Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 1

Removing NPOV

I can see one anonymous user disputing the accuracy of the page a month ago, saying that the page is 'inaccurate because it is incomplete', and then coming close to a personal attack on another user. I do not see anyone claiming that there are included theories that should not be there. I do not think this means there is an ongoing debate about the validity of the article. I am therefore removing the NPOV tag. If you wish to replace it, please feel free to do so, stating your reasons here on this talk page signed by writing ~~~~ after your comment.

Misc

Typo: Riemannian Cosmology, proposed by Igor Bognanoff, regarded as illucid or cranky by most mainstream physicists, but defended by a vocal minority. Should read: Riemannian Cosmology, proposed by Igor Bogdanoff, regarded as illucid or cranky by most mainstream physicists, but defended by a vocal minority.

---

Kosebamse claims that "Gene Ray refutes the scientific method itself". Kosebamse, please explain exactly how Dr Ray does that.

---

The aquatic ape hypothesis is not anywhere near as fringe as many of the other theories listed here. It is not generally accepted, sure, but it is no longer considered bunk. It has serious science behind it, and a growing number of biologists consider it seriously plausible. RK 00:58 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Okay. Do you agree with my inclusion of Plasma cosmology? If so, put this page on your watchlist and watch out for any edits by Reddi. -- Tim Starling 02:44 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology is a protoscience that is being investigated by research around the globe. Is Magnetohydrodynamics fringe? In institutions such as Los Alamos National Labrtory and thier groups [which is one of the better scientific research institutes in north America], Plasma cosmology is being developed.

Are these fringe institutions?

* Plasma Physics and Nonlinear Dynamics Group, Federal University of Parana, Brazil

* Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences Nizhny Novgorod, Russia

* ETHZ Plasma and Radio Astrophysics Group, Switzerland

* Plasma Physics Group, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine London, United Kingdom

* Astronomy Department (J. Arons), University of California at Berkeley

* Computational plasma physics group, Dept of Physics and Astronomy UCLA, Los Angeles, California

* Astronomy Department (R. Lovelace), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

* Center for Space Research and Plasma Science & Fusion Center, MIT

* Graduate Program in Plasma Physics, Princeton University [which has a graduate program in plasma astrophysics]

They are all investigating plasma cosmological research.Or is it all speculation?

Is it consisting of hanging threads thought? or is it just an outside the conventional boundary of science? Hannes Alfven , Nikola Tesla, Kristian Birkeland, David Bohm, and Max Born are "Fringe" Physicists? Just wondering ... reddi 15:15 17 Jul 2003 (UTC) more later ....

---

You waste my time, Reddi, forcing me to research things like that. That LANL link is just Anthony Lee Peratt's personal web space. As far as I could see, there's no mention of plasma cosmology on the official plasma physics group home page. I haven't looked up all those other institutions, but judging by the names they're all just plasma physics groups, not plasma cosmology. Now excuse me while I go and do something useful. -- Tim Starling 00:41 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, I nvr wanted you to "waste" your time .... I hope u get your stuff done. It's nice that you disparage things and then don't [or can't] answer some questions. I was merely inquisitive on the topics .... but noone has answered my questions. Hmmm ... mabey no answer will come forth from anyone. I just wanna know the parameters to be included or excluded here ... BTW, what do you think plasma physics groups extend into [if you take the next logical steps in theory]? And Magnetohydrodynamics isn't fringe ... it's accepted theory ... [ps. Astrophysics and cosmology are related .... they are kinda interdependent from what I can tell ... but mabey I'm wrong] ... reddi 01:44 18 Jul 2003 (UTC) "It is not as uncommon ... [some to] accept the reality of phenomena that are not yet understood, as it is very common for physicists to disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of physics " - Bauer

"I just wanna know the parameters to be included or excluded here..." I'm not sure exactly, I'm kind of making it up as I go along. It will list "speculative, fringe or otherwise disregarded theories," but the exact interpretation of that phrase is subject to the opinion of the Wikipedian community. As a rule of thumb, anything which denies the validity of:

• The Big Bang
• The old age of the Earth
• Relativity
• Quantum mechanics

will almost certainly be listed here. I don't mean to list theories which attempt to correct the flaws with QM and GR which are well-known to the mainstream physics community, for example superstring theory. I mean theories which reject the experimental results in favour of the mainstream theories as being spurious.

As for MHD -- I know it's not a fringe theory. You listed that one, remember? I listed rotating magnetic field because there seems to be some sort of mythology attached to it, in the form of the "rotating magnetic field model". Rotating magnetic fields are not speculative, but I suspect this "model" is. I don't know the full story yet, but the way it is listed at the moment is quite appropriate.

This page may seem to you to be rejecting or talking down the theories listed. I didn't mean to imply that these theories are incorrect. Like you say, physicists "disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of physics". Consider this page to be a catalogue of realities which are disbelieved by mainstream scientists. To say a theory is "fringe" is not a judgement on its accuracy, it's just a judgement on the attitude of the mainstream scientific community towards it. -- Tim Starling 02:18 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"I'm not sure exactly, I'm kind of making it up as I go along." Hmmm .... mabey you should slap a disclaimer tag of some sort at the top of this page then ... as it's definitely amorphous to what is to be includeed here or not.

Anything which denies the validity of The Big Bang? So that new extrasolar planet in the news the other day is fringe? ... The old age of the Earth? how old is old [the current age theories may really be young to what it really is ... mabey not]? ... Relativity? World views don't need to relativity ... you can rely on a different basis and be ok [see Godel [sp?] and the incompleteness theorum ... thankfully there is duality] ... Quantum mechanics? QM is just one set of theories ... there are others .... but mabey some of QM could be listed here too ....

"I mean theories which reject the experimental results in favour of the mainstream theories as being spurious" ... how does Plasma cosmology do that? Matter o' fact, plasma cosmology takes account of experimental data and phenomena of reality that is not accounted for in the mainstream .... how does 'Quaternion physics do that? ... I don't know alot about it ... and there isn't a listing on it .... so mabey you could list a note on them ... and, how does Luminiferous aether do that? Aether is an alternative theory ... discounted by some ... accounted by others [even michealson and morley still accepted it after thier so much touted experiment] .... PLEASE make a note to the side of each of these entries ... mabey explaining them abit and a lil on why they are listed ... information is always good, especially on subjective material.

As for MHD ... Yea I listed that one ... to POINT OUT that it's not a fringe .... there isn't "some sort of mythology" attached to it, I believe that may be your POV .... a "model" just a thought construct; ie., a way to think of things .... the way it is listed here at the moment is questionable IMO, as it conveys to me [and probably to others that see the page] that any of these listed views are in error of being correct .... [BTW, I recently discoveed the article Dynamo theory article ... it's the same thing ... so I thinkin of consolidating it with that one when i get time ... the RMF model is the DT]

"This page may seem to you to be rejecting or talking down the theories listed." Yes ... on 1st impression, it did ... and probably does to alot of readers that see it .... that's probably reason enough to put a disclaimer of some sort here [like a "dispute" tag] .... "To say a theory is 'fringe' is a judgement on the attitude of the mainstream scientific community towards it"? That is highly subjective ... who's the spokesman for the mainstream? ... this article needs a dispute tag, it'd help it IMO ....

... the more i read of this article ... it's just a POV article it try to reaffirm a POV and discount other NPOV information ... reddi 22:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC) more later ...

---

How does plasma cosomology deny one of the listed theories? If you read a little closer, you would have noticed that I anticipated this attack. I said that theories which deny one of the mainstream theories will be listed, I didn't say anything about theories which don't deny the mainstream theories. Not in that sentence, anyway.

"That is highly subjective ... who's the spokesman for the mainstream?" It's not subjective, because if worst comes to worst, we can take a poll. But luckily, we have a decent number of mainstream physicists and other scientists on Wikipedia, and those people have a fairly good idea of the attitude of their peers towards these theories. I'm relying on the input of experts.

Assessing the opinion of the mainstream community is an important part of NPOV policy.

"there isn't 'some sort of mythology' attached to it, I believe that may be your POV". It's my intuition, nothing more. I've said I don't understand the "rotating magnetic field model", so I can't be sure what's going on. I'm hoping you'll just tell me, but otherwise I'll probably work it out eventually. But if you must know, my suspicions were twigged by statements like:

• "Plasma cosmology states that dynamically coupled rotating magnetic fields produced the universe observed today."
• [An analogy for the way the aether transmits influences is] one vortex ring (related to the rotating magnetic field)
• In Strasbourg, Tesla built the induction motor which was experimental proof of the rotating magnetic field model.

