Category talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Category:Pseudoscience. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Possible solution for alternative medicines (chiropractic) categorisation

I'm attempting a possible solution to the labeling at the bottom of the chiropractic page. If the problem is that the label appears to be making a statement, then (assuming they also fit in the science category), the :category:science can also be placed there along side the :category:pseudoscience label. This assumes that we are using the science category in the same manner as the pseudoscience category (any subject that discusses science). This effectively should neutralize the debate and allow for the discussion of the pros and cons in each. I'm attempting it today. We'll see how it goes. Wish me luck. --Dematt 11:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting approach... hmmm. Dunno, given that the categories still appear without annotations. But your logic is right on, and if editors insist on including one, then the other has gotta go on too where (per sig POV's) both PS and scientific aspects exist. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it is working though. We have editors that don't like the science label placed on alt med sites. Then we have others who put the PS label back on and don't put the SC with it, so it's still somewhat contentious. I don't mind the discussion of pseudoscience issue. It's calling one thing pseudoscience and not mentioning your favorite, i.e. I still have not seen anything in the field of medicine with a pseudoscience tag on it. Makes me question the whole motivation for the PS "as long as we discuss it" concept. Unless there is some real movement in this direction, I don't think it will work. So far all I see is one editors attempt only to place chiropractic in the PS category. --Dematt 15:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative medicine is either fundamental.society.paranormal.spirituality (IF it defines itself as entirely spiritual and if it does not pretend to be scientific whatsoever.) or fundamental.nature.science.pseudoscience (IF it pretends to use some scientific methods). I am trying clearify "paranormal and scientific category definitions" so solve their categorisation problems in Category_talk:Paranormal. --Ollj 17:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Representative and unquestioned examples"

I'm repeating this from Talk:Chiropractic because of its general relevance. One editor have argued that scholars don't mean the term PS pejoratively, and others have argued that pejorativeness aside, a significant scholarly POV is enough to use the category. The problem is that Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorisation doesn't agree with this stance (echoing WP:CG's concerns that I've already mentioned in the archives). Scholarly intention doesn't change popular usage, which remains pejorative and therefore subject to the NPOV issues cited on the tutorial. For example, scholars may and do use the term "cult", and not mean it pejoratively, but it's still a pejorative term in popular usage, which makes it a "sensitive" category. Same with pseudoscience, which by definition means the proponent is engaging in misrepresentation in some way. That's a "sensitive" assertion to make, and invokes WP:NPOVT#Categorisation.

That NPOV page links to this guideline page, which says:

"For some 'sensitive' categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for 'sensitive' categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization.

Thus, chiropractic, which per sig POV's has both sci and PS aspects, isn't a representative and unquestioned example of PS. Similarly with acupuncture. Please note: I don't make this argument for all alt-med stuff labelled as PS, just the stuff that scientists take seriously enough to test and for which significant reviewers like Cochrane say there is evidence suggesting efficacy. Acu and chiro are the only ones I can think of, apart from a few herbs. I know there are various studies supporting various alt-med things, but I don't know of evidence-based medicine reviewers saying that meta-analysis of multiple studies suggests efficacy for them. I do recall seeing a Cochrane publication supporting chiro for low back pain, and Acupuncture#Scientific_research covers existing EBM stuff for acu.

