Talk:Pseudoscience

Older discussions may be found here: Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 1

What constitutes pseudoscience?

The more I look at this article, the more I begin to feel that the examples section does the whole article a disservice. I would suggest moving (with an appropriate link) the contents of that section to a new list type article on subjects which some people consider to be pseudoscientific, perhaps List of pseudoscience ? topics, with the question mark in the title. The basis for including an item on the list would simply be that the issue is considered in the article for it.

It is extremely difficult to maintain encyclopedic perspective on this topic as long as we need to keep fending off claims about whether a particular study is or is not science or pseudoscience. Zealotry, self-righteousness and bullying are common on both sides, and they do us no good. If some people make a claim that SETI is pseudoscientific it's a fact that some people believe that, but that fact is distinct from the question of whether SETI really is pseudoscientific. In a similar vein there may be a significant number of us who consider Tarot readings to be pseudoscientific, but again the fact of the disbelief is distinct from whether Tarot really is pseudoscientific. How can the latter be pseudoscientific in the absence of claims that it is scientific.

This is one area where there is a desparate need to find common ground for discussion. There is also a need to keep these arguments from creeping into a lot of articles where it doesn't belong. I recognize that there is a large community that considers astrology to be a pseudoscience, just as there is another large community that supports astrology. That should not translate into the necessity of having the whole debate over and over again on every article that is a sub-topic of astrology.

In short I think that we should have the following:

1. A single article (this one) which discusses pseudocience in a general way,
2. A wikied list article that accepts without debate any subject that anybody considers to be pseudoscientific. The only requirement would be that the link be to the place where the pseudoscience nature of the subject is discussed.
3. Discussions of pseudoscience should be avoided on sub-topic pages, where the reference to pseudoscience should be limited to a single link to the page where the discussion is more appropriate. Eclecticology 20:51 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate to contain debate on the pseudoscientific nature of certain activities to a limited number of articles. I wouldn't object to the creation of a seperate list of topics considered to be pseudoscientific. However, the main pseudoscience article will still need to contain the odd example, for the purposes of explaining the concept of pseudoscience.

The introduction to the list would need to be carefully worded to state that "some" people find the topics listed pseudoscientific. Some, perhaps even a majority of scientists, may disagree, and see the linked article for more discussion.

By the way, I find it interesting that you raise astrology as an example. I thought we'd had that debate before. --Robert Merkel

Thanks, it sounds like we're getting somewhere. I suggested one possible name for the list article, but wasn't wholly satisfied with it. I'd like it to be acceptable to both main tendencies in this debate, without getting too long-winded. Any ideas on this narrow point?

What should we use as examples?

I agree about a carefully chosen selection of examples that can illustrate just what you say, and the broad range of topics that tend to be thrown into the pseudoscience pot from SETI which tends to have strong support in the scientific community to squaring the circle which can be proven impossible. If we can keep focused on the goal that these examples are here to illustrate the problems without descending into a debate on the scientific truth any specific example, it should work out.

There was no particular intention to using astrology as an example, other than that I'm more familiar with it. Of the subjects that might be considered here it likely has the second largest body of available literature (after Christianity/creationism etc.). With such a large body of literature it is far more likely to spawn sub-topic articles than many other things on the list. Eclecticology 00:13 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Although I've been watching this article for some time, I want to ponder a little longer before launching into discussion of the specifics. In the meantime though, I want to express general approval of the plan to seperate debate of the particular from description of the general. Tannin 03:04 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the creation of a separate list. This seems to be an attempt to weasel out and it leads us away from fair NPOV and to a list where everyone will just add all sorts of topics (as seems to happen with many of our lists). How about just adding all humanities since they do not rest strongly on empirical observation? No, this is not the way to resolve this problem.

