science; Popper differentiated between mythological, religious or metaphysical formulations (which may prefigure later scientific theories but do not follow a scientific methodology), and pseudoscientific formulations — though without providing a clear definition of each.[8] Popper also recognized the need for statistical methods to make sense of collections of research for the purpose of making conclusions about whether a theory has been falsified or not. Another criterion applicable to theoretical work is the heuristic of parsimony, also known as Occam's Razor. This principle says the most simple explanation for the evidence is preferred over explanations needing additional assumptions.[11]

Does anyone have any objections to placing this in the article as an alternative? Any further adjustments to make? KrishnaVindaloo 09:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Popper, no theory at all can be proven false. Popper did also strongly oppose any statistical methods as well as any other method about "making conclusions about whether a theory has been falsified or not". According to Popper, you cannot decide if a theory has been falsified or not, regardless of your approach. Popper instead provided an account on when conjecturing a theory to be false is rational and when it is not (and the criterion for this is neither provability nor statistical probability; it is the logical structure of the statements in contradiction to the theory). --Rtc 10:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm looking for solutions here, rather than problems. Perhaps one of you will have a nice succinct statement that is from some reliable literature that says what we want to say. If not, then we can look to supplying our own version.  So do you have any useful quotes? KrishnaVindaloo 11:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Karl Popper suggested the additional criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science .[7] Some theories cannot be proven false under any circumstance be in contradiction to any thinkable ¿empirical observation? [please find out how "empirischer Beobachtungssatz" is properly translated], for example, the theory that God created the universe. Such theories may be true or false, but are not scientific; they lie outside the scope of (at least present-day) [the criterion falsifiablity as a logical property is not bound to present-day] science. Popper differentiated between  subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious or  and metaphysical formulations on the one hand, and pseudoscienfic formulations on the other (which may prefigure later scientific theories but do not follow a scientific methodology) , and pseudoscientific formulations — though without providing a clear definition of each.[8]  Popper also recognized the need for statistical methods to make sense of collections of research for the purpose of making conclusions about whether a theory has been falsified or not.  Popper as a fallibilist believed that there is no way to attach certain truth or even only probability to any theory or observation and so concluded that all knowledge can only be conjectural. However, he provided an account on when accepting a theory or a falsifying ¿empirical observation? [see above] follows a scientific methodology and when it does not.¶ Another criterion applicable to theoretical work is the heuristic of parsimony, also known as Occam's Razor. This principle says the most simple explanation for the evidence is preferred over explanations needing additional assumptions. --Rtc 11:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to debate Popper, but to describe his thoughts on science vs pseudoscience... even if it's wrong, or has been superceded. --Iantresman 11:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We are here to correct the false popular account of poppers thoughts on science vs. pseudoscience. Wrong are the false accounts, not poppers thoughts. Poppers thoughts did not change much. Some people think he held the popular account as a young man (Logik der Forschung, *XIV), but Popper disputes these claims. --Rtc 11:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, popular accounts can be mentioned because they are popular. But going to the original source will help a lot. Seems we have at least some access to the source. The next best thing is a corroborating account of the source that conveys the message well. I know folk are working to include all relevant views, so I'd encourage a forward movement in this line of improvement. This activity is very positive. Lets just make sure we are reporting rather than arguing. KrishnaVindaloo 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm going to reiterate priortities here. Firstly this article is about PS, so lets focus on what Popper said about PS. What he said about science may well be important and clarifying, but its the views on PS that are important here. KrishnaVindaloo 12:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC).  PS, in effect, what I'm saying is that all the above may be quite tangential to the purpose of this article.  If there is a widely accepted synthesis of Popper and all the other phil of sci thinkers, it may do better in the intro. I'm being pragmatic here. Lets go a step higher and think about what is generally accepted by the sci majority. Popper may be lobsided in the field, but there are others to consider. If you don't mind, it may be a good idea to look for something more general, and more "in use". This can act as a kind of summary or "current status" from the majority view. KrishnaVindaloo 12:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Popper did not say much about PS in his works and it is not a term of his epistemology. The term does not occur at all in Logic of Scientific Discovery. It occurs exactly twice in The Open Society and Its Enemies: "All this shows that the apparently unprejudiced and convincingly scientific approach, the study of the ‘causes of war’, is, in fact, not only prejudiced, but also liable to bar the way to a reasonable solution; it is, in fact, pseudo-scientific." (Volume 1, Notes To Chapter 9) and "Like gambling, historicism is born of our despair in the rationality and responsibility of our actions. It is a debased hope and a debased faith, an attempt to replace the hope and the faith that springs from our moral enthusiasm and the contempt for success by a certainty that springs from a pseudo-science; a pseudo-science of the stars, or of ‘human nature’, or of historical destiny." (Volume 2, Conclusion). There is a chapter "Science, Pseudo-Science, and Falsifiability" in Conjectures and Refutations in which he said that the difference between Science (Einstein) and Pseudoscience (Marx, Freud) was one of great interest and influence to him. You can find that chapter online at. The term 'pseudoscience' is nevertheless commonly attributed to Popper. "Incidentally, the philosopher Karl Popper coined the term, ‘pseudo-science’. The examples he gave were (Western) astrology and homeopathy, the medical system developed in Germany." V. V. S. Sarma: Natural calamities and pseudoscientific menace. Current Science 90:2 (January 25, 2006); "The notion of pseudoscience, as coined by philosopher Karl Popper is discussed in the context of its application to library science and its implications for selection." Graham Howard: Pseudo Science and Selection. Collection Management 29:2 (May 24, 2005); "The very prestige that science enjoys, however, has also given rise to a variety of scientific pretenders-disciplines such as phrenology or eugenics that merely claim to be scientific. The renowned philosopher of science Karl Popper gave a great deal of consideration to this problem and coined the term "pseudoscience" to help separate the wheat from the chaff." Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber: Deciding What You'll Swallow. Trust Us We're Experts (New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2001), p. 55, ISBN 158542059X; "'Pseudoscience'... It's the catchword of the times in the scientific community. Originally coined by Sir Karl Popper in the 1950's, the term 'pseudoscience' has become a political weapon being hurled around the scientific and pseudoscientific communities to disclaim research that disagrees with a group's political or personal convictions", Roberta C. Barbalace: Pseudoscience: A Threat to Our Environment EnvironmentalChemistry.com (2004). Popper's use of the term means basically "It is not an empirical science, but it pretends to be one" and, in contrast to skeptics use, has a cynical connotation, not a reproaching one. This lead to much confusion nowadays when Popper is brought into connection with the term and easily leads to claims that Popper would have attacked all non-science as pseudoscience, which is not true. --Rtc 12:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and I think that most of that should be described in the article, as should William's description from his Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, not necessarily because it is right or wrong, but to demonstrate that it is not a scientific term, and several popular and perhaps unpopular and varied definitions. --Iantresman 12:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Iantresman. If you want to demonstrate that PS is not a scientific term then go ahead. But do so with reliable sources that say some thing specific, rather than manufacture deep philosophical debate. Whatever Popper did say about PS is relevant, as is what others say. I'm sure we have no problem with stating the political side of PS, or the consequences of accepting PS concepts into mainstream science, psychology, or popular culture. Either way, your claims require strictly quoted lines and reliable sources. In solution to the Kenosis/Rtc problem, I'm all for stating what the majority nowadays considers to be Popper's line on PS. KrishnaVindaloo 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What "the majority" nowadays considers to be Popper's line on PS is currently written in the article. But I can only harshly reject the position that this is how it should be. Neither is "the majority" an objective criterion, nor is it wikipedia's purpose to state "what the majority nowadays considers". It's wikipedia's purpose to state what reliable sources say, and sources are reliable, if they do not contradict the primary sources, or at least only with good argument and when explicitly rejecting the primary source's presentation. In fact, there is a source that has identified "what the majority nowadays considers" about Popper as the result of 'simplified reception' of his works (, 6.2.2, p.10, I am sorry it is in German). --Rtc 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rtc. WP is not about reporting "majority" views per se, it's seldom clear what the "majority" view is, and indeed according to the article at present the majority believe that things the article assert as pseudoscientific are true, in which case they can hardly agree that these things are PS. PS is a term very rarely used by scientists, and when they do use it, they use it for arguments that can be confused as being scientific arguments, and so its use is inseperable from the subjective issue of whether there is any plausible risk of being misled or not. Mostly therefore scientists use it about the arguments that other scientists use, and seldom use it in print except when talking about historical controversies or about major areas like ID that conspicuously present themselves as scientific. This article is about reporting a) reliable information (without restriction except by quality of source) and b) notable opinions, (i.e. opinions of notable authorities, and representing dissenting opinions without giving the presentation of dissenting opinions undue weight). The particular issue here is readily solved. The issue of falsifiability of theories is not relevant to PS. Most notably, the statement " Some theories cannot be proven false under any circumstance, for example, the theory that God created the universe." Could with better effect be replaced with the statement "Some theories cannot be proven false under any circumstance, for example, the theory of evolution of species by natural selection." This is the classic example of an accepted theory that is unfalsifiable, and it is a scientific theory rather than a religious precept as in the original form. I suggest deleting reference to falsifiability of theories; surely it's enough to refer to articles on Popper and the Scientific Method rather than reproduce some trite popularisation of these issues. A more pertinent issue from Popper's work is the issue of parsimony - ID is not pseudoscientific in being untestable, it's arguably more testable than Evo/NatSel; it fails because it fails parsimony - don't introduce more concepts than the minimum needed for an explanation.Gleng 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are several inaccuracies here. First of all, the theory of evolution by natural selection is not unfalsifiable. Popper first held this position, but he later took it back, because he accepted that some predictions can be made (like a correlation between a changing environment and changing genotype). Nevertheless, the theory turns out for him as "almost a tautology". For a very detailed account on this, please read D.L. Hull: The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper. Biology and Philosophy 14:4 (October 1999), 481–504. Popper tried to propose an improved version of the theory, but it seems hardly anybody took a look at it. "It happened by Intelligent Design" as such, on the contrary, is not falsifiable. Everything may have been designed by an intelligent designer, no matter how stupid it is, and in fact, just take a look at some wikipedia articles here for a proof . Some statements are made in the context that may be falsifiable, but they are either carefully crafted to be safe from experiment, because the experiment would need a range of several thousands of years (no "practical falsifiablity"), or, for other aspects, if you look closely, they do not provide an experimentum crucis, because the vulnerable predictions they make are in fact the same as the predictions by the accepted theories, just with some metaphysical excess added. It is often overlooked that falsifiablity is not a sufficient criterion for a theory to be scientific for Popper: There must also be a "distinction" compared to the best theory already available. You take the parsimony into account: Popper found out that parsimony is equivalent to falsifiablity: The more falsifiable a theory is, the more parsimonious. Finally, I want to stress again that "Some theories cannot be proven false under any circumstance, for example, the theory of evolution of species by natural selection." or "Some theories cannot be proven false under any circumstance, for example, the theory that God created the universe." are as misleading as "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" stickers—the unbiased way to say it is that "Everything in science is a theory, not a fact" just as you have to say "No theory at all can be proved false, regardless of the circumstances" to properly represent Poppers position. --Rtc 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes your account of Popper is correct; I think there are subtleties here; the theory of evolution by natural selection gives rise to testable predictions - and so entails falsifiable predictions and P argued that the content of a theory was related to the density of testable predictions that it generated. The controversial issue over Evo/NatSel has been whether its central tenet is a scientific statement or a tautology, as Sober says  this has generated a large literature, but, "one proposition does not a theory make."

Obviously (I hope) I am not arguing for any credibility to ID, or in any respect arguing against the scientific status (or truth) of Evo/Nat Sel, only illustrating the problems of using falsifiability to distinguish clearly between them. I don't think I dissent from anything much you say RtC except your statement that "the theory of evolution by natural selection is not unfalsifiable"; I was speaking of evolution of species; which is the controversial content, and I don't see how anything could falsify this as a theory. This does NOT in my view have any negative implications whatsoever abut the theory. The issue of parsimony is more complex in that P seemed to say rather little on this and others said rather more.Gleng 15:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, if you want to have a precise account of Popper's views on evolution, just read the article by Hull I mentioned above. Concerning the issue of parsimony, you should have a look at chapter 7 of Logic of Scientific Discovery ("Simplicity"). --Rtc 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already stated that all relevant views are to be included. Thus, the majority is absolutely in need of preserving. All minority views should be stated in relation to the majority. Any PS views really do need explaining from how science thinking sees them.  If you want to introduce any fringe viewpoints, then you are working against WP policies.  So, basically we started with a pretty good set of lines, and they need some qualifying, and we need to add lines relating to the minority. Keeping priorities clear will be the most productive way forward.  You yourselves may want to stress your own views about falsification, but lets keep that to a minimum here, and make that totally absent on the article itself. NPOV policy on reliable and verifiable sources as always.  Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 15:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already stated that "majority views" cannot be accepted if they are incorrectly representing the primary source. You are justifying factually incorrect representation of Popper's views simply because they are what you suppose "the majority" of people think. You are also wrong that the issue of pseudoscience has anything at all to do with "science thinking". "science thinking" is also not an objective criterion. You quite correctly state that we rely on "NPOV policy on reliable and verifiable sources". But then please at first remove the parts of the presentation of Popper's position challenged by me, because these parts are unsourced and because they are POV. --Rtc 15:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with Rtc; the article should be built from reliable sources, not from preconceptions about majority views, and any disputed statement that does not have a verified strong source, should be removed, regardless of whether it's considered to be majority or minority opinion.Gleng 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen guys, I'm suggesting, as constructively as I can, to present the majority as the majority, and the minority as the minority, and to ditch the fringe. If you are able to suggest some nice brief lines that will satisfy that simple NPOV requirement, then I'm sure everything will be super. thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 15:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the purpose of the "majority as the majority, and the minority as the minority" rule. It comes into account if there is a public controvery, a dispute. In case of Popper, there is no controvery and no dispute, there are merely hoaxes and misunderstandings floating around. As a consequence, a "majority" believes to know what Popper said and begins to spead their imagination and attribute it to Popper, while it does in fact not represent his views correctly. Every reputable and accepted secondary literature on Popper will give more or less the account that I gave you and Popper himself tried to combat the false hoaxes: If you read Logik der Forschung, you will find footnotes, appendices and prefaces en masse added in later editions in which Popper strongly disputes and opposes the false popular hoaxes. What you argue for is to define mathematics as calculating, simply because this is the "majority" conception. --Rtc 16:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely 100% agree. There is no majority, no minority, no fringe just V RS.Gleng 16:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds great. Just checking some of the sources in the article, I note that some do not support the associated statements. For exmaple in the section "Identifying Pseudoscience", the description: "Failure to make use of operational definitions"; there appears to be a citation, but the footnotes just mentions "For a well-developed explanation of operational definitions, see...".
 * I also note that some of the sources are difficult to check because the source is not online. Should we insist in relevant quotes? --Iantresman 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm responsible for the Gauch citation tied to operational definitions. I agree the article could use a citation to a reliable source which includes failure to make use of operational definitions as a characteristic of pseudoscience. ... Kenosis 19:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute I think betwen myself RtC and Kenosis on Popper, we are all anxious that he be cited correctly, and are just trying to establish that (it's a long time since I read him). I think though we shouldn't get distracted from the fact that this article is about pseudoscience, and Popper had some important things to say about this in relation to a) marxism (dialectic materialism), b) psychology/psychotherapy (Freud) and c) something else - I forget and my sources aren't to hand. However these seem to be missing, but are particularly germane, whereas Popper's views on scientific method perhaps need only brief mention here with cross reference to the main articles.

To iantresman - I hate it when sources are not available on line, it's tedious to check the context, and if the purpose of the article is to give the reader the ability to judge for himself, accessibility of sources is important; when they're not, verbatim quotes at least helpGleng 19:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Gleng. Wikipedia recognizes that it is not possible to check all sources all the time. Assuming good faith is a solution to this. Reliability is the priority here, and the world is full of reliable off-line books and journals. Verbatim is pretty much the norm. But it goes quite against the discovery of recent, contemporary, and reliable sources for you to pressure for online sources only. KrishnaVindaloo 03:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO by now, the term use of the term "pseudoscience" has detached itself from Popper's intention. Some authors attribute this current use still to Popper (from ignorance), some just can't care less whether they are compatible with him. So, I agree in so much, that the popular misreading of Popper should be explained. But on the other hand, we shouldn't abandon the term "pseudoscience" or wrongly attribute it only to the niche of the Skeptics-movement, as the its use is alive a well. --Pjacobi 19:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pjacobi. That is more or less what I am getting at. I see Kenosis' effort as satisfying the requirement for the updated (majority) version of pseudoscience. But I also saw Rtc trying to add arguments to the section with the support of others, that pushed minority views over majority. Of course the relevant views with due weight is core NPOV and trumps any kind of consensus or group pressure to push for outdated minority views (with original sources) to outweigh majority contemporary thought on pseudoscience. It looks like Kenosis is doing a good job of sorting it out now though.  I'll see if I can find some more contemporary representations of pseudoscience from more recent original sources. KrishnaVindaloo 03:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the alleged "minority view"? What is the alleged "majority view"? You fail to understand the "due weight" principle completely and you use it for justification of POV by arguing for deliberate misrepresentation of Popper's views just because these misrepresentations are popular. You basically say 'Popper must be misrepresented, because, if he would not, one would see that he clearly objects the position the majority attributes to him' --Rtc 06:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Rtc. I didn't specifically say you made a deliberate misrepresentation. But NPOV must take priority here as regards keeping everything in perspective. Not only must it be kept in perspective, but also we should not have this kind of argumentative writing in any Wikipedia article: . The improvement of the section is ongoing, and all relevant views will be taken into account, all in correct proportion, without adding argument, and without editorializing. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 06:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So Popper's own views may not be represented here, because they are not relevant compared to the misrepresentation of his views by the "majority option"? I did only after my correcting edit  had been rejected. I did this to at least present Popper's own view against the majority view of his view. The article is abusing Popper's name to attribute a view to him he strongly and explicitly objected. The controversial statements "Popper said a hypothesis or theory must be empirically verifiable and that scientific propositions should be limited to statements that are capable of being shown false through experiment." and "[Popper argued that] Some theories cannot be proven false under any circumstance" are unsourced and are blatantly wrong POV misrepresentations of Popper's postion. --Rtc 08:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Rtc. It would be more constructive to seek further sources on this. Claiming blatant POV is unhelpful, especially in the light of other's willingness to solve problems here. It is simple enough to place a "citations needed" tag instead. If no citations are provided to support the view after a while, then the information can be removed. Making straight deletions, and adding argumentative lines is very uncooperative. KrishnaVindaloo 09:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Krishna... Those who want to have the position in the article have to give the sources. Here everybody who has read Popper's actual work knows how ridiculous it is how the article represented his opinion. See, I have been working in German wikipedia on the whole issue of Pseudoscience and Popper stuff for some time now, together with Popper's translator and other people who know very well, and I have actually read some of Poppers works, which you seem not to have. I gave several prominent and significant sources. Your actions seem rather trolling to me, like telling a mathematician that "2+2=5" needs to be tagged with a fact tag and that it may only be removed if nobody has brought a source. I will revert your change now. I really appreciate your skeptical inquiry, but enough is simply enough. --Rtc 10:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Rtc. I am looking to solutions to encourage cooperative editing here. I have just added to the article what I believe to be something in some way related to Kenosis' suggestion. This is meant as a temporary solution. If you feel you are becoming impatient or if you have something against me personally, feel free to contact me on my talkpage. Really it doesn't matter if you have written the bible on Popper. We have to find ways to cooperate. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 11:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any problem at all in extending the article related to Kenosis suggestion, although I consider this and what you now added as quite irrelevant on the subject of Popper's relation to pseudoscience (but it can be reasonably kept, because it is at least correct, in contrast to the statements I deleted). I do not have any problem with you personally. I however have a problem in keeping the false, unsourced statements despite evidence of the contrary. Deleting in this case makes the article better. Of course it does not matter what I have written or not, it matters what I have read. See, I have read the books I use as sources, and your position above, as I understand it, has been that you have not read Popper's book, but you believe to know that the majority opinion about it is correctly described by the article, and that this majority opinion contradicts what I say about the book. In the whole discussion, you repeated "it's not the majority opinion", without citing even a single source, while I cited dozens. You need to understand that it is quite frustrating to discuss like this. --Rtc 11:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Rtc. I realise that Wikipedia can be frustrating. But it is important to realize that there are productive ways of doing things, and antagonistic ways that should be avoided if you are interested in legitimate edits. Any scientist will most likely have an idea of Popper's notions, and will also have come across his theories in practice. I believe most people here have had a chance to see Popper's most well known ideas, if not his whole texts. One does really need to question one's assumptions and pre-conceptions. Because there is always the surprise bit of knowledge that one's bias has blinkered out. I am all for including all relevant views. This was a brief dispute over what Popper said mostly about science. Our article here is about pseudoscience. Thus, we do need to focus on that issue. And I repeat (because there has been all too much editorializing in the past) pushing one's arguments to an article or article section really does degrade the integrity of an article. If you want to add your own particular view to something, I suggest you could try writing a Wikibook on the subject or argument of your liking. So, in sum, on Wikipedia, please don't restrict a section to one small part that is to your liking, whilst excluding other relevant views. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 12:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your approach ist neither cooperative nor productive. Claims you make about "any scientist" and "most people here" are purely ad hoc and are speculative. It's pretty steep that you claim that "This was a brief dispute over what Popper said mostly about science", where in course of discussion I gave sources where Popper used the term pseudoscience. I am not pushing an argument to the article, I am correcting incorrect and unsourced descriptions of Popper's views. This is not about "my own particular view to something". NPOV does not mean to include all viewpoints of all wikipedia editors, it means to include all viewpoints of all sources relevant for the issue. I have provided relevant sources on issues that were unsourced, and not my personal viewpoints. You have not brought any source at all, you have brought your personal viewpoint on what you believe to be the opinion of "any scientist" and "most people here". Have you read any of Popper's works at all? --Rtc 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Rtc. You seem to be arguing that only those who have read Popper's books can edit this article. Why should this be a pre-requisite to editing here?  It is obvious that your edits were argumentative and were against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Any editor with or without any knowledge of Popper will have realized that. And most editors know exactly what including all relevant views is about.  Certain problems have been remedied by Kenosis and myself, and I believe they can be improved upon even more over time. Both Kenosis and I have made clarifications, and others have given helpful suggestions over the usage of the term pseudoscience. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you wouldn't resist such positive efforts, create arguments, or restrict viewpoints to the anachronistic. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 13:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that only those who have read the relevant sources should edit the content of a statement which refers to them. That should be pretty clear, shouldn't it?! I had exactly one edit out of desparation that may have been a little bit cynical,  because the correction was not accepted. Now I guess you did not see the irony in this edit and took it serious. --Rtc 13:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Rtc. But that just doesn't wash. The best you can do is accept the fact that your edit was a pretty desperate argument, accept the reversion, and move along. I'm sure nobody will hold it against you long term, as long as you don't repeat the crime too often. KrishnaVindaloo 14:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just offensive rubbish. There are no issues of POV here whatsoever, the issues that concern Rtc are accuracy of representation of a key source. KV, you are setting yourself up as "moderator" of this page, a role which, as far as I can see, is not endorsed or supported by any other editor on this page and never has been. You are de facto asserting ownership of this article in a way inimical of WP policies. Ownership is tending to be conceded to you only in that several editors frankly have doubts about wishing to be associated in any way with an article so densely infilitrated by weakly sourced and fallacious nonsense.Gleng 14:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Densely infiltrated maybe, but racall that six months ago it was hardly sourced at all, and was pretty much a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants-and-just-throw-in-any-old-view-ya'-can-think-of kind of article. Plainly there's still some work to be done.  KV's last edit appears factually accurate but that paragraph is no longer an introduction as a result.  Given the different perspectives on the demarcation problem, there may never be a simple solution to how to write such an introduction. ... Kenosis 14:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, kenosis, you did a heroic job and you did it well. My comment was related to a kind of seep into the article as a whole. I don't think the article will escape from POV until it's wholly anchored into V RS and until editorialising by reference to an imagined majority viewpoint is eliminated. There's a conflict here between those of us who want to see the article addressing the serious intellectual issues which are anchored in notable opinions, and extensive peer reviewed sources, and the wish to have this article express the views of what might be called "popular skepticism". Exactly what majority these views represent is unclear, if the article is correct in saying that most people hold that "pseudoscientific" views, and if there is no evidence in the peer reviewed literature that scientists or academics generally hold them. I suspect that very few scientists have any opinion whatsoever about orgone therapy simply because they won't have heard of it and it doesn't feature in their literature. It scarcely ranks as pseudoscientific because there's no risk of confusing it with science. They do however have strong opinions about issues in psychoanalysis, because this is very much a high profile debate within the field. I think you took the right approach in building up the article by first explaining how Popper's views defined the conventional understanding of the scientific method in order to proceed by showing how some arguments appear to be dishonestly represented as scientific. The discussion about Popper's views is no criticism whatsoever of your work, merely constructively establishing exactly what Popper said and checking that any citation is true to the context of the whole body of his work. This is not a POV matter, just accuracy in citation. As for reporting what views there are, I think this is daft. There are opposite views on pretty well every subject. We're about reporting the opinions of serious notable authorities - people like Popper, Gould, Dawkins, Dennett yes major and influential thinkers discussing topics seriously and at length in substantive works. Who cares what Carroll for instance believes - whether we agree with him or not, and I probably agree with him on mostly everything, but that is not relevant. We don't cite opinions because they're opinions we believe in or suspect without evidence are widely held, we cite opinions when the voices are notable and they write with the authority of their research. If we think an opinion is a majority opinion - find it argued carefully and expressed by somebody worth paying attention to, and if you can't, leave it out.Gleng 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No Gleng. I have adhered strictly to WP policy on civility, even though other editors have attacked the article with argument, and tried to pull on their "expert" rank. Anyone can say what I have said, because I am simply reiterating NPOV policy.  I am neither a mediator or an arbitrator. But even a begginner can see exactly what is going on here. As per, it is very obvious that kind of editing is completely unacceptable.  You are talking about endorsement by other editors (consensus). Consensus does not trump NPOV policy. We are not to make arguments. We are simply to report what views there are. I have consistently encouraged cooperation here. If you find yourself part of a group who wish to editorialize, or push a particular view, then I sympathize. But Wikipedia policy is pretty clear. All relevant views, with no argument for any particular POV!  Its pretty simple. If you wish to add any reliable or relevant sources about vitalism being accepted by the scientific majority, then go for it. Otherwise, lets just stick with sensible proportion. KrishnaVindaloo 14:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gleng is absolutely correct. There is no need at all to talk about "majority opinion" regarding Popper's views when we have his views straight from the horse's mouth.  I do not understand KV's position at all.  When describing Popper's opinions, we need only look at Popper's writing.  The fact that some caricature of his opinion is popular is utterly irrelevant.  And so, cite Popper on Popper and you have cited "all relevant views"!  Phiwum 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK then you have missed my point. It is the majority view of the difference between PS and science that matters. Popper is only one part of that. It should be relative to the context of the whole. Popper actually said quite a lot. I'm encouraging the use of brief but comprehensive statements that properly represent Popper's views in the article, and that place it in context without adding or implying any particular argument. You know, a bit like they do it in other encyclopedias. KrishnaVindaloo 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I have very well understood your point. However, the claim that X is the "majority view" is not objective. How do you want to know the 'majority view' in science? Do you have reputable polls? I guess you are not really talking about science, you are talking about the popular skeptics/brights movement, where we have official and explicit descriptions of the position that match what you call the 'majority position' (they surely refer to the alleged 'majority position' in science in their writings, but if these are really the majority position is to be doubted). We can write into the article how the term is used in philosophy, and then we can describe how the skeptics/brights movement has received the term and is applying it. However, to argue with alleged majority views within science is entirely misleading, since it is neither the purpose nor the actual practice of science to characterize and fight pseudoscience. What you are trying to to (take popper and place it in the context of what you suppose to be a majority opinion) is exactly to imply a particular argument; the argument that Popper supported the alleged majority view you are trying to push. There are reputable sources in this context that speak of an abuse of Popper, so you should really understand that your desired presentation can only be POV. We can say that the theory of evolution is the majority position in science, because it within the subject of science, and because you can see this clearly when considering the amount of publications. We cannot say that some opinion about pseudoscience is the majority view in science, because this is not within the subject of science, and because there are no and cannot be any scientific publications on that issue, since it is the subject of philosophy. --Rtc 08:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Phiwum's suggestion
A Suggestion Evidently, KV won't believe that the paragraph misrepresents Popper unless he can find a web page telling him so. References to actual books aren't relevant because he won't go look them up. Perhaps a quoted passage which explicitly supports the claims of rtc and gleng will do the trick. If Popper's words really are clear and contradict what is in the article, then even KV will have to admit the majority opinion is irrelevant. Phiwum 16:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