The last one is particularly interesting. The main thing I'm missing is: what is the model? Rotating magnetic fields are a phenomenon, not a model. You don't prove a phenomenon, so what is there to this "model" besides the simple existence of rotating magnetic fields? -- Tim Starling 08:57 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

--

"I anticipated this" ... yep ... as I stated before, an article to futher a POV.

"I didn't say anything about theories which don't deny the mainstream theories. Not in that sentence, anyway." [see above]

... [BTW, it's not an attack, sorry u feel under fire .... just a series o' statements to flesh out the reasons for this article (which i really don't have a huge problem with ... just want a clarification and reasoning, other than just willey-nilly listing of topics here] ...

"deny one of the mainstream" ... hmmm but you nvr said, should that recent observation of the extrasolar planet be listed here? If correct, it's gonna deny models of cosmology ....

.... this is subjective article (as it exists now ... mabey some detail to the listed items and a bit more information on the reasons to be listed may help it become less of that) and polls are subjective [unless properly controlled ... I thought you'd know that from statisics, though].

[Clip "my consensus" is always right, no other possiblities can be right]

[Clip "my experts" are always right]

Assessing the opinion of the mainstream community is an important part of NPOV policy? hmmm .... POV is a position from where something recorded with a perspective. It's not neutral here in this article ... "It's my intuition, nothing more." ok ... thank for saying it's your POV [but not explicitly] .... mainly biased from your perspective .... I thought the whole point of NPOV is to provide information without give a hint of bais to that information [which this artcle does ... as i stated before, it gave me [and probably alot more readers that view the article] a feeling that these listed items are frameworks that are in error of something ...] ... mabey providing a bias to information is ok? mabey not .... [see NPOV]

[snip RMF model twiggin' someone]

"Plasma cosmology states that dynamically coupled rotating magnetic fields produced the universe observed today" What is hard about that? Is the english a bit advanced? hmmm ... I thought it was pretty plain language ... I don't think you can get any simpler (in the concise form) ...

[snip aether] appearantly you haven't read anything on Kelvin or his original papers ... he tried to work out the aether ... and he developed the "energy vortex" models [or theories, see below] ... [among other thing ... and helped form an early atomic models] ... this vortex theory eventually was taken by Tesla to the next level [into the RMF model].

[snip "experimental proof"]

"what is the model?" a model is a construct to think of things ... the RFM model is just a way to think of how the electromagnetic forces act throughout reality .... [go look up the synonyms of the word ... it's equilivant to: framework, pattern, theoretical account (or theory)] ... (BTW appearantly you skipped over the Dynamo theory part in my last response (which i was unaware of @ the time i created the RMF article, so i'm merging it with that as soon as I can [mabey after i post this])) ...

... "Rotating magnetic fields are a phenomenon, not a model" ... but it is a model to put observe things (ala, phenomenon) into a process to understand it [see above synonyms] ... say: "Dynamo Theory" or "Rotating Magnetic Field model", and you mean the same thing ....

[snip rest] ... more later .... reddi 15:29 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's alright, I think I've worked it out now. -- Tim Starling 04:54 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Just want to say that I agree that Plasma cosmology should not be included among this list. It has been around since the late 1800's and has much experimental backing. It is only fringe because it is not the mainstream paradigm. But you two have already gone through all this so I don't need to add any more here. -- Ionized

It's only fringe because it's not the mainstream paradigm? That's what fringe means! Look, if you disagree with my terminology, maybe we can move this page to Theories which are not part of the mainstream paradigm because your description of plasma cosmology fits perfectly with the kind of theories I wanted to organise. I didn't call the page Theories which were invented recently and have no experimental backing did I? -- Tim Starling 04:13, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

My word... -- Tim Starling 08:03, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, ok. I am in no way trying to further any anger driven disputes, so please accept my apologies for intrusion. It's not that I disagree with terminology, it's that the theoretically based Big Bang is more speculative in nature than the empirically based plasma cosmology, and should be included in the list before it by that standard. I'll just state it this way, for people like me who have spent time researching plasma physics and cosmological theories in general, including their historical development, it is simply disheartening to continuously be looked upon as a quack by most. And your inclusion of plasma cosmology in the list doesnt help that any :)

I discovered Wikipedia yesterday, found the Plasma cosmology article, and right away began to correct it according to what I have studied. Ive been looking through the page history at what Reddi's first version was, and watched its development as people like Roadrunner came in with 'peer review' and transformed the article from one about plasma cosmology, to one that pushes it aside only to further expound the Big Bang. Such behavior is absurd and I hope that it is discontinued.

I plan to fully update the article over the next few months, expounding more on the actual methods and findings of plasma cosmology in general (as opposed to the current version, which until yesterday focused on Alfven's outdated model, which it seems was used only to attempt further discrediting of the plasma paradigm as a whole.) I thank Reddi for having started the article and hope that approves of my continuing contributions.

I do not expect you to change your list of speculative theories to match my preference. The list isnt that bad after all, as you havent put in things that are obviously complete quackery (such as ufo stuff or the like.) I do appreciate your note at the top about how the article may not be neutral. -- Ionized Tue, August 12th 10:15 am

Just in case you missed my meaning, my gasp above was in reference to Reddi's amusing POV rant on science being "unimaginitive and conforming" [1]. Such behaviour is unacceptable. Ionized, you might be interested in reading our NPOV policy, to see all the rules Reddi just breached. I believe scientists are the most open-minded sector of the community, but you don't see me spraying that opinion across the article namespace, do you? It's not on. Save it for your weblog, Reddi.

Ionized, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you decide to write about plasma cosmology from a neutral point of view, as our policy demands, rather than producing more of the poorly-written advocacy that Reddi has become known for. -- Tim Starling 00:18, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

I have begun to read NPOV policy, and will try my best to conform to this standard. I have read over the page on the Big Bang and noticed that it indeed included reference to alternate theory, along with criticism. However a majority of the page is devoted to developing an understanding of the Big Bang theory itself. Over time, I hope to see the Plasma cosmology page follow suit here, which it is beginning to do. I doubt I will be the one that includes the BB POV in the article, as my focus most definitely is the PC POV. However, I am very willing to work with proponents of the BB to bring about a more neutral article on Plasma cosmology, as I believe I have already begun to do (the page seemed very biased towards the BB POV when I first encountered it.) Thanks for your consideration and your welcoming. -- Ionized Tue, August 12th 10:00 pm

---

Thank you to all those responsible for re-wording the article. It is now much more acceptable, especially the comment that some currently accepted practices would have in the past been on this type of list. -- Ionized Tue, August 12th 6:06 pm

---

I think Gene's ideas are theories in the looser sense, even if not in a strictly scientific sense. Don't know if this is relevant... Martin 23:39, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know myself, but would prefer to make clear that these ideas are indeed far from accepted knowledge or even serious theory - it would take our readers one look at the Time Cube website to discover that, but why not mention it here. Kosebamse 12:20, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Moved from article:

Other

• Modern medical techniques and procedures that have not been validated by evidence-based medicine

This is far too vague to be in that list. Details please, or leave out. Kosebamse 11:41, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

What about Marxism, Lysenkoism, Lamarckism, Phlogiston, Calorific, Humors? -- -- Error 01:34, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Title

This page has evolved considerably from its beginnings when it related to a short list of modern eccentric ideas. With the move of the list from the pseudoscience article it has come to include a lot of practices with a long and honorable tradition which the mainstream of modern sciences does not find acceptable. I have therefor moved it to a more NPOV title which excludes the pejorative term, "fringe". ☮ Eclecticology 10:30, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

---

It hasn't evolved, it's just a whole stack of content moved in from Pseudoscience. This was intended as a list complementary to the one at pseudoscience -- in particular as a list of theories purporting to be scientific. I see two problems with the current name (List of alternative, speculative and disputed sciences):

1. The theories given aren't an alternative to science
2. All scientific theories are disputed

My initial test for inclusion was the level of acceptance enjoyed from the mainstream community. By importing a large number of entries with a wide following, Reddi indeed made the article into something other than that given in the original title (List of speculative or fringe theories).