NPOV's point about categories and "representative and unquestioned examples" seems pretty clear to me. KV, I respect the fact that we may agree to disagree here, but imo just because some scholars don't mean the term pejoratively doesn't change the fact that in popular usage it actually is understood to be pejorative. What do other editors think? regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jim Butler. This is all the same repetition of what is already in the archives. The category includes all articles that have issues of pseudoscience. Confirmation bias has pseudoscience issues, as does chiropractic (in both practice and theory). There is no way you can argue that either subject has no issues of pseudoscience. The primary and overruling NPOV rule is that pseudoscience is to be explained as science has received it. That has been achieved to some extent in the chiropractic article. The primary reason for categories is to help the reader browse related articles. To help the reader browse articles with issues of pseudoscience in them, chiropractic is to be added. Chiropractic has its own particular issues that relate to pseudoscience, and having the article in the category helps the reader understand those particular aspects of pseudoscience. An article can have both scientifically supported and pseudoscience aspects. In fact most subjects considered pseudoscience have aspects that are scientifically grounded or supported. This category is not a list of Wikipedia approved pseudosciences. It is to help the reader read issues of pseudoscience in related articles. NPOV policy on science over pseudoscience prevails, and helping the reader browse related articles is the primary objective. So lets accept the fact, and get on with helping the reader. KrishnaVindaloo 06:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello KV! Yes, this issue was raised in archived talk, here and in subsequent sections. Readers will note the lack of consensus among editors in those recent discussions.

Your statement that "The category includes all articles that have issues of pseudoscience" is not accepted by all editors, or even a majority of them. As you have probably noticed, a large majority of editors at chiropractic and perhaps half of the editors at pseudoscience disagree with you on using the category for chiro, and that includes some editors like Fyslee, Jim62sch and Kenosis who appear sympathetic with scientific skepticism, but also share my NPOV concerns.

You say "The primary and overruling NPOV rule is that pseudoscience is to be explained as science has received it." Not quite. The point that "pseudoscience is to be explained as science has received it" is indeed stated clearly on NPOV pages, but not to the exclusion of other aspects of NPOV, such as "describing a dispute fairly". We can easily say what scientists think about pseudoscience without slapping the category on every article that has been argued to have aspects of pseudoscience.

My point is that the statements on categorization are just as much a part of NPOV as the sections on pseudoscience, giving "equal validity", and making necessary assumptions, passages which some editors have cited as supporting your view. In fact, these aspects of NPOV are entirely consistent with one another. We can get the point across without using the category in every conceivable instance, and there are good reasons not to, as explained above in the NPOV tutorial using the example of Menachem Begin.

The criteria I'm suggesting for alt-med, evidence-based medicine reviews, aren't arbitrary. They are as good as scientific sources get for medicine. EBM is a clear threshold that would keep the tag off certain fields, but permit it to stay on a number of topics that are more obviously "representative and unquestioned examples". The simple fact, KV, is that no matter how we describe the category on its page, it remains a pejorative term and a sensitive one. Readers who don't click through are likely to see the category as a label (cf. category naming), and that label does not adequately or fairly explain how scientists have received these fields.

Remember the most basic description of NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." The category "asserts"; cf. WP's categorization guidelines. We can still describe scientists' views without the POV problems of using the category. Readers can still browse without it. They can read the pseudoscience article via wikilinking.

No offense taken or intended if we disagree, KV. Just wanted to argue my case adequately here. Remember, we do agree on citing and discussing pseudoscience in articles. Our only disagreement is about a tiny little label in a couple of arguably borderline cases. I'm simply saying that the use of it is misleading and POV when it appears without the context of adequate discussion. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - Note that one editor, Wclark, suggested in the archives that the Wikipedia software might be modifiable to allow annotation of categories (e.g., that only certain aspects have been called pseudoscientific, or whatever). That would smooth out the NPOV problem and incorporate an advantage that lists have, cf. WP:CLS. I think it's an excellent idea. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking briefly at the list, I think the category is useful, but admittedly contentious. There are some articles in the subcategories like "Mammals discovered since 2000", "Vaccine controversy", and "Gaydar", which upon examination sound as if they are discussing scientific data, not pseudoscience. Classification of "Social Darwinism" is a philosophical question - the doctrine uses science to 'justify' its political goals in a way I find improper, yet how can I say that Spencer, who taught Darwin the phrase "survival of the fittest", was a pseudo-scientist? Every political viewpoint claims some degree of justification from scientific fact and theory, and if you begin saying that the ones you disagree with are pseudo-science because of that, where do you stop? Yet I'd refuse to exclude "Eugenics" from the list, since so many of its practicioners failed to make any effort at devising a consistent theory and were simply accepting racial or other prejudice as axiomatic while presenting their efforts as scientific. In general, I don't think Wikipedia can shy away from making decisions about how to categorize things; the tough cases will simply need to be brought to a head and confronted individually. Mike Serfas 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I hadn't noticed the entries you pointed out. Indeed it is really a matter of being a reasonable editor. Reasons for inclusion: Does the subject have an issue of PS that helps the reader understand issues of PS? Basically, it helps if an article says why something is considered PS. I'll have a look at the articles you suggested. And of course, if a subject is considered PS by reputable sources that comes into it. But also remember that the category is not a list of pseudosciences. So there's no need to be too defensive about any particular entry. I'll get back to you on the ones you mention. KrishnaVindaloo 06:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Mike. Sure, I can't find the term pseudoscience in those articles you mentioned, though the cat has been added. I suggest they be removed and only restored if someone can provide a reliable source to say they think the subject is PS, and preferably say why they think it is so. They may have been added through some kind of personal agenda. KrishnaVindaloo 06:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't they have concepts that could be discussed as PS as well? Or is that just for chiropractic and acupuncture? --Dematt 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