KV's latest edit I do not like this edit. It is fairly plain that it contradicts the thesis that falsifiability distinguishes science from non-science. Instead of clarifying, it has made the paragraph muddled and confusing. Phiwum 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good to see your name here again Phiwum. I think the main problem is how to find a balance that will explain the main concerns to the reader without getting bogged down in the demarcation problem, a problem that turns out to have no precise solution.  Popper was smart enough to not even try.  Nonetheless, his original quest to define falsifiability as a hallmark of scientific method was a watershed in the progress of the whole enterprise. Yet, it turns out that some theories are not, and cannot be, strictly falsifiable as Popper would have liked to see.  Two of the most prominent, stable, robust theories that exist are evolution and the big bang.  Yet neither are strictly falsifiable; rather, they depend on fitting together pieces of a puzzle with many separate empirical inquiries that are quite verifiable.  This issue is somewhat different than the issue of overemphasis on confirmation vis-a-vis refutation.  It has to do with the manner in which the theories are verified.  Popper indeed grappled quite intensively with this, even while still holding the basic line on falsifiability, and never was quite able to solve the problem.  So the issue is not quite as simple as just quoting Popper in the context of the "Introduction" to this article.
 * Gleng found a passage from the appendix to Logic of Scientific Inquiry, which was added to a late-20th century edition. Popper said: "As to degree of corroboration, it is nothing but a measure of the degree to which a hypothesis has been tested...it must not be interpreted therefore as a degree of the rationality of our belief in the truth of a hypothesis...rather it is a measure of the rationality of accepting, tentatively, a problematic guess" If we are going to quote Popper, I think I like the idea of using this passage somewhere in the article. ... Kenosis 16:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC) ... Such a quote would, I imagine, if it were to be used, need to be quickly followed with a brief explanation that some of these problematic quesses, as he says, such as the theory of gravity, are so well confirmed that we take them not only as valid scientific theories but as laws.  Then there are all those inbetween states of various levels of confidence intervals and problems with operational definitions and study methodology that are the stuff of which good statistical analysis is made today.  But the first paragraph of the Introduction already deals with that in the context of noting that openness and thorough documentation are key to the success of the process of applying these analyses to the data so that others can have adequate info to have a rough idea what the current level of confirmation or refutation is at a given stage of inquiry. ... Kenosis 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a nice quote, but it is not so obviously relevant for an article on pseudoscience. The same applies for the laws/theory distinction.  If we mention Popper at all, it should be in relation to the demarcation problem.  So, either state clearly what he said or state the so-called majority opinion and parenthetically comment that it is loosely derived from Popper.  (Note: It's been a while since I've read Popper, so I am taking rtc's analysis of Popper as the correct one.)  But whatever we do, we should not attribute opinions to Popper that are not reflected in his writings &mdash; no matter how many people mistake the opinions for his. Phiwum 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not obviously relevant; until we start tripping over the issue of falsifiability as we have several times recently with various editors rewriting some of that second paragraph. It is a bit of a stumbler.  If, however, a consensus can be reached about how to phrase it as introductory material in a meaningful way, whatever language is chosen can be maintained with an occasional checkup on the language by the participating editors.  In my figuring of it, the way it was written before was a bit clumsy and largely indefensible on the basis that we'd already said it effectively, because we hadn't quite said it effectively in that paragraph.  I imagine there is some way of reasonably saying this stuff in the article, as yet undetermined, that will ring true to those regular editors who understand the basic problem, and still explain the basic concept(s) reasonably well to the previously uninitiated reader of the material. Right now the first sentence of the paragraph is quite reasonable in my opinion ("...Popper proposed the additional criterion of falsifiability"), which factors in those theories that are dependent on coherence rather than outright falsifiability. I trust with some further discussion and a bit of experimenting that it'll get done for the rest of that paragraph.
 * Incidentally, I genuinely appreciate seeing all this highly thoughtful discussion about the issues. ... Kenosis 18:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole issue originates from the popular understanding of the term "falsifiable". Usually, people understand "falsifiable" to mean "The the theory is wrong, then it can be proven wrong, and it can be proven wrong with certainity (or with probability)" This understanding of "falsifiable" is not the correct (although, admittedly, Popper used it when addressing general audience to explain the basic concept). falsifiablility is a property of statements in formal logics. A statement is falsifiable if and only if there is a basic statement contradicting it. That's all. it's all logics, nothing else (For the definition of "basic statement" you have to read the books.) "It will be raining here tomorrow" is falsifiable. "It has been raining here 1 million years ago" is falsifiable, too. "either it is raining here today or not" may be a true statement, however it's not falsifiable. The question you are bascially asking is "when to consider a falsifiable theory as falsified?" According to Popper, you cannot say with certainity nor with probability whether a theory has been falsified. But Popper gives a method that says when a theory may be rationally conjectured to be falsified. Assume the theory "if I press the button on this machine, it will beep" You press the button hundreds of times, and it beeps each time. Then, suddenly, when you press the button in some odd moment: no beep. You try to reproduce the effect, but you fail, each further try makes it beep. Is it rational now to consider the theory as falsified? Popper says, no, because this would be purely ad hoc. To rationally conjecture the theory to be false, you do not only have to observe an anomaly, you must explain it in a falsifiable fashion. Assume you mount a computer onto the machine and let it repeat the experiment for half a year and write down the results. Now you look at the output and you see a regularity: each time the button has been pressed exactly 1000000 times, it seems to have a dropout. Now you can conjecture "the machine will not beep in intervals of exactly 1000000" and this would be a theory which can be rationally accepted in place of the old one: Now you can predict exactly the next time it will not beep, and use this as an experimentum crucis. This time, if the observation matches your prediction, you can conjecture the other theory as falsified. Why only conjecture? Imagine next day you check your the program you use on the computer to automate the stuff, and you see that it has a very ugly bug: each time after pressing the button exactly 1000000 times, it will not record the next beep correctly. Incidentally, you did also use this program to verify your experimentum crucis prediction in an automated fashion... So the machine did not really have a dropout, but your computer program was incorrect: The old theory you conjectured as being falsified may suddenly again come into consideration, in light of the new conjecture that the machine was really beeping when the bug caused incorrect dropouts to be recorded. --Rtc 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, and the trend today is increasingly towards using the word(s) "verifiable" or "testable", etc., when explaining it to the public at large and even within scientific communities, deftly bypassing all the idiocy about "falsificationists" (sounds like a plot or something) and "falsificationism" (sounds like a devious philosophy; probably atheistic too; everybody look out, they're trying to take over the world!) and indeed about the very word "falsifiable"; tends to sound to the average person on the street as if this is saying scientists are looking to be in the business of unveiling lies or something, which they are of course, just not in the way that the layperson might imagine from the sound of the word; then there's the use of the word "falsify" as in falsifying a document. Nonetheless, that paragraph should be able to use the word "falsifiable" and boil it down to some compact way of synopsizing it for the reader, I would think. ... Kenosis 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you Popper's position is described, his (entirely deliberate) terminology should be used. "verify" for theories in Popper context is misleading. Popper first used "confirm" (but the connotations directing to "verifying" were too strong), then "corroborate". Also please note that Popper did not use the term "falsificationism" (it's by Lakatos and it has a negative connotation). --Rtc 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. ... Kenosis 21:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There were three influential philosphers of science of the 20th C, Popper, Kuhn and Feyeraband. Popper is relevant because he redefined the scientific method; he was a logician and prescriptive of what good science should be like, and his work had a massive impact upon science itself; this is critical if you define spseudoscience by its dishonest pretensions to be science. Popper clarified his definition of good science in part by his derogation of psychoanalysis and marxism, so these writings are seminally relevant. Kuhn was as influential, but from a different perspective - that of the history of science, and his account of the actual progress of science was radically different from Popper's prescriptions for science. The third is Feyeraband, who differed again, mainly in writing as an observer of what science is actually like. Each of these positions is germane to any rational objective discussion of pseudoscience, and thopugh different they're not incompatible because of these different perspectives, though they would have and did disagree on many specifics. I'm happy to densely source an account of Popper's views. The account of Feyeraband here is I think OK except that he would never have used the word pseudoscience - he saw any attempted distinction between science and other areas of human activity as objectively arbitrary and damaging to science itself, and this deserves emphasis. Kuhns SSR I have, and P's LSD, and these are the seminal sources, I'll try to track online versions of them. Falsifiability is a technical jargon term. Verification is wholly inaccurate as it is the very opposite of Popper's message. However, it is a centrally important concept, in that by P's philosophy hypotheses are only tested by determeined attempts to falsify them. The word to use more generally is testable perhaps, verifiable should I think be avoided (unless to explain why this is unsatisfactory).Gleng 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus Lakatos and Thagard, and one ends up with something of a pentagon around scientific method ... Kenosis 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC) ... Except, of course, there's no wall along Feyerabend's side. ;-) ... Kenosis 21:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Phiwum, its just a temporary solution as I stated. It is a little contradictory, and I am looking for something more qualifying. The point we need to clear up is Popper's theory in use, or the way it has been adapted or taken by the majority. The edit I made was the closest I could find so far. And to satisfy the more suspicious minds, I made it something online.  I am looking for something more appropriate right now, and it looks like we have at least some help in that direction. Thanks. KrishnaVindaloo 17:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I believe we have a useful article here: . It focuses pretty closely on falsification. There are clearly some minority views in the article and it will be important to identify which are majority and which are minority, but I think it adds plenty of nuance to the issues in this PS article. The main question is whether the PS concept is useful or not within clinical psychology. I'd say its a pretty smart article. It does distinguish fairly intelligently between legitimate and bad use of the PS term.  Again, this relates to skepticism. I am hoping it will encourage the more specific and explanatory usage of the PS term in Wikipedia. KrishnaVindaloo 04:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion that we emulate approach at cult
Hi all. I've been busier than I'd like to be, but I'd like to float an idea, and to the extent that there is agreement with the following suggestion, I'll be happy to help implement it.

I suggest that we try, to the extent that V RS's dictate (and I think that in sum, they do), emulating the approach editors have taken at cult (version as of this edit here). There are a number of striking parellels. Check out that article's TOC and how splendidly its editors have framed the issue according to NPOV. Note also the introductory paragraph under subsection Cult (current version here). I think it would be good if we could apply that approach, and thereby (and correctly) acknowledge that the term "pseudoscience" is used in different ways by different people (and, among scientists writing for peer-reviewed journals, indeed infrequently used, as Gleng and others have noted).

What do you think?

regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Jim Butler. Yes, I'm in favour of including all relevant views more comprehensively. I will have a good look at the cult article for specific applications here. There are some reservations though. It is possible to create POV forks using the approach laid out in the cult article. That has to be taken into account. Also, article size is an issue. It looks fairly well researched, but only about as well as this article is. Anyway, I'm open to any good idea that helps apply NPOV policy to this article. Any reliable research you can supply on the usage of the term pseudoscience by scientists or other researchers will be great. I noticed that a lot of the references in the PS literature section include the term pseudoscience. Well, thats a start I suppose. KrishnaVindaloo 07:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem...
Always enjoyable to watch a healthy struggle about philosophy, but please don't forget that today the the use of term pseudoscience by science eduacaturs and journalists far outweights its use by philosophers (IMHO and YMMV). And their criterium -- somewhat sarcastically outlined -- is something like this It's of course an interesting question how and why this correlates with the philosophy of science notion of pseudoscience.
 * science: you can write your dissertation in this field
 * fringe science: you can write your dissertation in this field only at few selected places in the world
 * pseudoscience: you can't write your dissertation in this field

Pjacobi 21:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hah! Scientists are too busy going for grants and/or doing the work. So it's up to the "philosophers of science" to talk about it.  And to boot, even if y'er a scientist, once you go into the business of defining science y'er now a philosopher of science.  Go figure. ;-) ... Kenosis 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * With due respect, why is that surprising? Doing science is one thing and defining and demarcating science is another.  The latter two things are called "philosophy of science" for the usual reason: anything that isn't obviously some other field is a branch of philosophy (the jazz of the academic world). Phiwum 00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not surprising to me at all; but if I try to figure it much, I might be a philosopher of the philosophy of science or somethin' like that. ... Kenosis 04:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC) ... It would be very nice to me personally not to perceive the need to dwell on it much, TBH. ... Kenosis 04:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi is right; scientists hardly ever use the term, except when arguing between themselves to attack the style of an argument used by a colleague who they believe is arguing dishonestly. Because this is a very serious allegation, scientists who make it publicly generally root their allegations in the context of scientific method and reference Popper in particular frequently. Science educators? I don't know, not in Universities in the UK at least I don't think except in the academic context of philosophy. Journalists, for sure, they love the word. But are we writing about the crasssness of journalists, or the serious intellectual issues of defining science and describing how some areas in the view of some notable scientists, dishonestly pretend to be scientific when they fall lamentably short? If you want to write an article on journalistic use of the word fine, but don't mingle it with the serious side; it's just a travesty to place the arguments of Popper alongside journalistic dumbspeak as though this was somehow balancing opinions in an encyclopedic way. This is an encyclopedia, remember. Gleng 08:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

- One of the liveliest and clearest brief accounts (IMHO) of the philosophical issues comes from the Nobel prize winner Peter Medawar. Gleng 09:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the Popper article. If even dictionary definitions of "Pseudoscience" have lost contact with Popper's original intention, it is a disservice to ourt readers to keep this page "clean" from non-Popper POVs. If the problem cannot be resolved otherwise, we even can split off Pseudoscience (Popper). --Pjacobi 09:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your presentation might be right above, but do you have any sources? Please do not POV split "Pseudoscience (Popper)". His position can be mentioned, if done correctly. I am also surely for describing Popper's position more in a secondary fashion. But even how scientists use the term is IMO not very relevant. The really relevant use is the use of the term by the skeptics/brights movement. This use should be described primarily and extensively, and attributed correctly to this movement. --Rtc 09:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions certainly haven't lost touch with P, and I think it would be absolutely fine to relate his views to those of Kuhn and Feyeraband especially (haven't got Thagard and Lakatos is a fading memory). There are of course different ways to take any article. It seems that by all definitions, PS is defined as claiming to be science when it is not. I don't therefore see how you can escape from defining clearly what science is; P defined the scientific method as subsequently used and understood, and particularly he defined those terms and notions by which PS is identified - the list currently given can be pretty well directly traced to P (by claimed attribution, - i.e. his views might not in fact be accurately represented by this list). Kuhn described what historically science was actually like and F what science really is like regardless of what it ought to be like.

I haven't found any clear, coherent definition of PS by the brights movement. Dawkins and Bunge I think can speak for themselves, these are the most prominent of the brights and are independently (very) notable and noteworthy.Gleng 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe a search for particular definitions wouldn't be very much use. Definitely the term pseudoscience as it is used now is pretty strongly connected to Popper's ideas, but I believe the point being made here is that people are still really looking for verification. As with the demise of pseudoscience article above, there is certainly a view that we are still looking for data to back things up. "Show me the data" is the point. And that really is how the majority sees things. Joe public is generally pretty discerning when it comes to certain subjects, and though this isn't really verification, it is still something as solid and convincing as you can get. Observable data on the existence or efficacy of something!  Perhaps this is more a case of how the majority "frames" the concept of falsification. In editing terms, of course we can't state that ourselves without sources, but I believe we can add information regarding PS issues. There is literature by Beyerstein, and I'm sure other writers that states the unethicalness of making claims without any proof.  So again, adding examples to clarify Popper's ideas may be the way to go. We may not need to mention the term "verify". Simply to describe how people see the post-Popper situation in practical situations (physics, medicine, clinical psych, education, etc). This could be usefully constrasted with psychobabble, neurobabble, and other pseudoscientific aspects. So, basically practical concrete suggestions, rather than abstract philosophy, per se.  KrishnaVindaloo 12:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is this majority again? The same majority that believes in the supernatural and holds pseudscientific views - or is there another Joepublic that you mean? Popper was very good at explaining his views very clearly, as Medawar is above and as Dawkins is and as Kuhn is. Popper gave his own examples, also very clearly; we don't need to put our opinions in his mouth, he had his own, and spoke them forcefully and to enormous effect. Gleng 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Gleng. Selective editing is the issue of concern here. I have no problem with stating what Popper said. But filling the introduction with his bias is unconstructive. Yes, the pseudoscience that Joepublic has to cope with or make meaningful somehow is incredibly important. Joepublic has had a lot of overload already, and Wikipedia has a way to overcome at least part of that problem.   NPOV policy states that all relevant views should be presented in proportion.  So of course, those who want to push for Popper's exact words are going to seem pretty biased, because he said a lot. So the solution is to look at Popper in context.  There are clearly plenty of articles that look at science or ps in context. Beyerstein, Lilienfeld, Bunge, and many others tackle the issues from a pretty much PS investigative angle in practice.  They are pretty much just right for clarifying Popper's views in context.  So we could state, for instance, those allegedly PS inflicted subjects such as primal scream therapy, Dianetics, chiropractic, TFT, or any similar subject that uses some form of vitalism as a concept for its proponent's advocacy. So, yes, this majority we are talking about is the majority of clinical and science or evidence based researchers and practitioners who advocate the use of empirically supported (rather than verified) concepts and applications. We can contrast this with those proponents of subjects who prefer testimonial and prefer to dismiss negative findings, or indeed we can look at modern day cults who censor negative scientitic evidence that puts their practices in a bad light. All handled with all relevant views in mind, and left for the reader to make up their own mind about specific concerns. KrishnaVindaloo 13:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't see how this rambling response is relevant to gleng's question. You keep speaking about "how the majority 'frames' the concept of falsification."  What makes you think that the "majority" has any particular coherent concept of falsification and how is it that you know the majority opinion?  And why the heck would the majority opinion on falsificationism and the demarcation problem be particularly relevant to an article about pseudoscience?  As Glen points out, the majority apparently accepts some pseudoscience easily enough, so it's not clear why we should care (or how we should know) what they think about the demarcation problem. Phiwum 14:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. KrishnaVindaloo is misrepresenting the NPOV policy to sneak bias into the article, by arguing with an alleged majority (I wonder how many scientists KrishnaVindaloo must know that he can speak for the majority) for misrepresenting Popper's own views. He should notice that he is on a lost position on that. --Rtc 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Rtc. I havn't snuck anything into the article. I have had to remove OR and argumentative writing, both here and on other articles. The majority does have the problem of misconception, but they also respect certain establishment norms, such as science and medicine, which constitute a pretty strong compass for directing governments, public policies, and so on.  And that has a great deal of influence on what is considered PS and what is considered reliable science, especially where it counts, such as with legitimate cancer treatments, funding for scientific and medical research projects and so on.  So yes, context is everything here. KrishnaVindaloo 16:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I cannot see how your response is relevant at all. Maybe you could just enlighten us: where does your special knowledge about the majority and their ideas of pseudoscience come from?  And why is that special knowledge more relevant than, say, the original writings of Popper?
 * Maybe mediation is in order. Phiwum 17:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will explain. The introduction is biased towards a slightly outdated foundation (Popper) at the exclusion of thinkers such as Thagard [individual.utoronto.ca/weisberg/phl252/readings/Thagard.pdf] but it also excludes practitioners such as McNally . Philosophers are one thing, but the philosophers with their fingers on the pulse (such as Thagard) and practitioners have been excluded from the foundation thinking of the PS issue, in favour of an old dead guy. Now I know Popper is worth mentioning, but he is not the gospel on falsification, and there are other views to mention. I'm not interested in creating arguments, or sneaking stuff in that shouldn't be there, but the intro is a bit narrow. It jumps from Popper to Occam, and then leaps to skepticism. There is still work to do there. KrishnaVindaloo 18:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Mediation is fine by me. KrishnaVindaloo 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made some changes to deal with the problems mentioned above . Feel free to check or suggest adjustments. KrishnaVindaloo 07:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

KV's response is extraordinary. We should listen to practioners, and he cites McNally. It's always worth actually looking at the texts that KV cites. McNally concludes: "Nevertheless, the pseudoscience concept generates more heat than light. As Laudan (1996) has said: “If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us”" So what is KV's point? that we should take note of McNally and abandon the term pseudoscience? And Thagard too. He argues that even something like astrology fails to meet the criteria for pseudoscience under all proposed definitions including Popper's. and so proposes a new criterion:

"A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: 1. it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but 2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations"

His views are certainly worth noting. The import of them is that all existing use of the term pseudoscience is not sustainable, and that to make this term applicable will require a novel, reasoned systematic analysis. Whether such an analysis has been done for anything is unclear, but as he is proposing a novel criterion the implication, correct or not, is that it has not. Whether anyone agrees that it can be done is unclear. Given the inherent subjectivity of "a long time" "many" problems, "little" attempt, "selective", etc. it will be interesting to see if there are any efforts to pursue Thagard's proposal and how those are received.

Old dead guys do have the advantage that their impact on science and thought is a matter of record.

Old dead guys are also, of course, the majority

Gleng 11:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Gleng. If you have anything constructive to add to the article, then please have a go at making a suggestion. KrishnaVindaloo 12:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't drop any relevant views, especially if they are very relevant. If you don't like the fact that I present facts that don't follow the same view as each other, then take it up with the people who write NPOV policy. KrishnaVindaloo 13:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem... Excuse me, KV, but given your documented history of presenting your POV as "facts", (see "Editors and Integrity" above) you might want to exercise caution about mentioning "policy".

Having been less than truthful with your edits in the past (again, see above), the policy states that no one has to assume good faith when it comes to your contributions anymore, remember? WP:FAITH According to policy, that is. Just trying to help out.

There is much work to do, you know. Steth 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." -- WP:AGF. Assume good faith does not fly out the window magically just because you have a different opinion from another editor. --ScienceApologist 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thank you for that ScienceApologist. Yes Steth, the problem here is indeed not replacing or removing facts, but accuracy in citation by context. I'm not accusing KV of deliberate or malicious miscitation, only suggesting that he is misrepresenting positions for the sake of attempting to construct a single continuous narrative that expresses a POV that is not true to the POV of the cited authors. Gleng 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Thanks ScienceApologist. One has to shrug off certain over defensive accusations when presenting facts that some cannot countenance, no matter how many times one reminds certain proponents of of their particular bias. I believe we have to remember that there are certain problems Wikipedians must have to cope with in order to maintain balance And clarity on Wikipedia. I am coming to the conclusion that certain censorship problems have to be dealt with at later stages, or else nothing will get done about improving articles. KrishnaVindaloo 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Throwing around claims of censorship is not exactly assuming good faith! Phiwum 20:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not picking on anyone here, Phiwum. But to look at the history of the conflicts on this article, I would have to be an ostrich with my head in a hole not to say it. And there is a kind of a solution. Deal with it later. KrishnaVindaloo 03:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Representative Opening
Hello all. I am calling for some attention to the opening because it looks like it really needs it. Not apportioning blame here, as the article has improved and evolved. The opening needs to catch up. Taking an overview of the whole article, it seems to be pretty much unrepresentative, and there is little in the way of "advanced organizer" there to help the reader. So here are some suggestions in order to encourage some useful input:


 * NPOV comes first, and I know there is some discussion to do here, but we should make the opening representative with majority, minority and so on all in good proportion.


 * Clarity is an issue of course, so we need to be brief, yet clear.


 * Answering the why questions in the mind of the reader is something that is often left out, and its incredibly important here. I know some would like to say that PS is horrible, but we need to say exactly who thinks it is negative, and why they think so. Similarly with those who think the PS concept should not be applied. Stating why will help. No bald statements from any viewpoint.

So as neutral as we can get it within a reasonable size, yet as clear and "nuanced" as possible. I'm not suggesting this will be an easy job, and I'm certainly not suggesting that everybody will be satisfied with the outcome. As per WP recommendations, constructive and cooperative help will be much appreciated. KrishnaVindaloo 08:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * More specifics: Well, I had in mind listing the more updated characteristics of PS (perhaps Thagard's list, which is very inclusive of other thinkers). Psychology, and ubiquity needs mentioning also, I believe. I'd like some suggestions from others though. KrishnaVindaloo 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I added something more specific to the opening in the article. Feel free to adjust or add anything else appropriate. KrishnaVindaloo 07:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Also Ford Says
The following was tacked on the end of the section Identifying pseudoscience. No new paragraph or anything. I found that it just jumped out as "me too!", no context whatsoever. If the information is going to be incorporated into the article, it should be done seamlessly. As a "quick fix, I simply removed it:


 * "Also, Ford (2001) says that reparative therapy is pseudoscientific and Christianson (2005) and Beckstead and Morrow (2004) state that reparative therapists inappropriately use demon possession therapy, healing heterosexual wounds, holding therapy, bioenergetics, re-birthing, and EMDR for “curing” homosexuality."

Steve Lowther 08:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Thanks Steve Lowther. I did rather miss out the main point there. I'll make it clear. KrishnaVindaloo 10:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try again? It still reads nonsensical to me - out of context, and the sentence seems fragmented. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure KillerChihuahua. You are right. Here is a clearer version:

"Regarding lack of boundary conditions specifically, Christianson (2005) and Beckstead and Morrow (2004) say that demon possession therapy, holding therapy, bioenergetics, re-birthing, and EMDR are inappropriately applied to a wide range of conditions, from treating trauma to “curing” homosexuality."