I suggest doing the following:

• Move the pseudoscience back to pseudoscience from where it came, or alternatively to List of pseudoscientific theories
• Create another article with an unambiguous title such as "list of speculative or fringe scientific theories", and move the appropriate entries there.

-- Tim Starling 12:49, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

---

Hmm ... Tim, your initial intent was to list "speculative, fringe, crackpot or otherwise disregarded theories" in science (another, not so NPOV, way to say "alternative, speculative, and disputed sciences") contary to what you stated (check the 1st edit) ...

As to being "complementary " to pseudoscience list, the theories given are cited as an alternative to science (by thier advocates) ... I included what was intended (AFAIK) ...

... I's suggest keeping it all here (easier to check the wlnk'ed articles) ... now, mabey the article could be divided by header into "pseudoscientific", "speculative or fringe", and/or "disputed sciences" .... but it more comprehensive as it is ...

Sincerely, JDR 13:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can accept the change in the title from "sciences" to "theories". I pondered that possibility myself and decided that "science" in some usages was a much broader term. It was "fringe" in the old title that I found unacceptable. I was, in fact, glad to see the list moved from pseudoscience because that term is a characterization which was never subjected to any kind of strict criteria. I argued for the splitting off more than a year ago. The proponents of some of these practices had never even made a claim that they were sciences in the first place. The inclusion of some seemed to have been on a whim that could be disputed by those who are more familiar with the field. These whims varied considerably from one persan to another. I have always maintained that "not proven to be scientific" is a very different concept from "proven to be not scientific", and that "pseudosciece" should refer only to the latter.

The present title allows for things to be included without any implication of ultimate judgement about their validity. I don't think that dividing this list into categories would help our cause. That would open up a whole new series of disputes about where somthing belongs. Alphabetical order is about as neutral as we can hope for. Some tightening up could happen, such as including all practices ending in "-mancy" under fortune telling. ☮ Eclecticology 18:21, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to explain the move from "sciences" to "theories", but time caught up with me. Like you say, many of the theories listed have never made the claim to be scientific -- they are instead tied to spiritualistic or new age beliefs. I have to admit it seems somewhat odd to see hidden variable theory in the same list as numerology, but I'm not quite sure what to do about it. -- Tim Starling 23:15, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed

• Pyramidiocy theories about the origin, nature, or purpose of the Egyptian pyramids.

The problem with this is that it has no believers. The term is a pejorative that was invented by opponents as a catch-all for what could be a wide range of practices. A minimum condition for incllusion on the list should be that there is somebody who does or has believed in it. Individual practices contemplated by this term should have their own entries. ☮ Eclecticology 00:15, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

Marxism

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." [2] Fred Bauder 05:57, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be plain Marxism. It was preached as Scientific Socialism as opposed to Utopian Socialism (Anarchism). I think that the terms are from Marx himself. --Error 00:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Marxism itself should not be listed here for a number of reasons. Marxism incorporates a wide range of theories in economics, politics, history, and philosophy. Marx's theory of dialectical materialism is simply the imperative to look at historical events in the context of social class and availability of resources; this can hardly be said to be discredited. Despite a number of competing theories, Marx's understanding of the cause of inflation has not, to my knowledge, been falsified. Finally, there has not yet been a society operating on purely Marxian principles, since Marx envisaged a system free of government. All existing so-called "communist" governments have been Marxist-Leninist (or some variant thereof), which are actually (by Lenin's own admission numerous times in his writings) simply a form of state capitalism. Their recent collapse is evidence that Lenin's state capitalism is not the correct road to a Marxian society, not that a Marxian society itself is impossible. —Psychonaut 10:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fred's source is of course based on the Enver Hoxha school of communism. This gentleman's efforts to create Utopia on Earth were somewhat removed from the mainstream. No doubt, Hoxha sought to interpret Marx in what he believed to be a scientific way, and one might even say that he became more communist than the communists. If the term "science" were to apply at all, I agree it should be limited to Marx. The connection between Marx and Lenin could be seen in the analogy of the relationship between the theoretician and the engineer. The former is more interested in why a structure will stand; the latter has the more practical question, "Will it stand?" Lenin did not have much patience for theoretical wrangling.

For the scientific hard core one would do just as well to put economics instead of the more specific Marxism-Leninism. This group sees nothing scientific about anything in the social "sciences". To be completely fair one must remember that Marx lived in the 19th century. He would have used the term "scientific" in a much less rigid way than has since become the case. Popper's falsificationism did not yet exist. Any attempt to consider the matter in a methodical fashion would then have been considered scientific. Our judgement must be based on 19th century science.

If we now consider Marx's theories as failed, then we do so with the benefit of hindsight. Given that the subject involves the development of entire societies, any experiment or hypothesis testing will take several generations to complete. If we consider Marx as having proposed the hypothesis, we perhaps can also view Lenin as the person who designed the experiment to test that hypothesis. If further, the collapse of the Soviet Union can represent the failure of the experiment, it is perfectly on track with being scientific. It is perfectly scientific to recognize that an experiment has failed. Experimental failure is not the characteristic which defines pseudoscience. ☮ Eclecticology 20:11, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

---

Accupuncture is not pseudoscience. If you look at the article on accupuncture, it is quite clear. The traditional theory behind accupuncture would probably fit the definition of pseudoscience, but I'm sure there is a scientific theory that would at least put it in the realm of protoscience. You probably have to divide a lot of the the topics here in half. Ezra Wax 17:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Better now? -- Tim Starling 23:52, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

Please see the moved VfD discussion at Talk:List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories/Delete which includes suggestions to retitle this page.

Categorization?

Maybe it would help this page if theories were not listed alphabetically but were grouped by areas of knowledge to which they (purport to) belong. Also, the (necessarily brief) description of each theory should attempt to indicate what the theory is alternative to, why it is considered to be speculative, and why is it disputed.

Anyway, this page is a can or worms. Psychoanalysis is not listed despite the fact that a substantial number of critics say it is pseudoscientific and nonfalsifiable. String theory is speculative since it has made no contact with experiment. Evolution is disputed.

Miguel 17:19, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

String theory is speculative, yes, but it is seen as that among the scientific community. It does't have a group of true believers who dismiss all other competing theories as nonsense. Hence it is no pseudoscience. I do think that psychoanalysis should be listed in the article. Evolution is no pseudoscience because it is seen as plausible by the scientific community and it has even been observed in nature. But it is true that evolution is difficult to falsify. Andries 11:43, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yes, there are a lot of true believers that start all their scientific talks with "As we know, String theory is the theory of everything". And Edward Witten has been known to dismiss competing theories as nonsense.

Anyway, the point is that the article is not called "pseudoscience" but "alternative, speculative and disputed theories". Miguel 15:42, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

Miguel, you are right. I didn't read it well. This list is a can of worms and should renamed. Many theories are disputed and somewhat speculative but remain within the scope of science until the weight of evidence against them gets too big. Andries 15:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have carried out a (necessarily imperfect) preliminary classification. This has forced me to read the entries carefully, and a substantial number of the descriptions is highly non-NPOV and utterly uninformative. The introduction to the page is also atrocious, by the way. Miguel 20:22, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

It'll get there :-) This list is useful, though it needs a name tolerable to all.

In list articles, the "see also" is often after the intro and before the list - I think this list's "see also" should be there too. - David Gerard 20:36, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Some of the things listed here are not properly theories either. It can be argued that evolution is more a paradigm than a theory, for instance, and Darwinism is not the only evolutionary theory of biology and is more properly described by natural selection. I have beefs with the description of Hidden Variable "theories", too. This is just the beginning, of course.

It would be great if we could write a new introduction from scratch. Miguel 20:55, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

---

HIV

Many of these theories are considered pathological science: a psychological process in which believers in a theory, who may have originally conformed to the scientific method, unconsciously veer from that method and begin a pathological process of wishful data interpretation.