They may do, but until there is clear mention and sourcing on the article, I would remove them from the cat. They can be restored if proper sourcing or evidence for the view of them being pseudoscientific ever turns up. KrishnaVindaloo 08:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's also a format problem here. Pseudoscience directs people to subcategories, but the subcategories are not only for pseudoscience! For example, "Gaydar" that I mentioned above is indexed in "alleged human skills", a subcategory of pseudoscience ... but "alleged human skills" is also (and foremost) a subcategory of "Human skills"! I think the only way the problem can be solved is by having one category for any given subcategory, or better yet, by eliminating all the subcategory pages and simply having their contents on the main Pseudoscience catalog, indented beneath each subcategory heading. This should then be checked with the alphabetical list that follows, so that the catalog contains simply categorically-indexed and alphabetically-indexed versions of the exact same list of items. But this is likely a broader problem in Wikipedia...Mike Serfas 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure Mike, I think you are right. But its only really a problem when editors apply it poorly. I still have some faith in good editors here:) KrishnaVindaloo 05:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

sorting (notes)

I moved subcategories of pseudoscience deeper INTO their subcategories of pseudoscience. Mostly into Creationism, Divination or Earth mysteries. Ie. category "intelligent design" is now ONLY in "creationsism", wich is still in "pseudoscience".

Might need "category supernatural" and "category junk science" soon do differenciate "pseudoscience" better. (ie. for creationism that is more than just "pseudoscience" ) --Ollj 15:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Page redesign

I recently edited the page to clarify the purpose of the category, and to tidy things up. Most importantly, I clarified that the members of this category may include articles on:

individuals (or organizations) that are notably associated with practicing or espousing pseudoscience — regardless of the merits of these associations

I wanted to emphasize that it's not necessary to "prove" that somebody is a pseudoscientist in order to include them in this category.

individuals (or organizations) that are notably opposed to pseudoscience

Some noted skeptics are included here, for example Michael Shermer.

These two were already present, so I just restructured the prose into a list with those above, to make it easier to read:

fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects
subjects which a significant portion of the scientific community fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another

I think these changes make the purpose of this category a bit clearer, but as always am willing to discuss them if anybody objects. --Sapphic 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Having individuals that are notably opposed to pseudoscience here is wrong; it's misleading to label people with the bare name of what they oppose. Imagine Ann Coulter in categories like Communism, American Democratic Party, American liberalism, Atheism...--Prosfilaes 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It actually makes sense. People who actively espouse pseudoscience should be under the label Category:Pseudoscientists. you will notice Category:Communism does include Category:Anti-communism--ZayZayEM 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that one of the above points contradicts the policy on categories as quoted below. Controversial category attributions should be avoided. Hgilbert 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Other categories of pseudo science

I think there are other category's of pseudo science. If pseudo science is something that is trying to look as science but does not use scientific methods I think "science politics" is surely a candidate.

