Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Mr swordfish in topic Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. |
Q1: Why has my edit been reverted? What did I do wrong?
A1: Check the edit history for the article. Hopefully, the editor who reverted you left a useful edit summary explaining why they feel the previous version of the article to be better; occasionally, links to various policies and guidelines are included. The most common reasons for reversion are that the article should not contain editorial bias and every statement should be cited to sources reliable to the topic at hand. If you disagree with the reasoning provided or otherwise wish a fuller discussion, please check the archives of this discussion page for a similar proposal or open a new section below. Q2: One entry to this list is better described as an emerging or untested area of research, not pseudoscience.
A2: A few topics have several facets, only some of which are described by reliable sources as pseudoscience; multiple notable descriptions or points of view may be appropriately included as described in Wikipedia:Fringe theories. On the other hand, proponents of a particular topic characterized as pseudoscience almost always self-report as engaging in science. The several points of view should be weighted according to the reliability of the sources making each claim. Advocacy sources are reliable only for their own opinions - it is okay to state that Dr. X claims to have built a creature under the usual caveats for self-published sources, but the creature's exploits should be described as reported in independent sources. If the majority of scientists would be surprised by a claim, it is probably not mainstream science. Q3: Real scientists are investigating this topic, how can it be pseudoscience?
A3: Respected researchers, even Nobel Prize laureates, sometimes have or propound ideas that are described by sources reliable to make the distinction as pseudoscience, especially when they are working outside of their core expertise. Q4: Why is the description so negative? Why not just describe the views covered and let the reader decide?
A4: The Wikipedia policy Neutral point of view requires that the prominence of various views be reflected in the articles. We strive to summarize the tone and content of all available sources, weighted by their reliability. Reliable in this context means particulary that sources should be generally trusted to report honestly on and make the distinction between science and pseudoscience. Q5: Why does this article rely on such biased sources?
A5 Scientists generally ignore pseudoscience, and only occasionally bother to rebut ideas before they have received a great deal of attention. Non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience can only be had from second- and third-party sources. The following sources are almost always reliable sources for descriptions of pseudoscience:
Q6: Isn't pseudoscience a philosophically meaningless term?
A6 The term describes a notable concept in common use. Q7: Why is a particular topic omitted?
A7 Some ideas are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article; other topics have been explicitly rejected by the consensus of editors here at the talkpage. Please search the archives for relevant discussions before beginning a new one. Still, this list is far from complete, so feel free to suggest a topic or be bold and add it yourself. Q8: What relation does content here have to the four groupings (below) from the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience?
A8 Many fail to understand the nature of this list. It is not exclusively about "Obvious pseudoscience", but, as the list's title indicates, about "topics characterized as pseudoscience" (emphasis added). That wording parallels the Arbcom description from group three: "but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" (emphasis added). Therefore we include items covered in the first three groups below, but not the fourth. In this list, we refuse to decide whether an item is or is not an "obvious" pseudoscience (although most of them are  ).
|
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Deleted Section on EMDR as pseudoscience.
editI deleted the section on Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy. The section was written with very old sources. EMDR now has good empirical support and an impressive research base from the APA and Cleveland Clinic and is a notable treatment for PTSD.
https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/treatments/eye-movement-reprocessing
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22641-emdr-therapy#:~:text=Eye%20movement%20desensitization%20and%20reprocessing%20(EMDR)%20therapy%20is%20a%20mental,or%20other%20distressing%20life%20experiences. Malfesto (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reverted this since its better to bring this up in talk first. This entry literally has a section called "Pseudoscience", so it meets the criteria for this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Falsifiability in lead
editWe need a statement about this in the lead. Let's try to formulate something. Here are a few thoughts to work with (and correct if necessary):
- If a claim is not falsifiable, it is not a pseudoscientific claim. All scientific claims are falsifiable, and if a belief makes no falsifiable claims, in other words no claim to be scientific, it is not pseudoscientific, but may be classed as a religious belief. The moment a religion makes falsifiable claims, those claims are subject to examination and, if they are falsified, they are then classed as pseudoscientific claims, and many pseudoscientific claims have been falsified.
Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- The lead word "pseudoscience" takes the reader to the definition. Do we need to duplicate part of another article here? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have a point. This isn't the main article. I just thought a mention would be appropriate here, but maybe not. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
History
editThe impact of pseudoscientific ideas 41.115.108.76 (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a legitimate topic. Have you checked the History of pseudoscience article? That's where we cover that topic. This is just a list article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Popper's views on historical materialism
editI wonder if the mention of Popper's views having been criticized is unwarranted. Almost all of these things being classified as pseudoscience are criticized by their proponents, and it'd be one thing if scientific publications were publishing these complaints, but it's entirely philosophy outlets or an "in-universe" so to speak communist journal. I'm going to remove them because as detailed in WP:FRINGE those aren't really the sources Wikipedia should be using on if something is considered pseudoscientific or not. XeCyranium (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lunar effect on humans anb living beings have several scientific studies to avail, it makes no sense to mark it as pseudoscience would be like tampering science itself 2806:106E:1C:3032:940D:9B46:3679:2CC6 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think what the editor is trying to say is that there is some evidence that some human behavior is affected by the lunar cycle e.g. increased epileptic episodes, motorcycle accidents, and sleep disorders. (per the Lunar effect article.)
- Of course that doesn't mean there's not a whole bunch of pseudoscience attached to the topic so simply removing the entry would seem to be an overreaction. Perhaps we could be more circumspect in our synopsis, something similar to the wording at the List of common misconceptions:
- The phase of the Moon does not influence fertility, cause a fluctuation in crime, or affect the stock market. There is no correlation between the lunar cycle and human biology or behavior. However, the increased amount of illumination during the full moon may account for increased epileptic episodes, motorcycle accidents, or sleep disorders.
- Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