I had Ford in there previously just as a corroborating source. I'm sure it doesn't matter either way. KrishnaVindaloo 11:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to Ford as a collaborating source; the sentence simply didn't make sense to me. It makes more sense now; but it wouldn't necessarily go with the vitalism sentence which preceeded it. I dont' see anything about "boundries" in the sentence - it seems to be criticism of "inappropriately applied" pseudoscientific practices - not definition of those practices as pseudoscientific. Do Christianson and Beckstead and Morrow criticise these practices as pseudoscience or do they accept the practices and criticise the innapropriate application of them? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi KillerChihuahua. Its not related to vitalism. Vitalism is considered to be untestable. But beyond that the new line describes exaggerated claims specifically. The subjects listed are claimed to cure all, but the research shows them to be either dubious or highly restricted to a narrow use. Thus the line describes the last point (Lack of boundary conditions).  Ford says reparative therapy is pseudoscientific because it makes use of PS subjects stated. Christianson and Beckstead elaborate on Ford by specifying exactly which ones are inappropriate for the task. They are used because their proponents make exaggerated claims about them and describe them with a lack of boundary conditions (PS panaceas). Applying EMDR to curing homosexuality is pseudoscientific, as is applying snakeoil to a cancerous growth. KrishnaVindaloo 14:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC) ps the solution here may be to place the appropriate lines at the bottom of the appropriate bullet points. KrishnaVindaloo 14:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it would be less out-of-context; however, are any of these not pseudoscientific in any application? So far as I can see, they are all hogwash, so putting them in the context of boundries would be misleading. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this is what I was talking about when I mentioned censorship. The only way one can present facts here is -- selectively, because if I mentioned the actual subject (chiropractic), then a particular group will have another tantrum and destroy progress. OK, according to your good advice, I have to change the line again:


 * "Regarding lack of boundary conditions specifically, Christianson (2005), and Beckstead and Morrow (2004) say that chiropractic and EMDR are inappropriately applied to a wide range of conditions, from treating trauma to “curing” homosexuality."


 * Clarity counts for a lot. But its not what some people want. What do you think? KrishnaVindaloo 15:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, so long as Christianson and Beckstead and Morrow meet notable / expert qualifications. Glad you ditched the "demon possession therapy." KillerChihuahua?!? 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure KillerChihuahua. All correct with NPOV on reliability etc. KrishnaVindaloo 16:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Still problems with reparative therapy and Christianson
I've moved this section to Talk:


 * "Regarding lack of boundary conditions specifically, Christianson (2005), and Beckstead and Morrow (2004) say that chiropractic and EMDR are inappropriately applied to a wide range of conditions, from treating trauma to “curing” homosexuality."

Still need to show these represent sig POV's for chiro and EMDR. Use of these modalities in reparative therapy (i.e. trying to "cure" gays) does not mean those modalities should be cited in the article as above. For example, if reparative therapy uses talk therapy or psychotropic drugs, those areas wouldn't be listed as examples of PS. Reparative therapy itself can be cited as PS, but not every modality it uses. To mention chiro as PS or EMDR in the context above (as PS due to "boundary" issues), a V RS would have to show that within those respective fields there is a sig POV saying that they are indicated to "cure" homosexuality.

Christianson may be a V RS for psychology, but not for chiro; it's not clear she's speaking of anything other than a fringe use of chiro (relative to what chiro is used for in practice). I recall also some debate over whether Contemporary Sexuality was really peer-reviewed. A dead link in Talk above suggested not. Being indexed as such doesn't necessarily show it is. Need to verify this with evidence from the publication itself. The title you've given (.... "Peer-Reviewed Study") is misleading if it's not from the publication itself.

KV, perhaps you could scan the articles you cite and post them in their entirety so that other editors can gauge their appropriateness? I see that Christianson is unfortunately offline (dead link to OCt. '05 PDF from the site that hosts it, here).

thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (strikeout typo 02:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Thank you Jim, your idea is a good one. I was thinking along similar lines.  I would like to give Krishna Vindaloo the opportunity to reconfirm and verify that the papers he cited do indeed even mention the word chiropractic since I am a little more skeptical, with good reason of course.  Thanks KV  Steth 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys, but your demands go way beyond what is requried according to NPOV policy. You made no such demands when chiropractic wasn't mentioned. Two peer reviewed articles that explicitly mention chiropractic and another that corroborates the pseudoscientific nature of RT is very reliable. Of course applying chiropractic to treating homosexuality is pseudoscientific. Its the best example in existence of applying a therapy inappropriately beyond boundary conditions. If you didn't call me a liar so often, things may have been a little different. KrishnaVindaloo 02:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sorry guys, but your demands go way beyond what is requried according to NPOV policy."

Didn't you use this reason the first time around, before anyone called you a liar? Steth 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't call you a liar, KV, but you refuse to acknowledge your part in these problems and ignore the substance of my post above. As of now you've exhausted my patience and that of several other editors.  I believe a sanction such as a community ban, as was done with editor Mccready, is in order. Jim Butler(talk) 02:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know Jim. Do you think anyone else would support such a drastic action like asking for a community ban on KV? Steth 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen guys, I have already satisfied the requirements when working with KillerChihuahua on this. Requirements for clarity were actually satisfied by adding the term chiropractic. I hadn't included it originally. Steth called me a pathalogical liar about a month ago and has been calling me a liar and casting aspersions ever since then. No apologies have been forthcoming. None! He continued to cast aspersions just a day or so ago. Both article state explicitly that chiropractic is used in RT and it is ineffective for the task according to the research. The article benefits by the inclusion of the line. Chiropractic is used to cure homosexuality. It is also used to treat ear infections, schizophrenia, and to beat the slot machines according to the literature. When a treatment is based on vitalism, wild claims will abound. Its just one of those things. Get used to it. KrishnaVindaloo 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, KV, we would like to assume good faith...but you know what happens when you ass-u-me. I'm sure you understand our hesitation. Thanks Steth 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Steth. You are clearly in breach of incivility conventions. You are doing your case no good at all. I have removed chiropractic from the Beckstead/Christianson line. I am not interested in putting this article through endless chiropractic tantrums. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I apologize KV if I have not behaved with civility and have offended you. But I would definitely be interested in viewing these references you cite regarding chiropractic in these articles for my own edification since they are new to me. I am always open to learning and evaluating new information so I can re-evaluate my own views. Peace, Steth 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Its a pretty sad state of affairs when editors have to self-censor just to prevent proponents from destroying the improvement process. I guess thats just something we will have to put up with. If you are interested in viewing what the refs have to say about EMDR etc, they can all be found in a reasonable library. KrishnaVindaloo 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you paste the information about the refs? What paper or book, article or whatever, page numbers, etc, along with a selected sentence or two? KillerChihuahua?!? 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure KillerChihuahua. On page 13 of Christianson it states:


 * "Other strategies include changing the person's sexual orientation label. According to this idea, the gay person is no longer homosexual by simply adopting a new label as an ex-gay or as a heterosexual - "name it and claim it" theology (Ford, 2001, p. 80). Other methods employed by reparative therapists include hypnosis, medication, chiropractic adjustments and marital therapy."


 * She then goes into details about others such as EMDR. All with reference to Ford (The Pseudoscience of Reparative Therapy).


 * Beckstead and Morrow do something similar, and list chiropractic also stating: “These approaches were described as ineffective in resolving sexual orientation conflicts." page 655.


 * But I'm not interested in allowing conflict over chiropractic. Certain chiropractic proponents here have shown themselves to be persistently abusive when certain facts are presented, and they attempt all kinds of OR, editorializing and time-wasting conflict in order to get their way and stifle negative views. I'd say we should leave it at that. There's other things we could be doing to improve the article. KrishnaVindaloo 05:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Chiropractic isn't the point. Use of V RS's is.  By your logic, KV, the article should also include hypnosis, medication, and marital therapy as examples of PS, along with EMDR and chiro.  How logical is that?  The point is that these sources are perhaps adequate (at most: Contemporary Sexuality appears to be nothing more than a monthly newsletter) for reparative therapy, but not for showing what are sig POV's among the communities of practitioners of hypnosis or psychopharmacology or marital therapy or chiro or EMDR.  This point has been made above in talk repeatedly.


 * By the way, where do these sources even mention the term "pseudoscience"? If they don't, we've got problems with OR as well.  Jim Butler(talk) 06:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No Jim Butler, the problem here is censorship of negative views as always. But I am happy to deal with it later on. Contemporary Sexuality is peer reviewed according to Research Premier Databases. The chiro fact is a result of research from Christianson and Beckstead and Morrow. There is explicit reference to Ford's Pseudoscience of Reparative Therapy. I have no problem with listing all the things mentioned above. But the chiropractic homosexuality cure is the clearest example of mis-application of therapy due to pseudoscientific notions in the foundation of the therapy. It is a clear example.  But as I said, you can take it or leave it. I am happy to deal with this later on just to avoid all the conflict that occurs due to some proponents causing trouble over verifiable but negative facts.  You may like to note that though the peer-reviewed evidence above is perfectly appropriate for this article, its even more appropriate for the chiropractic article. Perhaps one solution to this would be to move the conflict to the chiropractic article in order for this pseudoscience article to get on with improvements. KrishnaVindaloo 06:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KV, your continuing claims of censorship are disruptive and a violation of WP:AGF. At the same time, your own history of playing fast and loose with sourcing (as here) has strained other editors' ability to assume good faith in your case.


 * To summarize, Ford says reparative therapy is PS, and the other two sources mention chiro and a host of other treatment modalities, including medication, being used in reparative therapy. That's not sufficient to say those treatment modalities are themselves PS:  any attempt on your part to list psychopharmacology as PS would be a blatantly OR formulation, and the same goes for anything else done in the name of reparative therapy, unless you can show that there exists a sig POV within those fields advocating their use as reparative therapy.  You keep ignoring this point, but it's fundamental.  Jim Butler(talk) 06:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim Butler. I do not need to assume good faith on myself. I censored chiropractic from the line because history has shown that mentioning chiropractic here is guaranteed to provoke chiropractic proponents into creating conflict and abuse. KillerChihuahua put me straight there, but conflict occurred as a result.  I am ignoring your points because you are flogging a dead horse. The line no longer appears in this article. Please take your non-existent conflict somewhere else. KrishnaVindaloo 07:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC) PS, I added the information to the chiropractic article . Perhaps you would like to deal with it over there. KrishnaVindaloo 07:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KV writes: I do not need to assume good faith on myself.  That wasn't my point.  I meant that your accusing others of censorship amounts to assuming others are not acting in good faith.  You repeat the censorship accusation despite my clear explanation to the contrary, i.e., that the sources you've used are inadequate for the claims made.  I also meant to say that your sloppy use of sources, and refusal to admit error, gives other editors good reason to question the good faith in which you're acting. Jim Butler(talk) 21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim Butler. I didn't state that you are a censor. It is perfectly fine for anyone to state that there is a general problem with censorship on this article. It is all the more important now because there are solutions to the problem. KrishnaVindaloo 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Integrity in citation
KV offered us two versions of what Becksrtead and Morrow said.

1)"Regarding lack of boundary conditions specifically, Christianson (2005) and Beckstead and Morrow (2004) say that demon possession therapy, holding therapy, bioenergetics, re-birthing, and EMDR are inappropriately applied to a wide range of conditions, from treating trauma to “curing” homosexuality."

2) Regarding lack of boundary conditions specifically, Christianson (2005), and Beckstead and Morrow (2004) say that chiropractic and EMDR are inappropriately applied to a wide range of conditions, from treating trauma to “curing” homosexuality.

The paper is online The study reported interviews of 42 volunteers who had sought therapy of various kinds to change their sexual orientation. Therapy had been successful for 20 of them, and not successful for 22. Those for whom treatments were unsuccessful had experienced diverse treatment approaches, including aversion treatments, behavioral management, cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnosis, medicinal or hormonal treatments, and marriage counselling; one of them reported treatment by EMDR and one by chiropractic treatments. No breakdown was offered of the successful treatments.

There is no other mention of chiropractic or EMDR in this article. There appears to be no mention at all of demon possession therapy, bioenergetics, re-birthing or holding therapy, or of pseudoscience, or of boundary conditions.

In what sense were either of KV's accounts of what this paper said true?

On Christianson - on what basis does KV believe that her opinion is notable? Is the opinion of every private relationship counmsellor notable? Gleng 09:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Gleng. I worked with KillerChihuahua on these edits. In trying to slag me off, you are also casting aspersions on the integrity of KillerChihuahua. I believe your actions to be conflict provoking, especially as the matter has moved to another article. You, Steth, and other proponents of chiropractic have been calling me a liar for the past month. The peer reviewed corroborating literature I provided shows you to be utterly wrong. Rapid eye movement is mentioned in Beckstead and that is another term for EMDR. Both papers state that chiropractic is used for RT. Christianson is both notable and reliable according to NPOV policy. She works in affiliation with a university, and she has produded a peer reviewed article that says chiropractic is used for reparative therapy.  Beckstead and M also say so and state that it is ineffective for the purpose. You have just desperately removed the fact from the chiropractic article stating that it is nonsense. The facts are stated exactly as they are in the article. So tell me this, could you imagine how many people in the world use chiropractic for treating problems that go beyond chiropractic's extremely limited use? Because using chiropractic for treating certain specific back problems may have some small support. But applying it outside?  Chiropractors regularly promote chiropractic for treating everything from cancer, to mental trauma, to spiritual improvement.  I'm not trying to get that information into the article. But, Gleng, you seem to be extremely determined to ensure that kind of information never sees the light of day. KrishnaVindaloo 09:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This response does not seem to answer Gleng's criticism. He asked for a clear citation &mdash; a quote, say &mdash; which supports your interpretation of this article.  Why not give one? Phiwum 11:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I have no desire to mention chiropractic. It will only cause trouble. I have already stated so. It was not my original intention to add chiropractic. I did so only on KillerChihuahua's prompting. KrishnaVindaloo 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. In that case, your response to Gleng is even less comprehensible than I thought.  Phiwum 12:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Phiwum. This has only become a problem after the addition of the word "chiropractic" to the line. It is a word that causes problems on this article. I did not intend to use it in my original edits, but after cooperating with others it was necessary. Editors are trying to pull apart my edits to state that they misinterpret and that I lack integrity. Nobody has even bothered to go out and get a copy of Christianson (or if they have, they don't let on). So what is the real problem here? The real source of the trouble? KrishnaVindaloo 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But Gleng did get a copy of Beckstead and Morrow and claimed that your citation is unsupported by the text. Do you concede that point or not? Phiwum 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No. BnM corroborate Christianson, who states that chiropractic is used for reparative therapy. They also say that it is not good for the purpose. All I concede is that the merest mention of chiropractic will gain lots of attention from a tightly defensive group who generally only turn up when chiropractic is mentioned to apply pressure. KrishnaVindaloo 14:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, IMO KillerChihuahua has been editing wholly rationally. So, is there anything in my summary of the paper above that is wrong or relevantly incomplete? Am I wrong in stating that B and M's only mention of chiropractic and EDMR is to report that in each case, one person reported having been treated by these methods without success? Where do they say that the treatments were inappropriate (they seem inappropriate to me but I'm no expert)? And where do they mention "cure"? Gleng 11:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the fact corroborates Christianson. A month ago editors were asking me to provide corroborating evidence. I did so. They asked me to provide a clear example for explaining to the reader how boundary conditions work in the context of PS. I did. They cause a huge amount of friction and called me a pathalogical liar. I have provided evidence that they are all wrong. Now I am not going to put up with your continued accusations that I lack integrity. If you continue to badger me, I promise you I will fill this article with negative chiro information that fits NPOV policy perfectly, and trumps your inflated idea of consensus (attempts at social pressure more like) every time. KrishnaVindaloo 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

KV, You explained above that Christianson, writing in a Society newsletter, states that "Other methods employed by reparative therapists include hypnosis, medication, chiropractic adjustments and marital therapy."

Did she give or cite any evidence for this disputed assertion? If so we might at least find the primary sources. How widespread did she say this was? I am curious because in my professional experience as a chiropractor have never heard of this use that you say she says is widespread. Thanks Steth 14:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (I'll repeat this on the Chiropractic Talk page as well)


 * Hello Steth. Do you realise there are better things to be getting on with. For example, making statements in the article more complete in order to explain things better? KrishnaVindaloo 14:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On this sidebar topic... I fixed the ref to better adhere to WP format. KV, please note the format. I realize what you are doing works too. But the footnote system if much easier for editors/readers to check references as the little superscript number provides a "jump" to the footnote reference. Please consider this format for future citations. Levine2112 17:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Substantively, I question Atwood's statement. When he says "Primary Care Physician", I'm sure he means the designation given by insurance carriers. So my question is: Are chiropractors not PCPs because they haven't "repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings"? I don't imagine this to be true. I think there are a lot more substantive factors. And as for not being able to identify themselves as a "specialist"... says who (other than Atwood)? I don't imagine this to be true. I could be wrong, but a quick Google search reveals many chiropractors identifying themselves as "specialists". In fact, I just went through Atwood's references and coulddn't find any mention of this there. Where did he come up with this? Levine2112 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have a book ref by Homola that corroborates Atwood. But unfortunately (for some) its rather damning. Would you like me to add it? KrishnaVindaloo 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable question from Steth. Without an answer, what grounds are there for keeping the reference? The reference either gives evidence or it doesn't. Gleng 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not hanging onto the reference for dear life. Do what you want with it. KrishnaVindaloo 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was inappropriate for you to use it in the first place, KV. Editors shouldn't have to worry so much about double-checking your edits for NPOV, V and OR. Jim Butler(talk) 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Its fine Jim Butler. We have establised for certain that I am not in fact a pathalogical liar after these month or so of a certain group labeling me as such. And we've found a place for the information where it fits perfectly (the chiropractic article). KrishnaVindaloo 02:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And also for the record: I don't know why my name is being used to support the cites which I never stated I thought supported the statement. As far as I am concerned, we had reached the point where a nonsensical statement had been rephrased by KV to make sense; last time I commented on the issue I was still asking for information about the cites. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry KC. The above editors were getting heated and starting to call me a liar once again (for about the fifth session), so I decided that they would be better off calling me a liar on the chiropractic article, and I moved the info that way so we could get on with other things here. You know, pretty standard procedure here. KrishnaVindaloo 16:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed stub paragraph in "Introduction" section
I've removed the stub paragraph about Occam's Razor. This is a widely misinterpreted and misunderstood aspect of scientific method; one of many additional aspects of scientific method that could be mentioned in that section. The problem I have with presenting Occam's razor is that it is a subtle heuristic and difficult for many to properly understand, as was repeatedly seen in discussions related to the article about Occam's razor. See also, for example Hickam's dictum, an illustration of how even seasoned medical diagnosticians struggle with the concept. Fact is, sometimes an additional element, or two or three or more, is what is required to explain a given interaction of phenomena, and the simplest explanation on first analysis turns out upon later analysis to actually be neglecting important factors in the analysis. Indeed, "God caused it" is to some nonscientists the simplest explanation for all natural phenomena, the rest irrelevant detail (recall that that example is used in the article in the beginning of the second paragraph of that section in relation to "falsifiability"). Trying to explain the subtleties of this issue in the "Introduction" section seems a stretch for this article, so I just removed it for now. I'd have no serious objection to reintroducing it in a more workable form in the future though. The removed material is: "Another criterion applicable to theoretical work is the heuristic of parsimony, also known as Occam's Razor. This principle says the most simple explanation for the evidence is preferred over explanations needing additional assumptions. " ... Kenosis 18:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, sounds reasonable Kenosis. What do you have in mind for future explanation? No rush for replies, I'm sure this'll take some sorting out. KrishnaVindaloo 18:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sampson and Beyerstein (1996); Atwood (2004)
KV, not sure if I missed something, but could you please point us to the reference you added to Sampson and Beyerstein? Just having the year 1996 is a little vague. Also, are they notable and reliable, or is this just biased opinion? How can "many chiropractors" be verified. Sampson has a long history of collusion with Barrett of anti-chiropractic bias. Maybe this should be sent over to the chiropractic page. Thanks Steth 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Steth. The reference is reliable and notable, and it helps the article. Also, your removal of Atwood is extremely suspicious. I believe there is no reason at all to assume good faith in your case. The line was not at all disputed until the term chiropractic was added. The source in question is a qualified expert, the publication is listed in pubmed even. I can suggest some even more damning literature to use as corroboration. I can also list your diffs in the current ongoing pseudoskepticism/pseudoscience arbcom case. Now that would be pretty damning also. KrishnaVindaloo 05:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But Steth's question is an obvious and eminently reasonable: he is asking you to provide details of the reference that are missing from the article - e.g. a title, or journal name might help.

Actually I think by WP: AGF you do have to assume good faith KV. Quoting the policy "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." Which of these three are you accusing Steth of?

In the case of a disputed edit the issue should be resolved by discussion on Talk pages not by revert. The issue about Atwood I think is whether Steth removed a section from this article that had been inserted by KV merely to make a point rather than to improve the article (WP:point). I think Steth was right to do so. In this case, in what way does KV's edit make a point that is important for this article? Nobody here understands clearly what is meant exactly by the statement, as remarked by Levine.

Gleng 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Gleng. Its really easy to find with a search. The ref is the Skeptic's Enquirer. I'll post it up in good time. I don't believe your three bad faith reasons are exhaustive. Steth has tried desperately to remove certain negative views of chiropractic from Wikipedia, as you can see by recent actions. The Atwood info has been here without the chiro aspect for months with not a single complaint from anyone. Suddenly after an addition of chiropractic, it suddenly becomes the chiropractic version of the Satanic Verses.  So assuming good faith is at least extremely hard in this case. For an answer on that particular point an arbitrator may help. Certainly Steth should not be removing clarifying lines written by a qualified expert, who has provided clear connection with reality (pseudoscientific followings should not be claiming to be primary care providers). The line answers why. It adds explanation, and context. It helps the reader compare and contrast. KrishnaVindaloo 08:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I have said exhaustively I think this article is riddled with POV, weak sources, and illogical and inconsistent argument. Steth of course comments on things he knows about, as a chiropractor of course he comments specifically about things where he has a professional knowledge and understanding and, wisely, rationally, reasonably, appropriately, does not venture into areas where he feels less secure in his knowledge of the facts. Steth, regardless of his views and affiliations, has always meticulously detailed his points on the Talk page, generally before making any insertions. To express this point about the POV and weakness of this article unequivocally I am tagging the article.

Steth's specific point to you is that stating that you know of a reference is not enough, you must actually give the reference.

Gleng 09:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats great. Perhaps Steth could help on the chiropractic article. I've just requested those experts to provide a list of the ills that chiropractic is supposed to treat outside of the use it has some weak support for(back pain). No list has been forthcoming. Wonder why! Strange, as it is common knowledge that chiropractors still regularly claim that their back tweaks will cure the whole person.  Still, we always have the chiropractic homosexuality cure to fall back on. It is supported by peer reviewed sources.


 * Concerning your allusion to expertise and wisdom. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Trying to pull rank, obtain and use group pressure, and excluding views because they are not mentioned in pubmed is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe what we need to focus on is inclusion of all relevant views, and the total rejection of elitism and cronyism.  Thank Buddha I've heard at least a couple of other editors round these parts state that consensus does not trump NPOV policy. That gives at least some protection against the bullying and blinkering tactics of pseudoscience proponents. KrishnaVindaloo 09:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute template/Atwood paragraph in "Scientific theories once regarded as pseudoscience"
I moved the "totallydisputed" template to the relevant section pending resolution or truce. I also removed the following paragraph: The problem I have with the paragraph is the same one I had much earlier with the material published in medical journals or by MDs about their business competitors such as chiropractic. Recall that the AMA is under court order/injunction by settlement of a major case based on anti-trust law in the US. While this does not prevent practitioners and medical publications from spewing their public relations, for the purposes of WP:NPOV and WP:RS it is very strong evidence of the business interests and animus characteristic of the overall relationship between the AMA with its competitors such as chiropractic and a few other professions. ... Kenosis 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fields can also reject their pseudoscientific notions in favour of the more limited range of scientifically supported element/s of their field. For example, Atwood (2004) suggested that "osteopathy has, for the most part, repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings and joined the world of rational healthcare. That is why graduates of its schools, but not those of chiropractic or naturopathy, can train as residents and legitimately identify themselves as primary care physicians or specialists". ... 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation Kenosis. I believe the nature of the journal source deals with all of your concerns.  I don't believe we can pass judgment on such things, and we only have the views of experts to work with. If there is any competition issue, it is also inextricably mixed with the fact that chiropractic is still rife with pseudoscientists and those making outrageous new age claims about their treatments (according to the literature). The main issue here is that chiropractors have still not ditched subluxation theory. Beyerstein, Keating, and others state that the theory behind chiro is total pseudoscience. Thats the issue here. That is reflected in Atwoods words. Certainly the journal reviewers considered it reasonable enough to publish.  KrishnaVindaloo 13:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)  If you like, I can add the appropriate corroboration. KrishnaVindaloo 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The federal court system in the US has said differently than what KV asserts here. The federal court lawsuit, in Wilk et al v. AMA,  charged that the AMA "had participated for years in an illegal conspiracy to destroy chiropractic".  The court ruled that the AMA was guilty as charged in violation of, inter alia, US antitrust law, thus forcing the AMA into a position to enter into a settlement agreement not to interfere with the business of chiropractic or interfere with those physicians that do choose to do business with chiropractors. The AMA and its members, interests consistent with the business interests of Medscape and other journals found in PubMed, nonetheless have a First Amendment right to make their arguments about chiropractic and other competitors in the public forum or in its professional literature, within the "time, place and manner" restrictions promulgated by the Supreme Court.
 * The process of assessing sources per WP:Reliable_sources properly necessitates taking these kinds of major rulings into consideration. The AMA and its participants are business competitors and therefore cannot be counted on for their objectivity with regard to their assertions about chiropractic in relation to the distinction between science and pseudoscience.
 * Moreover, the assertion that chiropractic does not provide "primary care" or involve internships is totally irrelevant to any assessment of whether it is pseudoscience. In addition, there is plenty of reliable literature that shows chiropractic has progressed very substantially in its research and methodology, so it cannot properly be said to fail Paul Thagard's test for identifying pseudoscience. Further, the empirical evidence that was put before the court in the Wilk case is so compelling that it cannot be reasonably ignored.  In the US Workmen's Compensation Bureau data put into evidence in the court case, chiropractors were twice as effective as conventional medical practitioners, based on rate and speed of people returning to work, at every level of injury severity. Therefore, for these reasons but not necessarily limited to these reasons, I'm going to remove that paragraph based on Atwood's 2004 article. ... Kenosis 14:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So Kenosis. Are you totally closed to the idea of me supplying further corroborating evidence? I have to remind you that Wikipedia does not exclusively enforce the Anglo American view. If you would care to look at what European and other courts say about chiropractic, I'm sure you will notice the incredibly narrow W.A.S.P view of narrow concerns of the case you are presenting. OK, here is some breaking news for those who might want to remind themselves; the Internet was not an American invention, and neither was science, philosophy, or any other basis for civilization.  Just a provocation to keep the views out of the ditch. Chiropractic, however, is an American invention. Created in the midwest of America, for desperate midwestern sufferers.  It was invented at around the time snakeoil was doing the rounds. And yes, it was created for making money! KrishnaVindaloo 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not opposed to the creation of a topic fork (separate article) that discusses these issues (as opposed to a POV fork which is contrary to WP policy). Perhaps the article on chiropractic is a reasonable place to fork from in discussing international differences.  Given the fact that chiropractic is, in the US at least, primarily termed pseudoscience by (1) it's most prominent business competitor(s) and (2) compulsive skeptics, I think the inclusion of it detracts from the article on pseudoscience, without adding any useful information for the reader.  At an absolute minimum, if there's to be discussion of this issue in the article on pseudoscience (e.g., in a separate section consistent with WP:NPOV) such a discussion should plainly identify the relevant issues relating to WP:RS.  Among the most prominent of these issues is the fact that conventional medical practitioners, as a group represented by the AMA, have a very sizeable business interest at stake. The tendency of this group of professionals to break US law in its quest to dominate in the health-care marketplace, despite empirical evidence of chiropractic's effectiveness to its patients, was conspicuously documented in a federal court battle fought all the way to the Supreme Court (which declined to hear the case and deferred to the appellate court decision). Because this is an article on pseudoscience and not a forum for discussing effectiveness of treatment modalities, my definite preference would be to avoid this issue altogether because there is no clearcut agreement by disinterested, objective observers that chiropractic may properly be classed as pseudoscience.  As said above, it plainly does not merit the term pseudoscience under the Thagard test.  Compelling empirical evidence collected over many years by the Workmen's Compensation Bureau about the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment in comparison to conventional medicine, for certain types of injuries, is quite falsifiable as well.  Any proposed section discussing chiropractic's standing with respect to empirical research should unquestionably include these verified points.
 * I might also point out that until very recently with the advent of studies involving psychological effects on healing and other measures of specific factors in healing not historically associated with medical treatment per se, any medical doctor who asserted that human bodies have an innate capacity to heal or said anything like "we'll have to let nature take its course now", which many of them have, could have been accused of pseudoscientific thinking. This increased proliferation of empirical study of "natural" healing benefits chiropractic's view of "innate intelligence" every bit as much as it benefits the assertion that an MD's "bedside manner" and the resulting psychological disposition of a patient has an empirically verifiable relationship to patient healing. Thus, for these reasons among others, my position is that including a section on chiropractic in this article is something that should probably be avoided unless a very clear consensus can be reached on what it's proper range of content would be, and unless it is presented strictly in accordance with WP:NPOV, and with special attention paid to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. ... Kenosis 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Atwood reference is a comment in a letter written by Atwood responding to criticism of his previous paper on Naturopathy. The mention of chiropractic is isolated and in passing, not the focus of the original paper or of the letter - this is not evidence as we know it nor is it as a statement of opinion, notable. One reason to be conservative on this page is intellectual cohesion. Pseudoscience is defined by contract with science; there's a long question out there about whether there is anything scientific about medicine - to many, medicine is medicine, science is science, and you can talk of the scientific foundations of medicine, and about medical science - but what you can't do is cram the whole of medicine into any definition of the scientific method because it just doesn't fit, and doesn't try to and doesn't need to. So alternative health systems, whatever their faults do not make good exemplars of pseudoscience. It is a pejorative use with no clearly defined consistent objective content.Gleng 16:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I see! So the view of an MD in a letter published in a peer reviewed journal directly related to his article published in a peer reviewed journal is completely irrelevant or unreliable because the dastard has the gall to use scientific skepticism to distinguish osteopathy from chiropractic.  Yes, it was much better when he was just promoting osteopathy without all that horrid negadividy.  Lets make the line all peaches and cream again, stop being all negadive about U.S of A's hick cures, and focus on finding sources for the new age postmodern codswallop you just tried to feed me; (the doctor patient thing is just a powerful type of ritual, belief is the core notion, and placebo is the mechanism of action).  If you want some relevant sources you may find some in a well stocked new age bookstore. KrishnaVindaloo 03:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't recall putting it like that. Just pointing out gently that this is not a quote from an academic review (and FYI correspondence by tradition is not peer reviewed). The original article was an academic review, but a review of naturopathy, and is a good secondary source for facts and opinions about naturopathy. When we seek facts about a subject we look first for review articles about that subject published in journals of the highest quality we can find, if possible peer reviewed international journals with a high impact factor. We can't always find strong sources, but we can always look for the strongest sources. Reviews are reviews precisely because they cover a specific issue thoughtfully, citing primary sources and presenting information selected for its credibility. A comment in a review article that is itself an unreferenced aside about something else is not really helpful. i.e. we prefer reviews because they are gateways to further primary sources and hence evidence that those primary sources are there and reliable, but if a comment in a review itself does not cite primary sources then it doesn't in fact do that. Note there is no selection by content here. It doesn't make any difference at all to me what the quote actually says, only that it is accurately cited, cited in a way that is honest to context, from a strong verifiable source, and if a statement of fact expresses or is linked to evidence of fact, or if a statemment of opinion attributes that opinion to a notable authority (maybe the author, if the author is notable).Gleng 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to attempt a backpeddal or present your own original research, Gleng. Sure, its far easier to countenance when it doesn't mention chiropractic, and there are far less tantrums without the term mentioned in relation to osteopathy. Its just another one of those situations that we have to put up with while proponents ply their pressure and threaten to disturb progress. Self administered censorship or selective editing seems to be the best solution for now. We will just have to mollify certain interested parties while we get on with other constructive efforts. Never mind! KrishnaVindaloo 16:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what this comment is supposed to mean I'm afraid.Gleng 08:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Gleng. It means that the situation is ridiculous, and it looks like it will continue to be ridiculous unless the arbs can do something about it. We have edits that are perfectly fine and nobody worries themselves about them at all, except when you quote them properly or finish the conclusion to them and chiropractic is in the additional part.  Then all hell breaks loose and a particular group cannot face the fact and attempt all kinds of abuse and trouble just to wipe it off the face of Wikipedia. So legitimate editors are adding information to the article but having to leave out (selectively edit) any aspect that the censors will find to blasphemous. Its a ridiculous situation, and it needs remedying. KrishnaVindaloo 08:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
Please note. Editors may add evidence to this page, or comment on evidence given by others.Gleng 07:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Will do.KrishnaVindaloo 10:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