"science politics" should be defined as a political discussion that is disguising itself as a scientific discussion. By doing this interest groups can cause doubt about scientific conclusions. Of course also science has is discussions and is working with hypothesis rather than with proven certainty's, but if the evidence is overwhelming, scientist would accept a hypothesis as a scientific fact until other evidence appears. In a political discussion you will always have a, sometimes big, group to oppose the general view. What's more, interest groups can use more people to support their view. This are supporters of the political view of the interest groups who would not be hindered by scientific ethics. Those people may be very active one many levels, like in the media or in internet discussion forums and will reach more people than the actual scientists. And media may like the "game" and present both view as equal options. So "science politics" would be a political discussion that is giving the impression that a scientific discussion is going on while in reality no important scientific discussion exists. Some consider the discussion about the effects of passive smoking was a "science politics" one. It allowed that some measures against smoking where delayed. Also the discussion about the human influence on the heating of the atmosphere is sometimes considered to be "science politics".

Complexer would be "religion politics". Here religious groups would claim participating in a scientific discussion. Similar methods would be used as in "science politics" to cause doubts. However a closer look would reveal that this activity of these groups are not religious but political ones. The aim would be a political one. If they would be speaking to their congregation about how people should live, experience their religion that would be a religious activity. If they are speaking to the society trying to change the rules that would be a political activity. Prove of this would be that most of the groups do not accept a separation between state and religion, and that a considerable number of the members of these groups are active in political forums expressing points of view about political themas in the context of their religions. So "religion politics" has to be defined as not really religion activity, neither scientific activity but really political activity. But because it is posing as a scientific activity it can be mentioned here. Some consider the discussion about the evolution launched by conservative Christian and Muslim groups as "religion politics".

Reference: http://www.stwr.net/content/view/1147/37/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.118.204 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

article of interest

Could people who watch this article check out Psychohistory - I am not sure if it counts as a pseudoscience or not. Judging from the article it seems to be the invention of one guy, Lloyd deMause (try googling him) and his students/disciples. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Burzyński

There is an edit dispute at Stanisław Burzyński. One of the disputed points is the placement of the article in Category:Pseudoscience. Your input would be welcomed. Сасусlе 05:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Crocodile oil

I suspect that this page, which was created by a man importing a topical ointment containing fat extracted from crocodiles, is total nonsense. Most of the text, full of jargon but unreferenced, was moved to the talk page. I'm intending to take this page to AfD. If there's anyone who knows about topical use of oils and fats around, their commments there would be helpful. Thank you! almost-instinct 09:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-racist mathematics

Really, how on earth is this even "science" in the context of this category? Anti-racist mathematics is a socio-political campaign to change the teaching and study of mathematics to advance minority students. What reliable sources merit it being here? The Squicks (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the connection is tenuous (and if Anti-racist mathematics gets in, what other politically correct and/or post-modernist theses come in on its coattails?), but the correct forum for discussing this issue is on Talk:Anti-racist mathematics, not here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This category should be removed

In my opinion this category does not make sense. If any of the pages listed on this page are being criticized, they should be criticized explicitly and openly IN THE ARTICLE. Adding an article to this category does not solve any problem. It shifts it to a different level. Instead of discussing "Which scientific standards lead us to rejecting statement X?" you then have to discuss "Why should article X be put in the group Pseudoscience?" which is not easier to settle in my opinion. The fact that some page appears in this category somehow suggests that the article in question is false or misleading which should never be the case.

