Talk:Anomalistics

Removal of Pseudoscience tag

Protoscience I can accept, but how is this at all a "pseudoscience"? The definition is, in fact, the very basis of science, to analyze and study that which does not fit the current paradigm, and to adjust human knowledge accordingly, when necessary. If anything, this subject should be renamed "Pure Science." --Chr.K. 16:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I've removed the tag. --Iantresman 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The subjects of anomalistics are those which are pseudoscientific as labeled by reliable sources. --ScienceApologist 13:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that you know the subject at all. Anomalistics "itself" is not a pseudoscience, it's a standard branch of science studying selected unexplained phenomona and attempts to find a rational explanation for them that isn't in the textbooks. for example, the people who declare UFOs to be temperature inversions or alien abductions to be the result of sleep disorders are conducting anomolistic research. There's nothing pseudoscientific about it.

If it's conducted in a pseudoscientific manner, it's NOT anomolistics.

perfectblue 13:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anomalistics deals with pseudoscientific topics. Therefore it is related to pseudoscience and can be generally categorized as such. The people doing anomalistic research may be debunking pseudoscience, for example. Appropriate categorization does not necessarily mean that the entire endeavor is described by a single word/phrase. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on that logic, scientific skeptics are pseudo-scientists because they often research pseudoscience in order to debunk it. Will I be seeing you tagging accordingly?

perfectblue 14:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is so tagged. --ScienceApologist 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific skepticism is the exposure of pseudoscience using science, it deals extensively with pseudoscience on a daily basis, yet it is not tagged. James Randi has exposed or called the bluff of many instances of pseudoscience, but he his not tagged. Many Debunkers exist solely to debunk pseudoscience, but the page about debunking is not tagged. The James Randi Educational Foundation was created with the purpose of (among other things) educating people of the danger of believing in pseudoscience,, yet it is not tagged either. You cannot have it both ways. You should either accept that this page should not be tagged and delete the tag, or tag said pages yourself. - perfectblue 17:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's comment above is completely POV, btw. He (or she, whatever) takes the concept on principle, which it cannot be; i.e., [It] deals with pseudoscientific topics... ...Or, are you basically saying that what Charles Fort had (still being transfered to Wikisource, gotta get back to that) wasn't accurate, especially as he sourced it only from the major science publications of the early 20th century (the fall of a thousand tons of butter was particularly prominent)? Also, the word means the STUDY of what is NOT YET UNDERSTOOD. That would be...science, if I'm not mistaken? This is yet another pseudoskeptical attack on the study of the unexplained. Get rid of the pseudo tag. --Chr.K. 13:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Agreed. - perfectblue 17:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Anomalistics is not a scientific field

It is described by Truzzi as complementary to science, but no one claims it is a scientific field in and of itself. --ScienceApologist 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Truzzi clearly states the field uses scientific methodology and that it stays within the field of science at all times (else it is not anomolistics). It is simply a term used to describe multi-disciplinary efforts to find rational scientific explanations for things that don't fit into the textbooks.

You must also remember that we are not discussing anomalistics research in itself, we are defining the term "Anomalistics" as it was originally coined, and the scope of research within it. It was coined specifically as a science so that's the way that it should be described.

perfectblue 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it is controversial, there should be no problem removing the pandering mention of science throughout the article. I think the article reads fine and is not confusing. --ScienceApologist 16:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's inaccurate. The term was coined with a specific meaning and the field was crated with a specific intent. - perfectblue 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How does one guy describing something as "science" make it so? If you're going to put in a mention and use him as a source, at least attribute it in the text as "described by Truzzi as..." --Minderbinder 21:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm doing this, ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS, let it be noted that this falls outside of the 3RR as I am doing it as part of a dispute resolution to try and gain consensus. If you don't like the exact words, then it's a content dispute, NOT an edit that can in anyway be counted under 3RR.

perfectblue 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"How does one guy describing something as "science" make it so", That's a complete twisting of my words. I'm describing the "term as coined" and the "field as intended". Anomalistics was created as the scientific study of anomalies. Regardless of what you think of individual anomalists or experiments we must describe the term the way that it was meant to be used.

It is "So" because the man who created it said so, it's as simple as that. Nobody goes up to the man who coined "Generation X" and said "you're wrong, that's not what it means"

perfectblue 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a scientific field. It IS Science. Period. --Chr.K. 12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Anomalistics: nothing to do with pseudoscience

• To suggest that the "subjects of anomalistics are those which are pseudoscientific" would be equivalent to suggesting that "science also deals with pseudoscience", and should be so tagged.
• All we need to resolve this issue is some verification that associates anomalistics with pseudoscience. --Iantresman 18:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

On a purely technical basis, Anomalistics is (among other things) an attempt to look at things which have previously been explained through pseudoscience, and to try and find out "the real explanation".

