User:PaleoNeonate/Pitfalls

=Common pitfalls of pseudoscience=

There are a number of books dedicated to science, fallacies, pseudoscience, religion, philosophy and the mind. When these subjects are discussed in Wikipedia, several arguments are frequently made:


 * "No more effective than the placebo effect" or "not beyond the placebo effect" - The use of placebo is a system to correct common fallacies and statistical glitches (see blinded experiment). The "effect" terminology is commonly misused to claim that something must necessarily have a small effect.  The correct way to describe these: "no evidence of effectiveness" or "there is no evidence that [...] can prevent or treat any condition", etc.  To conclude that some effect is plausible, a significant enough statistical difference should be observed in those who have received the actual product, versus those who were tricked with placebo.  This does not eliminate the possibility that someone may feel some comfort by being taken care of, but that is another topic unrelated to the effectiveness of the molecules being tested.
 * "Can neither be proven nor disproven" - Science attempts to be practical, its hypotheses attempt to be testable and falsifiable, and its theories (models not to confuse with hypotheses) should also be able to make useful predictions. The proper terminology here is "no evidence", "speculative" or "belief" (in a Wikipedia article, it may be best to omit as meaningless, like "more research is needed").  If there was effective evidence of its existence it would not be scientifically controversial.  We would move on to its more interesting details.  If it cannot be utilized or worked with, it is impractical and scientific resources should not unreasonably be spent on false premises.  "Does not exist" should be discouraged unless this is stressed as such by reliable sources.  This does not necessarily obsolete the human experience, the mind with its needs, fantasies and illusions, human and scientific ethics, values, preferences, entertainment, faith and traditions.
 * "[...] is only a philosophical position" - Since science must be practical and be about discovery, understanding and application, the scientific method develops processes to attempt to eliminate errors, including the bias of the observer and of scientists. Philosophy is interesting and useful to attempt to name and classify ideas.  Language and mathematics are games and products of the mind that can describe any idea.  The method and the metaphysics it rests on can also be philosophy, like methodological naturalism.  This does not mean that all ideas are practical or equal to increase knowledge and assess reality.  Some approaches have been much more successful and some ideas are about attempting to test other ideas.  The scientific method attempts to explore beyond idealism and common limitations, to constantly re-test and correct itself, to enhance and develop its "senses", etc.  While minds are necessary to develop, direct, improve and run it, the process, path and body of knowledge go beyond every participant and are more than only a product of the mind.  The scientific approach has been so successful that despite its autocorrecting nature, major discoveries made about the world and reality are unlikely to suddenly be demonstrated to be false, versus details about their understanding, or the development of even more complete and unifying theories.  This includes the discovery of the fact that life has evolved and diversified and how, the scientific estimation of the general age of the earth, how rocky planets like ours formed, how the chemical elements formed, etc.  In physics, a large number of particles and phenomena were long predicted before they were observed.  In biology, with consilience of other sciences, the location of presumed transitional fossils could be estimated and many were found, despite the rarity of fossils; the discovery of the genetic code supported, corrected and supplemented evolution, something not available in Darwin's time.  General relativity went beyond Newton's law of universal gravitation but the latter remains a practical theory.  Science is not a religious doctrine, although apologists often attempt to portray it as such with philosophical arguments.
 * "Controversy" - Public, political and ideological controversies should clearly be distinguished from scientific ones. The fact that motivated uncertainty and denial propaganda exists on a topic may or may not have an effect on the scientific consensus about it.  Teach the controversy campaigns present religious and pseudoscientific arguments against biological evolution but does not change the scientific consensus about it (it fails to produce scientifically convincing alternative explanations and conclusions).  The same is true in relation to tobacco and health, anthropogenic climate change, vaccines, etc.  When convincing the scientific community fails, motivated ideologies may try to circumvent its processes to gain or force acceptance, using the propaganda method (grassrooting, popular science books and television shows), public policy (political means) and testimony-style "polls".  For these reasons WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL, WP:ITA, WP:FRIND, WP:MNA, WP:ONEWAY should be taken in consideration to avoid presenting a false equivalence when describing topics.