--Kjell.kuehne 12:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what some might expect due to my involvement in getting this category's abuse reined in, i would like to argue that this category is useful insofar as it is restrictvely employed (and i am not talking about the guidelines that now appear at the top of this category's Talk page, with which i strongly disagree, as they are too expansive an application). There are things which masquerade as sciences. These would be helpfully identified in the same way that hoaxes, frauds, and fallacies are helpfully revealed. This is different than identifying what scientific skeptics and scientism apologists regard as pseudoscientific materials. Those should be restricted to the Pseudoscience page in a description of their POV, restricted to that location, or to a list associated with it of topics and objects on the page or a supplemental appendix which correctly and accurately reflects their point of view. The Pseudoscience category itself should only be applied to things which masquerade as sciences in a modern sense which don't in fact employ the scientific method or adhere to standards of empiricism which have any basis in fact.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"scientific skeptics and scientism apologists"? Abuse? You're on a roll, dude. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. :) I have been noticing the categories blipping in and out of inclusion (more often the latter) and so think you may be quite correct.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even here?

It appears to me that this entire section exists solely to provide a certain type of Internet Flamer with a place to try and validiate his/her particular bigotries. I can think of no other reason why a belief in God is given TWO DIFFERENT entries. Tell me, under the "Religion" section, is there a "hateful sinners" section that lists Atheists and Darwinist multiple times?

I have no problem with Atheists. What I have a HUGE problem with is people trying to use sections like this one as a method for spewing hatred towards a particular group. If all this section is ever going to be is a place for smug dorks to list whatever group they're feeling hatred towards at the moment, then the mods should SERIOUSLY consider removing it.

Please remember that if an article is included here, that does not mean that the topic of the article is an example of pseudoscience. It means that the topic is associated with pseudoscience, in some way or another. If a particular topic is accused of being pseudoscience, that may be enough to warrant inclusion in this category. Even if a topic is known to be legitimate science, and accepted as such by the mainstream scientific community, it may still be listed here if the (mistaken) belief that it is pseudoscience is widespread enough. This category includes noted skeptics and articles on logical fallacies, which are obviously not examples of pseudoscience but are simply related to the topic. Hope this clears things up, --Sapphic 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But we should not conflict with Wikipedia policy for categories, as may be the case for some categorizations here:

"If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?"
"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option."
"An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there."

Note the warning on applying categories to articles when this can be shown through reliable sources to be controversial. Hgilbert 00:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "association with <something bad>" remains close to a smear campain. As it's in conflict with policy as cited, this category should go, and hopefuly it will go one day. Harald88 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A generally understood hoax (e.g. the Leo Taxil Hoax; google it) should be part of the Category:Hoaxes. A generally understood faux scientific enterprise should be part of the Category:Pseudoscience. Beyond this, as a pejorative category tag, it should be severely restricted lest it become a tool of cultural struggle in negative campaigning and effacement. Expressions which pertain to what is associated with pseudoscience should be placed on the Pseudoscience page proper or mentioned in the article if it is pertinent. Plastering things which are merely associated with pseudoscience with the category tag is irresponsible and destructive of content.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Merely associated"? Sounds subjective.

re last sentence (ignorning "Merely associated"): Because? How so? Explain, please. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be subjective without some kind of application criteria to type. It is destructive of content because it washes over as an adjective what doesn't merit the term as a noun.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the Pseudoscience cat

Simply put, the pseudoscience cat is appropriate in many cases, but it is abused. If it is to be kept, it must be applied as written: both to subjects and institutions who fight pseudoscience, and those which are or promote it. It must not be applied to subjects with a following, unless properly sourced per the ArbComs which relate to it. It must be applied only to truly obvious pseudosciences without such sourcing. Further, if the cat is to be kept, then the problem stated by jossi must be addressed:

WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable, forces us not to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize an article as such when that is disputed. As per WP:CATEGORY: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.