My god! This sounds like a perfect description of HIV research! Can I list it? (j/k) On a more serious note, I do kind of object to the gross lumping-together of disputed scientific claims or theories which for the most part conform to the scientific method, seek approval in mainstream journals, use standard techniques, etc., and those claims or theories which make no attempt at all to justify themselves by scientific methods, or their attempts are disingenuous or fake. For example, you may believe Peter Duesberg is wrong, and you may have good reasons to think so, but it's very difficult to deny that he is attempting to persuade people that his claims are scientifically sound via standard scientific channels (standard research methods, publication in respected journals, etc.). This is a far cry from "creation science" which for the most part makes a disingenuous attempt to be scientific, but not really intending to follow scientific processes or verification methods at all. Or, even worse, astrology and fortune telling, which are practically scams or wastes of time at best, whose "practitioners" must be well aware they are deceiving people. Listing all of these in the same article with theories that are scientific but simply highly disputed or contested is misleading, to say the least.

Hence my adding words about plate tectonics and the notion of meteorites to the beginning of the intro. It's actually a spectrum from "some think they're cranks" to "most definitely cranks." Where would you place a firm class division? - David Gerard 23:05, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

---

How can be a capitalism a "pseudoscience?" It does not puport to be a science at all, but only a philosophy of economics. It is not even a system per se, as capitalism can evolve in many different vectors, and still be capitalistic, as the make-up of the businesses will vary from culture to culture and year to year in its specificities. As it is not a science, it also does not make the utopian claim of perfectibility, as in Marxism. Few people do indeed feel that capitalism is somehow not acceptable, but history has shown us it is the best economic philosophy currently available to us. Capitalism is not a fringe philosophy. The small numbers of people who are anti-capitalist, on the other hand, are.

MSTCrow 02:38, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

As have had no replies, it would appear that people are in agreement that "capitalism" is not correctly placed in the "List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories." Therefore, I will remove it. If anyone disagrees with this action, please first discuss your arguments against it in Talk.

MSTCrow 05:22, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Aren't all theories, by definition, speculative?

MSTCrow 03:20, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

---

I have restored "Bell Curve" as it fits the definition. Profoundly questionable science, supported by some, disputed by many more. Cold fusion had data too. (BTW, your removal edit certainly wasn't discussed on the talk page ...) - David Gerard 23:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to offer that the science is not valid? We cannot let the list become a victim of any PC censorship of science. Cold fusion had data, but it wasn't reproducible, or well documented. Scientists in the field, by a majority, agree with it. It is only when you reach the layperson, who has preconcieved notions of what ought to be that we have problems.

MSTCrow 23:21, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am not interested really in putting the Bell Curve back, but to dismiss the criticism of the book as PC is nonsense. Statistics are easily abused to fit peoples' agenda. The core theory of the book, that the differences in IQ between black and white Americans is genetically determined is very speculative. It conflicts with well established genetic evidence that the concept of white and black 'races' has no scientific validity. African-Americans are as much a race as the Irish-Americans or Hispanics. It is overwhelming likely that the IQ differences are caused by cultural factors. This is why the Bell Curve is disputed.

--Frank.visser 23:42, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is certainly not the "core theory" of the "Bell Curve," that "the differences in IQ between black and white Americans is genetically determined." This subject is covered in 46 out of 846 pages in chapter 13, and is irrelevant to the real "core theory."

Which is that, in the 20th century, the United States became much more socially and economically stratified by cognitive ability. That the smartest people have increasingly risen to the top. less hindered by class, race and gender distinctions. That there are some undesirable consequences to this societal change, to this creation of a cognitive elite. That people not cognitively favored have an increasingly difficult time dealing with life in the land of the smart rulers.

I considered this to be an important and most novel insight.

Bob Unferth

DDT

I would like to suggest that the "dangers" of DDT be included in the list. The entry for DDT itself makes mention of this, and Rachel Caron has never been recognized as a legitimate voice in the scientific community. This article, [3], by Roger Bate, makes note of this, and also of the millions of lives lost who would have otherwise been saved had DDT been available to protect against malaria spreading mosquitoes. He is by no means the first person to point this out either, and many health and evironmental organizations believe that the risk from DDT to animal life is minimal. As the premise for banning DTT is in itself questionable, and the millions of lives lost on a yearly basis in underdeveloped regions such as Africa due to the ban, I believe that this is a topic which warrants inclusion in the list.

MSTCrow 23:21, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

1. The dangers of DDT have not been discredited. DDT does cause environmental damage. Now, it may be that the antimalarial benefits of DDT outweigh the environmental risks, even significantly so, but I don't think the idea that DDT is an environmental hazzard is outside the realms of mainstream science.

Philosophy: Ojectivism removed

I have removed Ayn Rand's objectivism because that is is a school of philosophy and all schools of philosophies are disputed. I mean, then we could as well include all other schools of philosophy and all religious movements. Kind regards. Andries 21:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Evolution not alternative, speculative or disputed

I do not believe that evolution shoud be on the list. It is absolutely not an alternative, speculative or disputed theory. The groups who dispute evolutionary theory are on the same level as people who dispute relativity theory or quantum mechanics. I will start to figure out how to remove the Evolution entry from the list

I just checked, and I found that a few days ago somebody replaced creationism with evolution. The same IP put in objectivism (later removed). I put creationism back in, but is there a way to stop this person from doing it again? --Frank.visser 23:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope. Just keep an eye on the page. If they persist, ask them to justify themselves. Etc. - David Gerard 23:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since when is it not speculative nor disputed? Why do you think there is constant friction about evolution being indoctrinated in public schools?

When I went to college, the biology text used in class was written by George Gaylord Simpson in which he clearly, with several examples, indicated that the difference between a scientific theory and one that is not scientific is that the scientific theory was based on observation, where the observation is repeatable. Did Dr. Simpson know the definition of science? Has the definition for science changed since then?

Then look at Dr. Simpson's description of evolution: it is based on inobservable presuppositions. All the "evidences" for evolution, such as the interpretations of fossiles, radiomedric dating and so forth, are equally based on inobservable presuppositions. If observation is the test for science verses non-science, as above, how is evolution scientific? Or do you claim that Dr. Simpson didn't understand what science is?

Or to use Popper's concept of falsifyability: what would it take to falsify evolution? Historical artifacts? Records? What sort of observations would falsify evolution when it is not based on observation?

This is not a defense of creationism, as it is equally based on inobservable presuppositions.

Therefore, both theories are equally not scinece, according to Dr. Simpson's definition above.

Therefore, it is POV to include one theory as disputed and the other not.

Melamed 04:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you cannot attack the sacred cows. Fallibilism is disliked because it categorises many well loved-theories as questionable science; it imposes an extremely strict criterion. Hence we revert back to the days before the dawn of empirical science, and rely entirely on the word of academic authorities. However, if two theories fail because neither is in principle falsifiable, it is reasonable to select the one that has the greater amount of corroborative evidence, if we must make a choice between them.Gordon Vigurs 12:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

CBS News carried an article at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml showing that the claim that evolution is not controversial is a very parochial view. In fact as this article shows, it is only a small minority who are true believers in evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of whom are in government employ and the majority of those in government schools. Therefore, not to include it as a disputed theory is POV as it is a viewpoint taught by a small minority.

According to the poll numbers, it is the naturalistic evolutionists who are the smallest minority, followed by the theistic evolutionists, with an absolute majority who are creationists. Censorship and discrimination as practiced now may prevent creationists from getting degrees, or if perchance they succeed in obtaining an advanced degree in science, not getting an education position nor publication of their articles, but such efforts are perceived by the majority that evolution does not have a scientific or intellectual basis that can survive an open debate. Hence it is percieved as a speculative and disputed theory.

Melamed 23 Nov 2004

US-centered bias anyone? — Miguel 07:59, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 12:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)) My understanding was that the phrase "alternative, speculative or disputed" referred to the status of theories with respect to science and/or their appropriate professional community. Not wrt the general public.

I think George Gaylord Simpson says it all. Bobby1011 19:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope there is some speculative element left in evolution, otherwise we should sack all the biologists as redundant! It is absurd to claim that observations not yet made cannot in any way refine it. Gordon Vigurs 14:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What merits the inclusion of brainwashing in this list?

"Brainwashing theory says that a person can have his belief system and basic values changed involuntarily by the use of social pressure e.g. in cults"

Was the author of this implying that cults do not change people's belief systems or basic values? It contradicts with observations, even superficial ones.

It's not a theory but a set of methods that can be used to change human being's belief system and basic values. The mechanisms used in the process are not unique to brainwashing, but normal, and can be researched under a number of psychological models. Basically, it's abuse of the same mechanisms that govern the learning and adjustment of a child, in an adult person. Cults are not unique in using them.