If there is a claim to be made that a significant faction of people believes a certain topic to be pseudoscientific, put it in this article, preferably with a reference. But what I see here are consistent attempts to insert a pro-pseudoscientific agenda into this article by muddling generally recognized distinctions. Prove me wrong: Add references to your claims that a certain discipline is considered pseudoscientific by a large number of people (I have already referenced the support for SETI & Co. in the scientific community). Then we compare the numbers and the types of people who consider it pseudoscientific. Then we can structure the article accordingly. --Eloquence 04:06 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

How then is this different? There will be a list, of that we may be certain. The question seems to me to be where should that list go? Leaving it here is to risk winding up with an article so full of references to this and that, and so chopped up by the inevitable edit wars that it is unreadable. ("To risk"? What am I saying? It already is.) I'm not sure that Eclecticology's precise idea is the best way to go, but (as I read it) his main point is that there are really two seperate articles here: one on what psudoscience is (i.e., the logical distinction between science and psudoscience) and the other on what things may justly be said to be "psudoscience" as opposed to "real science" (or, for that matter, "non science".) Tannin

No, no, no. Moving stuff away because of the "risk of edit wars" is bad thinking. If there's an edit war, at least one person is acting immaturely, and possibly more than one. This can be documented and, if necessary, punished. Moving it away and letting people edit the list willy nilly would sacrifice accuracy for "edit peace". My opinion is that the current presentation is, for the most part, alright. --Eloquence 15:39 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Let's try to nail down the definition

It may be useful and interesting to try to nail down some definition of the term pseudoscience that approaches objectivity. I expect it will be a long debate, with various proponents trying to fit a definition to their own pre-set categories, and then an even longer one (possibly interminable) as to what fields are "real sciences". In any case, I think it still needs to be pointed out that in actual usage the term "pseudoscience" is typically not used in an objective sense, but rather more often reflects the speaker's own biases. This should be obvious from the fact that, far from being a clinical term, the term typically carries derogatory and derisive connotations. As Eloquence seems to be pointing out, the recipients of the appellation "pseudoscience" may simply be whichever fields get the most votes in the ongoing scientific unpopularity contest. Forgive my being relatively new to the Wikipedia, but this does raise a question that has come to my mind regarding the 'pedia in general: I know that NPOV is the Holy Grail of the Wikipedia, but failing that, when writing articles, do we try to err on the side of objectivity or on the side of popular opinion? There are strong arguments for both .... Grizzly 11:04 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Grizzly, NPOV ≠ objective: see Wikipedia:NPOV. Wikipedia articles should not err on one side or the other; articles should not take a position. They should state facts and state opinions so long as the opinion is pertinent and can be attributed to a particular person or persons. B

I agree with Ecleticology's suggestion for a list of pseudoscientific candidates although I think the list should be broader and categorized to include protoscientific and nonscientific suspects as well and be titled something like: Protoscientific, pseudoscientific and nonscientific candidates. This is in line with wiki policy to report pertinent, attributed opinions whether we like them or not. Then this article can point to the list for an example/model of what some think is pseudoscience. Further, if for example homeopathy were on the list, there should be at least one statement in the list from say the medical community like JAMA or the FDA about homeopathy in general or criticism of a particular homeopathic treatment like the uses of colloidal silver. B

There's absolutely no point in moving this to a separate "list" article. That only encourages sloppy categorization. Just edit the damn article if you think there's something missing. --Eloquence

---

Ok, perhaps I should explain *why* I think Eclecticology's proposal is a good one. To me, the most important things for the Wikipedia to contain about pseudoscience are: 1) an article accurately describing the concept, and 2) where there is a view by some, many, or a lot of people that a field is pseudoscientific, the article on that topic should discuss that in detail so the reader can make their own determination. Any list of "pseudosciences" is very much of secondary importance.

A list which divides things up into "almost universally regarded as pseudoscience", "regarded as pseudoscience by some scientists", and so on, will necessarily have to short-circuit lots of complexities (including those with the whole concept of pseudoscience) which is very hard to do in a NPOV manner, and to me represents a lot of wasted effort that would be better spent on the topic articles, which the reader will have to read anyway if they want to understand the topic and its scientific credibility.

Therefore, to me Eclecticology's proposal represents a way to concentrate effort on making this article better, and topic articles better, and avoids wasting time having debates on list categorizations that aren't in the final washup that important or useful in the context of the Wikipedia anyway.--Robert Merkel 23:32 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Any encyclopedia article needs to give proper examples for its subject to be understandable. That this is "very hard" for controversial topics is not an excuse to move the examples away to separate pages, especially when Eclecticology states that the list should accept "without debate any subject that anybody considers to be pseudoscientific."