This is a matter of ArbComs and basic adherence to stated policy and NPOV, and so not merely a matter for voting or even consensus, as the NPOV policy and WP:ATT are not negotiable. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics of a pseudoscience base their skepticism in fact. There is a mountain of studies showing homeopathy, acupuncture, magnet therapy, creation science, numerology, astrology, psychics, dowsing, etc. do not work. The only evidence the proponents have are testimonials and badly constructed clinical trials. JDCAce (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Opponents of what is labelled pseudoscience base their criticism on a variety of factors, some of what conforms to your description. Studies showing that a tool, therapy, divinatory method, or paranormal power or ability do not work should be helpfully included in the article in question. That which masquerades as science which is in fact not (and is fraudulent) should be the target of the Pseudoscience category tag (e.g. creation science). Otherwise the hostile tagging of items with pejoratively named categories does not conform with the proper use of categories insofar as they don't accurately reflect the content of the page proper, and actually represent an incursion by opponents who are seeking to use category tagging as a means of social struggle.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"hostile tagging"? You can divine intent via paranormal faculties, I presume. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse is reasonably termed hostile (in the sense that it is an aggressive incursion for which there has yet to be demonstrated a warranted need). You seem to be attempting distracting sarcasm.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Improving inclusion criteria

I am copying some comments from the Cfd that comment on or suggest improving the inclusion criteria for this category:

Point followed. The category simply needs more stringent enforcing of its scope, of what may be covered by it (i.e. only things that make a claim to be scientific in basis). We find similar creeping in of entries for all categories, I've noticed LinaMishima (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Good points. Definitely needs policing and only subjects that are falsifiable and/or make scientific claims should be included. BTW, I parse the ArbCom decision's four categories here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Misunderstanding_of_two_very_different_matters . -- Fyslee / talk 04:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep but clarify its purpose. I had hoped that an additional CfD may help bring some clarification regarding the oft-quoted ArbCom decision. Currently, here is the description of the category:

This category comprises articles pertaining to pseudoscience. This includes:

individuals (or organizations) that are notably associated with practicing or espousing pseudoscience — regardless of the merits of these associations

individuals (or organizations) that are notably opposed to pseudoscience

fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects

subjects which a significant portion of the scientific community fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another

(Note that some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community.)

It seems that the stated purpose of the category is inconsistent with the ArbCom decision, and I think further discussion is warranted. But the category is obviously useful, however controversial it may be. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Those criteria seem incompatible with WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience as well, which provides guidelines based on the ArbCom decision. It puts the criteria for what should be "categorized" as pseudoscience as those topics which are "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Many of the topics included probably fail that criteria. If this CfD fails, someone should do an RfC to create a better criteria that's compatible with the ArbCom decision. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rework Keep per ArbCom decision and usefulness, but reword criteria for inclusion to reflect that decision, and remove any entry that doesn't meet that criteria. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope we can start working on improving the inclusion criteria.