POV issues
Emergence in the list? The cited reference declares this in its sole mention of pseudoscience. "The subject of this paper is the concept of emergence - formulated as the idea that there are properties at a certain level of organization which can not be predicted from the properties found at lower levels. The concept of emergence has an ambiguous status in contemporary science and philosophy of science: On the one hand, many scientists and philosophers regard emergence as having only a pseudo-scientific status. On the other hand, new developments in physics, biology, psychology, and crossdisciplinary fields such as cognitive science, artificial life, and the study of non-linear dynamical systems have focused strongly on the high level 'collective behaviour' of complex systems which is often said to be truly emergent, and the term is increasingly used to characterize such systems" Gleng 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The source used for emergence does not seem to reach the conclusion that emergence is pseudoscience. IMO, they are comparing and contrasting emergence and vitalism with a final assessment that is stated as;
 * "The title of a previous version of this paper was the rather pessimistic "In search of the unexplainable", alluding to the implicit contradiction in the concept of emergence, that everyone use it as a notion of processes which they cannot explain. However, we want to stress that emergence is not necessarily unexplainable. In the discussions of this paper we have argued that it is possible to reach an understanding of emergent phenomena which does not exclude them from a reliable scientific context, and that the very idea of emergence should be viewed as one of the most central ideas in modern science. Especially in relation to the epistemological and ontological consequences of non-reductionist theories of hierarchical organisation and level theories."
 * That does not sound as though they are calling emergence PS. Perhaps there is another verifiable and reliable source that does.
 * --Dematt 02:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gleng and Demmat. "many scientists and philosophers regard emergence as having only a pseudo-scientific status". Which part of this statement would you like me to explain in more detail to you? KrishnaVindaloo 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How many. --Dematt 03:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh thats easy. Not none, one, two, three, certainly. We have two types there, scentists and philosophers. So not none, one two three of each. At an extremely conservative estimate, it would have to be more than some, and more than just a significant amount. Now what other part of the statement would you like me to explain to you? KrishnaVindaloo 03:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the paper that is used to cite the aforementioned sentence does not conclude that emergence is PS. In fact, it is comparing and contrasting the stances of whether it should be considered vitalism.  The paper concludes;
 * "In the discussions of this paper we have argued that it is possible to reach an understanding of emergent phenomena which does not exclude them from a reliable scientific context, and that the very idea of emergence should be viewed as one of the most central ideas in modern science. Especially in relation to the epistemological and ontological consequences of non-reductionist theories of hierarchical organisation and level theories."
 * From my interpretation, the source does not suggest emergence is PS, especially placed in a list that does not allow some explanation (NPOV). However, you might be able to find the source that this author used to make the statement that you parsed; "many scientists and philosophers regard emergence as having only a pseudo-scientific status." then you might have something.  Otherwise, this notable author is not making that statement; he is not even saying it is vitalism.  He is saying emergence should be viewed as science.  That's what I'm seeing. --Dematt 02:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about the part where you cite some V RS's to back up your claim. They should be accessible to other editors so we don't have to take your word on it, since your credibility is at a low point (in the eyes of more than one, two, or three editors). Jim Butler(talk) 06:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well how about no, Jim Butler. I am making no claims at all that need be applied to the inclusion of this NPOV compliant information. You have once again not assumed good faith. I know to a certain group here I seem like the devil incarnate whenever the PS issues inherant in chiropractic crop up, but you should realise I am here to improve the article. I have found it necessary to work on solving long term problems with certain cliques also. I am presently putting together a case to deal with the present "fatwa" against me that seeks push group consensus above NPOV and seeks to ban me from editing certain articles. You have just provided me with more evidence for my case. Keep it up. KrishnaVindaloo 07:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Paranoia aside, KV please consider this. There are a lot of editors here, representing a wide range of the spectrum of opinions. Yet the one opinion which we can all agree on is that you are being disruptive to this process. Don't take this as a personal attack, but as an opportunity to better yourself. See. We would like to carry on civilized discussions of the issues and all work together to make the best article possible... togehter. Know-it-all-ism will not stand. Grow, change and adapt as an editor (as our co-editor!) or remain the thorn in everyone's side. Your call. And no, I don't think you're the devil. From my perspective, you're just misinformed. In life, I encourage you to do your own research with your own body and your own mind and not necessarily rely on what "reliable" sources have to say. You say you're a skeptic. This should appeal to you. In Wiki, however, I just ask that you not be so defensive and hostile with all of us. Levine2112 08:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Paranoia, better yourself, knowitalism, misinformed - solution use body and mind!!! I believe you have just provided me with a fine collection of evidence for my case, Levine2112. There are editors here who have no problem at all with my edits after collaboration with me.  And there is a certain group here, who whenever chiropractic is not mentioned, they will mostly be absent. Yet when chiropractic is mentioned they cause a huge amount of trouble and time wasting abuse, and do their very best to push consensus above NPOV just as you did in your last edit summary (more evidence). I have a lot of information on certain PS subjects that will help to clarify this article and it can all be added here and to other similar articles, and it will trump consensus every time. However, in doing so, that certain group of proponents will rant and tantrum to the extent that makes Wikipedia impossible to edit on those articles. But ultimately it doesn't stop me from adding those NPOV facts. KrishnaVindaloo 08:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please re-read my comments above carefully. They are put out there for you with much love and kindness. You are reading in the pejoratives, I assure you. I even asked you not to take it as a personal attack but as an opportunity to work with us. Together. I am offering advice to help you get along here better.


 * As far as when I contribute here and when I do not, consider this: I find it best to only contribute to topics when I truly feel I know well the subject at hand rather than stumble around making myself look like an unreliable editor. Levine2112 09:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"many scientists and philosophers regard emergence as having only a pseudo-scientific status".
 * This REQUIRES a verifiable source, just like ANY statement. If there is just ONE source, then we attribute it. If there are a handful, then we say so. If there are sources that specifically disagree, then we say so. WP:V and WP:RS are vital. This has nothing to do with assuming good faith. --Iantresman 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put, clear, and absolutely accurate, Iantresman. Cites are not optional; giving them with a year and an author is not adequate, and "assuming good faith" and other complaints have nothing to do with whether cites are required, complete, and applicable. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Emmache is is not a skeptic of emergent behaviour, but a "proponent" of this concept that was (then) relatively new. He explains that, before the theoretical foundations were widely appreciated, "emergent behaviour" sounded as though it was "pseudoscientific", but that new developments in physics, biology, psychology, ...cognitive science, artificial life, and the study of non-linear dynamical systems have focused strongly on the high level 'collective behaviour' of complex systems which is often said to be truly emergent. KV deleted the passage below from Vitalism claiming that it was OR. (he had argued that emergence was vitalism, I had accepted this, so gave this account of emergence in modern science; compare it with Emmache's incidentally)

"..a type of "vitalism" can be recognized in contemporary molecular biology in the proposal that some "high level features" of organisms, perhaps including even life itself, are emergent processes which cannot be accurately described simply by understanding each of the chemical processes which occur in the cell in isolation from all the others [] ; When individual chemical processes form interconnected feedback cycles which produce products perpetuating these cycles rather than unconnected products, they can form systems with properties that the reactions, taken individually, lack []. Such emergent processes have been recognised as, for example, contributing to subcellular morphology [], developmental biology [], [], metabolic networks, proteomics []  []  and indeed in purely physical systems as well as biological systems []. At a higher level, emergent processes are a widespread concept in cellular neuroscience [] and in cognitive science []. At a still higher level, emergent properties are recognised for example in the behaviour of ant colonies and the concept of swarm intelligence []; they have been simulated in artificial systems [], and parallels have been drawn with human societies []."

All the references refer directly to emergent behaviours. I'm relaxed about seeing emergence listed here. I guess for WP credibility it should go, but it would lose a nice joke.Gleng 12:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Gleng. You also kept trying to make it look like chiropractic had once used pseudoscientific notions of vitalism, but no longer does, and you reverted me several times when I corrected your OR. The above is pretty much the same. You crammed the article with an overdose of fringe and OR. Don't make us have to clean your mess up here also. KrishnaVindaloo 16:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KrishnaVindaloo, "clean your mess up" appears to be somewhat "Judgmental tone". Please see Civility (see examples).


 * Sorry but it was a huge mess. It took me a while to clean up. It was no way near NPOV on due weight, and was filled with OR. I'm judging the mess, not judging Gleng. I'm focused on the goal of improving and maintaining Wikipedia. KrishnaVindaloo 02:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rees as V RS; NPOV wording
I tracked down the Rees article in Modern Medicine that KrishnaVindaloo attempted to add to the article. Here is a link to an online version from the Wayback Machine. It appears to be a brief opinion piece or letter to the editor. The version I found cites no sources. It's not clear whether this piece was peer-reviewed, and it doesn't show up in PubMed, FWIW (sometimes things do fall through the cracks, though). The author is identified as "an internist in private practice in Brookline, Mass." I don't see how this source is notable and agree with Kenosis's removal of it.

FWIW, I still feel that the whole article needs a sort of "meta" overhaul with NPOV wording throughout, a la cult. That is, I think we should present arguments as "so-and-so says...." rather than asserting them, e.g. "Pseudoscientific thinking is globally widespread." I'd also like to emulate cult by including a section on definitions and POV's on same (cf. WP:NPOV: "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one"). Commentary like this applies here as well:
 * "Among the experts studying cults and new religious movements are sociologists, religious scholars, psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychohistorians. To an unusual extent for an academic/quasi-scientific field, however, nonacademics are involved in the study of and/or debates concerning cults, especially from the anti-cult point of view."

I think that adopting this sort of language and approach would move the article considerably closer to NPOV. Worth a try? cheers, - Jim Butler(talk) 06:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is an important issue for the PS article. Cults are well known to employ PS tactics in order to ply their followers. There can certainly be at least a small section on this, with the relevant examples provided. This will also help to explain to the reader certain psychological and social psychology aspects of PS beliefs and adherance, such as cognitive dissonance, authority control, groupthink, leading, reduced critical thought, censorship, and so on. If you have any suggestions as regards your own interests, Jim Butler, please feel free to make them here. KrishnaVindaloo 07:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Section on "Identifying pseudoscience"

 * The section on "Identifying pseudoscience" includes a number of citations that DO NOT support the statement they refer to. Having had a chance to look at Gauch, Hugh G., Jr., Scientific Method in Practice (2003) 3-5 ff, this section says NOTHING about pseudoscience.
 * The book appears to discuss what constitutes the scientific method, not whether adhering to specific aspects of the scientific method are pseudoscience.
 * I'd like to see citations include SPECIFIC quotes supporting a statement so they can be properly assessed. --Iantresman 09:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I second that. But I would also request that you stop shouting in caps Iantresman. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The sentence for which that work is cited is: The standards for determining whether a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, or practice is scientific can vary from field to field, but involve agreed principles including reproducibility and intersubjective verifiability. The cite is completely appropriate, as it is for scientific method not pseudoscience. Your protest is nonsensical. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I stand (well sit actually) corrected. Thanks for the clarification KC. KrishnaVindaloo 12:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Killer, I think that iantresman was alluding to the later uses of this reference, it is repeatedly used in the article to identify criteria for recognising PS. I agree the first use is appropriate - what about the subsequent uses?Gleng 12:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 1: standards. Applicable. 2: legitimate scientific methodology. Applicable. 3: Specific measurements. 4: scientific method. Which of these did you feel was not supported by the cite? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) addition, the specific standards applicable to one field of science may not be those employed in other fields
 * 2) Within the various expectations of legitimate scientific methodology, by far the most important is that of making data and methodology available for close scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, as well as making available any additional relevant information used to arrive at particular results or methods of practice
 * 3) Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements as a basis
 * 4) ...the basics of scientific method

I was just clarifying iantresman's concerns, which I think relates to the section lead which states: The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful in identifying pseudoscience. The cited author in some of what followed was Gauch, and according to iantresman, Gauch didn't mention pseudoscience. So I guess if that is true there is a problem and his comment seems fair, doesn't it? i.e. the way it's worded implies that these criteria have been proposed by Gauch to identify PS. I have no idea if this is true or not, but iantresman says not. If Gauch didn't propose these, who did? Gleng 13:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, if Gauch doesn't use the term "pseudoscience", it's OR to assume that he would use it. The implication that "not scientific" is the same as "pseudoscientific" is both an OR formulation and unsupportable by most definitions of PS.  As you've pointed out, Gleng, the term is both imprecise and pejorative, and infrequently seen in peer-reviewed literature, as a PubMed search will show.  To the extent that a precise, intersubjectively-verifiable definition with clear criteria is not universally agreed upon among academics (see cult again), we've got to be particularly careful with OR, V and NPOV issues when using the term.  That means, imo, being clear on who uses the term, what definition is being used, and not putting words in others' mouths.  Those who do comment on demarcation do not necessarily relegate to "pseudoscience" all that falls outside what they say is science, nor do they necessarily embrace the term as it is used by nonscientists like Randi, Shermer and Carroll.  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that Gauch does not use the term "intersubjective verifiability". That term could use another citation for the sentence.  It is, however, not at all the case that "intersubjective verifiability" is not universally agreed among scientists and philosophers of science; indeed if anything characterizes scientific method it is the expectation that the language and terms used in the analysis are intersubjectively verifiable--that is, any term where a proponent of a theory or hypothesis maintains, for instance that "only Our Leader" knows the nature of "phenomenon S" lacks an operational definition and also fails a number of the other criteria presented in the section on "Identifying pseudoscience". ... Kenosis 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, I may not have been clear above, or else I'm not understanding you. I'm not disputing that intersubjective verifiability is a cornerstone of the sci method, a point that your comments illustrate well.  I'm saying that the term PS itself, ironically, lacks a commonly agreed-upon definition with intersubjectively-verifiable criteria (and probably that's one reason why the term PS is rarely used by scientists in peer-reviewed publications).  It's not clear that subjects that fall outside Gauch's demarcations would be considered by Gauch to be PS.  We can infer that he'd consider them non-scientific, but perhaps he's define PS based on additional factors, like fraud, etc., or perhaps he wouldn't find the term very useful at all.  By asserting a single definition, the article verges on saying that "only James Randi" and like-minded people "know" what PS is :-) .... regards, Jim Butler(talk) 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * NP Jim, thanks for clarifying. The objective is to briefly explain to the reader some of the basic expectations of scientific method. One of the two elements of PS is already defined in the article as failure to follow scientific method. ... Kenosis 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, Kenosis, thanks, I'm on the same page with you now. As Gleng's thought experiment below shows, there's a fuzzy area between reasonable inference and OR.  My inclination in this case would be to restrict citations of Gauch and similar sources to saying what the sci method is.  OTOH, that may be too anal-retentive...  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Gleng. Please list exactly where this reference is used to identify criteria for recognizing PS. Your claims seem quite uncertain. KrishnaVindaloo 13:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gleng, the solution here is incredibly easy. To me this seems very much like an attempt to remove something negative, rather than seek a solution. I'm sorry, but this sort of thing simply has to stop, or at least be recognized for what it is. NPOV policy states that we should seek cooperation to solve problems, not just to remove stuff we don't like. Am I right or could you correct me in some way? KrishnaVindaloo 13:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

??? What stuff did I remove exactly? Or propose to remove? I thouht iantresman was pointing out a legitamate inaccuracy in citing. There's a request for a cite please, who proposed these criteria? It's a civil request to add key information to those who iserted the claim.Gleng 13:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anybody removed anything. I am looking for solutions. KrishnaVindaloo 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, thanks for the quote, but I still believe the citation doesn't hold.
 * The sentence "The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful in identifying pseudoscience." when the author has actually argued that certain characteristics/standards help determine the scientific method; the author doesn't say that the lack of a specific standard implies that we could be dealing with pseudoscience. And I do not believe we can infer that. I'd like to think that the author is agnostic on the issue.
 * So I am suggesting that there may indeed be a half a dozen specific characteristics which identify the scientific method, the lack of which is a characteristic of pseudoscience, and for which there are reliable sources specifying these. But there may be other characteristics, that have never been mentioned because (a) they are actually not considered to characterise pseudoscience (b) and it is why there are no reliable sources indicating them.
 * Another example, the article says that Popper specifically mentioned "falsifiability" to distinguish science from non-science. But we can't infer that non-science is pseudoscience, when Popper himself "subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious or and metaphysical formulations on the one hand, and pseudoscienfic formulations on the other". --Iantresman 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed two sentences from the lead of article
I've removed these two sentences from the end of the lead. They're making a moral judgment, argumentative about the state of the modern world, full of WP:WEASEL, unencyclopedic, confusing non-scientific with pseudoscientific thinking, among other problems. It doesn't belong in the lead or anywhere in the article.


 * "Evidence shows that pseudoscientific thinking is widespread, and there is concern by scientists over the spread of pseudoscientific notions from alternative medicine and popular psychology to clinical psychology, and science in general. Efforts to distinguish more clearly between pseudoscience and science are continuing in order to overcome public neglect of genuine science." ... 15:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The brief recitation of the major groups of characteristics later presented in "Identifying pseudoscience" appears reasonable to me for the lead, but I'm just one editor. ... Kenosis 15:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So can you suggest a solution, or do you just want to delete? KrishnaVindaloo 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a research paper, it's an online encyclopedia. Those two sentences are argumentative and don't belong in the article. ... Kenosis 16:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, I think Kenosis found the solution. The McNally ref that KV found is worth looking at though, . it might help resolve some of these issues if cited accurately later in the article as opinions of a practitioner.Gleng 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It would help if there was a reliable source which noted the perceiveced or measured spread of pseudoscience, so that we can report it accordingly. The statement does mention evidence... what is the source of this evidence? --Iantresman 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We could find far more evidence to say the whole world is going to hell because of lack of belief in certain pseudoscience(s) (e.g., Creation science. Best we avoid this kind of content in the lead of the article, I should think. ... Kenosis 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My intention was to represent the article more comprehensively. Now nobody has suggested anything. There is a reason for why people are still trying to identify pseudosciences. What is the solution to this point? We need to explain who wants or doesn't want to know about PS, and we need to give some idea of their reasoning in the opening, because that will give some idea of the whole point of the Sci- ps effort. What is PS, and why does it exist? If someone wishes to propose a solution to this problem, instead of just deleting stuff that doesn't suit them, I'm sure the article will improve. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOR again. ... Kenosis 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So thats the best you can do! Well thanks for the suggestion. KrishnaVindaloo 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Defining...
While this has been illuminating in many respects, it's hard not to note that the issues keep returning to the use of citations and strict accuracy and appropriateness. There are some policy issues clearly left too vague for resolution, and perhaps a hypothetical test case might help.

I find a reference who IMO is a notable authority who states that a subject X is "in its orthodox form, embodies a total misconception, a travesty of the nature of scientific thought"

This is in an article wholly devoted to X and say available online, the quote is true to context. He does not say that X is a pseudoscientific, he doesn't use the word, but calls it fraudulent. Should X be included here as an example of PS? If not, why not exactlyTo keep the discussion neutral it is obviously not relevant to know what X is, but let us say that similar opinions have been expressed by others.?Gleng 15:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

YES?
 * I would say: yes, with the qualification that we say whose definition your source's comments fulfill.  Maybe it would help if we opened the article with a "definitions" section, as well as POV's about definitions, and then we can cite notable opinions about subjects that fall within those various definitions .  The criteria of being "not science" and "misprepresented" together do seem to fulfill the definition (which isn't the only one out there) that the article in its current form gives. -Jim Butler(talk) 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Caveat: The case you give is pretty clear-cut given use of the term "fraudulant".  That makes the source's criticism of X specific enough to fit the definition, using reasonable common sense, without constituting OR.  However, I struck out my words above because this clearly could be taken into OR, given loose enough definitions of PS.  (Think of the politician who defines opposition to X war as unpatriotic, and on that basis a political operative compiles a list of all thereby-deemed "unpatriotic" politicians.)  We can't use someone's definition-by-fiat to put words in others' mouths. Jim Butler(talk) 16:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

NO?