 * "Allopathic and complementary or holistic medicine" - "Allopathic" is the accusation that mainstream or "Western medicine" only cares about symptoms and is very superficial. It is a straw man, because medicine is much more than that and also attempts to discover and treat the causes or even prevent disease when possible.  "Complementary" medicine suggests that despite access to mainstream medicine, other treatments are advisable, to increase one's chance of success or to somehow treat at "more levels".  "Holistic" is a similar claim that these alternative treatments have a more "integrative" approach, dealing with "facts", "links" and "causes" that mainstream medicine ignores or refuses to acknowledge.  Mainstream modern medicine unfortunately not being available to everyone, traditional medicine, or even modern quackery, may often be one's main resort.  When conventional treatment is available but too costly, people also tend to spend some of their few resources on questionable treatments.  Some have access to good medicine but distrust it or believe that other treatments are probably helpful.  Unfortunately much of those alternative treatments are questionable and some are even harmful.  The resort to them when better medicine is available can also prevent proper diagnostic and treatment on time.  Since many discomforts and conditions are transient, resolving without treatment, flawed causal attribution is common, relating something recently done to health improvement.
 * Pseudoscientific idealism - Some forms of idealism go so far as to suggest that the universe originates from the mind (or a substitute like universal consciousness, etc). Some modern variants include quantum mysticism.  These often include suggestions that the laws of physics could not operate without a conscious observer, misinterpreting much of physics.  This is part of magic thinking, where particular systems and cosmology must hopefully allow the possibility of access to power over matter and supernatural manifestation in the world.  Constant self-deception and failure to improve one's situation with ineffective means is not healthy.  Sages remind their adepts to not forget about acting and living in the real world to avoid this dangerous pitfall.  Lastly, superstition opens the door to unsubstantiated and misplaced fears that often lead to conflict and exploitation.  Among the many pseudoscientific claims to justify divination or magic systems, one is that computer science is a rediscovery of the I Ching system and its hexagrams, a superior technology to access the Tao.  But interestingly, computers can also be ternary rather than binary, where hexadecimal becomes a less useful convention.
 * "[...] is not physical" - Much of the human experience undoubtedly happens in the mind. Much of consciousness remains mysterious but a number of windows have been open to assess the relationship between the mind and reality.  To communicate, physical medium is necessary.  Neuroscience showed many correlates of experience to the physical electrochemical and anatomic structure of the brain.  Psychotropics from other, but compatible enough evolved life forms to produce carbon chemistry that can enter the blood-brain barrier and interact with the brain chemistry, can produce altered states of consciousness, including deep impressions with religious implications.  Entheogens have been used for millennia.  Monitoring methods, diseases and neurosurgery have allowed the discovery of more experience-physical correlates.  On the other hand the human experience doesn't lead most people to adhere to strict physicalism.  Among reasons, other than indoctrinating propaganda, is the fear of death and the unknown, the fact that the brain has evolved for other functions and is notoriously unreliable, but also because of strong experiences.  Under delirium, the mind tricks itself and the subject is no longer able to distinguish vivid hallucinations and dreams from the awaken state.  This is also typical during short sleep paralysis episodes.  Some also experience becoming somewhat "free from the physical body", where a vivid "dream", more lucid than usual, appears realistic.  "Visited" places may be dream-like realms or more "physical" generated from memory (and sometimes slightly open eyes during sleep) with less discrepancies and more realistic sensorial input (often inducing fear).  Another experience is the impression to temporarily become the subject and the observed when duality seems to vanish.  The impression of being able to obtain remote information or to meet other people in these states occurs.  However, no one has ever been able to demonstrate that these are not temporary grandiose delusions.  There is no verifiable evidence of actual remote viewing, telepathy or of access to collective universal shared spaces or archives, subtle bodies and energies.  When loved ones die, other than the transformation of their physical aspect and the memory we have, including relating to habits, there is no evidence that a "migration" occurs at another level, like the alteration of reality or of collective mind, but in theology many justifications are known to attempt to explain this.  Some techniques proposed by idealists to alter reality, like through the transformation of impressions, fail to affect the world and other people in ways that can be detected.
 * Pseudoskepticism and scientism - These are commonly used to accuse healthy scientific skepticism of disregarding evidence, but if that evidence was clear, there would be no reason to doubt. Actual pseudoskepticism, if it existed, would be different, disregarding much evidence that can be demonstrated scientifically, a form of denial.