Please place comments below this so we don't disturb the comments above. -- Fyslee / talk 07:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee knows well where I stand but will just say for others' benefit: I agree with Nealparr that we should modify inclusion criteria to conform with ArbCom's decision and NPOV policy (and that should be do-able with a bold edit). For a larger set of topics, we should direct editors and readers to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, hopefully soon to be retitled per RfC there to something like List of alleged pseudosciences, and expanded accordingly. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There's definitely an overwhelming need to reconcile inclusion criteria with the ArbCom decision and the NPOV FAQ. I'll help. — Scientizzle 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess Hrafn's objection[1] to your change had to do with WP:ASR, which at one point was said not to apply to lists, but was changed (see WP:L talk page. It's a funny situation, because despite what WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience explicitly says, someone is bound to object to almost any change since it's a contentious topic. Eventually, maybe things will get settled. We could try and change the substance, leaving out specific mention of Wikipedia, and leave a hidden note to check the notes at the top of the talk page. --Jim Butler^(talk) 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I favoured deleting this category as it seems inherently POV. But since we are stuck with it for now and it is such a mess, I propose a zero-based approach of removing all entries and starting again in a well-proven, consensual way. For example, consider Phrenology, which is currently included. But I read this week that "Psychologists spent much of the 20th century denigrating the work of 19th-century physiognomists and phrenologists who thought the shapes of faces and skulls carry information about personality. However, recent work has shown that such traits can, indeed, be assessed from photographs of faces with a reasonable accuracy." (see The Economist). So, what we have here is not pseudoscience but a developing science. Since it is in the nature of science to be constantly testing, refining and discarding hypotheses, such an example shows the difficulty of hitting a moving target. Each case needs good discussion to avoid error of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Three points: (1) The Economist is hardly a good source for the state of scientific research, as its treatment of the subject is necessarily superficial; (2) the research relates to faces, not shape of heads, so is only loosely related to Phrenology; (3) the research was based on subjective reaction of viewers, so may simply relate to the subjects having more attractive or more expressive faces, or a more positive expression, rather than to any substantive personality traits. Your conclusions are therefore not substantiated by this source, and Phrenology is still a pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - The Economist is an excellent secondary source. The primary research is being published in Psychological Science. The exact details of the research and the extent of the findings are unimportant. The key point is that this field is being pursued in a scientific way, using the scientific method. The earlier state of this science was weak, just as early medicine was weak. But it is not the results that determine whether something is a pseudoscience but the methods. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we're stuck with this cat, and it does sometimes apply, we at least need to reconcile it with the relevant ArbComs. More importantly, the community needs to come up with criteria for recognizing an "obvious pseudoscience." I think the ArbCom gave some guidance on that also, because their mention of Time cube seems to indicate that things that absurd are obvious, but things more reasonable or with a greater following are not "obvious." Things which are above the level of "obvious pseudoscience" need to be "generally considered pseudoscience" for the category to apply. Thus, since things need to be sourced, one needs a source stating that they are generally considered pseudoscience, such as with Astrology- and I'm guessing phrenology also (: This will leave a gap for less notable non-obvious fringe topics, which is another of the main problems with the cat...... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think obvious/absurd pseudoscience would not be a bad description for purported medical remedies which bear a similar relationship to their purported active ingredient as a "Churchill martini" has to vermouth: "get[ting] as close to the vermouth bottle as to 'look at it from across the room'". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, so would I. I assume you refer to Homeopathy. It's absurd, tho I make no judgment on whether or not it works. But you just made clear one of the primary problems we're having, which is that 1) WP editors are being asked to judge what is "obvious," and 2) WP editors are ignoring some of the things the ArbCom says, such as that if a thing has a following, but cannot be sourced to be "generally considered pseudoscience," then it should not be so categorized. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Martinphi, you are standing matters on their head. "Obvious" pseudoscience would generally be pseudoscience that lacks any rigorous and repeatable scientific experimental confirmation and violates known scientific principles. And example is perpetual motion. This does not mean that that they "cannot be sourced" (but may mean, as they are often long-forgotten and/or widely ignored by science, that the references may be old and/or obscure). Can you cite any example of something that has been explicitly included as "obvious pseudoscience" which cannot be sourceable, if needed? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology cannot be sourced as obvious pseudoscience, but has been so included at various times. What you say seems to be OR on your part, which again reveals the problem. The following is written by Jim Butler, and explains things very well:

Lengthy quote from Jim Butler (the extent of which is vague without additional formatting)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm involved only recently and at Adam Cuerden's invitation, and am optimistic that we can work this out. Not sure we need a case here as much as cooling-off.

Still, some things that might be considered:

(A) Adam makes a good point re educating readers about science, and the hazards of misleading readers about the weight of individual studies. I wouldn't keep such studies out of WP, but per WP:WEIGHT, we might as a rule have a "see also" template at the top of sections citing individual studies, linking to evidence-based medicine and such. That would provide adequate context, as we should. Having done so, it's OK to go into detail about homeopathy theory, even when superseded by science, on homeopathy pages. Overall, WP:WEIGHT says it all:

"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

(B) Regarding WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience: those criteria were good and generally clear, but there are two possible things to clarify:

What is the demarcation between "obvious pseudoscience" (tiny fringe, Time Cube-like stuff) and other areas that followed ("generally considered pseudoscience" e.g astrology, "questionable science" e.g. psychoanalysis etc.)? Though not explicit, it appeared to be that the latter are well-known and have attracted V RS commentary from scientists. If so, cool.