No serious encyclopedia would do that and we are, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. If I read an article about pseudoscience, I expect homeopathy, perpetual motion machines, "intelligent design" and the like to be mentioned and discussed in brief. I don't want an end result that is eloquent but doesn't dare to say anything of value because it might tick off pro-pseudoscientists. If people working on this article violate NPOV to push an agenda, then this is the problem, not the article.

Once again, the current article is fine, what it lacks, for the most part, is a brief summary of the opinions about the subjects mentioned, with the subjects themselves discussed in their respective articles. --Eloquence 01:13 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)~

I have no objection to the article containing a brief number of examples that show the broad range of subjects that are sometimes treated as pseudoscience. But whether SETI or astrology or intelligent design are pseudosciences is not about pseudoscience; it is about SETI or astrology or intelligent design as the case may be. Examples are merely illustrative. If the examples are not "proper" examples then, rather than make the subject more understandable, they create more confusion and unclarity. The article does include a workable list of criteria for determining whether a subject may be classed as pseudoscience; I would feel more comfortable if we strictly conformed to those criteria; that would be a more scientific approach.

To maintain NPOV in this article we need to avoid both a pro-pseudoscience bias and an anti-pseudoscience bias.

Eloquence, if you note my earlier comments, I have already made the point that I still regard the inclusion of examples of possibly pseudoscientific topics as illustrative examples in this article as essential. I have also said that extensive discussions of whether a particular topic is regarded as pseudoscience, by whom, and on what grounds, is appropriate for a particular article page (eg SETI, acupuncture, homeopathy, telepathy). However, to attempt to categorise and summarise what might become very complex arguments about the views of a particular activity in a list where there is not space to do so is likely to lead to endless arguments and isn't particularly useful information, as anybody who wants to find out more should read the topic article anyway! Therefore, if there has to be a list, and we're going to have arguments about it, I would prefer it to be as loosely defined as possible so we don't have to bother with pointless categorization and summarization arguments. --Robert Merkel 11:33 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

We are in agreement up to a point: detailed discussions are best placed in their respective subject articles. But a separate pseudoscience list with loose criteria is a cop out that only encourages sloppy work. If a particular discussion gets too long, we can always move it to its subject article while retaining a brief summary. What we should try to do is quantify opinions. This can be done, for example, by searching scientific databases for "field name + pseudoscien*". (That alone does not suffice, because any article so found may actually argue that the field is not pseudoscientific.) Skeptical organizations like CSICOP are also a good source for finding scientific claims. I for one think that the current presentation is fairly accurate, but it lacks a few pseudoscientific fields. --Eloquence 12:00 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Lir and Vera Cruz have their say

I agree with Robert Merkel. Vera Cruz

Thanks for supporting my point. --Eloquence

That was very rude and such statements do not foster a positive community environment here at wikipedia. Vera Cruz

I had no idea you could be funny, Lir! -Eloquence 01:22 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I am well aware of the "Lir/Vera Cruz" debates, but would it not be to everybody's benefit to accept a simple comment at it's face value without regard to what individual is making the comment? Eclecticology

Agreement on some points

It seems, then, that we are all agreed on the following points:

1. This article should be about psudoscience in general
2. It is not about the merits of any particular instance of an alleged psudoscience.
3. In order to explain the concept of a psudoscience lucidly, it is necessary to use some illustrative examples.
4. But this article is not the proper place to debate the status of those examples.
5. Instead, there should be individual articles on whichever alleged psudosciences seem to merit it: for example, astrology, palmistry, creation science, SETI, and so on.

Other points remain at issue, but these five are not. I am suggesting that we can table discussion of the remaining controversial points for the time being in order to take action on the points that are not controversial. (Should there be a list? If so, what sort of list? What goes in and what stays out? - These are all matters that can be dealt with seperately.) In the meantime, all that is required is one or two or at most three examples that are clearly non-controversial.