This is the reason I quoted William's definition of Pseudoscience in Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. It's one that I don't personal ascribe to, and uniquely appears to equate pseudoscience with hoaxes and superstition, but I felt it was worth including since we include him as a source in the article. --Iantresman 16:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any one person's opinion on a particular discipline is enough to relegate that discipline to being a worthy sample of pseudoscience. If our job here is to create the best article, then we should in turn have the best examples. There needs to be a wide consensus that a particular field is considered pseudoscience before we label it as an example of a pseudoscience. Fields that are only marginally considered pseudoscientific are not good examples becuase it leaves the reader scratching his/her head. We need to stick the obvious ones... and not just obvious to one person. Obvious to pretty much everyone. Remember we are not here to create a blacklist. We are here, in this article, to provide and encyclopedic resourse of what pseudoscience is; not what is a pseudoscience. Levine2112 19:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I say No, because the author did not call it PS. It is not up to me as an editor to put words in his mouth that he may have purposely decided not to use. We are not supposed to be making decisions like that, we just report what reliable sources tell us. It is the job of the expert that we are quoting to make the distinction. I.e. If I wrote that my wife had a wart on her nose, and you knew that witches had warts on thier noses, I would be very upset if you called my wife a witch. --Dematt 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging. Anyone else? I'm trying here just to set out a test of NPOV - can we in fact agree on objective criteria for including this without knowing what X is - i.e. without passing the decision through the filter of our own personal biases. JimButler and Iantresman have engaged - their decisions might be different but both are trying to reach the decision objectively, and that it seems to me is great. Anyone else?Gleng 19:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we don't specify just one's person's definition. There will certainly be a consensus view of pseudoscience, and many other views defining it. Williams is just one view, and a unique view (in my opinion), but I felt he was worth mentioning because he is used extensively as a source.
 * I think there are some characteristics of pseudoscience that are extensively agreed upon, and many others that aren't. And some characteristics are described by very well-known individuals like Poppers. As long as we attribute those characteristics to the right people, I think we cover all the bases. --Iantresman 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, this is not a trick, not trying to trap someone into accepting or rejecting anything without relevant information - this is hypothetical, just to try to establish if there is a common basis for NPOV decisions about what to exclude and what to include, i.e. decisions that we can approach without engaging our own personal biases whatever those might be. Is it actually possible to make these decisions coolly and objectively? Any more? Gleng 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I generally wouldn't include a line if it wasn't related to the word pseudoscience. It doesn't have to state the word in the line, but it needs to be in that source in a related way. KrishnaVindaloo 02:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not have an opinion I can properly put under the offered options of "yes" or "no" at the moment. Personally, I need some time to think about this. In my estimation, the info in the article is already as good as it gets for a brief article, anywhere, period; I've yet to see a brief presentation that's anywhere near as informative.  Of course there are significant glitches in some of the writing and structure and such, and in some of the editorial decisions made in the often cumbersome WP process.  But most of the basic info's there, and it can certainly be improved further.
 * One of the problems I have is that we (the users cum editoraes who collectively write Wikipedia) can quite easily get too big on defining pseudoscience exactly, as other even-less-humble writers have in the past with very widely divergent results. The article Gleng linked to in the talk section above (that KV called to our attention) says it pretty well in its opening statement. ... Kenosis 02:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, we don't need to push for strict definitions because we have NPOV policy to use to add views and present the variety. Sure we can decide upon a particular one to emphasize but it has no relevance to how we choose the other edits. If there is a relevant view about PS then it can be included according to their view of PS. Brief explanations of their view are often necessary. KrishnaVindaloo 02:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree McNally article makes a valuable argument that is neutral and valuable. --Dematt 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes its excellent. The main idea (show me the data) is valuable, and may help clarify certain ideas that Kenosis brought up a while back. Also, it may show how some unvalidated aspects of a particular PS subject (eg, using chiropractic to cure homosexuality) can have the seal of pseudoscience stamped on them more solidly. Instead of people just saying PS, they can say its PS and has no supporting evidence whatsoever. There is also the issue of "how much support?".  For example, chiropractic has some weak support for a particular manipulation (though other methods work better on those problems) it is interesting to know exactly how weak the support is.  Is the support for just one of chiropractic's many claims weak or just pathetic? So yes, there are some minority views in the article, but the main theme is useful. KrishnaVindaloo 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * RE "show me the data" above: the data en todo runs somewhere in the general vicinity of 10120 to 10180, give or take a very wide range of speculative orders of magnitude in between or beyond the speculated number of possible sources (see, e.g. WP:WEASEL).  The question before us is how to write the article so it can reasonably explain the relevant issues within the rules and guidelines of WP. ... Kenosis 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The McNally article is about McNally's view. When I read the entire article, I realize that McNally is proposing to minimize the use of PS and Non-scientific in favor of "show me the data".  He would not call EMDR PS.  I certainly see nothing that relates to using chiropractic to cure homosexuality.  To cite McNally in any way to support this would be weak and perhaps even pathetic (to use KV's words). It would be OR to make that jump from an article is clearly arguing the opposite remedy to the PS problem. --Dematt 12:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't about to slap it into the article willynilly. That weasel article you posted has quite a few solutions to the problem. What do you suggest? I had it in mind as an article pertaining to the section on psychology as that is basically what the article is on about. Details have yet to be worked out, but I keep coming across psych applications of chiropractic that may deserve mention. KrishnaVindaloo 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

..and so what?
Editors seem to agree that nothing should be read into an authors' words beyond what can be inferred without dispute. In this case, we have no right to assume that any authors would agree that any use of the term PS in association with what they say is legitimate. Even if an author declares that something is unscientific, fraudulent, a travesty of the scientific method, still we do not make that contentious leap for them or imply that they would endorse it.

Therefore PS is never a matter of “fact”, only of “opinion” and ‘’always’’ disputed; and so the notability of the source of the opinion must guide us as well as VRS. We can build an article around Popper and Kuhn etc without hesitation on this score. Others less notable have also made thoughtful closely argued contributions worth consideration, like Thagard, and McNally, who have developed careful balanced arguments relating to the concept of pseudoscience. But I suggest a careful look at exactly what Hines, Lillenfield, Gauch etc say and compare with the text, and I think that the whole Table is not supportable. I would remove all references to Williams and Carroll and find either stronger references or eliminate the associated text.

McNally's words warn how easily the use of the word PS can be abused to express prejudice. ''As Laudan (1996) has said: If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us”

As for the dilemna above? X is “The scientific paper”. The words are those of a Nobel laureate in Physiology and Medicine, Sir Peter Medawar ; he argues “What is the good of scientists reproaching others for their neglect of, or indifference to, the scientific style of thinking they set such great store by, if their own writings show that they themselves have no clear understanding of it?’’

Gleng 09:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Gleng, but you seem to be jumping the gun on your assumptions. It is blatantly obvious that, for example, applying chiropractic to curing homosexuality, or beating the slot machines, is pseudoscientific. Its undeniable.


 * I understand why you would want to remove the information you suggested, but it seems to me to be completely against what Wikipedia is trying to do. Inclusion of all relevant views requires us to present the very info you wish to banish. Making the article and related articles clear requires us to explain how science sees PS, including why it sees it that way.  The abstract logical nature of the subject requires us to use concrete examples in order to present a clear picture to the reader. And comparison and contrast are extremely useful for clarifying the complex issues with the appropriate nuance and intelligence. Whitewash may make things look brighter, but it does nothing for clarity. I believe we've been over this issue many times already. I see nothing new at all in your argument, just the continued pressure to restrict and cloud relevant views and remove realism and clarity. KrishnaVindaloo 09:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have lost track of how often you have accused editors of being motivated by personal or professional bias. These are personal attacks, and it is impossible to engage constructively with you when you act as though every opinion comes from bias.Gleng 09:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I will rephrase. Your suggestion, if implemented, will lead to a severe restriction of views. It is completely unacceptable. The sci-ps requirement is core NPOV policy. If you don't like it, then talk to the people who deal with that.  If you think PS is used pejoratively, then you are saying NPOV policy uses it pejoratively. Editors here have worked hard to ensure that any pejorative is removed from any PS aspect of an article in the cat. Yet you still push for removal. Now tell us something we don't know.  KrishnaVindaloo 10:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I suggested at Talk:Chiropractic, and in my recent comments at the RfA on PS, there appears to be a difference over "core NPOV views" here. KV dismisses it, but I believe it's important to highlight.  KV is focusing on those aspects of the NPOV Tutorial that specifically mention PS, i.e. the sections on pseudoscience, giving "equal validity", and making necessary assumptions.  He, and other editors concerned with what they believe are pseudosciences, point to those passages as "core NPOV policy".  I suggest that they are aspects of NPOV that need to be balanced with other aspects, e.g. the NPOV Tutorial's comments on categorization.  Furthermore, I'd argue that anything like "core" NPOV policy will be found in the first section at WP:NPOV, which doesn't mention PS at all, but does give the big picture:  e.g., to cite facts abput opinions and to present all sig sides rather than asserting a single one as truth.  I think the results of the RfA may be helpful in providing guidance here as to what to do with minority sci views bordering on fringe and called PS by some.  Hope this makes sense to some.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 16:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So NPOV doesn't say that anything someone says about PS goes in. It's gotta be a notable POV.  Tiny minority views shouldn't go in at all, cf. WP:NPOV:  "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."  Where is the evidence that use of chiro to Tx gayness is anything more than tiny minority, and thus should be omitted from WP except perhaps in reparative therapy?  Jim Butler(talk) 17:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your problem is dismissing context, Jim Butler. As an example of using a treatment for something it is unsuited for, it is absolutely perfect. In that context it is the most relevant and reliable piece of information (two peer reviewed sources that corroborate and that work from actual research findings). The practice exists and it shows very clearly what is PS. The only reasons I can see for dismissing the information is to squash negative criticism, and to continue accusing me of being a liar. KrishnaVindaloo 03:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." How hard to understand is that? Jim Butler(talk) 07:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your are using a blinkering argument and it restricts views, Jim Butler. The main issue is the science view that applying something outside the bounds of its limits is considered pseudoscientific. That is the fact. The best illustration for this fact is stating that chiropractic is sometimes used for curing homosexuality. Its a majority view, and its illustrated and supported by the fact that chiropractic is used out of the context of any weak support it has for any limited use. Fact; chiropractic is used based upon pseudoscientific notions of vitalism, and it uses pseudoscientific holism and quasi religious notions, and pseudoscientific reparative therapists use it to treat homosexuality. Three peer reviewed articles state this very clearly. The reader benefits from the inclusion of this fact. KrishnaVindaloo 07:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree they've worked hard, and have more to do. e.g. "Appeals to holism: 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.[33]"

I don't have the actual reference cited, it's not online. The author here doesn't use the words organic or alternative at all, or mention  naturopathy or mental health. He specifies "holistic healers, holistic veterinarians, holistic nurses, and others, and believers in paranormal phenomena". The article is a sharp criticism of their holistic arguments, but uses the word pseudoscience only twice, once in relation to astrology and once in the summary: "Holism is an empty retreat from reality, a method by which pseudoscientists muddy rational thought, avoid clear and concise communication, and follow their own idiosyncratic beliefs"

I suspect that this is an example of an editorial opinion being inserted. If so, these things are what need to go. Gleng 12:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ..and so what.. after all the work everyone has done and all the sources we've all read, it seems that Kenosis has a strong understanding of the article and the controversy.  The quandry is whether PS is all inclusive of every unproven assertion or whether it is reserved for blatant abuse of science.  If we follow the path that KV is suggesting (using examples that skate the border of OR that insinuate PS behavior of which all can be potentially found guilty) we open the article up to include everything that we call life and water the subject into nonsense, which may be okay because it seems that "many" verifiable and reliable scientists (including McNally) seem to feel that the use of PS is nonsense.  It is my opinion, that this would diminish WP's standing as a source as it would illustrate that we fell into the PS vicious cylce trap. I think this is what Kenosis has been trying to tell us for months. --Dematt 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes my suggestion is to be inclusive. Include subjects such as cosmology with appropriate nuance if there is a reliable source. I know some may say that rather takes the thunder out of calling really really PS subjects pseudoscience, but this is Wikipedia, and we are not here to slag stuff off. Equally, if there is a real PS issue in a subject, even if GPs use the umbrella subject, then it can be mentioned. Why am I saying all this? Because it complies with NPOV on inclusion of all relevant views. Its pretty simple guys, we should all understand NPOV policy pretty well by now. KrishnaVindaloo 16:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If we include all relevant views of what is considered pseudoscience or has been used in the name of pseudoscience, I fear that this article would be endless and disserve the happless researcher of Pseudoscience. Let's instead provide only the best, most relevant examples to give any researcher of the subject, the clearest, most reliable understanding of the concept at hand. I would think that above all, this is WP's number one guiding principal. Levine2112 16:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes the best examples will have both PS and non PS aspects! Chiropractic, for example, has always been, for many decades, pseudoscience. Though one of its manipulations out of the many that chiropractors prescribe, has been found to have some weak support. Then we can contrast that with something that has had little or no PS aspects. Using a consistent example like that throughout will give the reader a good idea of what is PS and what is not.  As chiropractic has a lot of the quasi-spiritual vitalism aspects, and shows very well the superstitious nature of its founders and original users. And the cult thing shows up really well also. Loads of nuance. The info is all really very well accessible already. Its all been swept under the carpet of the chiropractic archives at some point. Anyone could fish it out. KrishnaVindaloo 03:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Woeful references
This article is desperately lacking in some semblance of order in the references section. There are Notes, References, and Literature. How about combining them under References (with code) and dropping the others? Then make sure all links in the text are formatted properly, and the references are described and linked to on-line sources as much as possible. While "verifiability" means one thing to editors here, it means something else to readers, who should be able to click a link and look at the source for themselves. -- Fyslee 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there should be one format for reference, preferably footnotes. KrishnaVindaloo, and perhaps one or more other editors, have been adding some material with "Harvard-style" citations.  For now, we'd best keep the references section until this gets sorted out. ... Kenosis 23:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a lot of ways here to do citations. I prefer the "footnotes" method. Like this:


 * According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big.
 * The Moon, however, is not so big.


 * This will put a footnote in the references section at the bottom of the page. It is truly the most informative method and the easiest for the reader to check references. Levine2112 02:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it's not a hard-and-fast rule, footnotes are the convention. Doesn't clog up the article with inline text, or require the reader to scroll to the references to find what's being referenced.  ... Kenosis 02:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure footnotes could be put to better use. As to the above, I was never much of a coder, so Harvard cites will have to do for now. I wouldn't want to make Wikipedia too elitist. If it was an absolute requirement to make clickable cites, it could dissuade good editors from editing. And of course those wishing to censor would be given another bloody excuse to remove solid research. KrishnaVindaloo 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's actually very easy to do, and requires hardly any more effort than Harvard notations. You can do it the long way (giving the reference a name), or the short way, by simply putting TEXT  (without the spaces) around the words, even if they don't contain a link. Others can then complete the process. Just look at how others do it. -- Fyslee 11:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also say, that the is the least awful solution. It dows clog up the article source, sure. I'd suggest to make use of the name attribute even for sources cited only once, so that mouse-overing the link display some useful, like here:.

Restriction of views
Hello, Gleng especially. Sorry, but this whole pressure to restrict views is completely unacceptable. As is the pressure to promote so called "expert" editor's edits over others. I repeat: This is Wikipedia where anyone can edit, and all relevant views are to be shown. If a view is relevant and reliable, then it can be shown in proportion to majority or minority. Using words such as "allegedly" is completely unaceptable also. They either said pseudoscience or they didn't. Pseudoscience is mainly about theories. Not fields. Theories come from fields, but we are mainly here to talk about the theories of those fields. Got it? KrishnaVindaloo 15:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

They alleged that something is PS, or expressed an opinion that it was. Opinion not fact. So long as it is clear that these are opinions we're talking about and whose opinions they are then we're part there, the next part is notability... The opinions that shouldn't be in the article are e.g. yours and mine - opinions of notable others we cite, naming them, but report them as opinions. Stripped clearly religious elements out of list (e.g. spiritualism) surely we don't want to get into "PS" aspects of religions. Gleng 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with both Gleng and Jim Butler. While I see the points you are trying to make, KV, I think you have been mislead by those "urging you on" when you chose chiropractic as proof of your suggestions as you note above. In fact it is a poor example of pseudoscience especially when compared to those already listed in the article.  You stated, “The cult thing shows up really well also.”  I see no verification of this and there really can’t be since it is more of an opinion on your part.


 * It has been demonstrated by Levine and many editors here numerous times, with dozens and dozens of links to dozens and dozens of studies, that chiropractic has large amounts of research behind it. See the Talk pages on Chiropractic as well as here.


 * Chiropractic is licensed and has the recognition of all US states, many foreign countries, insurance companies, Medicare, car accident/work injury insurances. There are hospitals with Chiropractic Departments, joint medical/chiropractic practices all over the US and it is being used on many military bases around the US.  Professional and amateur athletic teams utilize chiropractic doctors, as do Olympic teams and countries.(the US for one e example.)  There are chiropractic colleges, many journals and collaborations with various other professions and institutions.


 * So, perhaps in 1895 it can be argured that there has been some “quasi-spiritual vitalism aspects, and shows very well the superstitious nature of its founders and original users” as you claim above, today chiropractic is what many call ‘mainstream’.


 * Readers not familiar with chiropractic can easily look it up on WP. So unless you are wedded to showcasing chiropractic, wouldn’t it make more sense to showcase better, stronger examples in order to give them a good idea about what PS really is and is not?  We can easily pick from the list in the article for strong cases.


 * Maybe other editors can come up with stronger examples. Thanks Steth 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Theories once criticized as pseudoscience
Could someone explain the purpose of this section, as ScienceApologist alone keeps removing these examples for reasons I obviously don't understand.

I've provide verifiable reliables sources, all of which are very clear, in that a reputable individual, identifies a theory that was either once criticized as pseudoscience, or they considered as pseudoscience. No-one is saying that they are pseudoscience.


 * Cosmology. *Stephen Hawkings wrote:
 * "Cosmology used to be considered a pseudoscience .."
 * "Cosmology was thought of as a pseudoscience where wild speculation was unconstrained by any possible observations."
 * "Cosmology used to be regarded as a pseudo science.."
 * In other words, cosmology was considered a pseudoscience, and Hawking confirms that view.

--Iantresman 19:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Magnetic reconnection. Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén described a phenomenon that occurs in plasmas, "Magnetic merging -- A Pseudoscience", he wrote: "I made a table [ see here ] showing the difference between the real plasma and a "fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen-in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. [..] Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group."(ref: Alfven, Hannes, "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics", NASA, Double Layers in Astrophysics Workshop, Huntsville, AL, Mar. 16-18, 1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793.)


 * The reasons for removing Hawking's quote were discussed above. The reason for not including Alfvén's quote is that it is woefully out-of-date and doesn't show a contemporary comparison. --ScienceApologist 22:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hawking's comment was not off-the-cuff, by definition. It was published in three different books as his considered opinion.
 * Alfvén's paper is supposed to be out-of-date, it's about theories that were once considered pseudoscience. --Iantresman 22:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hawking's comment is problematic because it is used as evidence regarding pseudoscience when he was not describing pseudoscience -- rather he was describing criticism of cosmology. The rhetoric of mainstream disputes in the process of arriving at scientific consensus does not belong in this article. Likewise, Alfvén's comments should be included only if they can be properly contextualized. This article is not the place to do it. --ScienceApologist 22:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant section in the WP article is about fields that were previously regarded as pseudoscience, rather than about fields that are currently called pseudoscience by notable and reliable sources. Though the magnetic reconnection cite appears quite minor, I would think the Big Bang, and perhaps even cosmology generally, are useful examples of things formerly considered pseudoscience that have since gained wide credibility because of advances in instrumentation and other factors that have allowed them to be better verified than they were at the time they were called pseudoscientific.  Don't have the cites for you, but typing in "Big bang" and "pseudoscience" gets a bunch of hits and brief references that appear consistent with the assertion that the "Big bang" had indeed been called psuedoscience by a good number of scientists in the years when cosmology was very much an emerging science. ... Kenosis 00:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with you on Big Bang and Cosmology Kenosis. I did remove them but I'm not wed to the idea of them being absent. I certainly see value in stating something that has wide acceptance nowadays, and showing the rather silly prior assumptions of the past (fixed universe, nailed together by God perhaps!). KrishnaVindaloo 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC) I didn't have time to find other sources, but as you said, it is corroborated on the web already. KrishnaVindaloo 03:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the "verified by the web" point at all. When I type in "Big bang" and "pseudoscience" I get a bunch of hits refuting the Big Bang being called pseudoscience by unqualified professionals and a number of hits that are unrelated to the history of astronomy. As I'm fairly certain that the term "pseudoscience" was not bandied about in regards to the emergance of cosmology, I'm again going to remove the point. Please do not put it back in until you have verified the reference. --ScienceApologist 08:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thus far the only cite I have seen verifying the assertion that cosmology, and by extension the Big bang, was regarded as pseudoscience is the Hawking reference given by Iantresman . Hawking notes that cosmology was regarded as pseudoscientific when he was at Cambridge back in 1962, and that general relativity was seen as a beautiful theory that had practically no contact with the real world. The quote is: "Cosmology was thought of as pseudoscience where wild speculation was unconstrained by any possible observation. That their standing today is very different is partly due to the great expansion in the range of observations made possible by modern technology." ... Kenosis 09:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is argued above that "Hawking's comment is problematic because it is used as evidence regarding pseudoscience when he was not describing pseudoscience -- rather he was describing criticism of cosmology." Yes, he was describing one particular criticism of cosmology: that is, that it was pseudoscience. Therefore Hawking is saying that cosmology was considered pseudoscience, and this is all that is really needed for cosmology to be included in the list of fields that were once considered pseudoscience. Please also note that this was not merely rhetoric used in part of some debate, but rather it is a straightforward point about the nature of cosmology at some time in its recent history. As Hawking puts it, cosmology was "an area where wild speculation was unconstrained by any reliable observations".Davkal 10:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it really does clarify some of the points made above about identifying PS. Its helpful and clarifying. As a cosmologist, I certainly wouldn't be insecure about the point. Hawking doesn't seem worried at all about it. KrishnaVindaloo 11:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology was considered pseudoscience
In addition to Hawking's three verifiable citations noting that "Cosmology used to be considered a pseudoscience ", and that "Cosmology is still not a proper science", here is yet another citation from Science Historian Professor Helge Kragh, who wrote:
 * "Dingle disliked cosmological principles of any kind and saw in them the main cause of why cosmology had degraded into a state of pseudoscience" (Ref: Helge Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe, (1996) p.226, Publ. Princeton University Press,)

Professor of Astronomy, Joseph Silk, wrote on Cosmology that
 * "To many scientists, this seemed, at best, pseudo-science", {Ref: Joseph Silk, Cosmic Enigmas (1994) "Preface" ISBN: 1563960613)

So we have perhaps the most famous name in cosmology, Stephen Hawking, and two professors (including a science historian), all saying that Cosmology was once considered pseudoscience, all verifiable and from reliable sources. --Iantresman 11:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, like I said, its nothing to be insecure about. KrishnaVindaloo 11:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what ScienceApologist is concerned about is the extent to which cosmology is still called pseudoscience by some.   There are still a few in a vocal minority who assert that because such things as the "big bang" are not replicable they're pseudoscientific.  To make matters more confusing, some of those who call cosmology pseudoscience appear to be driven by motives in defense of traditional religious cosmological models and dates of creation and the like. Yet others may associate cosmology with those religious models such that they harbor a distrust of any cosmology, although I can't prove that with any citations at the moment.  So WP:NPOV will need to be heeded closely with respect to cosmology.
 * The key here, which was reviewed on this talk page not long ago, is that much of cosmology is a historical inquiry and thus cannot be replicated in general, just as many aspects of evolution cannot be replicated (at least not to date). These theories depend on coherence of factors that are independently verifiable even if not replicable in an experiment.  The big bang and evolution are properly regarded as scientific because the pieces of the overall puzzle fit together sufficiently well when all the verifiable research is reviewed as a whole, such that no other theory makes sense to the relevant scientific community.    Giving proper weight to the sources used for the WP article, in keeping with WP:NPOV, should allow the WP editors here to effectively manage this situation, I would think.  Therefore, I personally have no objection to the inclusion of Cosmology and/or the Big bang in the section on fields and theories formerly considered pseudoscience.  ... Kenosis 14:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so if we are going to describe the history of cosmology, we're going to have to do it right. In particular, right now we are in (or have just gone through) the "Golden Age of Cosmology". It's important that we describe to the reader precisely that cosmology is no longer a pseudoscience and the criticisms that were leveled against it in the past are now not being leveled against it. Otherwise readers get the impression that there is something unique about cosmology. Notice that the discussion of continental drift includes discussion of the fact that it is now no longer considered psuedoscience. We need to do likewise if we are going to discuss cosmology in such a way.

And furthermore, the quote about the "Big Bang" being pseudoscience isn't relevant to this historical exposition.

--ScienceApologist 14:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with SA in that if the "big bang" is to be mentioned it should have a separate verification from the Hawking cite offered with respect to cosmology. Better to leave it out unless there's a very clear citation for it. ... Kenosis 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure someone will come up with a corroborating ref sometime later on Big Bang. Its a good example of something finding good support more recently. All with clear descriptions of its general acceptance. KrishnaVindaloo 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course Cosmology, and the other subjects mentioned, are not now considered pseudoscience. There is no implication that they might be considered pseudoscience by some people, and I have no citations to support this. This section is about subject that ''were once' considered pseudoscience by some people, but no longer. --Iantresman 17:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. I trust that ScienceApologist's primary concern has been made clear and that it is safe to proceed ;-) with more accurate citations this time around. I like the idea of making clear in the article not only that cosmology is no longer validly termed a pseudoscience, but also how it was that cosmology overcame the pseudoscience label, especially from the 1970s forward, which was in large part by continual improvements in technology that in turn allowed major improvements in the quantity and quality of the relevant empirical observations. ... Kenosis 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, in this regard, we could briefly mention how active and extensive the research field currently is, and mention the implications of research etc. KrishnaVindaloo 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or you could get a history of cosmology source and actually do some good research into the history of the field rather than collecting quotes ripped out-of-context. --ScienceApologist 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, SA. It is obvious that some editors are being too dismissive here. I am in the process of looking up the very sources you suggest, and will in no uncertain terms show that cosmology is no longer considered PS wherever those sources state so. KrishnaVindaloo 13:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We should perhaps also note that some commentators today regard aspects of cosmology as pseudoscientific, albeit for substantially diffrent reasons, e.g, Mary Midgley in Evolution as Religion and at greater length in Science as salvation.Davkal 13:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes this could be valid, but we also need to determine the minority-majority proportion. KrishnaVindaloo 14:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps we should be as critical of those other subjects labelled as pseudoscience, for which there is also no context and no explanation. --Iantresman 15:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, IanTresman. I also believe a lot more could be said about them.  KrishnaVindaloo 15:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I again removed the prose regarding the Big Bang and cosmology as the text was either factually incorrect (as in the case of the Williams quote) or the quote was ripped out of context without any explanation (as in the case of the Hawking quote). If you want to go in depth explaining the context of these points to explain to the reader how they were evaluated as such, that's fine. But simply putting in throwaway quotes out-of-context or (worse) written with factual inaccuracy is not good practice. --ScienceApologist 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RevertRemoval
I hate reverting(just me, I don't mind so much when others do it) edits that I consider POV, as that's usually not the past way to deal with that issue, however in this case(the removal of contents) it was hard to come up with an appropriate change. I know your argument is "who's to say?" however that argument can be used on anything and has no bearing on the appropriateness of the article. If you're going to argue "who's to say?" you'd better remove every last thing from that list. Moreover, being considered pseudoscience doesn't make something pseudoscience, please stp taking offence at well documented sources. I still recomend that this section be changed to something that discusses why things have been considered pseudoscience, as that's more helpful to the reader's understanding. Nonetheless, that's not the current format, and you'd do well to stop cherry-picking your battles. i kan reed 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "why things have been considered pseudoscience...", absolutely more useful --Iantresman 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

demarcation
Has anyone else noticed that there are two sections on the demarcation problem? I recommend changing the name of the section Introduction"" to ""Demarcation"" and merging the small amount of content in Demarcation problem and criticisms of the concept of pseudoscience '' that is referenced. Banno 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, a reference section on a talk page is a clumsy idea. Banno

Williams reference
KV, I noticed you changed the original reference that you have repeatedly insisted on inserting. Why was that? Does it have to do with Dematt asking you exactly what Williams did say? Did Williams specifically mention qi, prana or innate? Does Kaptchuk and Eisenberg specifically mention qi, prana or innate? Thank you for clearing this up. Steth 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wiki article on the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience describes its criteria for inclusion, but tends not to give details of the specific criteria considered for each of the 2000 entries. --Iantresman 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that you can treat people's diseases using theories based on the notion that functions of a living organism are due something distinct from physicochemical forces? And are you saying that vitalism is measurable? Do you think as encyclopedia writers we should totally dismiss the fact that vitalism is considered pseudoscientific or that there is no view at all in science that vitalism is used by pseudoscientific subjects or within pseudoscientific concepts? Are you saying that qi or prana or innate is not considered by any significant party to be vitalistic? My questions can go further. What kind of encyclopedist would want to dismiss the view that qi or prana or innate are vitalistic?  And what kind of encyclopedist would want to dismiss the view that vitalism is pseudoscientific? Is it the majority view or the fringe who consider vitalism to be measurable and scientifically supported?  Or should we push the alternative medicine view?  Does modern medicine operate through doctors' mojo? KrishnaVindaloo 14:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So what do K and E say about "pseudoscience"? They use the term "pseudoscience only once, in the following: "Alternative medicine includes chiropractic science [28], homeopathic science [29], psychic science [30, 31], and even occult science [32, 33]. Academic science would undoubtedly call these approaches "scientism" and discuss the boundaries between science and pseudoscience [34-36]. However, for practitioners and their patients, these sciences are absolutely credible. Indeed, many of these disciplines have a long intellectual tradition and sophisticated philosophy [37-39], as does the broad notion of nature's healing power [40] and vitalism [41, 42]."