That is called social influence, or conditioning , not brainwashing. Have you read and studies the article on brainwashing? I will re-insert the brainwashing theory. Andries 18:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Melamed's edits

Melamed, please stop unilaterally adding evolution to the list. Clearly there's been some controversy over its inclusion, so it would be better to try to make your case here and gain the support of other editors of this page before making your changes. For the record, I do not believe that evolution is not a science. It may seem difficult to falsify, though there are a variety of methods which have gained wide acceptance in the biological community. I suggest you read through the talk.origins FAQs if you have not already done so; if you have a novel argument which has not yet been addressed there or here, then perhaps you can defend it here and we will be swayed. Psychonaut 21:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Melamed hi. Please read carefully the beginning of the page. It states that inclusion in this page has to do first and foremost with being accepted academically. Evolution is universally accepted inside the academia. Ask any biologist. Opposition to evolution comes from outside the academy. This is not about how to define science. Just a poll. Gady 20:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all, the beginning of the page doesn't even have the word "accademically" in it, nor any referrence thereto. However, it does state Many of these theories are considered pathological science: a psychological process in which believers in a theory, who may have originally conformed to the scientific method, unconsciously veer from that method and begin a pathological process of wishful data interpretation. which is an almost perfect description of evolution except that evolution never conformed to the scientific method.

Melamed 05:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if you add acedemically to the top of the article, that is almost a shouted admission that the following article is full of NPOV violations. It is widely recognized that acedemia as a whole is anything but NPOV.

Actually, it may be better for you to start out with the claim that this article makes no pretence of NPOV. 1) it is intellectually more honest, than to pretend NPOV while writing POV 2) People like myself will be less inclined to edit the page, as it will be an honest POV entry

Melamed 05:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Melamed hi. First of all, welcome to the talk, that would be much more productive than constantly reverting and being reverted within minutes. Second, I think you read Wikipedia's neutraility policy very carefully. Your use of the term NPOV is obviously colloquial, while on Wikipedia it has a precise definition quite different from how you use it.

Now to your actual point. No, the introduction to the page does not state explicitly that we are talking about science as defined by scientists in the academia, and "majority" and "minority" are understood in this context. If you think this is not clear enough, you may suggest an alternative formulation for the introduction. Gady 11:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gady: True, I just skimmed the definition of NPOV vs. POV, but in skimming it I noticed nothing with which I would disagree. But nowhere did I notice that Wikipedia articles should be limited to academia's standards. It is not without reason that academia is often called the "ivory tower", not only because academics are often out of touch with the rest of the world, but also because they are usually surrounded by people of like mind, that they often do not recognize their own biases, illogic and limitations. If I had noticed that Wikipedia limits its definition of NPOV to how academia defines it, I would have treated Wikipedia articles the same as I treat other academic sources: sometimes useful, but use with caution because of POV.

I'll remind you of the academic a few years ago, who deliberately wrote a piece that was nonsense to illustrate the absurdity of the peer review process. Because he is such a big name in his field (sorry, I don't remember his name right now) the article got published. He finally had to come out publicly announce what he had done.

Incidently, I noticed that none of you responded to my mention above why evolution is a disputed and speculative theory. While I mentioned Dr. Simpson, others have published the same ideas so this concept is not original with me. I see three options from the above, either 1) Dr. Simpson was a fool who didn't know what he was talking about when he described what is science (hard to back up, as I checked several textbooks and none gave a contradictory description), 2) the definition of science has changed since I checked, making any claim that a particular theory is or is not scientific a time based, subjective assertion and not an objective standard; if this view is adopted, then there can be no pathological science as there is no objective standard as to what is good science, or 3) evolution is not, never has been and never can be, a scientific theory. Sadly, to me at least, under the politically correct pressure to declare evolution a scientific theory, it looks as if option #2 is being pursued.

Finally, upon sleeping on the question, there is a way legitimately to write a POV article in a NPOV manner, and that is to include a disclaimer at the very beginning that the article is a report on how a particular group perceives the issues. Then the inclusion or exclusion of any particular statement will not be considered POV on the part of Wikipedia, rather POV on the part of portrayed group. I have added such a disclaimer.

Melamed 17:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is perhaps not directly related to the debate at hand, but with regards to your academic who illustrated "the absurdity of the peer review process": You are undoubtedly referring to the Sokal affair, in which physicist Alan Sokal submitted a paper to the cultural studies journal Social Text. The paper was intended to highlight the abuse of the language and concepts of science by post-modernist scholars. It was not accepted on the basis of Dr. Sokal's physics reputation; indeed, in their reply to his exposure of the hoax the editors of Social Text said that they did "not [know] the author or his work". It has nothing to do with peer review, and hence is in no way a defense for any of your claims here. Carmelbuck 20:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that William M. Connolley made a change, with the claim "in academia" was there already. but a check of previous versions shows that that is a lie. What does he take us for, . . . fools?

Melamed 17:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Its on the current text of the page, about line 2, oh self-described fool. I await your apology.

William was right. It was a pique. Please use a respectable formulation. Gady 20:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To be fair, guys, the phrase "in academia" was added by Melamed at the same time that he added his introductory statements; William apparently chopped out the top stuff rather than revert to the previous version. However, I think it can be debated whether that phrase belongs there as well...is academic acceptance really an appropriate criterion for this page? Read the phrase "beginning from theories considered crackpot by all but their handful of followers and ending in respectable theories that are simply the minority view"; this perfectly well incorporates the entries on the page without an additional "academic belief" classification---and, I might add, does not include the biological theory of evolution. Carmelbuck 20:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I see no harm in the "academia" addition. Gady 20:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Oops, so I did.

Removed Text + suggestions

I removed the following text:

===[[Welbesology]]=== Is the study of rumored or mythological teachers that are presumed by many to exist, but for which proof does not yet exist. In mythology, they would teach Anthropology, Social Sciences or Theories of Knowledge. Illustrates the fact that truth is never certain, since misinformation is common.

This was contributed by a certain mr. 4 numbers and this is his only contribution. Partly copied from the cryptozoology description. Google gives nothing.

Also, I have some additional suggestions for removal:

1. SETI. This is not a theory but a project.
2. Psychoanalysis. At least until we have a page in Wikipedia that explains why this is fringe. Or AT LEAST some references that it is debunked beyond the usual debunking of any theory in psychology. Ditto for hypnosis and polygraph.
3. Marxism-Lenninism. This is famed first and foremost as a policy, not as a science. Also it feels strongly out of place here, more like someone's opinion.

There was no reply so I'm doing it. Gadykozma 13:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gadykozma, I belatedly oppose to your removal of psychoanalysis. It has been debunked and some aspects are non-falsifiable i.e. non-scientific. Andries 17:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Better late than never. Can you give some references to this? I kind of know this theory is currently not at its highest in popularity, but that's a far cry from actually being fringe. Gadykozma 19:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Andries, sorry for removing brainwashing without discussion, it got carried away by the inertia of the removal of the other psychology stuff. If you want, lets discuss it now. Gadykozma 18:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gadykozma, Brainwashing article does not need to be discussed here because the article on brainwashing explains that and why it has been discredited with references. Andries 18:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article itself points out that the state of the science is hotly disputed and that there is not a consensus meaning of the term with some forms of very significant coersive and manipulative persausion existing (e.g. propoganda), and other more fantastical definitions of the term lacking scientific validity.

Biophotons

I've added the Biophotons to the list. It seems to a mostly German contribution to this corpus, but I've just checked the articles made it to the english Wikipedia and some little edit struggles are seen. The finer points of classifying as proto- or pseudoscience I've left open so far. One point of possible confusion: Biophotonics exist and is rather legitimate but boring and sometimes hyped to get the funding. It has no connections per se with Biophotons, but the Biophotonists are sometimes trying to take over the term and the article. Pjacobi 08:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Evolution

Dear User:66.81.121.107, the theory of evolution is a mainstream scientific theory, which has been the subject of widespread testing, including the observation of predicted, but not previously observed, species in the fossil record, DNA evidence, and the direct observation of evolution in the environment and the laboratory. Calling other people "Ignoramii and illogics" is unlikely to advance the acceptance of your arguments here: we have a policy that contributors are expected to be polite to one another, and refrain from personal attacks. You might also want to note the Wikipedia:three revert rule. -- The Anome 03:03, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Previous views of these theories

Have re-inserted this, which was briefly in the article.