I am sure that we can all agree that chemistry is not a psudoscience: that one is iron-clad. To contrast with it, can we not find an iron-clad example of a psudoscience? It is obvious that none of the currently controversial ones are suitable - the very fact that they are controversial shows that. So why not choose an extinct psudoscience as our example: one that did represent itself as a real science and has subsequently been completely discredited.

I'll suggest two or three possibilities in a moment, but please bear it in mind that the suitability of these particular examples is not relevant to the validity of my suggestion: in other words, if you think my examples are bad, do not discard the underlying validity of the idea unless and until we have considered and rejected all possible candidates for the role of non-contoversial psudoscience.

I'm sure that others will come up with better candidates, but, just to provide a starting point, what about phrenology? Or scientology? (Is that one completely dead yet?) Or astrology? (Yes, there are people who still believe in it, but not one of them is a scientist. Not the best choice, this one, but it would do at a pinch.) The history of science must be littered with former psudosciences that are now defunct. Which is the most suitable one to use as an example?

Tannin 12:43 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I can't follow you. Why should we limit ourselves to two or three examples? Your logic seems to be "As long as nobody is likely to show up and be offended by a particular example, it's a good one". Sorry, I don't buy it. We're not here to create a non-offensive wishy-washy encyclopedia, we're here to create a complete and accurate encyclopedia. That entails coverage of controversial subjects in the articles where they belong. Again, a detailed discussion may be reserved for the subject articles, but there's no reason not to have a summary of the opinions here ("most medical professionals believe .." etc.). This reminds me of the Richard Wagner discussion, where it was argued that Wagner's anti-Semitism should be discussed elsewhere because it would be too upsetting for Wagner fans .. --Eloquence 13:09 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'm surprised, Eloquence. It's very simple propositon, after all. To explain the concept of "psudoscience" is one task, and that task (a) needs no more than two or three examples, and (b) requires that the examples cited be clear and accurate, and sufficiently uncontroversial that the mere mention of them does not invite partisans to wade in and obscure the real topic (what is a psudoscience) with their own agenda (why X is/is not a psudoscience).

This is not about being non-offensive, it's about being practical. I have no objection to having most medical professionals believe statements in a secondary part of the article (i.e., after point #1 in my list above is satisfied) - indeed, I think it is important that these things be covered - and I retain an open mind as to whether that purpose is best served by a single, two-part article or by two seperate articles. But it is an elementary rule of both good teaching and good writing that a subject should first be defined and introduced in as plain and simple a way as possible, free of distractions, and only then should the complexities be tackled.

Of those 5 numbered points I made above, which one do you not agree with? Tannin

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you. Yes, in the first part of the article, we should use non-controversial examples. But the question "is X pseudoscience or is it not" should be discussed for most X here until the list gets too long. --Eloquence

Excellent. I think we are making progress. I suppose the next question must be the more difficult one of how to decide if any given X ought to be listed. Is it better to select grounds for this a priori, or just on an ad hoc basis as each question arises? Tannin

First, we must note that nobody wants to be called a pseudoscientist -- this word can, by its nature, only be objectively applied by others. We must therefore look at the number of scientists who are not directly involved with a particular field and who express an opinion as to its status as pseudoscience. If a strong majority of these scientists feels that the field is pseudoscience, this should be mentioned in the article (preferably with references, such as database search results). In the case of SETI, for example, some astronomers feel that it is pseudoscience or questionable science, but these are a small minority. As to the inevitable question "why scientists", scientists are the largest group sharing a similar definition of pseudoscience and understanding of the scientific method; other groups such as religions are also relevant, but they typically do not use the term and, if so, with greatly varying definition. --Eloquence 14:24 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Acupuncture and lucid dreaming

Not to throw a monkey wrench into the works, but...

The statement that "acupuncture and lucid dreaming may be considered protosciences" is a little off the mark to me. Specifically, acupuncture makes two types of claims: (i) that the practice of acupuncture will "cure what ails ya"; and (ii) that the theory of acupunture (qi, etc.) is an accurate representation of physical reality. At first thought, it seems to me that the protoscientific aspect of acupuncture is only (i); this appears to be a set of claims which are testable (e.g., "if there is back pain, then accupuncture at points a, b, c, etc."), and may or may not turn out to be verifiable. But the vitalistic theory underpinning (ii) seems less likely to be testable; and in fact may already be refutable (e.g., the claim that there are energy nodes located in a series of chains within the body). It is in the latter area that people tend to claim that acupuncture is a pseudo (rather proto) science - evidence which contradicts the theory tends to be discounted, because the practice still works (according to some; I'm not arguing either way here!).