We do need to source claims of consensus. WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience tells us that we may categorize as pseudoscience topics that "are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Meeting that criterion requires a source, right? Per WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus:

"Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

Scientific-consensus-type sources can be found in articles like this:

Lacking such sources, my understanding is that may not use category:pseudoscience, although we may and certainly should include criticism from reliable sources in articles. This stuff absolutely belongs in WP; only with the "category:pseudoscience" tag should we be more restrictive.

Does the above make sense to most editors, and if so, do we really need an ArbCom case? regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology#Criticism contains dozens of citations, more than sufficient to substantiate the statement that Parapsychology is pseudoscience. Most editorial decisions, wikipedia guidelines and policies and ArbComm rulings involve judgement calls that would be WP:OR if they were stated in the article. Your line of argument is wholly specious and without merit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

They nevertheless do not add up to a citation for "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community." Again, OR- you are not the ArbCom. And I will not be responding to you any more, because of your rudeness. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To expect sources to use the phrase "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", when this phrase was recently created out of thin air by ArbComm (so is not a phrasing that any expert discussing the scientific status of Parapsychology is likely to use) is utterly and completely LUDICROUS! Yes, spurious tendentious arguments make me angry and therefore more likely to call a spade a spade. I am glad you are going to cease inflicting these meritless arguments on me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It must have taken a little time to get that shouting font exactly right. ;-) Take a minute to read this and explain where the reasoning is flawed? (Remembering WP:Common knowledge.) cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. So what DO we do about the "obvious pseudoscience" thing? Any idea of where we could clearly draw the line? On your userpage, you seem to be talking about subjects which are above that level. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The language suggests that the threshold is that non-obvious pseudosciences have "a following", and that this may be indicated by the presence of sources commenting on the topic. And to leaven the caveats of common knowledge with "common sense". But the problem is the all-or-nothing nature of categories themselves. Maybe we need to combine the virtues of both categories and lists, allowing annotation somehow, as well as be more NPOV with naming them. Check out the discussion-du-jour at Talk:Homeopathy, e.g. here. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>I was shouting because Martinphi's demand for sources that use ArbComm's exact wording was arrant bad faith nonsense. In the future, ignoring any further spurious claims of his should not be taken as acquiescence. I am unconvinced that WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus should be the standard when the ArbComm ruling made mention of neither this guideline nor even made explicit use of the word "consensus". The phrase "generally considered" appears to be meant as an off-mainspace guidance for editors when classifying fields as pseudoscientific, not as a formal category for mainspace. It is thus the on-mainspace "pseudoscientific" that requires verification, not the off-mainspace "generally considered". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made a couple of bold edits to bring the article in line with policy and current usage (e.g., we haven't been including critics of pseudoscience, like James Randi). So, am trying to bring it into line with WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, and include "obvious PS" and "generally considered PS". regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice edits. "("alleged crappiness", "disputed wonderfulness" etc.), could work okay." lol. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A read of your excellent posts on the category of Pseudoscience and its use, Jim, leads me to conclude that the reasoning is flawed where the descriptor no longer resolves around a definitive noun referent (a pseudoscience), and instead focusses on a descriptive adjective referent (pseudoscientific 'stuff').

The most conservative application with a NPOV for this category tag (which i recommend and am advocating regardless of any arbitration rulings) would be as applied to things which have been evaluated by the scientific community repeatedly as frauds; and beyond this, to those which present themselves mistakenly or fraudulently as employing scientifically-rigorous methodologies in evaluation of what they are claiming (falsely) is scientific data. Obviously it may also be applied to orgs and people who oppose what they perceive or assert are pseudosciences or what they characterize as pseudoscientific.

The mis-use of this category is as it applies to data itself (extending beyond noun referents, or sciences which claim to generate scientific knowledge but in fact do not), such as phenomena and processes like therapies, divinatory practices, and objects which may be the focus of pseudoscientists, and thereby enter into adjective referents and pseudoscientific ambiguity.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)