User:Nathan/Rules for pseudoscience

Rules for dealing with pseudoscience
These are the rules for dealing with pseudoscience and editors who promote/push a pseudoscience POV.

Pseudoscience demarcation
Pseudoscience is anything that deals with observable features of the world in regards to the following subjects:


 * Religious-based explanation of observable events
 * Creationism
 * Faith healers
 * Miracle workers
 * Pseudopsychology
 * Conspiracy theorist claims of suppression of true-science
 * UFOs
 * Black helicopters
 * Faked moon landing
 * Fluoridation paranoia
 * AIDS reappraisal
 * 911-Truth
 * Spontaneous human combustion
 * Alternative histories with token (or less) mainstream support
 * Velikovsky/Sitchin/Von Daniken
 * Racial theorists
 * Holocaust denial
 * Alternative medicine claiming scientific basis
 * Homeopathy
 * Vitalism
 * Acupuncture
 * Reflexology
 * Bioenergy (Qi)
 * Magnetic therapy
 * EMF paranoia
 * Autodidact's theories
 * Theories of everything
 * Crankism (X is wrong!)
 * Spiritualism/Paranormal claims with observable consequences
 * Astrology
 * Parapsychology
 * ESP
 * Crystals/pyramid power
 * Quantum mysticism
 * Matter-spirit interaction
 * Psychic communication
 * Cryptozoology claims
 * Numerology claims
 * Amateur inventors claiming "new science"
 * Free energy/cold fusion
 * Perpetual motion
 * Tesla enthusiasts

Such subjects may be categorized as such. It may also be appropriate to indicate in various locations within the article that the subject is pseudoscience so as to properly frame the article contents.

Primary sourcing
Pseudoscience is described with promotional bias by pseudoscientists. These sources can be useful for describing what pseudoscientists say they believe. Typical pseudoscience sources include:


 * Dedicated websites (normally registered under a .com or .org -- rarely under .edu though there are occasions where this may be possible)
 * Dedicated periodicals
 * Self-published sources
 * Publications made outside the typical scientific presses
 * In-house journals (not to be confused with academic journals)
 * Occasional peer-reviewed articles -- often in more obscure journals

Secondary and tertiary sourcing
Non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience can only be had from second- and third-party sources. Most of these sources will not be peer-reviewed simply because science tends to ignore pseudoscience. This means that the following are reliable sources for describing pseudoscience:


 * CSICOP
 * Encyclopedia of pseudoscience
 * Skeptic's Dictionary
 * Skeptical Inquirer
 * Mainstream media reports
 * Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.)
 * Statements from scientific societies

Sourcing science
Occasionally, actual scientific theories or observations will need to be explained in relation to pseudoscience. These should be sourced by standard scientific sources including standard textbooks and classic papers.

Appeal to authority
Occasionally, proponents of pseudoscience will discover that they can get more attention if they make appeals to authority by presenting supporters who have academic credentials. Attention to such detail is only warranted if there is third-party mention of this. Pseudoscientific groups making a to-do over a person's academic degrees or honorification should be treated as promotionalism.

Description
Pseudoscience should not be described on its own terms. The goal of writing an article on pseudoscience should be to present the ideas that are most commonly seen in relation to that pseudoscientific idea. This means that when writing an article on pseudoscience, popularity of ideas is a major rationale for inclusion/exclusion. Obscure iterations of pseudoscience should be eliminated, even if so-called "experts" in the subject believe such ideas to be of the utmost importance. The best way to write an article on pseudoscience is to approach it from the perspective of what topics are most prevalent in the popular culture about the subject.

All claims that are made about observable reality which are directly contradicted by mainstream science must be so-framed.

Summary statements
Appropriate descriptions of pseudoscience and the places where it contradicts aspects of science should be made through summary statements rather than direct quotes. Promoters of pseudoscience often wish to avoid summary statements and misuse direct attribution in attempts to frame the objections to pseudoscience as being parochial. Care should be made to avoid direct attribution unless the statement being made is clearly a singular perspective.

"Pseudoskepticism"
This term is an epithet used to deride those attempting to neutrally describe subjects relating to pseudoscience. It was coined by Marcello Truzzi who believed, idiosyncratically, that every claim no matter how absurd should be subject to controlled observation or experimentation before dismissing. No sources are reliably described as "pseudoskeptical" and therefore none can be dismissed as such.

Religious exceptionalism
In properly framed articles, exceptional religious claims are considered to be on-par with literature or mythology. Only religious claims explicitly made in contradiction to observable reality are relevant to these rules. So, for example, while resurrection of the dead is a statement of dogma that has a variety of interpretations, only the most literal of those interpretations are relevant here.

(more to be added