And what else do K and E say about vitalism?
 * Physicians often rely on the power of nature (for example, in wound healing and recovery from the common cold). Vitalist forces also inhabit the biomedical world in the form of the placebo effect and the patient–physician relationship.

I have no idea how this source can be taken to support the claim made for it. What should encyclopedists do? Find the strongest sources, read them, and report them accurately. That’s all.

Gleng 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * K and E provide examples of vitalistic notions. The inclusion is useful for the reader. We are writing for the reader, right? KrishnaVindaloo 15:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Oh, also further to your suggestion to finding the strongest source to support the view that vitalism is considered PS, and that innate is considered PS, and that innate is condidered vitalistic. Why don't you try? And while you are at it, please provide a list of all the pseudoscientific applications of chiropractic.  Apparently chiropractors commonly claim that chiropractic can heal the whole person and all their ills. Just give me a list of all the ills outside of the weakly supported backpain condition treatment. KrishnaVindaloo 15:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To cite these sources with the sentence in question is OR. You cannot defend your POV edit with reliable and verifiable sources. You exagerate circumstances (1000's signing papers in schools all across US) to push your POV. I'll remove the sentence in question. --Dematt 15:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is my main issue with this attempt at POV pushing. Aside from providing poorly referenced data, KV is drawing his own conclusions from two separate citations (and a third non-existent citation). This constitutes a violation of WP:OR and I deleted the reference on those very grounds. Specifically, on this section of the policy. I encourage KrishnaVindaloo to read (or re-read) this section. Levine2112 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To correct an apparent misconception. A good encyclopedist does not make a list of his prejudices and then dredge up whatever support he can find for them. He (or she) abandons his prejudices, finds what the very best authorities writing in the very best journals say about the subject, and simply reports that. That's all, no more, no less. If a pet prejudice is not discussed with care and authority, well too bad; is it noteworthy? I think Dematt is clearly right here. The issue is simple, the sentence misrepresents the cited authors. Gleng 15:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No KV, all I am asking is if Williams and K and E use the terms qi, prana and innate as you have stated in the article. That's all. Apparently they don't. Gleng makes some very strong and clear points on this issue. The question then becomes, why would you make it look like they do?   Thanks Steth 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So tell me Steth. What does it look like it says to you? Please be specific. Tell me exactly what the reader is going to envisage when they read those lines. KrishnaVindaloo 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't tell you what the reader will envision, but to me your edits in the Pseudoscience article infers that Williams and K&E specifically use the terms and discuss qi, prana, innate and chiropractic. So how did I do? So they specifically use these terms?    Steth 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes K and E do. "This vital energy takes myriad forms: homeopathy speaks of a "spiritual vital essence" [16], chiropractic refers to the "innate" [17], and acupuncture is said to involve the flow of "qi" [18]. Ayurvedic medicine is based on the power called "prana" [19],". They state it pretty clearly.  KrishnaVindaloo 02:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am leary about believing you, given your documented history and all, but this opens up the question(s) as to why you misrepresented these sources to reflect your hate-centric bias against chiropractic? And what about Williams? Did you misrepresent him too? I am sure others have questions they would like answered Steth 02:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading the entire article, MDs K and E did not call any of these things PS, and as Gleng noted, when ;
 * "Academic science would undoubtedly call these approaches "scientism" and discuss the boundaries between science and pseudoscience [34-36]."
 * IOW, they left it to acedemic scientists to discuss, probably because they recognize the same demarcation problems we have come up against.
 * Also note that K and E say in their conclusion;
 * "Vitalist forces also inhabit the biomedical world in the form of the placebo effect and the patient–physician relationship. Biomedicine can even wave a "scientism" banner when it flaunts the authority of science if evidence is scarce or nonexistent [84]."
 * We have all noted this same thing. IOW, if you call AltMed PS because of vitalistic concepts, then you have to acknowledge biomedicine as PS characteristics as well.  I personally do not see biomedicine as PS, but where are we going to draw the line of demarcation?  Is it up to us.  I don't think so.  We must choose our sources carefully for verifiablity and reliability and consider the motives of those who might be using the term PS.  NOR.
 * --Dematt 03:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Steth and Dematt. Is it my argument or thesis that vitalism is pseudoscientific? No! Is it my argument or thesis that innate or prana is vitalistic? No! There is no original research within these lines at all. They are highly reliable and the show exactly what the majority really is. If you don't like it, then you can either stop reading Wikipedia, or you can stop stifling negative views of chiropractic in favour of editing with all relevant views and clarity in mind. You both have abusively accused me of dishonesty and it seems that abuse will continue as long as I present relevant views. I will be sure to show a very honest view of your biases. KrishnaVindaloo 04:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And the evidence keeps accumulating. (A hint, by way of abductive reasoning: the evidence is not so much in in the world of published electonic resources and library resources, as it is in the verifiable selective presentation of putative evidence by KrishnaVindaloo, and in the  statistical analysis thereof). ... Kenosis 04:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Kenosis. If you would like to back up your claims, please provide a clear explanation of your accusation. If there is any selective editing in those lines, please be explicit so a solution can be found if necessary.  If you find it hard to do so on your own, perhaps you could get some other editors to gang up and help you out. KrishnaVindaloo 05:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Kenosis has not noted anything (in essence) that others have not already noted, the only difference is that he put it in delightfully apropos Menckenian prose. You, KrishnaVindaloo, have attempted for too long to high-jack this page with bogus citations, quote-mining, original research and your own visceral prejudices; but no more.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion and NPOV over deletionism
Please discuss your reversions. I realise it is hard work, but discussion is the solution. Deleting clarifying information from the article is completely unconstructive. There are clearly editors here who are trying to reduce clarity because that clarity involves negative views on their favourite hobbies. The solution involves solving those problems. KrishnaVindaloo 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * KV, please see Verifiability:

How clear can we make it? You repeatedly complaining of "censorship" and "editors trying to reduce clarity" is nonsense. "Williams (2000)" is NOT a cite. It is NOT a "reliable source." Give us a full reference, like this: Otherwise we WILL remove your poorly sourced and non-sourced crap from the article. Puppy has spoken; puppy is DONE. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry KC, you certainly need to be a lot clearer. The link you gave directed me to connects to nothing but nonsense and pornography. If you are not interested in solutions, please don't waste my time with bullshit. Thank you. If you do have some useful information that involves clarifying pseudoscience for the reader using citations (I'll give you a reminder, about half the fucking references and literature were supplied due to work conducted by me alone) then go ahead and break a sweat. KrishnaVindaloo 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? That was an EXAMPLE, the link, as well as the article referenced, are PRETEND. You and I didn't collaborate on an article in Time magazine about "The world according to Kv" and the link is to a list of 404 (file not found) message pages. The point is that if you do NOT provide verifiable cites in a detailed format, instead of "Williams (2000)" which conveys NOTHING, then the crap will be deleted. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Obtuse? Sorry KC, but you get reported along with Kenosis who, like you spends half your rv edits writing disparaging remarks in edit summaries without even attempting discussion. The so called crap you refer to is majority view. If you wish me to provide additional information, then ask. Because deleting without seeking solutions to the problem that gets your goat, will just put you in the same pit as the quasi-religious nutters who have bought into a pseudoscience, who are dissonant as a result, and are bent on turning Wikipedia into a whitewashed soapbox for the realistically challenged.  KrishnaVindaloo 12:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Flagging KillerChihuahua's abusive edit (personal attack) KrishnaVindaloo 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We have ALL been asking for better cites for MONTHS, and you have failed to provide them. Read item 3 in the message box from WP:V above: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. You want this stuff in, you have to provide a reliable source. What are you going to report me for, insisting you abide by WP:V and WP:NOR, two of the three pillars, completely and utterly non-negotiable? I'm guessing a barnstar would be appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No KC. We are not told how we should edit in this respect. We can provide insufficient material if we so wish. How much more information do I need to add to the citations that I have already presented in order to make my contributions permanent?  Its not very much is it? I'm pretty darned close. Some proponents here are just shitting themselves thinking about it.  The gas they feel evolving in their bowels will give rise to many desperate acts of abuse and deletism. No doubt I will be called a pathalogical liar, or some such abusive term at a later date. Most of the edits that I have presented have been accepted. Because they comply with NPOV policy. Some of them have not been accepted even though they comply perfectly. But at least I know who is desperate to remove valid edits. I am looking forward to presenting the facts you demand, on top of the valid facts that have been refused due to the long term censorship problem that afflicts this collection of encyclopedia editors. KrishnaVindaloo 13:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Obtuse and pathalogical liar. KrishnaVindaloo 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Did that post make sense? Was it supposed to? Rephrase, please. It reads like a weird rant. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KrishnaVindaloo's use of words "...valid facts that have been refused due to the long term consorship problem that afflicts this collection of encyclopedia editors" is an interesting approach to complaining about the consensus of how to reasonably apply the principles of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:Reliable_sources and WP:NPOV. ... Kenosis 13:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No I'm not suprised at all that you didn't get it, KC and Kenosis. And of course you put consensus before NPOV policies. Does that feel safer for you? The criteria for inclusion (censorship) that some editors here are using are not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and they are certainly not geared towards clarification of articles. Quite the opposite. I am happy to discuss here. But there are editors who either decide to put the boot in when they feel it suits their own purposes, or they bias themselves over NPOV that it makes their own efforts to discuss quite painful to them. They keep losing the discussion.  They are not realistic or logical. Their demands go way beyond the normal requirements for NPOV. People talk of raising the standards, they are actually just raising restrictiveness. The only reason for that is to remove clarity. This article is for all relevant views. Relevant views are not what some groups of editors want here. They want their own view. I am stuck between editors who want to push PS on theor own favorite nasty, and who want to remove PS on some PS treatments they have sustained in some desperate hour. I have been providing evidence from sources, and others have been deleting them without any kind of constructive thinking. Not only that, but I have suffered personal abuse by them.  What respect or protection to I get from the likes of you? None.  If you are not interested in collaboration with those who are willing to compromise, then join the whackos properly and get on with doing what whackos do. KrishnaVindaloo 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * At the moment, there is only one person here who doesn't "get it", as KrishnaVindaloo says, and that is KrishnaVindaloo. Although consensus can never decide not to follow NPOV, the manner of implementation of NPOV is decided by consensus, not unilaterally by KrishnaVindaloo. ... Kenosis 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) My entire focus has been on sourcing, not npov. Your trolling about "abuse" and "censorship", and bizarre statements like "The gas they feel evolving in their bowels will give rise to many desperate acts of abuse and deletism.", has no bearing on whether you've provided cites. Your attempt at misdirection and your persecution complex ("No doubt I will be called a pathalogical liar, or some such abusive term at a later date.") are irrelevant. Show a cite, discuss on talk, or your additions will be deleted. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A similar point applies here, I think. What KrishnaVindaloo appears to refuse to acknowledge is that WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:NPOV inevitably must be decided by consensus, not by KrishnaVindaloo. That the consensus differs from KrishnaVindaloo's opinions does not make it a conspiracy. ... Kenosis 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeh Kenosis, we get all your consensus based arguments. Unfortunately for you, most of us are individuals. KrishnaVindaloo 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Trolling now is it KC? Obtuse, now trolling!  Do you know how bad that looks for you?  Not ony are you aiding and abetting known fringe pushers, but you are being abusive.  I have long since accepted the fact that Wikipedia is an Anglo U.S. thing, and I'm going to be the cotton picking paki to whip. But would you please have some sensitivity and think about how others see you?  Its looking pretty bad from on high (the average reader). KrishnaVindaloo 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No one cares if you're from Pakistan or anywhere else. That is completely irrelevant. We do care if you troll or fail to provide reliable sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Its looking pretty bad from on high...(followed by an odd justification to cover your gassy bowels)"? Taking our pickled godhood a little too seriously, aren't we.  You seem more to me like an Arjuna who headed off into battle having misunderstood Krishna.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Article revision and NPOV
Is there anything that hasn't been called PS by somebody at some time? I thought of what most unlikely association would test this, say toothpaste+pseudoscience.

Maybe dentistry should be added after all. Or not. This article should represent all significant views about pseudoscience. This is not the same as saying that it should attempt to list every example of the use of the word pseudoscience. There are different views of the concept, between Popper, Feyeraband Bunge etc. and these should all be represented – these arguments expose the difficulties of calling anything “pseudoscience” if the term is implied to have any content rather than being merely derogatory. For the article to list examples of whatever anyone has called pseudoscientific is as daft as the idea that Stupidity should have a list of examples of everything that’s ever been called stupid. So why not just ditch that whole section ("notable commentators"!!!!! according to who exactly?); this would get rid of most of the weak sources. The philosophical views deserve more space and respect, and with more space, there will be fewer of the distortions that inevitably come with paraphrasing. This article should, IMO, not be an excuse for cheap and empty jibes at things we don't like, but a thoughtful account of the concept of pseudoscience itself, and it is clear that we are especially indebted to Kenosis for his considerable efforts to achieve just that.

If anybody wants to discuss views on toothpaste advertising as pseudoscience, please take them to toothpaste.Gleng 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No Gleng, if its PS, then it can be mentioned here, if it is verifiable, and if it helps the reader understand. KrishnaVindaloo 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, toothpaste can be mentioned here, if editors agree; it's an editorial judgement call, not a POV issue. Believing that choices are guided by POV not judgement is a personal attack on the motives of editors. KV's latest insert is poorly founded. The reference (not peer reviewed) is not even about subluxation. The author actually uses examples from his own field (physics) and merely mentions other examples that he believes (without expansion) have similar faults in an aside. I think the section and table should go, as a judgement call. There is an article on the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and this can be added as a "See also" if editors agree with KV that the content is notable.Gleng 14:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, if it complies with NPOV policy any sized army of pseudoscientists can go and screw themselves. Its as simple as that. KrishnaVindaloo 14:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

KV, aren't you supposed to be assuming good faith from other WP editors even though your documented history precludes us from having to assume good faith from you?

Considering your fabricated edits that we have uncovered and spend weeks reverting and cleaning up, you just might want to be a little more gracious in your comments. Just a suggestion. Steth 15:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still looking for the army of pseudoscientists...canon to the left of them, canon to the right of them, on rode the army of pseudoscientists... ROFL.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

EOP 2000:70-71
Who added this reference, can anyone identify what is supposed to be the source here? thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding: the question applies for all the EOP references. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like Williams, Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, to me. --Pjacobi 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, thanks much. That's considered a faulty reference SFAIKT - it has been described as full of errors. Suggest we remove all instances of using this as a ref. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a copy? Is it still in print? --Dematt 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It uses the X-Files as a reference, and does not use or mention CSICOP. Did you want to look something up in it? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding: If you do, Amazon sells it new for $82.50 but you can get a used copy as of this posting for $2.00. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to trust you and Kenosis as long as I know you have the book. But, since so many of our problem areas seem to surround this book, I think I need to get a copy.  I'm going after the $2 version! Is that on amazon as well? --Dematt 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, its used. I'd like to state for the record that I do not currently have a copy of this book, so it is a very good idea for one of us to get the used copy or check in a library. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I got the used one, the shipping was more than the book! Looks like iantresman has us covered though. --Dematt 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Second hand books: www.addall.com/used/ --Iantresman 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. p.70-71 refers to the entry on Cryptozoology. The "problem" with the book, is why we select a handful of subjects from the 2000 listed. If we include, for example, Cryptozoology, we shouldn't we also include other entries such as Antimatter, Big Bang, Black Hole, Carl Sagan and Chastity belts. --Iantresman 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "problem" is the question of whether it is any good as a source at all. I have removed all of the entries in the list which use the EoP as a source. I would support Gleng's suggestion that we remove the entire list. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh hey, just saw you wrote the article on the EoP - good job!! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As with other, more respactable, encyclopedias we can use the EOP to get an overview but for sourcing a Wikipedia article we are required to go to sources given by the other encyclopedia. They give sources in the EOP, do they? --Pjacobi 15:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that they do; and that the sources are often questionable. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience occasionally gives "Further reading" suggestions, but in general, entries (a) do not explain why a subject has been chosen as pseudoscience (b) Does not give references. Consequently it is not clear if an entry is included because it is merely associated with pseudoscience, is considered pseudoscience, or belongs in one of Williams' other criteria for entry (See the Wiki entry for list). The book includes entries for Celery and Chastity belts, Arthur C. Clarke and Dolphins --Iantresman 15:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? How can an encyclopedia not be referenced?  Are you saying that they used the "encyclopedia" term in a "pseudoscientific" manner in an effort to sell a book as something that it is not? --Dematt 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also a selected bibliography at the back of the book, and it's quite possible that if I read all the books, they might mention all the material that is included. But there are no references in the entries, and most entries do not include a recommended reading list, and nor do they indicate which of the contributing editors was responsible for the entry. I also know no other source which lumps pseudoscience with superstition or hoaxes. --Iantresman 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Celery is so pseudoscience. I had some this morning and then realized it was beef jerky! I rushed to brush my teeth, but then my pseudoscientific toothpaste ceased to exist! Levine2112 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now Levine, you know that was just ridiculous. What you needed was an adjustment so you could see that was not celery, then you would never have to use toothpaste again! --Dematt 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ROFLMAO at Levine's entry... thanks, I needed a good laugh. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why is there an article on EOP in WP. Iantresman, do you think it is notable enough? --Dematt 17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was notable enough to become a book, an often-used source in this article, and the subject of some reviews. There are many other books listed on Wikipedia, some of which I would not personally give the time of day. Personally, I don't think the book is that good, but that doesn't necessarily make it non-notable. --Iantresman 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood, let's keep watching it. Thanks for your help! --Dematt 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Its notability may consist in its failure to be what it claims. A case of false advertising, just like Kevin Trudeau's book. One would expect a book with that title to actually make some conclusions, be a presentation of the viewpoint of skeptics and not a platform for apologists, etc.. Too bad, because such a work could have value. There is no point in claiming to have a viewpoint, and then being ambiguous. -- Fyslee 18:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What is this daft discussion about? Trying to change NPOV policy again? We have already established that the book is written by notable and reliable people.  Your problem solving skills seem to involve a broom and a carpet. Its really a very dumb way of doing things.  The book is full of explicit statements that such and such is pseudoscientific. And it agrees with a lot of what is written in the hatebox already. So what are you all trying to do about making the article at least halfway accessible to the reader? No matter what you do with that stupid laundry list, you still seem to end up with a load of accusations.  You removed all the conceptual grouping that was being set up, and now its back to an alphabetical list.  How to organize pseudosciences from a-z. Utterly stupid! No value at all for any reader.   KrishnaVindaloo 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, assuming you are referring to the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, can you find me a couple "of explicit statements that such and such is pseudoscientific" in any of the entries beginning with the letter "K"? Any entries? --Iantresman 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience an alphabetical list of pseudosciences? Levine2112 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "hatebox"???? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Chiro ref
The reference given, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=83419614&oldid=83411556, did not even mention Chiropractic or subluxation. I have removed the ref and the entry it supposedly supported. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW: Would you consider http://www.ncahf.net/index.html to be valid source? --Pjacobi 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They're not very large, lost their Calif. legal status, and are MIA in Mass. at current time. It seems to me that we could find something more reputable to verify information. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think NCAHF or Quackwatch make very good references. The arguments made there are wholly opinions, rarely based on all the evidence out there, and have been shown to be most innaccurate and biased at times. In general, avoid these sites for reliable sources of what is and what isn't considered to be a pseudoscience. Levine2112 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The articles are nearly always referenced and can provide good sources that can be used. As sources of opinion -- and Wikipedia is about presenting existing opinions -- the articles themselves can often be used. It depends on the situation. -- Fyslee 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Next try: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208927 --Pjacobi 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PubMed is outstanding. Always acceptable as a source in my estimation. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A word of clarification: I didn't object to quackwatch being used as a source; the problem was that KV used it to supposedly source Subluxation in chiropractic, and the article he linked did not even mention either. Its not that it was a bad source; it is that it was not a source for that at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It did mention it, but Coaker was acknowledging that he was a Phd in physics and was suggesting healthcare as having similar problems. He doesn't cite references for his list of noted subjects, though obviously that was not the emphasis of this paper. --Dematt 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PubMed is a resource, not a source. It gives access to MEDLINE publications, many of which are written by MD's. Its publications can be excellent references on medical topics, but not necessarily on pseudoscience when it comes to business competitors in the medical industry. The American Medical Association has very substantial financial interests at stake, as do MD's as a group, in reducing or eliminating chiropractic's positioning in the health care marketplace. ... Kenosis 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Competitors or not, since Wikipedia is about presenting POV, and labeling it as such (and by whom), then such references can be perfectly acceptable if properly labeled. Wikipedia is about presenting all sides of a subject, with nothing being swept under the carpet. This is no place for political correctness. -- Fyslee 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Fyslee. This ain't about political correctess by any stretch.  It's about how to present both sides rather than just throwing chiropractic in willy-nilly without a consensused, balanced, verified, properly sourced explanation of what the issues are. Published material by a business competitor with a major financial stake and a history of trying to destroy chiropractic (as documented and ruled by the federal court in the US) affects our determinations of what constitutes a reliable source when we find instances of MDs calling chiropractic pseudoscientific.  ... Kenosis 18:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you look into this paper? It is open content. For a non-Northamerican outsiders like me it looks like a battel between chiropractors. And of course, we can state possible conflict of interest. But paranoia over conflict of interest doesn't serve an encyclopedia. After all, isn't it only a conflict of iinterest that make neutrino physicists deny Autodynamics its recognition? Etc, etc. You can construct conflict of interest everywhere. --Pjacobi 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just state who is saying it. It's their opinion, and if properly sourced it's okay. -- Fyslee 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. There is an internal battle among chiropractors, even as the empirical research progresses.  And, there's a competitive battle waged by the AMA, which is under federal court settlement agreement not to attempt to destroy chiropractic any more.  Still, we find the occasional mention of chiro in a derogatory way in literature by MD's, and also by others.  Yet,  the fact that chiropractic has progessed in doing empirical research and in its theory development causes it to not clearly meet Thagard's threshold test for pseudoscience, which is lack of progress on its theories. Additionally, the largest, or one of the largest, studies of chiropractic, the "Workman's Compensation Board" study entered into evidence at the anti-trust trial against the AMA, showed major benefits in return-to-work rate for those treated by chiropractors-- twice as effective as MD's for comparable injuries at every level of injury severity. As I advocated in earlier discussion, a brief discussion of chiropractic, if it's to be included, should include all the relevant views, synopsized in a balanced fashion per WP:NPOV. This would be a far more sensible approach than throwing in chiropractic as a poster child for pseudoscience, because plainly it's not a clear-cut case as some have argued. ... Kenosis 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your understanding of the Wilk v. American Medical Association case isn't quite true. The boycott was illegal, and organized boycotts aren't allowed. Otherwise doctors and other healthcare professionals still have a professional and moral obligation to attempt to educate and protect their patients from dangerous, deceptive, and false ideas. The AMA simply had not exhausted those options, which is what the judge said. Those options are still available and being used quite legally, and rightly so. Scams, deceptions, false advertising, weird and unscientific ideas, etc. are all fair game, no matter the individual or profession that is involved in them. Chiropractic is far from the only target. -- Fyslee 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned before on this talk page, physicians have a right to make assertions in writing as to efficacy. Problem is the evidence of chiropractic's effectiveness presented at the Wilk trial showing return-to-work statistics that were vastly superior to that of injured workers treated by MDs at every level of injury severity (can't cite you the classes of injuries at the moment).  But, of course MDs retain the right under the First Amendment to comment in keeping with the Supreme Court's time, place and manner criteria for free speech.  What the judge was saying is that the AMA must argue the issues on the merits.  Calling chiropractic pseudoscientific hardly settles the question for us as to WP. Taking the sources we've reviewed as a whole, the issue appears quite debatable and chiropractic appears to be a mixture of older concepts without adequately specific operational definitions, and therapies that are increasingly well studied and shown to have benefit for the clients.  Thus, both sides of this "coin" must be presented if chiropractic is to be discussed in this article on WP. ... Kenosis 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The AMA had engaged in covering up research that showed the benefits of chiropractic. While there was concern for patients, the judge felt that the motivation behind the AMA's illegal conspiracy was also driven by fear of competition and financial concerns. Need there be more said? That the AMA is not allowed to do this as an organization anymore is a nice win for chiropractic. Individually, we see medical doctors working along side chiropractors more and more. Medical doctors and chiropractic doctors both have an ethical responsibility to recommend what is best for the patient. I've seen massive amounts of referrals going both ways. Bottomline, chiropractic is as poor as an example of what constitutes a pseudoscience as say immunology; both have large amounts of advocates and critics engaged in professional competition all pointing their fingers at the other. Let's stick to the obvious, hardly contentious ones here folks. Levine2112 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will spell it out more clearly. He's a prof, and he states extremely clearly that "similar beliefs and behavior are associated with iridology, medical astrology, meridian therapy, reflexology, subluxation-based chiropractic, therapeutic touch, and other health-related pseudosciences."  He is calling subluxation based chiropractic a pseudoscience. A view exists that chiropractic is PS when used in this way.  Its very clear.  It doesn't matter if some moneygrabbing US court says there is a battle, chiro is illegal in some other countries, and it is based on voodoo. It is a perfect example of a pseudoscientific subject, and useful nuance lies therein. KrishnaVindaloo 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that same Keating article is used in the vertebral subluxation article and presented in a NPOV manner the way it should be. It was dealt with on a chiropractic article with cooperation and civility because it was the proper place and time to present it. This Pseudoscience article is not about chiropractic, it is about pseudoscience. If chiropractors debate the PS factors of subluxation, that is good - it leads to growth; but it does not mean that the field is pseudoscience and belongs as an example of pseudoscience when biomedicine sources are just as problematic. None of us would be having this discussion if it weren't a matter of POV pushing. --Dematt 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Whole-heartedly. Levine2112 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Along those same lines, if psychologists decide to have a dialoque about pseudoscientific characteristics of their profession, that does not mean that they are pseudoscientists either. It just means that they may be barking up the wrong tree and need to make some adjustments with their collective thinking. If MDs decide that maybe it is time to stop advocating antibiotics for childhood ear infections, that does not mean that we need to be discussing that as pseudoscientific behavior. Let them live and work within their respective fields toward developing their science they way their science points them. If Physicists disagree with each other about quantum theories, bless them, keep up the skepticism. We don't need to be calling them pseudoscientists here on WP. That would only make us pseudoscientists or pseudoskeptics as well. Let them hash it out on their article pages. --Dematt 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, he's a reliable source and he says subluxation based chiro is PS. Why does he say this? Well, its pretty common for people to come to that conclusion after the vitalistic theory, the unsupported nature of the theory, and its application to everything from beating the slot machines to curing homosexuality. I will add more info to it in good time. KrishnaVindaloo 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is the "he" you are referring to here, KV? Levine2112 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance and sources
It seems to me that there are two approaches possible 1) eliminate the list and take the view that this article is reporting the arguments about whether it is a) possible and b) useful to "define" science in any rigorous or consistent way.

2) also report the fact that even if "pseudoscience" is an empty rhetorical term, it is still used occasionally in the scientific literature, and report that systematically. On PubMed, "pseudoscience" as a keyword calls up just 10 review articles in English; their titles are: the tenth is on advertising of creams and supplements.
 * Twin studies in psychiatry and psychology: science or pseudoscience
 * Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: implications for clinical psychology.
 * Motivation, cognition and pseudoscience
 * Subsidising Australian pseudoscience: is iridology complementary medicine or witch doctoring?
 * Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics.
 * Pathophysiology and treatment of intervertebral disk disease
 * Frontal lobology--psychiatry's new pseudoscience.
 * Animals in the research laboratory: science or pseudoscience?
 * Misuses of biology in the context of the paranormal.