To contrast, radiation cancer therapy (as practiced by standard Western medicine) doesn't stand just on its observed efficacy in treating cancer - it is also accompanied by a theory of how it works, based on the scientific method as applied to medicine. Which is the "science", the practice of radiation therapy, or the theory which describes "why" it works?

How do we deal with issues of this nature? Is the area of interest to be taken as the results of the techniques, or the theory which purports to be proven by the results of the techniques?

To me, a better (i.e., less ambiguous) example of a protoscience might be the "membrane" theory of gravitation - it's a theory all right, but it is currently untestable (and may never be testable). OK, the example is a bit too abstract (OK, way too abstract!), but I hope the point gets across. (Psychotherapy a better example?) It's the "may" in "may never" that makes it a protoscience to me... Chas zzz brown 22:23 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Good points Chas. However, using psychotherepy as an example would open a huge can of worms. This is not the place to go into detail, but essentially the effacacy of psychotherepy has been pretty well documented. Within the limits of study error, it seems to reliably score "success" values within a fairly narrow and readily reproducable range. On the face of things, this says that psychotherapy has had modest but demonstrable success. What is equally well documented but (for obvious reasons) less well-known, is that similarly measured "success" values of other non-chemical intervention methods fall into that same predictable range, and these "other" treatments include any number of clearly non-scientific approaches: palmistry, astrology, crystal therapy, and so on. Psychotherapy does work, with demonstrated success rates (as I recall) of the order of one-third, and there have been many examples of particularly effective psychotherapists who are able to improve on this figure reliably. The particular type of therapy practiced, however, does not predict any individual therapist's success rate. The bottom line is that most people are able to effect measurable improvements in their client's wellbeing at least some of the time, and that some people are able to effect improvements most of the time, but there is no particular evidence to show that the method they use matters a damn (be it Freudian psychoanalysis, Rogerian client-centred therapy, or astrology). The literature provides compelling evidence for only two observations: (a) that sitting down and talking to someone often helps, and that some people are better to talk to than others, and (b) that psychological therapists are very good at not reading the literature. Tannin 00:24 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Perpetual motion

The last paragraph implies that the idea of perpetual motion involves a logical contradiction - which it doesn't. It goes against a well-tested scientific theory - thermodynamics - but it could plausibly be possible even though there's no accepted good reason for thinking so, hope excepted. As such it belongs to a quite different category to mathematical impossibilities like trisecting the angle. I'd call it plain pseudoscience, myself, though some might disagree.

Wolfram

I see that recently an anonymous user removed the Wolfram item from the list of pseudosciences, with the comment/question "Why does genius Wolfram appear on the list?". I plan to add it the entry back in, along with a bit more in the article on some additional criteria for pseudosciences. Some of the criteria by which Wolfram's A New Kind of Science qualify for pseudoscience status are grandiose and unsubstantiated claims, and bypassing the methods of science in the large, namely peer review of his ideas. Did you hear about his aborted contract to have his book published by Addison Wesley? He wanted the reviewers to sign a non-disclosure statement and promise not to study math or physics for the ensuing ten years. A real nut-case, genius or no. No, I did not get this from reading all 1280 pages of his tome. I have read a couple of scathing reviews in the Notices of the AMS and the Bulletin of the AMS. And Freeman Dyson's comment regarding ANKOS is "There's a tradition of scientists approaching senility to come up with grand, improbable theories. Wolfram is unusual in that he's doing this in his 40s." So there are more than a few professionals who consider this particular work to be pseudoscience. Grizzly

I would probably keep it off for different reasons. I would distinguish between pseudoscience and nut-case science. What distinguishes the latter would be the connection with a single individual. When he's gone his "science" will also be gone and draw no more interest than an historical curiosity. ☮ Eclecticology 17:07 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Defining pseudoscience

I am concerned about the posted definition of pseudoscience, that it claims some data is collected scientifically but was not actually performed via the scientific method. For example, don't the Princeton group PEAR or the Psychophysical Research labs (I can't find links to it) actually perform scientifically valid experiments? They and others have found both evidence supporting parapsychology and evidence undermining it. However, they are on controvertial topics, and therefore rather than being labeled protoscience, they are considered pseudoscience. I agree that the vast majority of pseudoscience does not stand up to the rigors of the scientific method (see Bad Astronomy for extensive debunking), but isn't it possible that some DOES do things "right"? If they did, I would still call them pseudoscience.