 * Religious doctrines - It is fine on Wikipedia to describe religious doctrines and beliefs. Some may include pseudoscientific elements or not.  These should not be presented as facts (other than the fact that they are doctrines and practices) and do not belong in unrelated articles.  For instance, scientific physical cosmology should not be mixed in with religious cosmologies "for balance" and articles on biology like evolution should not be "balanced" with criticism by specific personalities or groups (WP:MNA, WP:ONEWAY).  In an article dedicated to both where a topic is pseudoscientific or has little academic support, WP:FRIND, WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV matter, WP:WIKIVOICE can be used for consensus positions and the sources should put the speculative claims in context.
 * "Science cannot investigate the past" - Common arguments in the creationist literature are that science is mostly for mathematics, with the misconception that unless "theories are upgraded to laws" they are only hypotheses and that scientific theories are also only hypothetical guesses. Other misleading claims are that radioactive decay rate is not constant, that dates are not properly calibrated, that error ranges are much bigger than in reality, and the misconception that all radioisotope dating is based on Carbon-14 and that no other dating methods are used.  Abiogenesis and evolution are also commonly conflated, but the latter is much better understood than the details of how life happened.  Some old isolated fraud cases, textbook errors and attacks against specific scientists are put on a pedestal to present a parody of science.  Consilience was already mentioned above and a number of methods are used to make scientific estimates.  This includes hard science like physics and chemistry that support deep geological time.  The alternative proposed by apologetics is a modern literal interpretation of ancient human tradition that should serve as an ultimate authority to determine what science should (or "has the right" to) investigate, accompanied by a modern tradition of pseudoscientific arguments.  Some literature even elevates false premises to "laws" and walk the reader through a misleading "court of law" to condemn science.  But science is not limited by taboos or origin myths and can instead use the best estimates possible (or the "most well informed guesses ever", to account for some pragmatism).
 * Lessons in anthropology - Anthropology is an interesting old field to study. It has a history of tentative movements and of progress in its methods to study and understand humans. An old current, cultural relativism and a variant, postmodernist relativism, with the typical mediatic example of the noble savage, is the position that no method or society could ever legitimately (or objectively enough), study other cultures and their beliefs and practices, in a scientific critical way.  This supposed that perhaps, every culture has access to a parallel reality and that all may be equally valid, possibly with access to higher truths or with objectively perfect, idyllic societies.  A more moderate modern scientific view understands that aspects like the health and wellbeing of a population can be assessed and that this is useful, practical information to improve it.  All societies are "sick" in some way and can be improved.  The general health of a society is also understood to affect the general performance of its subjects, including IQ scores.
 * Idols - There often are personality cults around particular figures promoting misinformation or pseudoscience, some include celebrities and others are commonly invited to speak in media promoting uncertainty propaganda. Some of them are also victims of manipulation, astroturfing and grassrooting.   Consequently it is very common on Wikipedia for some to propose using select sources as if they were particular authorities even when what they promote goes against the scientific consensus.  These sources will rarely meet WP:RS.  The distrust of mainstream sources is often expressed with generalizations like "the liberal media" or "fake news".  Wikipedia should not present a false balance between the views of individual people and those of more credible information sources (WP:GEVAL, WP:YESPOV).  In many situations these views have no place on Wikipedia outside of the relevant biography, if any (WP:BLP, WP:ABOUTSELF).  Even then, when WP:FRINGE, those claims should be replaced by the analysis of a more reliable secondary source that put them in context.  Another common issue in biographies of pseudoscience advocates is presenting a false balance when describing their writings, like "has written about", "has written books on", rather than "has promoted", "has written books promoting", etc.  This is misleading when the treatment of the topic is for promotion or advocacy, rather than independent documentation and scientific analysis.
 * "Suppression" - Conspiracy theories are entertained as justifications to explain that some claims cannot pass scholarly peer review or that others cannot reproduce their work resulting in criticism. Proponents complain about academic freedom, free speech, groupthink and make accusations of mass delusion and establishment conspiracies, despite the fact that criticism is necessarily part of the academic process.  Similarly, Wikipedia patrollers are commonly accused of censorship when they apply common WP rules like WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTFORUM.