Equally, a number of these concepts have in the past been regarded as mainstream theories (like luminiferous aether) or as strong hypotheses deserving of further study (like polywater. In all of these cases experimental study has demonstrated the strength or weakness of the hypothesis.

I agree that aether was never experimentally proven, but I understand that many scientists agreed it was a strong if untested hypothesis before experimental proof became available. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise I'll stop objecting and use something else (e.g. creationism) as the example of a previously mainstream thought now regarded as nonsense. The Land 19:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)) With the new wording, I guess its OK, ish. Mainstream is more accurate than sound.

Does Catastrophism really deserve to be listed as a Pseudo-science since it is potentially verifiable/falsifiable.

It isn't listed as a pseudoscience, it is listed as "alternative, speculative, and disputed." --Fastfission 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mainstream theories added by 172.130.213.107

I have removed most of the additions made by 172.130.213.107 as shown in this diff. There were a few problems. The user changed the introduction to note that theories without experimental evidence were listed. S/he then listed philosophical topics such as interpretation of quantum mechanics, that are perfectly valid fields of inquiry depsite having no experimental grounding. S/he then went on to express a common misconception by adding force carrier. I know, some people like to deny the existence of quarks or electrons or the far side of the moon because we can't "see" them. But force carriers are part of quantum electrodynamics, what some popular science authors call the best-tested physical theory in existence. There is ample evidence.

A few other theories were added on the basis that the experimental evidence supporting them is insufficient. I don't think it's a particularly helpful redefinition of this list to add random elements of mainstream scientific theories just because some arbitrarily high standard of evidence set by the author hasn't been reached. We can certainly distinguish between popular theories and fringe theories in an NPOV way, and I think such a categorisation is useful to our readers. -- Tim Starling 06:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

If they are "asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence", they should be listed. - Anon

The interpretation of quantum mechanics is part of quantum mechanics being "disputed theory". Which one is right? Modify the definition, but the overall theory is disputed - Anon

The article clearly states that this list includes claims that are considered fringe or pseudoscientific, regardless of what you decide to interpret the title of the article to mean. --brian0918™ 18:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See the Item that should be included. They are speculative and disputed.

NPOV dispute

How can "many in the "mainstream" scientific community consider to be "fringe" or pseudoscientific" be allowed in a NPOV article? -Anon

• Please review what NPOV is about. Wikipedia must maintain a neutral POV but it can state or list other POVs as long as they are attributed to an individual or group which holds them. --Fastfission 19:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• See my comments on this above. Removing NPOV tag. The Land 13:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Items that should be included

The article is disputed on it's accuracy because these are not included:

• Higgs bosons are hypothetical elementary particles predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics.

Reason- Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence; speculative

• Interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to answer the question: what exactly is quantum mechanics talking about?

Reason- Disputed as to which one is right!; speculative

• The many-worlds interpretation (or MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that proposes various ideas.

Reason- Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence; speculative

• String theory is a physical model whose fundamental building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that were the basis of most earlier physics.

Reason- Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence; speculative

• Superstring theory is an attempt to explain all of the particles and fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modeling them as vibrations of tiny supersymmetric strings.

Reason- Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence; speculative

• Supersymmetry is a hypothetical symmetry that relates bosons and fermions. In supersymmetric theories, every fundamental fermion has a superpartner which is a boson and vice versa.

Reason- Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence; speculative

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetical is not the same thing as speculative. Take a look at what this is supposed to be a list of:

This list of alternative, speculative and disputed theories includes examples of fields of endeavor that many in the "mainstream" scientific community consider to be "fringe" or pseudoscientific.

Now none of the things you've mentioned are quite in that category, even though they are by no means accepted by the entire scientific community and many have not yet have been able to be tested. But all are considered to be, at this point, within the domain of "mainstream science". Theories that have not yet been tested, but are considered plausible (and testable) by the scientific community do not fit into this framework; nor do the varieties of interpretations fo evidence by mainstream scientists. --Fastfission 19:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetical = speculative (notice the second defintion; eg., a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence))

This list of alternative, speculative and disputed theories.

These things mentioned are in that category. -Anon

So let me get this straight: you don't like the title of the page? Because the content of the page -- which goes into more detail on what should be included -- clearly excludes your interpretation. --Fastfission 19:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not the title of the page, it the contents of the page (inaccurate because it's incomplete).

This isn't my interpretation, it's the plain english (see above link)! -Anon

Look, you clearly have an axe to grind here and don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying (at least, you're not engaging it). Let me put it this way: you can spend all day arguing about this and trying to insert things which are considered mainstream science into this page which is clearly geared around pseudoscience. You'll be wasting your time. You're neither the first nor the last person to try and do this. Now if you'd like to help me find a more descriptive name for the page, I'd appreciate that a lot more than you trying to insist that the page should be based around your interpretation of its title, rather than what the page is actually trying to be a list of. --Fastfission 19:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have an axe to grind. I want wikpedia to follow it's policies (NPOV; Accuracy).

So, Fastfission (and whoever else) are going to disreguard the wikipedia policies? that's not good. - Anon

Uh huh. Again, you're not actually engaging with anything I'm saying. What's your goal in this? This isn't the way to get what you want, you know. --Fastfission 19:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bullsh*t! You are ignoring valid wikipedia policies! -Anon

I disagree with Anon and agree with Fastfission. The theories mentioned are all based on observations. Most of them are attempts to draw together observations on the microscopic and macroscopic levels. They are all rapidly evolving as further experimental evidence comes to light. They do not qualify as 'alternative or speculative'. In a hundred year's time observations may have conclusively discounted the superstring model; in which case, if it stil lhas adherents, it should be listed here. The Land 15:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Fastfission and disagree with Anon. At the current time none of the above fit within the scope of the page. While there are disputes about the hypothesises lists, none are thoroughly discredited by empirical evidence or nonsensical in light of established empirically proven scientific theories. Ohwilleke 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Macedonian studies, including history of FYROM and Macedonian linguistics —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.9.225.146 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

Source? -Jim Butler^(talk) 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to tell why the poster believes that this should be added from the post. Also, this page applies to matters that purport to be scientific theories. Events within the scope of written history generally wouldn't be a scientific theory. Linquistics might be, but without knowing what claims made in Macedonian linguistics are involved (certainly not the existence of subjects, objects and verbs, and probably something to do with the origins of the language, one would presume), it is hard to determine if it fits. Ohwilleke 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

I think the name of this page attracts a lot of confusion over what should be included in it. I think if we drop "speculative" it would be a lot more to the point. I'd almost consider replacing "alternative" with "non-mainstream". The point is, these are theories which are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community or considered by said community to be outside the bounds of scientific inquiry or scientific practice; the name should reflect this a bit more clearly, as at the moment it lends itself to a lot of ambiguity such as that from our anon friend here who doesn't seem to get the point. --Fastfission 19:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because there are "speculative" things in the mainstream should not scare you. But they should be listed.

"the so-called mainstream" would be a value judgement; who's mainstream? It's editing in a particular collection of strongly held views a path to sheer non-NPOV. -Anon

I'm not "scared", I'm trying to avoid people like you misinterpretting what this category is about. Of course there are speculative things in the mainstream, that's why I think it should be dropped from the title: it is not a good approach to demarcation, it doesn't mean what the rest of the page says.