In addition, I don't feel Occam's Razor is a good criterion for defining science/pseudoscience. Take the Big Bang for example: to quote John Dobson, is it more likely that "nothing made something from nothing (even a kindergartener knows that can't happen)" or that an omnipotent omniscient power did it? I think God is a "simpler" explanation, even though I don't believe in him! But perhaps this conversation treads the line between science and religion--which many philosophers, anthropologists and some educators feel are the same thing: "a systematic method of understanding the empirical world" (Sara Delamont).

--zandperl 13:22, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well you've hit on one of the problems of using Occam's razor as the criterion for demarcation. Simplicity is no easier to pin down than science. In fact it may be difficult to find a criterion that actually solves the problem, rather than just displacing it. Unbiased peer review also comes up every now and again as a possible candidate. In this case it is the concept bias that presents difficulties.

If I understand you correctly, you say that the subject matter of a research program can be the sole judge of things. It doesn't matter that the methods of science are bieng applied. How do you come to this conclusion? --213.113.78.12 18:52, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of peer review: the majority of the science community (if you define science in the Western academia-centric POV) considers certain fields to be included in science (such as physics, biology, chemistry, math) and other fields to be external to science (such as telepathy, UFOlogy, religion, spirituality). Some of these "external" fields the scientists do respect to a certain degree (religion, spirituality), while others they deride and label pseudoscience (telepathy, UFOlogy). As a current member of academia, I generally agree with those labels based upon the field of study. However, as an educator trying to make science more accessible to a diverse group of people, I am uncertain in the case where something like telepathy is studied in a scientific manner. This also brings up the issue of "who is a scientist?" and various forms of elitism, but probably this is not the proper forum for that. Maybe Talk:science education would be better? --zandperl 22:35, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

About Paul Feyerabend

I removed these words said about Feyerabend:

Feyerabend has been quite famous for his statements, comparing science to voodoo in example. His way of thinking boils down to: "Anything goes."

I have studied Feyerabend for many years and know of no instance where he compares science to voodoo. Feyerabend's thinking hardly ever "boils down". And when it did he was always ready to mix things up again. These two quotes show what I mean:

The only principle which does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.

'anything goes' is not a 'principle' I hold...but the terrified exclamation of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history.

Sorry, my professors have misled me. Please accept my humblest apologies. - Sigg3.net

Say two "Hail Mary"s and three "Our Father"s and you are forgiven :) More seriously, one of the problems with Feyerabend is that he is so difficult to pin down. You can find him arguing for relativism and against it. Elsewhere he defends astrology only to say that it "bores him to tears" later. He is overly argumentative, inconsistent, often rude. It all makes great reading. --Chris 11:42, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks again. Seems like interesting reading, I will check it out sometime. - Sigg3.net 20:59, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Evidence and mathematical proof

It says on this page that experimentalists, apparently as a class, think that experiment leads to an equal or higher standard of certainty than mathematical proof. Can someone support this claim? If not, it should be removed. Gene Ward Smith 10:16, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

experimentalists, inparticular the foremost ones, think that experiments leads to an equal or higher standard of certainty (as far as I can tell). "Support this claim"? See Nikola Tesla or Edwin H. Armstrong's view on the "superiority" of mathematics ... "Should be removed"? umm no ... Sincerely, JDR