OK, these are the "best" sources, objectively found - if there's a list these have to be in it surely... I really don't see the worth of such a list, but if you want to compile one, just do it objectively, that's all. My vote is ditch it, there's already a "List" article, just refer to that.Gleng 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * TBH, I never liked that list. But after having grown to unweildy proportions earlier this year, it's been reasonably brief in recent months and has gotten better sourced. At a minimum, I think we should continue to keep it relatively brief for the present, using only clear-cut examples of pseudoscience with best-possible sourcing.
 * Where legitimate controversy plainly exists such that there is no consensus among the reliable sources, I would support consideration of a section wherein some of the most notable controversies can be briefly presented. Chiropractic, which has proven controversial on this talk page, might be a good start, as it's a good opportunity to present both sides of a debatable case.  I'd be willing to try an experiment such as that, if, and only if, there were adequate support for it among the editors.  Of course if such an experiment fails badly or gets to be too much to maintain, it can readily be removed, split off as a topic fork, or whatever the editors collectively deem to be appropriate.  Offhand, I have no idea what to call such a section. ... Kenosis 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd move to delete the section outright as proposed or to keep paired down the best, most obvious, hardly controversial, rarely contested fields. Levine2112 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing you can do Levine2112. If there is a reliable source stating that your hobby is PS, then it can be posted onto the article. There is nothing you can do about it. KrishnaVindaloo 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure this is something I can do about it. That's what this discussion page is all about. So far, however, you have yet to give us a reliable source; nor have you demonstrated that you grasp the ability to cite a source properly. Levine2112 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Levine2112, I'm sorry if what I said makes you feel insecure. The ref and lit sections of the article are chockablock with stuff that I added when I came here a few months back. Of course I'll not get any recognition for that from you as long as I present facts that you want to stifle. Judging by the majority of information that I have added, you probably have every reason to feel insecure after all. KrishnaVindaloo 20:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KrishnaVindaloo, it seems that you are hell-bent on antagonizing me. I don't know why. If I have done something that personally offends you, I do apologize. I am truly sorry that you don't feel adequately recognized for your contributions to this article thus far. That can sometimes go with the territory of collaborative work. Don't feel unappreciated and don't feel insecure. From my own personal experience, I can relate that my work hasn't been entirely thankless; sometimes just the opposite. And working well with others is sometimes all the thanks I need. Keep at it. Keep improving and becoming a better editor. And hopefully someday you'll feel at least the same level of security I do working here. Levine2112 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, supply us with that list of pseudoscientific chiro treatments then. So far the only one I have reliable refs for is the chiro homosexuality cure. KrishnaVindaloo 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what list you are talking about here. If it helps you may want to look over these sources which cite hundreds of pieces of scientific research supporting chiropractic efficacy for a variety of conditions. I don't see anything in there about "curing" homosexuality. (You may want to note that philosophically, chiropractic reserves the word "cure" in relation to the body's healing processes. To my understanding, a chiropractor in general would not say that a drug cured someone or that an adjustment cured someone or that a certain diet cured someone. Only the body cures. And a well-functioning body cures itself better than a poorly functioning one. And on a personal note, I don't believe that homosexuality is something that can or ought to be "cured".) Levine2112 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (ri) Ditto.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology
ScienceApologist, I don't think that your description matches the quotes: I would think that quoting one of the most well-known cosmologist's (Stephen Hawking), and the fairly well-known Herbert Dingle, together with links to full quotes, sums up the issue well. --Iantresman 18:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To call "pseudoscience" a carefully chosen "descriptor" I think is over-egging the pudding.
 * I don't think Hawkings or Dingle were describing varying degrees of rigor, and does not describe "wild speculation"
 * To suggest that cosmology was "criticized for having pseudoscientific aspects" does not match Dingle's "disliked [of] cosmological principles of any kind"


 * What I most dislike about this entry, is the attempt to pull in more weight by calling Hawking as witness. A single scientist, not even a very brilliant one, has a decisive power. But as I've said somewhere before, Cosmolofy was once considered not be a proper science, but belonging to the sphere of philosophy and theology by a large proportion of scientists. This state has changed long ago. So the most needed improvement of the sentence above would be, why and when. But see below. --Pjacobi 20:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We can use Popper and Khun and reliable sources, but Hawking contravenes that well-known Wiki policy of "Much too reliable a source" --Iantresman 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ian is in some dire need of education. Stephen Hawking (no "s") definitely was describing varying degrees of rigor when using the descriptor "pseudoscience". If Ian bothered to read the book, he may have noted this. More than that, Hawking really isn't a "cosmologist" per se, he is more of a general relativistic theorist. He's certainly qualified to discuss cosmology, but calling him a cosmologist does disservice to his broader inquiries. Dingle definitely disliked cosmological principles, but equivocating these with cosmology itself is poor form even for Ian. I removed third-party reference to him because he is something of a fringe character anyway and it was a quote that was of dubious relevance due to Ian's misunderstanding of what cosmological principles mean. Leaving in bald quotes in this section is particularly bald form as the quotes were ripped out-of-context for very particular reasons and didn't explain cosmology's current status. The current incarnation of the article is much better. --ScienceApologist 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * More condescending replies, and more knocking of a scientist as "fringe". My understanding of cosmological principles has nothing to do with Dingle's description of them as "the main cause of why cosmology had degraded into a state of pseudoscience" --Iantresman 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The opinion of dead Mr. Dingle doesn't belong in this article because it cannot adequately be contextualized in the historical development of cosmology -- minor and inconsequential arguments by increasingly fringe scientists do not belong in describing the development of a scientific consensus topic such as cosmology. --ScienceApologist 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about "the development of a scientific consensus", it's a section about subjects once considered pseudoscience, and considered worthy by science historian, and contextualised in full by the citation. --Iantresman 23:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any example you choose needs context. The science historian was not writing an article about "subjects once considered psuedoscience", so using the science historian's research requires putting it in its proper context. Which is, of course, a historical biography of Dingle. By failing to acknowledge this, you are not providing adequate context. A single quote doesn't cut it. It's called quote mining and it's very poor form. --ScienceApologist 23:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)I'm not sure I follow the reasons why the cites regarding cosmology are not relevant. Cosmology was considered a pseudoscience as were a number of other aspects of physics and astrophysics. Is there a reason to deny that cosmology and the big bang were once considered pseudoscience? Hell, Einstein treated quantum mechanics as if it were pseudoscience. Is there a fear that using the examples of cosmology and the big bang might indicte that there is a chance, however slim, that some of the items listed in the article might be "redeemed", as it were? Skepticism is very a healthy discipline overlooked by the masses, but in excess it can be as poisonous as ingesting a single representative of the species Amanita phalloides.
 * (PS, I've read SA's reply, and I fail to see how that is relevant to the quote from Hawking) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The cites are relevant but need context. If you read the current prose regarding cosmology you'll see it roughly follows your understanding of the subject. In the past, the article was editted to suggest either by omission or directly that there were those notable visionaries who considered cosmology to still be a pseudoscience. This is a hidden agenda of one author in particular (Ian Tresman) who replaces careful research of history with quote mining and abstract searches in order to attempt to marginalize the mainstream. There is an Arbitration of this behavior even as we speak. What we currently do in the article is point out that scientists do use "pseudoscience" as a rather cavalier criticism of each other's mainstream ideas. This was certainly done in the case of cosmology and is still done today in the case of string theory. However, this use of "pseudoscience" is different from the criticisms leveled against astrology, creationism, phrenology, magnetic therapy, or Immanuel Velikovsky. Those subjects are pseudoscientific in a consensus way that represents a very different sort of critique than the one leveled against the mainstream inquiries discussed. --ScienceApologist 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Context is fine, in fact beneficial. If you know what the context should be you can always add it.  Yes, yes, Ian as the person making the assertion should provide the context, but one of us can do so just as easily.  The point is to create a valid article (no matter how difficult that has become), not to engage in pissing matches over items we know are fundamentally correct but misrepresented.  What needs to be done to make the fact that cosmology was (and by a few, well, "misguided folk", still is) considered pseudoscience an NPOV entry?  Or, would it be best to follow the Puppy's advice and ditch the section altogether?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, for completism, nothing can beat List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'd agree with KC on ditching the article's list of stuff currently regarded as PS and just linking to the aforesaid list.  For stuff that was regarded as PS, SciApol makes a good point regarding parallelism, and perhaps it would be best to ditch that list and replace it with a few para's offering context and V RS's.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't often disagree with ScienceApologist. Here, however, it seems to me that cosmology is a classic example of a field formerly regarded as psuedoscience where, as Hawking put it, "wild speculation was unconstrained by any possible observations". Since the 1960s cosmology has matured and indeed been widely, and I think properly, characterized as having entered a "golden age". Observations are now possible, to the degree that even the big bang gets increasingly narrowed down to an increasingly specific time frame (currently 12-15 billion years, or even much more specific if one goes by the Penrose/Hawking/MAPI calculations, 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years), and increasingly developed measurements will continue to become possible in order to further test these calculations. Like biological evolution, much of cosmology depends on coherence of calculations based upon observations that are independently verifiable and quite testable. It's become a science in its own right and is widely agreed by scientists to be a bona fide science, indeed to the envy of many scientists in other fields. I don't see a problem with its inclusion in the section on fields that previously were regarded as pseudoscience, even with the sources already offered. Consistently with Jim Butler's preference expressed just above, the section on fields previously regarded as pseudoscience already exists as a section offering context and V RS's. Having noted this, maybe it's time to begin a similar section on fields currently regarded as pseudoscience using a similar approach of explaining rather than just presenting a list? It'd be an interesting experiment, and if it turns out to be at all successful, such a section could end up being more valuable than that [currently removed] list has been. I suppose time and effort will disclose the answer to this possibility in due course. ... Kenosis 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Its all pretty much contingent on the behaviour of the group of proponent editors who seem to have interpreted NPOV to suite their own personal agendas. The only trouble with the proposed section is that it will be too helpful to the reader, too clear, and thus, too painful for proponents to face. The solution is to present the information, hope it doesn't get reverted too much, hope the proponents don't tantrum too destructively, and restore the painfully realistic facts when the proponents have been locked up. KrishnaVindaloo 05:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The one thing I can't figure, is that there are at least three editors here who are inherently (yet heathfully) skeptical, and they don't see any real POV pushing except on the part of one KrishnaVindaloo. Y'know, KV, skepticism is a valuable tool when used properly, in an "I question, I research, I learn" model; but harmful when it becomes, "I deny, it's hogwash (or, you're an idiot), I know everything".  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fields and concepts currently regarded as pseudoscience by notable commentators
NB, this information is pretty well supported. It just needs to be placed in a format that helps the reader understand this overly abstract article. Feel free to comment and suggest. KrishnaVindaloo 06:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The following are some of the many fields and theories that are (or were) presented as scientific, but which have been accused of being "pseudoscientific" in whole or in part. See the individual articles and references for more information.

The Source of All Evil
Is the section "Fields and concepts currently regarded as pseudoscience by notable commentators" itself. I'd strongly recommended dropping the project to put an exhaustive list in this article. The pseudoscience-ness of topics can be discussed and presented in greater detail in their own articles.

Some important examples should stay here.

Pjacobi 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well there is an opposite and alternative way of doing things. There was a long list of PS subjects a while back, but it was paired down a lot and some said it was unmanagable and some complained it was nonsense because it has cosmology etc in there. Of course there was nothing unmanagable about it at all. It just didn't suit some proponents, and it took the thunder out of some folk's accusation at intelligent design etc being PS.  The bottom line is, there is nothing you can do about NPOV policy.  Its all useful stuff. It just depends on how you organize it, and how you deal with idiots who buy into pseudoscience and can't countenance negative facts.  KrishnaVindaloo 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pjacobi. Otherwise we should drop the list entirely. The debate over this list has carried on for at least a year now and I fear it shall never end if we stay on this track. Levine2112 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead, cut away, it doesn't make any difference, you can't stop people writing NPOVly about specific pseudoscientific subjects in other parts of the article. KrishnaVindaloo 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pjacobe and Levine2112 above. Use the "keep it simple" technique. --Dematt 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is twofold (1) the inconsistent application of references to subjects once considered pseudoscience, and those subject considered to be still pseudoscience (2) Lack of context and explanation.
 * Some editors are happy to add subjects based on weak sources (eg. EOP), and not happy to include others subjects based on very reliable sources (eg. Hawking).
 * We say next to nothing on why these subjects were included. This is easy to understand where EOP is the source (he doesn't say so!), and for example, both references to Morphic Resonance doesn't say either! --Iantresman 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would strongly support ditching the list. If a brief list of examples were to be kept, then perhaps one example from each of three fields, strongly supported here on the talk page, and well referenced. No ambiguous or disputed examples, as they only muddy the water, not provide clarity. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, the few examples we present in the article should be most illustrative and diverse. It doesn't matter much, whether there exists consensus over their status as pseudoscience as long as attribute the POVs. For the same reasons, I'd prefer the present the examples under one heading (not splitting off once considered as, because there may exist no consensus about that point). Just my brainstorming list: Pjacobi 09:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Psychoanalysis, due to Popper himself presenting it initially as prototype of pseudoscience, and due to its struggle to gain acceptance as sciend
 * Homoeopathy, as an "established" field of alternative medicine (many competitors there)
 * Dianetics, for the "cult"-related incarnations
 * Plate tectonics for the now-mainstream fields (yeah, yeah, there is some interest to use cosmology as example, but that case is much more difficult and diverse and would IMHO go over the limits of a concise presentation here)
 * String theory, as an example for contempary accusations of pseudoscience-ness against (near) consensus of the scientific community.


 * I could certainly agree to that. As for cosmology v plate-techtonics, I assume your reticence to include somology cosmology is because it is much broader in scope, taking in a number of theories?  If so, I can certainly understand that as well.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Include is the operative word here. The way to include is to consider NPOV policy first. So basically anything that helps explain and make concrete the abstract ideas in the article will be fine. We can brainstorm our own lists all day, and of course some will be restrictive, so I say keep it open. KrishnaVindaloo 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed re NPOV...you should read the policy sometime though.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How the PS term is applied
Hi all, I added this line to the opening in order to show some nuance from the theory section

"The term, pseudoscience, is applied to whole fields, to concepts within those fields, and to concepts and activities within generally accepted fields."

I am encouraging discussion on this here, and am open to suggestion. Deleting the whole fucking line without discussion or suggestions will be seen as unconstructive. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 06:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC) (ps, I'm referring to Kenosis' and KillerChihuahua's bad habits mostly)


 * First, the punctuation in the sentence is incorrect. Second, that definition is too broad.  Third, "the whole fucking line" was deleted as not being suitable (and those evildoers Kenosis and KillerChihuahua had naught to do with it).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, pretty predictable stuff! KrishnaVindaloo 13:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, aside from the fact that your prognostication named the wrong "antagonists", or, as I like to think of them, protagonists... Your edit was shit.  It got flushed.  Deal with it.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet more predictably banality from someone who doesn't like me editing here for their own personal reasons. KrishnaVindaloo 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack from KV.Gleng 09:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And yet, in so attacking, KV misses a key point -- I don't care if he edits here, so long as he edits in a non-disruptive manner, provides proper sources, lives by WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, and gives up on his conspiracy/persecution bit. Alas, that is too difficult it seems, and that is rather a shame.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So what's this Jim62sch? . Its me presenting something with substance. I adjusted Gleng's POV pushing rant in order to make the opening more solid and representative of the article, and Jim Butler, another one of your mates, deleted it in favour of Gleng's rant.  Your "consensus with minority pushers approach" does not trump NPOV policy. KrishnaVindaloo 10:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jim Butler and I had lunch today, a nice spicy lamb vindaloo (they had no krishna).
 * Back to reality: your citation might be alright, if it actually addressed what you used it for. Essentially, you engaged in OR and synthesized information (or misinformation).  Also, assuming you're refering to Brainscams, an article that is linked in the literature section, this citation is wrong: Beyerstein (1991:30).  It was written in 1990 (and, as I said above, page 30 hasn't shit to do with what you asserted it did).  You must think that no one but the Great Krishna is capable of reading.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The hazards of working from memory! What was your point about eating vindaloo? If there is something wrong with an edit, the sensible action is to do something about it. It seems the usual groupthink response here is to find a minor niggle and revert all of any edit. And it doesn't only happen to my edits. I will add this to the report. KrishnaVindaloo 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Report away (although the way you misuse cites, I've no doubt that your report will be as representative of reality as your average reality show).
 * You see groupthink, I see paranoia and a persecution complex. It's all relative I suppose.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you want to doublecheck that with Bishonen again Jim62sch? KrishnaVindaloo 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * She too is entitled to an opinion, no matter how cursory a look she gave to the whole issue, although referencing her opinion in this case is irrelevant to the topic at hand. As for your second ref, I note that you were rather selective re explaining the reasoning and the rest of the story, again, hardly related to the topic at hand.  Seems this is pretty much in keeping with your history of providing highly questionable citations and your predilection for quote mining.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring offensive rubbish
There seems to me a wide if not universal agreement that the list is not a good idea, but many still think that some examples might be interesting/helpful/ I've revised the lead to include the following "The term pseudoscience or pseudoscientific is sometimes applied by disputants working in the same field to disparage a competing theory or the form of argument used by a rival, sometimes by commentators from outside a field to disparage a whole field, sometimes merely to characterise the fact that a theory publishe in a popular book has no academic credibility whatsoever, and sometimes in reference to a theory now discarded." I suggest that this lead provides a possible context for selected examples at the end of the article, and would suggest choosing one clear and uncontentious example of each, writing in a way that discusses what is meant by PS in each case and the difficulties of attaching a coherent meaning to it. e,g, - disputes within a field - I think the most notable example with very extensive V RS support is the dispute within psychology relating to Freud's theories - this was one of Popper's examples. Essentially this is an argument within a field about the appropriate "level" of explanation. Actually I think this will be very hard to write about in a balanced way but it could be mentioned as having been Popper's example and then just refer the reader to the articles - disparage a competing theory - ID vs Darwinism? the accusation flies in both directions - again can mention and refer to the article - to disparage a whole field - astrology was Popper's paradigm example and subsequent commentators (Bunge etc) have analysed his case in detail. We don't have to disparage astrology, simply analyse the criteria used - popular book - non Daniken - discarded- phrenology (discuss issue of ahistorical fallacy?)

??? Comments?Gleng 08:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PJacobi had some good thoughts on this in the source of all evil section. (BTW -- I added breaks to your post above to clear up the formatting, hope you don't mind).   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a related comment towards the end of the "cosmology" section above, to the effect that I'm not opposed to trying such a section on an experimental basis. ... Kenosis 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gleng the whole line you wrote is pretty predictable according to your particular POV. Stating the manner in which it is used (both descriptively and disparagingly) is fine, though your lines look like a rant. The elements we need to take into account are, whether PS is applied to fields, concepts and concepts within fields. I believe there are more definitions that focus on concepts and theories rather than fields. After all, physics is a field, and it is only really some concepts that are or were considered PS. So mention disparaging use, but also the main work of the article is about theories and concepts or misconceptions. I will leave it up to others to balance the section. KrishnaVindaloo 13:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminder, attributing edits to the POV of the editor is a personal attack.Gleng 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reminder to Gleng. I was referring to your edit. I understand personal attack very well as I have been the recipient due to my staunch insistence on NPOV policy. Thats the straight truth. Or do you wish to call me dishonest again? And would you like to have all your chiro friends stand up and chuck stones at me while you do it? KrishnaVindaloo 17:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I stated earlier in Latin: get off the cross, we need the wood.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Theories and concepts and activities within fields
OK, I know I've said it before, but it is something that people have been skirting around for months without even attempting discussion. Theorists call subjects PS, and they explain why they are PS. They generally say, for example, astrology is pseudoscientific because its - theory - is untestable. Or chiropractic is pseudoscientific because its proponents adhere to its vitalistic theories despite the fact it has failed in empirical testing. So to include a field, it is probably a good idea to add the explanation for why it is considered PS by referring to its theories or the activities of proponents. It would be a good idea to be organized about this, and possibly to use sections. We can have sections on pseudoscientific notions, such as a section on intelligent design or teleological pseudoscience which has implications to certain fields. We can add a section on vitalism which is used pseudoscientifically in a great number of alternative medicine activities. And so on. It is the concepts that organize the fields, not the other way around. Top-down approach will lead to a more concise, organized, and intelligent article. KrishnaVindaloo 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For your own knowledge, here are portals to literally hundreds of pieces of empirical scientific research in which chiropractic has not failed. Levine2112 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OR is unacceptable, Levine2112. We can only go by the view of reviewers. Sorry, but a lot of them say that chiropractic is fairly pathetic, and a bit of a warm up and stretch will do a better job, for free! KrishnaVindaloo 17:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What OR? I am not putting this in the article. This is here for your knowledge (and anyone else who is interested). I figured that you would be interested in seeing literally hundreds of pieces of research, all of which provide empirical evidence which supports the efficacy of chiropractic for a variety of conditions. Certainly I know there are "reviewers" out there who deny or write-off this research. I just want to make sure that you are aware of it. Levine2112 17:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly aware of expert opinion, Levine2112. And I know how it fits into the majority view. KrishnaVindaloo 18:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. It's good to know that you are aware of all this research and all of the empirical evidence supporting chiropractic. A lot of dissenters seem to turn a blind eye to this (as did the AMA before the Wilk case) and say such fallacies as chiropractic fails empirical testing or there is no scientific evidence supporting many of chiropractic claims. Clearly, you and I both know that the oppositie is true. There is plenty of scientific research and empirical testing which in fact supports chiropractic. Federal funding for chiropractic research in the United States is a very recent thing and it is amazing to see how much evidence even the smallest amount of funding has brought forth in support chiropractic. Levine2112 19:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so how to you reconcile the fact that the whole theory of chiro is pseudoscience? Pseudoscience is about theory more than anything else. So what do you say about that?  The minor supporting evidence is completely outweighed by the fact that chiropractors spend their time learning about qi flows, and vitamine fads, and reiki, and shamanistic touch, and divert their efforts away from critical thought whenever things get to realistic for them. So yes, lets look closely at the amazing anecdotes of believers.  How about taking a browse of chiropractic websites for a start! Look at the kind of PS they are peddling. Do you have an answer to that? KrishnaVindaloo 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My answer is that I have never heard of qi flows, vitamine fads, reiki nor shamanistic touch mentioned in any chiropractic office or classroom which I have ever been in. Chiropractors follow a standard routine to secure the information they need for diagnosis and treatment. They take the patient’s medical history; conduct physical, neurological, and orthopedic examinations; and may order laboratory tests. X rays and other diagnostic images are important tools because of the chiropractor’s emphasis on the spine and its proper function. Chiropractors also employ a postural and spinal analysis common to chiropractic diagnosis. The chiropractic approach to health care is holistic, stressing the patient’s overall health and wellness. It recognizes that many factors affect health, including exercise, diet, rest, environment, and heredity. Chiropractors provide natural, drugless, nonsurgical health treatments and rely on the body’s inherent recuperative abilities. They also recommend changes in lifestyle—in eating, exercise, and sleeping habits, for example—to their patients. When appropriate, chiropractors consult with and refer patients to other health practitioners. I really don't know of any other health profession which applies more critical thinking. As for peddling PS or BS or whatever we may want to call it, I'm sure there are some chiropractors who are guilty of this, just as there are some MDs, DOs, etc., who are also guilty of this. You can't hold an entire profession accountable for the acts of so few. Levine2112 16:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you also hear that chiropractors expose their victims to far more xrays than normal radiologists will allow? Comments? KrishnaVindaloo 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So I don't understand... You think chiropractic is a pseudoscience because you feel they take too many x-rays? They are too diagnostic? You do realize that chiropractic pioneered the use of x-rays for diagnostic-based healthcare. In other words, they were the first healthcare profession to embrace the use of x-rays and are responsible for developing many of the diagnostic techniques radiologists use today. Regardless, what basis does this conversation have here? Levine2112 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) "Did you also hear ..."???? What the fuck? Has this page become a gossip column or the Krishnal Enquirer? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Er... profanity aside, KV's point seems unfounded. A single CAT scan, for instance, will expose a person to the equivalent of many dozens or hundreds of plain X-rays... so by that rationale, MD's radiate their pts a lot more than chiros (assuming chiros aren't using CT's these days? Anyone?) From my perspective as an allopathic MD, chiropractic is established as a reasonable, empirically validated treatment for certain conditions (eg as effective as allopathic care for lower back pain). I've referred pts to chiros on occasion, if they're interested and there's data to back it up. There is a crazy fringe (anti-vaccine, believe chiro can cure the flu or HIV, etc), but as a field it seems a little inappropriate to label modern chiro a pseudoscience. Just my 2 cents. MastCell 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * MastCell, you'd need to understand the dynamic of the page to understand the "profanity". To quote from a movie favourite, "I don't swear for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. We've got to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words anybody understands." Anyway, your point re CT scans is excellent. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello MastCell. The point that you are all missing here is that it is a view of a reputable source (a professor with expertise in the area of nerves). And of course there are other sources that state the view. Its not my view at all. I know hardly anything about Xrays.  I don't need to know a thing about them, except that chiropractors often use too many, and don't use certified xray professonals. According to the literature, they also often request their patients to repeat visit, thereby earning extra bucks. Not my research!  Other views. Other relevant views.  Editors should not be dismissive of relevant views.  This is all important information in the study of pseudoscience, because it is exactly how pseudoscientists behave (ie, the cult of chiropractic with all its pseudoscientific theory and behaviour). It illustrates the behaviour of pseudoscientists very clearly, and the reader benefits. KrishnaVindaloo 14:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So chiros advocate back-alley X-rays? Besides, a professor with expertise in neurology is hardly a radiological expert is he? What are the other sources -- a race car driver, a chef and a proctologist?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim62sch, your dismissive tone has been noted. KrishnaVindaloo 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I assure you I feel quite honoured to be notable.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

First part of "Identifying pseudoscience" section
This most recent version of the following sentence requires some discussion, in my opinion: I'm wondering if the field needs to be presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research to be reasonably called pseudoscientific. Some advocates of clear cases of pseudoscience such as intelligent design, seek instead to call it science or scientific, while advocating instead that the definition of science should be expanded or changed to include their methods (or lack thereof). Alternately, such advocates of a particular theory of field may merely refer to it as "science" or "scientific" without any real thought or knowledge of scientific method, or without an adequate understanding of how scientific method might reasonably be conducted. ... Kenosis 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably called pseudoscience or 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.  "


 * I would be interested in reviewing the most reliable and verifiable source possible on this question before I would be comfortable adding my opinion. What do the philosophers of science use as criteria.  Our references that are verifiable are the skeptic dictionary and Williams.  No offense to either of these works, but if we're going to get this right, we should be using the very best.  Is there any other source we can all agree on? --Dematt 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't consider Williams a reliable source. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CSICOP? Scientific American? Astronomical Society of the Pacific has some stuff on Astronomy related ps, The Archaeological Institute of America has Seductions of Pseudoarchaeology: Pseudoscience in Cyberspace... Both have some commentary on the nature of pseudoscience in general. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And to address Kenosis' original question, yes we should use accepted norms of scientific research. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that good points have been raised on this page. Killer's suggestion points to a well sourced example of how the norms within an area can be used to distinguish good science from bad, and deserves inclusion. I think Kenosis' point is right too, that philosophers have exposed the difficulties of trying to use a single set of criteria to judge diverse areas of science, but that does not mean that within a field, practioners don't feel that they can tell the difference between good science and bad; clearly they do feel they can, even if many don't use the term PS to characterise those differences. I also think that SA's account reflecting on the sometimes historically transient denigration of a new idea is a goood example of something extensively described by Kuhn.