For example, saying that a light in the sky is an alien spaceship without empirical evidence is pseudoscience. What Anomalistics does is it takes that same sighting and attempts to find a rational answer to it, either using existing textbook explanation from fields such as astronomy (it's not a UFO, It's Venus) and meteorology (It's not a UFO, it's a temperature inversion), or by looking at the situation and finding a solid explanation that isn't currently in the textbooks due to an oversight or a lack of research (for example, discovering that people are X times more likely to see lights in the sky just before or after a geological episode such as an earthquake and then looking for a solid reason why).

This doesn't make it a pseudoscience, it makes it the antipathies of pseudoscience. Taking something false and home-baked and trying to find out what is really going on. You can't debunk without anomalistics.

perfectblue 08:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, to suggest, as stated above, that "the subjects of anomalistics are those which are pseudoscientific" is flat out wrong. --Chr.K. 12:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a big field, there's some pseudoscience in there, but also things that aren't pseudoscientific in the slightest. Many cases in cryptozoology, for example, simply involve attempts to scientifically catalog/discover the origins of unusual animals reported by local tribes. - perfectblue 07:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Science has been used to study the subject of "birds". Would it be right to categorize "Science" with a "birds" category tag? --Iantresman 09:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Poor analogy. A better one might be: is it right to categorize hermeneutics as Category:Literary criticism when a lot of hermeneutics are about things that are not literary? --ScienceApologist 14:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence"

"Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence", which has the marvellous feature of allowing the requirements for acceptable proof to be stretched indefinitely as more and more support for a contested claim comes in. Its originator, the late Marcello Truzzi, later decided that his comment was 'a non sequitur, meaningless and question-begging', and had planned to write a debunking of his own creation (5)." 5. Marcello Truzzi (1935-2003): an appreciation by Jerome Clark, http://www.anomalist.com/milestones/truzzi.html (from "Meetings of Nobel Laureates in Lindau: Pathological Disbelief http://www.lindau-nobel.de/content/view/19/32/) Relevant? SmithBlue (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Although typically unreliable sources can on occasion serve as sources for information about themselves (for example, the CSICOP website on its founder), they should not be used as the main sources for an entire article. The Zetetic Scholar, other newsletter- type quasi-journals, sensationalist "news" sources like Fortean Times, and personal websites are not reliable sources. As of now, the article is in need of some reliable sources...or additional and extensive editing, since it relied almost entirely on a single (non-RS) source by M. Truzzi. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me touch up on that. An article review will be made in the next 48 hours. Unsourced information or infomration that has not been properly cited will be promptly removed. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Although some of Sagan's books examine UFOs and he's discussed them, I'm not sure he should be identified as a "ufologist", as state in the lead. -- œ^™ 07:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed, as to talk of him as a ufologist in particularly the manner of this article is ridiculously inaccurate. One may check his work in UFOs for verification. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just another opinion

Anomalistics is the science of explaining things away. Wahrmund (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Serious definitoric problem

Anomalistics is the use of scientific methods to evaluate anomalies (phenomena that fall outside current understanding), with the aim of finding a rational explanation.

this statement does not make much sense; it is a wrong definition stemming from not understanding what science does. if true, it would mean that science equals anomalistics, because it is a science what studies, using the scientific method, phenomena outside of current understanding. otherwise it would mean, that science studies phenomena inside of current understanding and thus would be doing something already done (if we understand it, we need not to study it). therefore, the definition is logically nonsensical. would you say that study of dark matter is anomalistics just because dark matter or black holes or junk DNA is outside of current understanding? i agree with ScienceApologist that anomalistics overlaps in certain significant extent with pseudoscience, as it does not employ unbiased scientific method, but rather biased (wishful-thinking-driven) pseudo-scientific approaches. the listed fields covered by anomalistics (ufology, cryptozoology and parapsychology) are in majority of particular cases examples of typical pseudoscience, not respecting scientific method and empiric evidence. there is quite a lot of serious scientific research done on explaining phenomena ascribed to UFO or parapsychological ones, but it is "just science" as any other research on any phenomenon we do not understand, it does not require a new term to describe it other than science. i would, on the other hand, understand, that we need a term to describe this specific branch of pseudoscience, which is obsessed with so-called mysteries, anomalies and suchs. in my mother tongue, czech, we use záhadologie, meaning mysteriology. Regis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)