The discussion of "proof" vs. "proof" is utterly pointless, allthough interesting. When it comes to experimentalists, I find that it goes without saying that they neglect other proofs than those you can observe through an experiment. - Sigg3.net 12:23, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The characterization of Marxism-Leninism as a Pseudoscience is based on the self-characterization of Marxism-Leninism as a science: for example, "The open abandonment by the Soviet revisionists of the scientific Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism comes out clearly, also, when they proclaim the development of the productive forces as the only decisive factor of its construction." and "The frontal attack of Soviet revisionism on the fundamental questions of Marxism-Leninism could not leave the theory and practice of scientific socialism untouched." [1] Fred Bauder 05:55, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Intuition

Re:

If the claims of a given pseudoscience can be experimentally tested it may be real science, however odd or astonishing. If they cannot be tested, it is likely pseudoscience. If the claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, it is often presumed to be pseudoscience. Conversly, if the claims of any given "science" cannot be experimentally tested it may not be a real science, however odd or astonishing.

The last sentence was recently added. I essentially have no complaint about it except for the last words. "Odd or astonishing" represents an immediate intuitive opinion of the subject. Thus we establish the scientific truth of something that would otherwise have been odd or astonishing, and disprove something that would have initially been intuitively acceptable. Eclecticology 00:12, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Biogeometry

I'm looking for skeptic info about biogeometry, negative green, Chaumery and De Belizal for w:nl:Biogeometrie and w:nl:negatief groen. Guaka 17:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Zionology

On Talk:Zionology, I've raised the question whether Zionology is properly included in the Category:Pseudoscience. I mention the point here in the hope that people who've thought about the definition of "pseudoscience" will contribute there. I can see good arguments each way. (The particular point at issue is whether to remove the Pseudoscience category listing from the Zionology article, so I suggest that responses should be on that Talk page rather than this one.) JamesMLane 20:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some maintain that there is nothing scientific in any kind of "political science", thus it makes no sense to characterize any particular political study as a "pseudoscience".

The definition

I've changed a key element of the definition from "one or more of these characteristics" to "a combination of these characteristics". This removes the implication that any one of these alone is sufficient to term something a pseudoscience. I treat the word "claim" as somewhat equivalent to "theory". When a theory is first put forth it often lacks any kind of evidence, it can be nothing more than a call to others to look into the matter. Similarly, the application of Ockham's Razor may not be determinative, because there can be times when using it may be an unwarranted short-cut. The other three fare better as stand-alone characteristics. Eclecticology 23 July

In defense of Feyerabend (again)

If I'm not mistaken, almost the same note on Feyerabend was inserted a while ago:

Feyerabend also infamously claimed that witchcraft and astrology should be considered as scientific as any of the canon scientific disiciplines.

Since it has re-appeared I should perhaps explain a little before I remove it once more. First of all, it is simply not the case that Feyerabend made such a claim.

In the introduction to Against Method F. says that he thinks it "necessary to re-examine our attitude towards myth, religion, magic, witchcraft and towards all those ideas which rationalists would like to see forever removed from the surface of the earth ".

If one didn't read further it is possible to imagine that he went on to suggest that such things should should be considered scientific. This is not the case. What he does suggest is that science is not an autonomous form of reasoning:

"A scientist who wishes to maximize the empirical content of the views he holds and who wants to understand them as clearly as he possibly can must therefore introduce other views; that is, he must adopt a pluralistic methodology. [...] Knowledge so conceived is not a series of self-consistent theories that converges towards an ideal view; it is not a gradual approach to the truth. It is rather an ever increasing ocean of mutually incompatible (and perhaps even incommensurable) alternatives, each single theory, each fairy tale, each myth that is part of the collection forcing the others into greater articulation and all of them contributing, via this process of competition, to the development of our consciousness." (Feyerabend, 1975, Against Method, p. 30)

In Three Dialogues on Knowledge, Feyerabend went to the defense of astrology in face of rationalist critcism. Here his fictional interlocutor is forced to admit that he has only a subjuctive bias against astrology and only rhetorical means of attacking it.