 * Popular media - It is common for mainstream news media to include press releases as well as to present a false balance of opinions about topics. Not being a newspaper or journal, Wikipedia attempts to have a different approach and to be more conservative in relation to extraordinary claims as well as bleeding edge research that has not passed through proper peer review.  Science news is also prone to sensationalism.  A notable recent example where the media participates to mislead and amplify misinformation and fears, is in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, where the scientific community has a different approach.  Otherwise respectful newspapers also have contributed to fear propaganda in relation to UFOs.  Wikipedia has the WP:MEDRS guideline to cover health topics using higher quality sources.  Popular science books can also be outlets for fringe propaganda that cannot, or failed to, pass through the scientific peer review process.
 * Dubious "scientific" sources - Some sources are obviously non-scientific, but there also are some that attempt to look scientific but promote questionable material, often pseudoscientific. Advocacy articles can be published in journals with little to no peer review, or in journals specializing on other topics, allowing them to pass peer review, often after having been rejected by more relevant journals.  Some journals are by mission dedicated to propaganda; there also are predatory journals.  In the latter, a wide range of quality can be found and the peer review and editing is either minimal or absent.  They are an attractive publishing venue for students and propagandists but also used by some scientists.  Then there are borderline sources that can be treated the same as predatory journals.  Some publishers of reputable journals also publish less reputable ones that are hosted on the same website but should be distinguished (an example is Nature and Scientific Reports).  Names including "frontiers" and "advances" are notorious for low quality content.  The fact that a journal is indexed is not necessarily an indication of quality; it highly depends on the particular index (compare PubMed and Medline, for instance). Philosophy journals should also rarely be used to support material about neurology or physics; they often include material promoting idealism and quantum mysticism and are best restricted to philosophy-related articles.  Science news aggregators typically echo promotional press releases (in a type of churnalism) and are more concerned with sensationalism and clicks than about the reliability of the material they promote.  Some magazines may be fine about car mechanics, engineering or computer science but completely unsuitable for the coverage of other topics.  WP:RSN and its searchable archives, WP:RSP and WP:CITEWATCH are useful to evaluate if a source has a particular reputation.  Lastly, scientific papers are usually considered primary sources for Wikipedia, with reliable secondary sources generally preferred.  In relation to medicine, WP:MEDRS is a good guide, especially about the distinction between sources, like "systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals)".
 * The manual of style (WP:MOS) - Wikipedia's MOS is useful for guidance but is not policy. Policies like WP:NPOV's WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV are often challenged with links to the manual of style, a common example being "words to watch" (MOS:WTW).  While the inappropriate use of "claim" should be avoided, it is concise and accurate to describe what reliable sources also describe as claims.  Alternative formulations preserving accuracy could include, depending on context: "speculative", "unsubstantiated", "discredited", "false", "misconception", etc.  "Claim" is lighter and sometimes allows to reduce excessive redundancy.

Tangent

 * "Materialistic science is human vanity" - This assumes that some positions have a divine origin or rely on a divine authority. Nevertheless, humanity remains divided about it because there is no effective and universal divine guidance or convincing evidence for its existence or supremacy.  Theology documents a number of justifications to explain this lack (including the problem of theodicy).  Universal golden rules more or less exist, so do law codes and human cultures.  Elites with the "truth" feel self-justified to oppress or reject the other, often also claiming divine support.  The modest and faithful see their game.  Research demonstrated that the various holy texts are also human traditions, that developed through phases, included compilation, borrowings from older tradition, readaptation for the needs of the time, including nationalist reasons.  Some parts of those texts claim that it's inspired, other parts are obviously folk compilations and political propaganda like power-justification genealogies.  These texts refer to lost parts as well as some that have been rejected by canon-selection committees.  Contradictions are plenty, with apologetic traditions to attempt to reconcile them.  Some parts are symbolic, others are mythological, some contain outdated beliefs.  There of course also are historic references but this does not indicate that the rest is all history.  Claims of prophetic predictions, sometimes even about science, abound, but are not universally convincing.  Considering that holy texts, law codes, ethics and science are all human, "human vanity" is a flawed argument.   Science is also humbling, it discovered how small humans are in the universe, instead of elevating them as the main purpose of creation and principal preoccupation of a superior people with strangely-familiar thinking and behavior, playing chess in the sky to determine their destiny.