The reference that I added (McNally)is one that KV has earlier described as excellent. I had thought it was redundant, as the point seemed uncontroversial, but if it is disputed seriously, then the reference is appropriate. I can't see anything else in that section that is tagged as being disputed that could be disputed credibly- the points reiterate points referenced elsewhere in the article, but Popper, Kuhn and Feyeraband are the natural sources. Gleng 11:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Mcnally is welcome by all means, weighting considered. Now, using chiropractic as an example, lets focus on the good science from the bad science within that field. Applying chiropractic to schizophrenia, for example.  Lets hear what you have to say about schizophrenia sufferers, and what chiropractics can do for their condition.  Firstly, we can consider the theological applications of chiropractic in this context.  You first. KrishnaVindaloo 12:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not. If you want to add content, I suggest you start by looking for a very strong source that discusses it carefully, read it and report what they say. As Steth has said previously, Nightmares do not make good sources.Gleng 13:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about the core chiropractic textbook? KrishnaVindaloo 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From which you would synthesize info, thus violating WP:NOR? No thanks.  BTW, I've never been to a chiropractor, and doubt that I'll ever go to one (although you never know), thus I am not by any means a supporter of chiropractic, in fact I'm rather ambivalent about it.  Thus: ENOUGH OF YOUR FUCKING INSANE OBSESSION WITH CHIROPRACTIC.  Do you understand?  It's really quite simple: your constant natterings on about the "evils" of chiropractic are like the ravings of a pickled lunatic.  As far as I can see the only reason you came to this page was to bash chiro.  At this point, you have as much credibility as a scientologist.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Proponents keep denying things, and the evidence is to the contrary. . KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pickled lunatic? I love it! I wish I'd said that!! Jim, you are using words eerily similar to ones I previously used after exposing Vindaloo as a liar and for violiating WP policy for attempting to feed us his made up opinions as facts. See    Krishna Vindaloo has a BIG problem  So I understand your frustration. The question is, given his documented history of disruptive behaviour, how long must we put up with it? Steth 03:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how long we'll need to put up with this, Steth; until KV is banned I suppose. Or we could all go out and bark at the moon tonight -- maybe then we'd see KV's wisdom.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up the tail
Shouldn't the "Notes"-section be renamed "References", the "References"-section renamed "Further reading" and the "See also"-section be dumped into a black hole?

And when removing the link the Keith Parsons on-line essay (why?), shouldn't it be replaced with an entry about his book? Which one? Has anyboday read them?

Pjacobi 15:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the link to the Parsons essay because it came up headed a "paid advertisement" and wasn't cited; no objections to restoring it I was just having a go at trying to clean up the mess.

I've removed some of the Gauch op cit cites, for 2 reasons, a) don't think there's any dispute at all about the statements in the text but b) Gauch doesn't propose these as distinguishing factors for PS but as characteristics of the scientific method. Gauch remains as a source about the scientific method. By all means rename reshuffle - I think its a bit of a random mix of the good, the indifferent and the whocantell. Absolutely no feelings about the whole "extra refs etc section except that less and good would be much better. Gleng 15:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are quite right about Gauch, he's a source about the scientific method, and not pseudoscience. --Iantresman 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What's cited is in the ill-named "Notes"-section. The equally ill-named "References"-section should provide the reader with a selection of further reading. --Pjacobi 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear what to call the "Footnotes" section, but "Notes" seems common. See WP:Footnotes --Iantresman 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Notes probably is the most common. However, if the items in references are properly done in the style, we could call the section Notes and References as in the Intelligent design aricle.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree that Intelligent design would work relatively well here, considering there is really no perfect answer. --Dematt 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Identifying pseudoscience" citations

 * As I've mentioned before, I believe that most of the citations in this section do not support the identifications described.
 * Most seem to support the identification with the scientific method, but that is not the same as implying that it means it also identifies pseudoscience. (A cat can be identified by fur, a tail and miaows; just because an animal does not miaows, does not necessarily mean it's a pig, or even mean we consider it might be a pig).
 * I recommend that we move all citations, add new ones that include direct quotes showing the association with pseudoscience, and then remove all entries that can not be verified. --Iantresman 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Move? Move where? Move why? We can check the cites without moving them anywhere, am I missing something? I concur it would be well for us to check each and every cite, but surely we can do that here on talk, and only remove those which are inappropriate (not a good source, does not support statement, etc) rather than move them all then put back the ones we find suitable. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that if we don't find citations for some of them, we remove them --Iantresman 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Go carefully. I think Bunge and Thagard are the two who attempted to give multiple critera, so check against them.Gleng 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Recently removed references
I notice that five of the citations to Hugh Gauch's Scientific Method in Practice (2003) were removed here. Just to clarify the original situation in which these citations were placed, all of those references had a direct relevance to the particular "characteristic(s)" involved, and each of them cites the relevant pages or section(s) of that book. I do understand that some of the text may have been changed and that some WP users occasionally change things with little-or-no regard for the context they're dealing with, sometimes leading to a distortion of the original context. But as far as I was able to tell, at the point at which they were removed, those Gauch cites still retained the basic relevance they originally had when I provided the citations. My offhand sense of the most effective way to proceed in this particular case is to allow the citations to stand for the present, and improve on them, rather than eliminate them and leave those points in the article without any visible verification whatsoever. After all, the editors have chosen to define pseudoscience as involving a substantial deviation from accepted scientific method. Thus a presentation of relevant aspects of method is quite relevant to each of the points involving citations to Gauch (not that he's the only one we could cite to). I would much prefer to keep those citations rather than eliminate them completely, and thereby allow the possiblity for better citations to be added in the future to the extent that they may be available. ... Kenosis 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gleng talked about those refs here. --Dematt 04:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that in the section above. But that section was not limited to this issue. Please, of course, feel free to reproduce relevant info from that section in this section to the degree judged appropriate by anyone choosing to comment on this issue. ... Kenosis 05:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it has become all too common for certain editors to remove useful literature or information. Whatever reason they are doing it for, it is unconstructive. KrishnaVindaloo 03:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I said my piece for the present. Admittedly it usually takes more keystrokes to add material than to remove it. ... Kenosis 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There were some problems I felt: the multiple references to Gauch were introduced below the header "The following have been proposed to be characteristics of "pseudoscientific" arguments." which was not the context in which Gauch writes. I accept that it may be an excellent analysis of the scientific method, and to describe the scientific method carefully is clearly appropriate. However, the description of the method given was not controversial - the only controversial thing is how well these things distinguish science from non science. So I tried to retain Gauch as the generic reference for scientific nethod, clearing the way for specific references to be added to illustrate the application of these criteria.Gleng 08:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gauch's references were all relevant in the context of the scientific method. But to suggest that these characteristics are relevant to pseudoscience, is not necessarily a logical step, and not supported by the citations. For example, a cat can be identified by fur, a tail and miaows; but just because an animal does not miaows, does not necessarily mean it's a pig, or even mean we consider it might be a pig. --Iantresman 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. One way a controversial article, or any article, gets AFU, is by changing the context in which material is placed.  Originally the "characteristics" were introduced by various editors, and pseudoscience was said to have two elements, (1) holding an idea or field out as science or scientific, and (2) failing to follow scientific method.  This originally was presented without any citation other than the references already provided in the lead of the article to definitions such as Carroll's skepdic.com and the OED.  Since failure to follow scientific method was one of the two elements used in the section on "Identifying pseudoscience", it would appear sensible to cite to a reliable source that these characteristics were in fact characteristic of scientific method. Enter, the Gauch citations. Now, if the new consensus is that the article should only include material that can be cited to a source that specifically identifies a deviation from a particular characteristic of scientific method, for each and every characteristic, then ditch the ones that don't have such a citation.  I don't think the editors need go that route. ... Kenosis 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather than kick them, it would be more sensible to keep the valuable information, and simply reframe it to suit the info about science. When there is an improvement effort going on, at least keep the references. Such deletion really does smack of sweeping stuff under the carpet. There is far too much of that going on right now. There is nothing wrong with keeping all suggested references for now, then having a proper investigation. When no corroboration turns up after a while, then you can consider deletion. Either way, sensible discussion is necessary. I do believe for that to work, this article is in desperate need of reliable mediators though. KrishnaVindaloo 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Such information is not valuable if it's not accurate and verifiable. My feeling is that some of the characteristics are cited by others in identifying pseudoscience, but others are not cited because they are not actually used by anyone, except by people who mistakenly believe that not following the scientific method 100% is pseudoscience. Since the scientific method varies from subject to subject, I think this is unlikely. Either way, verifiability of characteristics and pseudoscience (not scientific method) is a requirement. --Iantresman 09:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly complaining about your editing. Here is a notable example though  (not yours) that removes cites, removes information that is pretty much in proportion to the article, and in proportion to maj and min (using cites). There is a snarky edit summary that makes no attempt to improve, only to delete in favour of Gleng's awful, argumentative, and boosterist editing (eg considerable disagreement etc) and focuses on arguments between disputants, rather than the majority of those who identify pseudoscience using quite neutral explanatory terms. Corroboration is also an important point here, you may want to remove info that you don't think is reliable, but corroborating information can make all the difference.  Basically, its a bad idea to join in with unconstructive deletion activities, when there are perfectly easy alternative solutions. KrishnaVindaloo 10:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hopefully I'm giving good reasons why I think certain statements should be removed, and giving people every opportunity to provide citations first. And hopefully others will back-up their editing with similar good reason too. --Iantresman 11:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure Ian. You might have noticed now that Gleng and Steth have added refs it shows pretty well how biased the commentary is. The comments are hardly representative of the refs, and its pretty much an argument that doesn't even represent the article - It just shows an argument. And are the refs themselves representative? I really do think this article needs a mediator or two. At the very least to teach some people how to write an article. KrishnaVindaloo 12:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you might teach us...Ommmmm  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Operational definitions

 * I've found one reference and quote that refer to "operational definitions" and pseudoscience. Perhaps someone would like to assess it for suitability.


 * I've also attempted to add a clarification explaining the term "operational definitions" which I think is scientific mumbo-jumbo to the average person. --Iantresman 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

KV?
"At what time exactly, Gleng?" Exactly what did you mean by this oddly inappropriate but apparently offensive edit summary? I take it you objected to SA's phrasing; if so take it up with him.Gleng 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Its unnecessary commentary. Its the sort of thing that your editing is full of. I just removed a lot of such commentary from you from the opening. I had to do the same thing on the vitalism article. Please stop doing it. Authors make particular statements, and we can summarize or paraphrase the statements to make them more concise, or just paste them in with quotes. But please stop adding your own commentary and OR. KrishnaVindaloo 03:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the wording you objected to was Science Apologist's. Take it up with him.Gleng 11:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No Gleng. You edited the section and left it looking like your editing. I am pointing out how to correct that kind of thing. KrishnaVindaloo 11:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

to SA,Killer, ian etc on refs in lead
Is the reference I inserted via the lead to cosmology etc sound and appropriate to that context - not my area, just extracted from Talk Gleng 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think everything else in the lead merely relates to what is expanded on in the article (and maybe I've added more refs than necessary as Feyeraband is duplicated). Have I missed something? What is left not that is not referenced there or later and is disputed?Gleng 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks generally OK to me. I think the introductory paragraph could be tidied. It seems to list three definitions:
 * "belief, or practice that claims to be scientific" (bit isn't)
 * ... does not follow the scientific method.
 * ..set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific

I'm wondering whether there is some overlap in some of these definitions. I think they all boil down to one definition:
 * "... a subject which is falsely portrayed or appears to be scientific, but isn't".
 * The rest is detail, ie. that "scientific" generally implies following the scientific method, etc. --Iantresman 13:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead was preposterous and didn't explain how pseudoscience is actually discussed in academia (mostly in introductory science courses). As such, I have removed the sidebar commentary about when scientists may bandy the term about (not relevant to the definition of the term) and included a paragraph about how and when the term is most often used. The cosmology stuff DOES NOT belong in the lead. It is secondary in nature to what pseudoscience actually is (which is such subjects as astrology, medical quackery, etc.) --ScienceApologist 14:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, SA. I believe yours is a great improvement, and an improvement upon my version in some respects. Your version sticks far more strongly to the recommendations on how to write an opening. One way to make it even more appropriate is to include more of the structure of the article itself. I believe your framing around intro sci classes is a very good start, and more can be added. There are now introductory classes with pseudoscience as a main theme. Lilienfeld, Carroll and others actually write material for this purpose, and as it is taught at that level, the majority science view can easily be seen and framed properly to the reader. The superstition addition is actually incredibly important as it is the basis for many pseudoscientific subjects and explains why pseudoscience is so sticky psychologically. Beyerstein, Shermer and others have written more explicitly in this area. It relates closely to new age ideas, which again, could have more mention in the article, especially in relation to alternative medicines. Anyway, things are improving.  KrishnaVindaloo 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lilienfeld
I've just been looking up Lilienfeld's publications and reading a few. He's a clinical psychologist, and he extensively discusses misuses, abuses and unscientific practices in his field. It's good and interesting stuff, and relevant. But where does the alt med bit from? I don't think that any of the things he writes on at least in the peer reviewed literature fall into this category. So I removed an unverified and apparently unlikely reference.Gleng 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Gleng, this is typical of your sort of unconstructive editing. Alternative medicine is full of pseudoscience and it is going to be as easy as a walk in the park finding refs to back up Lilienfeld's view. Of course your sort of editing generally discourages that kind of constructive information search. KrishnaVindaloo 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear - in his writings, Lilienfeld is highly critical of a range of therapies used in the broad field of clinical psychology, some of which are fringe, some old established - but these aren't what is conventionally known as "alternative medicine"? So the label is misleading. I have incidentally added a reference to Lilienfeld's papers, it's on PubMed so can be checked. Gleng 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Like many authors, Lilienfeld also writes books. KrishnaVindaloo 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in psychology
This section Pseudoscience in psychology is sorely lacking in references and considering all the refences that we have read have come from clinical psychologists, we shoud be able to put something together. That first reference is very weak to the point of inappropriate. I'll give some time to come up with the references then I will try to put something together for this section in an attempt to get it right. Look forward to any help anyone is willing to put in. --Dematt 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I have some information on the chiro schizophrenia treatments. KrishnaVindaloo 03:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK sure, but we will, of course, first have to see your information and then decide if it is trustworthy, given your history of fabrication and your obsession with radical anti-chiropractic hate-centric fundamentalist extremist, POV ramming-down our throats, article hijacking, time-wasting edits. I am sure you understand, Murray. OK? Steth 04:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Steth, if you have a personal issue with me as an editor, please contact me on my talkpage. You called me Murray. Would you care to elaborate or explain yourself? KrishnaVindaloo 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, nothing personal, of course. Just the same issues that have been here for some time. Similiar views have been expressed by others, like reliability, time consumption and no forward progress. And of course, there is the issue of Ford and Williams, having never said what you said they said. So I am sure you understand my hesitation. If roles were reversed and someone else did these things, wouldn't you also be cautious?


 * I don't know what I was thinking when I called you Murray. I must have been thinking of something or someone else. Sorry.  Steth 11:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Steth, you have called me dishonest many times already. Murray is a new one. I don't believe it is much of an improvement though - you are just as wrong as before. KrishnaVindaloo 14:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientism
Hello all. Scientism is relevant to pseudoscience. This sentence is about the clearest and most representative:

The concept of scientism is also relevant to science and pseudoscience. Kaptchuk and Eisenberg (1998) state that "alternative medicine includes chiropractic science, homeopathic science, psychic science, and even occult science. Academic science would undoubtedly call these approaches "scientism" and discuss the boundaries between science and pseudoscience". 

Feel free to discuss. KrishnaVindaloo 03:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm adding a link above to the article. All who are interested, please peruse this piece and see the entire quote above in context. Of the following definitions of Scientism, which one do you feel the authors are referring to...
 * 1) The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.
 * 2) Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.
 * 3) An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.
 * Levine2112 04:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point Levine. KV also might want to refresh your memory and save us all some time. --Dematt 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it then, that there is nothing wrong with the line. NPOV compliant etc. KrishnaVindaloo 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read what Dematt is pointing to, you will see that there is no agreement here. In fact, no other editor found this insertion acceptable. Please read/reread the discussion which Dematt is referring to above. Also, please choose which definition (1, 2, 3 or something different) you believe scientism is referred to as in this report. This will help us understand why you feel "scientism" as a topic needs to be discussed in the Pseudoscience article. Thank you. Levine2112 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if no other editor who joined in the discussion felt it is acceptable. Webster's dictionary defines scientism as the use of PS language. It is already clear from the article presented that scientism is relevant to pseudoscience. It is a peer reviewed article. NPOV trumps any amount of so called consensus you wish to mention. KrishnaVindaloo 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Which edition of Webster's are you using? The online version has these definitions (no mention of pseudoscience):
 * 1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
 * 2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
 * Please tells us the definition in the edition you have.
 * Levine2112 06:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Levine2112. The definition of scientism that I am using, is exactly the same as the one that K and E are using. The article is to delineate between orthodox and unorthodox medicine. It is very obvious that K and E are referring to the majority scientific view that chiropractic, naturopathy, vedic, etc science, are infact scientisms, just like the science you see on washing powder adverts or pseudoscientific cartoons of toothpaste machinegunning gum bacteria.  It is scientism in relation to pseudocience. Just as it states in the line. It is an explicit reference to pseudoscience. The journal - Annals of Internal Medicine, is a good source, and it shows exactly what scientism means in terms of chiropractic science, homeopathic science, psychic science, and occult science. Do you get the article now? It is making a clear grouping between various vitalistic and pseudoscientific theories such as occult science, and chiropractic.  Here is where that connection can be made with regards to homosexuality cures. Its pretty much the same as "out demons out", and relates strongly to the superstitious nature of most pseudosciences.  So for example, the majority of chiropractors adhere to vitalistic and pseudoscientific theories, and so will be quite comfortable with ideas of exorcism.  To exorcise the homosexuality from "homosexuality sufferers", so that they can become straight.  Would you like some further clarity in this line? KrishnaVindaloo 12:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, KV, I would like some more "clarity". For example, you state that the majority of chiropractors would be quite comfortable with exorcism. Could you please cite the source to back that up? Or was that a conclusion on your part? Additionally, I couldn't find pseudoscience and scientism mentioned together in the dictionary either. Which edition are you looking in? Perhaps you could paste the exact wording here. Thanks Steth 12:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I too would like more clarity. KV, you seem to be making a lot of logical (amd illogical) leaps here. You are taking dots and trying to connect them to say something original and unsourced. And the "dots" you have are pretty weak ones and some of them just seem to be made up. So let's start from the beginning. You state above that the Webster's dictionary definition of scientism is the use of pseudoscientific language. Is that the exact wording you have from your dictionary? If not, could you please provide it? And please provide the year and edition you are using. I truly believe that this will be the first step in furthering clarity here. Thank you. Levine2112 17:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "definitions" of scientism given above by Levine2112 are correct, insofar as "scientism" can be defined. Unfortunately Kaptchuk and Eisenberg appear to have made incorrect use of the word, especially insofar as they seem to have been assuming what "academic science" would call the approaches to which they referred in their article -- sorry to disillusion anyone. ... Kenosis 18:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think we are then arriving at the same conclusion we reached in our last discussion of this Kaptchuk and Eisenberg article... it is unreliable and a weak source for describing the nature of Pseudoscience and should not be included or referenced in this article. That being said, I still would like to see KrishnaVindaloo's defintion of scientism as stated in the Webster's dictionary he described above. It would be fascinating to know if there are other definitions of the word floating around. Perhaps, this is the same definition Kaptchuk and Eisenberg were using. KV? Can you please write out the definition you read in your Webster's here and let us know the edition and/or year the edition was published? I really would appreciate it. Levine2112 19:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to your above opinions, K and E are unreliable and wrong. Well you havn't offered anything beyond your opinions. Sorry, but the line stays. KrishnaVindaloo 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it just went. Your arrogance has been duly noted. Do you too now feel the psychological rush of being notable?   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The line is extremely clear, and requires absolutely no corroboration. It is from reliable sources. Anybody using scientific skepticism on looking at vedic science, chiropractic science, occult science, etc will see pseudoscientific notions of vitalism and superstition written all over them, will notice the behaviour of so called blah blah scientists (eg stifling of negative views, stifling of criticism, groupthink), and and will call it scientism. I don't even need to explain this, though I just did.  NPOV trumps all of your opinions. Sorry! KrishnaVindaloo 01:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KV if you could just provide me with the exact wording of your edition of Webster's definition of the word "scientism", I think it will clear up this issue. You said that Webster's defines "scientism" as the use of PS language. Please write out this definition you have and which edition of Webster's you are looking at. Thank you. Levine2112 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

McNally
I removed McNally as he is irellevant to the protoscience section. I did have the source placed in the psych section as it is more appropriate there. It has been reverted nevertheless. Also its been selectively placed in. He also mentions "Of course, merely because a term can be misused does not mean that it does not have its proper uses." Feel free to discuss. KrishnaVindaloo 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard McNally, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, states: "The term “pseudoscience” has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites" and "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?" . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KrishnaVindaloo (talk • contribs) 06:23, 1 November 2006.


 * No one else seems to have an issue with this quote. It's self-explanatory, consistent with McNally's article and appropriate under the section.  The second sentence on "what is the evidence?" is straight from the abstract, and sums up his take well.  What's not to understand?  Restoring.  Jim Butler(talk) 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Feyerbend
Feyerbend did not specifically mention PS, so it is irellevant to the article. Feel free to discuss KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Feyerbend's comments about epistemological limits are relevant, but he probably shouldn't be mentioned as explicitly as he is due to the fact that he probably wouldn't appreciate his comments being construed as a defense of hucksterism and pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 04:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My reading actually makes him sound almost anti-science. He is advocating that we stop pushing science as the know all and end all of every decision - even to stop pushing it in school.  Interesting.  I wonder how he would feel about it in healthcare? Hmm, what do you think KV? --Dematt 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

An MD using a chiropractor? Who'd'a thunk it? Chiropractic and Astrology
here &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. You may be intereted to know that a growing number of US hospital and private medical clinic have chiropractors on staff. Many MDs and DOs refer their own patients out to chiropractors when they deem it necessary. You will also find chiropractors in the lockerrooms and sidelines of many (if not most) professional, olympic and collegiate sports teams. I know this information is presented here only for propoganda; however the overwhelming and growing acceptance of chiropractic is just more evidence that it doesn't belong anywhere near this article... unless of course your are describing things that are mistakenly (or purposefully) labeled pseudoscientific by fearful competitors. Levine2112 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, even my own doctor (who is quite good by the way), supports alternative med as a "last" resort. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 01:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are most likely quite a few MDs who go to an astrologer for a detailed analysis of their past and future in medicine. Would you suggest that is evidence to stifle the view that astrology is pseudoscientific? KrishnaVindaloo 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you happen to have proof to back up such an absurd statement, KV, or are you just flapping away again.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying it would be absurd to believe that a GP or MD would seek advice from an astrologer? Do you believe that it has never happened? I am talking about things that are likely to happen. The numbers are probably in the hundreds per year on a global basis. The logical point is, does that mean astrology or chiropractic or scientology should be generally accepted by all and sundry? A normal person would say no. Only a proponent would push that as a reason to promote a particular activity. The majority science view is pretty clear on these points. It doesn't matter if Ron Regan sought a medium or an astrologer.  Testimonials and anecdotes are not evidence of efficacy or theoretical robustness.  KrishnaVindaloo 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But are there a lot of MDs who refer their patients to astrologers for health care? Levine2112 02:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It happens.  Thats a great article on chiropractic astrology and horrid scientific critics KrishnaVindaloo 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. That article says nothing about MDs referring patients to astrologers. Did you read it? Levine2112 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) And now that you added a second article I see it too has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I;m assuming that you didn't read that one either. Levine2112 02:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alas, reading and comprehension can be rather daunting, I suppose. Seems that to KV merely posting a reference is as good as the reference actually being apropos to the discussion.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Levine2112. Its extremely interesting. Planet chiron! KrishnaVindaloo 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And how does that show us that many MDs are referring their patients to astrologers? Levine2112 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's another hint of more info to come: KrishnaVindaloo 02:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And what does he have to do with your claim that many MDs are referring their patients to astrologers? Levine2112 02:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A few MD's are erroneously referring their patients to pseudoscientists. EG, astrologers and scientologists, who are also chiropractors. KrishnaVindaloo 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you have proof of such, yes?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't need to show you the evidence I have until I present the fact for inclusion into the article. I am merely discussing with you why an MD going to a chiropractor, or being a chiropractor, is evidence for anything other than enthusiasm for the pseudoscientific, gullibility, or desperation. KrishnaVindaloo 11:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, here is a nice article about reading auras, chi, prana etc as "technologies" and chiropractic. Fascinating stuff! KrishnaVindaloo 08:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And he does speak for all chiropractors, no doubt. Bah.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, what about your claim that Webster's defines "scientism" as the use of PS language? I really would very much like to read that definition. Please provide us with that. Levine2112 02:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just stated it above. Feel free to read my line again. KrishnaVindaloo 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OED " 1. The habit and mode of expression of a man of science. 2. A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences." No PS mentioned in the preeminent English dictionary. Odd, that.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a citation regarding a medical doctor writing a book on medical astrology:. KV is not just tilting at windmills here, KV actually has a point. --ScienceApologist 00:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is what? That the entire medical profession should be labeled pseudoscience because of the existence of medical astrology? Wait a mintute... there's astro-psychology too. I guess Freud is a pseudoscientist too then. (See how easily this can get out of hand when you castigate the majority for the fringe's actions?) Levine2112 01:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point that KV made many days ago was that simply because a medical doctor endorses a subject that doesn't magically make that subject scientific or recuse that subject from a pseudoscience-label/critique. The endorsement of isolated doctors of various alternative medicines should not be taken as a scientific endorsement of alternative medicines. Medical doctors can be led down the garden path just like any other human being. And calling Freud a pseudoscientist may not be too far off. It is verifiably true that there are people who have criticized his work as being just that     .--ScienceApologist 03:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No one said that it did -- you do recognise sarcasm? I should think the title of the section, which drips with irony, should have been a clue.
 * As for the remainder, Einstein (and others), while not using the term PS, nevertheless treated QM as such. Does that make QM pseudoscience because so illustrious a personage felt it was?
 * In any case, SA, I would suggest that you take the time to read the archives before plunging in, there are reasons KVs edits are often reverted: they frequently do not meet WP:V or WP:RS criteria (mostly because they do not support what KV has written), they are often a vio of WP:NOR as KV loves to engage in synthesis and the drawing of inferences that are not supported by the cites, and they are extraordinarily selective (KV is rather given to quote-mining).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can have a good scrutinize of my edits. Note that half the present PS article is written by me. You may also like to take a look at the vitalism article, which was hijacked by pro-chiropractic advocates who committed bloody OR all over the place. They tried to make the majority view sound like chiropractors no longer believe in pseudoscientific vitalistic theories, and they also tried to make vitalism sound like a new science. I had to mop it all up with the help of other reasonable editors. KrishnaVindaloo 11:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The vitalism article would be a separate issue, wouldn't it? Let's stick with the article at hand KV -- if you can.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)