Claiming that witchcraft and astrology are scientific is, admittedly, the kind of thing Feyerabend might do. To my knowledge he stopped short of this claim. Chris 11:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my reading of Against Method, it was not Feyerabend's purpose to say that witchcraft or astrology were scientific so much as to say that that philosophically speaking one could not easily demarcate between what is "scientific" and what is not. That is, there would be no rigid line separating the two -- which is not the same thing as saying that witchcraft is scientific (rather, it calls into question what makes something rigidly "scientific"). --Fastfission 19:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Demarcation section merged and extracted

I have merged the demarcation section with that on the Scientific Method article and extracted it to its own article: Demarcation Problem. I think that there is still some material to merge from The Criterion of Demarcation, but I'll wait to see if there are any complaints so far. -- Chris 08:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All three demarcation sections are now merged from Pseudoscience, Falsifiability and the Scientific Method. -- Chris

SETI

RK removed a part of the article that mentioned exobiology, astrobiology, SETI, and CETI, stating that they are not pseudoscience... which is true, but that isn't what the article said of them. I think the point was made quite well that:

1. These fields are "young fields of science."
2. They are "sometimes frowned upon."
3. The point was driven home: "are not considered pseudoscientific or protoscientific by most scientists..."

I think the section served as a good disambiguation, pointing out that some newer fields of legitimate science are, indeed, sometimes frowned upon, and are often incorrectly labeled "pseudoscience" by those who might wish to criticize them.AdmN 14:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like RK's last changes, good stuff. :) AdmN 17:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Editing

The community at www.randi.org has recently been notified of this article in a request for skeptical help, and that's why I at least am here.

I have been trying to revise the article to focus on the idea that pseudoscience is a property of the means of justifying or investigating a claim more than a property of a claim itself. Many of the fields called "pseudoscientific" here actually have been investigated sceintifically, but the scientific study fails to confirm the hypotheses. Also, the [i]sine qua non[/i] of a pseudoscience is that it be purported to be science without following the appropriate procedures.

Part of the conflation in the article is that the word "science" can mean several different things. The four that are most important here are 1) the scientific method, 2) the overall process of doing the scientific method with other people, 3) a body of work in which science 1 and 2 has been useful, and 4) a statement of accuracy produced by 1 and 2. It seems to me that 3 and 4 are very different from 1 and 2 and should be in separate threads. 1 and 2 science per se and apply everywhere science is used, while 3 and 4 describe particular applications of science. Pseudoscience seems to me, as a term, more related to 1 and 2. Usually, pseudoscience emphasized 2 without doing 1 properly, although sometimes there are social processes (such as allowing hostiles access to your data) that it fails to meet as well.

I noticed that there was a reference to cold fusion, but it seems to be gone. Cold fusion is actually a good example, because it's going through the phases of protoscience, junk science, science, and pseudoscience in roughly that order.

However, to talk about this, what the previous author said may be a good idea. Make two articles. Call them Article I and Article II.

Article I would be about what pseudoscience is, as contrasted to protoscience, junk science, and science. Article I could be made from a completely neutral point of view without using phrases like "some people believe." Examples, such as cold fusion, would only be used when they are useful as historical examples to compare and contrast. It would contain the main section without the harm part, the Classifying Pseudoscience section, about half the Pseudoscience and Protoscience section, the Demarcation section, and just a reference to pseudomathematics.

Article II would contain examples, a description of harm, the Examples, the other half of the Pseudoscience and Protoscience section.

Both will have to be rewritten and expanded so that they flow and make sense, but that's the easy part.

What do y'all think?

Neutrality Disputed

I'm still really new here, but I find it odd that an anon IP can come along and place the text "The neutrality of this article is disputed." on the article without discussing it here on the talk page or even providing any edit summary, so I've performed my first wiki "revert". Does anyone believe that the article, in its current form, needs a neutrality disclaimer? AdmN 04:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hit-and-run neutrality disputes like that don't count, reverting is fine. The place an article's neutrality might be disputed is here, on its talk page: a notice without a record of what's being objected to just doesn't cut it. (And no, I don't think it needs it either). - Nunh-huh 04:22, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Demarcation clarification needed

An addition to the demarction section reads "Newton-Smith has criticized both approaches, arguing that only a rough heuristic is needed...". Which two approaches are refered to by "both approaches"? Since I couldn't find much about Newton-Smith on the web it might be an idea for those who know more about him to fill in a few details. In particular a short description of his "rough heuristic" would be appreciated. -- Chris 13:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)