As for mainstream: It is not a value judgment, it is a sociological category. While the boundaries of "mainstream science" was somewhat fuzzy, in general it is not that hard to establish without using much POV. Science is a community which defines itself by participating in peer-reviewed journals, professional societies, etc., and has been as such since at least the mid-19th century.--Fastfission 19:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed journals shouldn't be held too highly, see the bio of Hannes Alfven for more on that! Science are a self-reinforcing community and don't accept right theories (if they alternative [eg., non-mainstream]). -Anon

Again, you're not really discussing the issue here, which is not whether "mainstream" theories are correct or not, it is what is included as "mainstream" theory. Feel free to doubt the mainstream all you want; that's not the point of this article or your editing. --Fastfission 19:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "mainstream" is a POV issue, NOT AN ACCURACY ISSUE! you have it wrong. -The accuracy thing is discussed above. -Anon

I think the best thing to do would be to delete the page. I created it, but I'm not sure what I was on at the time. -- Tim Starling 05:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I use ot mainly as a watchlist, especially for those articles often silently losing their {{disputed}} and {{cleanup}} tags. But this task can be decentralized and put into the Wikipedia namespace as subpages for the matching WikiProjects. --Pjacobi 06:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Right, but it could function much better as a watchlist if it was moved to the user namespace. That way we wouldn't have these stupid arguments every few months. -- Tim Starling 13:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK I've done it, I copied it to User:Tim Starling/List of crackpot theories. Time to set the deletionists loose. -- Tim Starling 13:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read what you said properly the first time around. Moving it to the Wikipedia namespace would also be fine. Feel free to move it from here to there or from the user subpage to there if you think it would be better. -- Tim Starling 14:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've adopted the physics section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. --Pjacobi 15:10, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

How about calling it: List of fringe theories? --brian0918™ 15:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed Mirror Matter

I removed Mirror Matter for the following reason. One could argue that it is a fringe theory because only a limited number of physicists work on it (about 20). So, it fits the definition given in the introduction in this respect. It is not, however a crackpot theory, because you can publish articles on it in, say, Phys. Rev. D. See the reference list of the article mirror matter

My objection against inclusing mirror matter in the list of alternative theories is that it is the only non-crackpot theory in the list. So, it has been singled out for some reason. It is not the only non-crackpot theory that fits the criteria, though. I could write down a big list of non-crackpot theories that can also be included.

I.m.o., until such a comprehensive list of non-crackpot theories on which a limited number of physicists work on is compiled, it is not correct to include just one non-crackpot theory in the list.

Count Iblis 12:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed point 5 (adhered to by a limited group), and removed the three remaining non-crackpot physics theories that fall in this category. As in case of mirror matter, it is not fair to single out a few theories. Also it is extremely insulting for professional physicists working on these theories to find out (e.g. after a google search) that their theory appears on a list consisting almost exclusively of crackpot theories like intelligent design.

Count Iblis 22:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Acupuncture?

I'm not entirely sure why acupuncure is present in this list of "disputed" theories. Acupuncture has been proven to heal with some scientific theories formulated to explain the recorded effects, definately placing this technique into the realm of the plausible. From the American Medical Association's website: "Most often, acupuncture is used for acute or chronic pain relief, but some proponents also use it for smoking cessation and substance abuse treatment, asthma, arthritis, and other conditions. Endorphin release, stimulation of the peripheral nervous system, and pain mediation through the effects of other neuropeptides are currently thought to be the most likely conventional explanations for the effects of acupuncture." Thoughts?

• Acupuncture didn't have its foundings in science. Although this doesn't mean that someday it can be scientifically explained, the means by which these benefits are conferred (and in which cases benefits actually do occur) are currently not clear, as you have yourself pointed out. -- BRIAN0918  13:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Accupuncture is certainly highly effective in some cases. On the other hand the "meridians", the "five vessels" etc. which are the traditional Chinese theory behind accupuncture, have exactly zero supporting evidence. So I'd have to say as a theory it is speculative, while as a practice it is not. To be fair it probably should be listed, but it might be nice to make the distinction (speculative theory, accepted practice) somehow. The situation is much the same with chiropractic. ObsidianOrder 02:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Acupuncture is arguably the world's established medical practice, compared with Western medicine. It is just unfamiliar with people in the West. It was indeed originally based upon a process of exploration similar to the scientific method, it's just that the details have now faded far into obscurity. However they can and should be retraced. Calling it "alternative" or "speculative" is simply a blinded outlook. User:mugwumpjism 21:59 Aug 15 2005 NZST

We don't judge ourselves but report judgements by the medical profession. I've reverted your removal. --Pjacobi 10:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Should we change the title?

We want a list of pseudoscientific theories. But alternative, speculative and/or disputed theories are not necessarily pseudoscientific. In fact, if a theory is indeed pseudoscientific it will usually be ignored by the scientific community. So, the term disputed certainly doesn't apply to pseudoscientific theories. In case of a pseudoscientific theory it's more of a case closed, period situation.

Legitimate science is full of lively debate. There are a lot of mainstream respectable alternative, speculative and disputed theories that respectable scientists are working on. These theories have nothing to do with pseudoscience.

Scientists will regard a theory as pseudoscientific if the theory cannot be true given what is known, not if they believe it isn't true. That's a very important distinction. Pseudoscientists will have you believe otherwise and will claim that their theory is rejected just because it isn't the scientist's favorite theory. We must therefore not play into the pseudoscientist's hands by listing theories here that are part of legitimate science.

Count Iblis 00:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No, keep it as it is. Not everything here is pseudoscience. This is not meant to be a list of pseudoscience either - I think you might find it extremely difficult to maintain such a list.

You say "Scientists will regard a theory as pseudoscientific if the theory cannot be true given what is known" - that is not correct, check your dictionary. ObsidianOrder 02:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the physics part of the list contains only pseudoscientific theories. I would say that a list of only pseudoscientific theories is much easier to maintain because it is almost always very clear whether or not a theory is pseudoscientific (at least in physics). About the definition of pseudoscience, you are right, the general criteria are listed [pseudoscience|here]. I was already assuming that the theory does not violate some of the more basic scientific principles.

Count Iblis 13:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Should we change the title?" Yes, because the title means something different than what the 4 listed criteria mean. Others have made the same point that what is disputed is much vaster than this list. This list is pretty much NOT disputed by most, except the particular believers. (That's rephasing what you say in the first paragraph.) What to change it to, I don't know.

Count Iblis says: "I could write down a big list of non-crackpot theories that can also be included. I.m.o., until such a comprehensive list of non-crackpot theories on which a limited number of physicists work on is compiled, ..." Such a list would be very interesting. Most likely place from which new facts/theories to arise. I encourage you to do it if you're up for it. GangofOne 05:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

GangofOne, perhaps this should be a 'list of pseudoscientific theories'? About the list of non-crackpot theories, I have thought about that a bit more but that wouldn't be practical. I would guess that at least a few percent, perhaps more, of all published theories/ideas would qualify to be on that list. To give you just a few examples taken from the things I've included on wikipedia:

Theories that support the idea that the DAMA/NaI has detected dark matter.

Theories that claim that dark matter consists of [simp|strongly interacting massive particles]. I've given only a few references here, but there are at least a few hundred pubications in this field. But still most physicists working on dark matter don't think that dark matter is strongly (self) interacting. So, technically this is somewhat of a fringe idea. But science isn't about conflicts between believers and non believers of certain theories. If you write an article about strongly interacting dark matter then the referee won't reject your paper just because he doesn't think that dark matter is strongly interacting. You may not even believe it yourself! You write the paper, not because you believe that the theory is true, but because you have found that the known observational evidence allows for the theory to be true. Your paper can then prompt other scientists to try to close the window allowing for your theory to be true. This then leads to a better understanding of the properties of dark matter.

What about mirror matter? Just like in case of simps, there are a large number of publications see here. Then there is the idea of broken mirror symmetry (I never had the time to write about that here).

What about Q-balls, B-balls, strange quark matter, exotic baryons?

Needless to say, there are many many more of such theories out there that most scientists (who work in the field) don't believe in. In many cases the people who work on these theories don't really believe in them themselves! But as I wrote above, science (unlike religion) is not about belief :)

Count Iblis 13:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

About such a list of noncrackpot, nonaccepted theories, yes it wouldn't be practical or easy. But my point is it would be interesting. GangofOne 17:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ironic Science v. Pseudoscience

From what I can gather, this list was originally intended to be one of pseudoscience but the NPOV renaming was too charitable toward "crackpot" theories. I think there is an important distinction to be made here between ironic science and pseudoscience. Ironic science often is well within the mainstream, and is called such because it's theories are not empirically testable. For example, research into the origins of life is an ironic science. Even if such a theory were to lead to creation of life in a laboratory, one would still not know that it occured the same way the first time. String theory also falls into this category because it does not make any predictions that can be observed. (The big bang theory on the other hand predicted cosmic background radiation) Most ironic sciences are based on sound reasoning and the practitioners cannot be faulted because the nature of their subject defies clasical empiricism. In contrast, those who adhere to pseudoscience are guilty of discarding reason and ignoring evidence. Lack of verification does not make the theories of ironic science pseudoscientific in the sense that that term is commonly used, but they are speculative and often disputed. If the title remains unchanged, then all ironic sciences should added. However, I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the list, and a better solution would be to use the same title used in the pseudoscience article: "Feilds often associated with pseudoscience" (The list within the article should probably be removed or added to this page) This is almost a "weasel word" violation of NPOV because "often associated" doesn't attribute the claim to any particular person or group, but I think it's preferable to directly calling these theories pseudoscience (that might offend some non-rational people). --AAMiller 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Reworking this page

I think that this page ought to be rethought a bit. First of all, the list of reasons for inclusion is inappropriate. As-is, it reads

Inclusion in the list is possible because that theory is:

1. Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;
2. Asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
3. Failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results; or
4. Violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

Yet look again: Creationism claims to have experimental/observational validation, and string theory is not yet testable. So back off a second and ask "what is the real issue here"?

The real focus of this page is theories which are not accepted as factual or reasonably possible by the scientific community and yet are also in some way significant. This They seems to fall into several catergories:

• Popular theories - There are ideas which are accepted by a significant part of the population yet lack creedence in the scientific community. Many of these, such as creation "science", are religously motivated and more interested in validation the Bible than in "good" science (although I have seen some good science done in it's name when the two are not in conflict). Other theories, such as alien invasions, are just plain loonacy but since they stoke up the imagination are none-the-less popular.
• Fringe theories - These have only slight acceptance in the scientific community, but are not considered for the most part to have any legitimate possibility of being accepted. They are significant because of have been maintained under consideration by a dedicated minority of researchers over a significant period of time, and have regularly gotten attention because of it. Aquatic ape theory is one such example.
• Discredited theories - Things like luminiferous aether, the steady state universe, and polywater which were once dominant or seriously considered as possibly factual but which have since been refuted.

So then what is left out and why? The reasons for leaving something out are three-fold:

• Currently mainstream science, being considered factual or reasonably likely to become factual. Evolution and general relativity are examples of accepted theories. String theory seems to have an amazing amount of explanatory power in spite of the lack of identifiable test for it at this time, as so it accepted as a possibility needing more research. Such things to not belong here.
• Blatantly crackpot theories, being ideas that are very obviously false and therefore lack much acceptance anywhere. The NPOV policy states that is a view is held by a small enough minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia. So anything truly crackpot does not belong here.
• Trivial science. There are a lot of ideas out there that simply have not attracted much attention for one reason or another. They are not necessarily crackpot but they are not considered to be likely either. In theory they should qualify because they fall between the extremes, but as a practial matter the number of people paying any attention to it one way or the other is so small that it is the "small enough minority" cited in dismissing the crackpot theories.

I would also suggest tagging the theories on this list with a word or two in bold and parenthseis stating why it is on this list. For example:

• Creationism (popular/religous) ...
• Aquatic ape (fringe) ...
• Luminiferous aether (dicredited) ...

So overall the entries in this list are theories that are notable for one reason or another and yet are not considered to be tenable by the scientific community. I think that this is a much sounder basis for inclusion in this list than worrying about the reasons for its being like that. After all, Wegener's view of continental drift would have qulified for this list 50 years ago. Today, it is the view of the continents being immobile that is discredited. --EMS | Talk 16:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree except about fringe theories. Whether or not theories are fringe or not is not always very clear and that will then lead to disputes. Most theories listed here are not serious scientific theories (they are discredited or religious etc.). If a few serious scientific theories are also listed just because they have limited following, then they become associated with the disputed theories category because a google search for disputed theories will now also yield the serious fringe theories listed here. Now just imagine that you are a scientist working on a serious theory that is listed here. Your neighbor, curious about the theory you are working on, is using google to learn more about it. He could then get the impression that you are spending his hard earned tax dollars on very quacky theories :). Count Iblis 17:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "serious fringe" theory? If the effort is considered by most neutral observers in the field felt to be a worthwhile avenue of study, then it does not qualify under this proposed standard. So things like string theory and the Higgs boson, which are quite speculative yet under active and serious investigation by scientists and where the ideas are almost unversally respected even if they are not believed are not to be included. On the other hand, aquatic ape theory gets very little if any government support in part because of the small size of that community and that model being almost universally panned by other researchers in the relevant fields. In that case, I would not call it "serious" even though its proponents take it seriously: The opinion in the relevant scientific fields is that there is not a serious possibility of this being found to be true.

I don't think that we can have perfection here, and perhaps that should not be the goal. Note that part of what I want to achive is to treat the entries on this list a somewhat non-judgemental fashion: It should be clear that being on this page is not a ruling on the part of the editors that the model in question is not true. Instead it should be a ruling that the model in question

1. is or has been of notable interest in the scientific, scolarly, or popular communities and
2. where there is a strong consensus amongst scientists in the relevant fields is that this is very unlikely to be found to be true.

I think that this is more Wikipedia-ish anyway: The goal is to document the current state of human knowledge, not to rule on any of these models per-se. If we can make the case that a model qualifies user these standards, then we can stand behind the entry. For example, for the Aquatic ape theory (which I find intriguing) the issue is that this avenue of research is almost universally panned by other paleoantropologists and evolutionary biologists. That fact is much harder for its proponents to argue against than whether it is worthy of respect or how large a community of researchers it has. --EMS | Talk 18:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with such a definition of fringe theory. The reason I wasn't in favor of labeling theories as fringe was because of my negative experience with that here on wikipedia. What happened was that the first page I started here, mirror matter, was labeled as fringe and edited by others suggesting it was crackpot science. I had to rewrite this article completely so that it would be clear at first glance that it is a serious theory.

Still there were some that listed that page on lists of fringe or crackpot theories and I had to remove it from those lists. Now I don't know about biology, but in physics it almost impossible to get your articles on fringe theories published in the leading journals. My opponents in the dispute about mirror matter argued that only a handfull of physicists work on it and their articles are almost exclusively cited by the group of people who work on it. I did eventually concede that according to the official definition of fringe it could be labeled as such, but then you would have to label a large fraction of physics as fringe as well (there are many theories/ideas on which only a handful of people work on). But in physics at least, fringe is defined in practice as you defined it.

I guess that one could argue that of the set of all non-fringe theories (theories about which articles regularly appear in journals like Phys. Rev. etc.), there must be some that are the least popular and receive the least number of citations (or only from a small group). I am against putting these theories on some list containing real fringe and quacky theories.

Count Iblis 15:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are getting the picture. You need to realize that the original title of this article was "List of crackpot theories", and it was a list of theories that the creator of the list did not like. Well of course it evolved over time, with the occasional creationist trying to add "Big Bang" and "Evolution" to the list. Even now, there are no stable, objective rules as what admits or rejects theories to/from this list. After all, the creators of these theories will all insist that theirs is the one that is valid under the scientific method rules while the competing theories are the ones that are suspect.

Perhaps we should see about proposing a full policy statement for this list and request a vote? --EMS | Talk 23:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ohwilleke 04:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC) The fringe theories category is the problematic one. Where regularly peer reviewed journal articles are present and the evidence is inconclusive, it doesn't belong here, even if it is amde of minority views. Discredited or pseudoscientific is a completely different thing.

Two comments: First, we need to decide if we are using "theory" in the scientific sense of the word or if we are using it in the colloquial sense of the word. Second, some of these theories may be classified by more than one of the above descriptor. If we do format it on a way based on this or based on a similar breakdown, we should keep that in mind. JoshuaZ 04:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on what should and shouldn't go in

1. Acupuncture, in the traditional sense, is the practice of inserting very thin needles in particular points on the body to redirect qi thereby improving health and well-being. This is one component of traditional Chinese medicine.

   The mainstream scientific view is that acupuncture does work in certain situations, but not because of qi. For example, it may trigger natural painkiller release. I'd also note that many states license acupuncturists.

2. Plasma cosmology is a sub-set of plasma physics which attempts to explain large scale structure in the universe.

   I share the reservations about this entry stated by others on this page.

3. The steady state theory holds that the universe has always existed, and will always exist, in the same macroscopic state.

   This is less fringe than many of the other physics theories presented, but I agree that it is still fringe.

   Steady state theory is quite discredited. There are numerous predictions made by the Big Bang theory that steady state theory cannot duplicate. It has been abandonned by cosmologists, and so under my rules is classified as "discredited". --EMS | Talk 05:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

   Eternal inflation is a mainstream and steady statish. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Moved from talk page

   I understand your concern (re the revert), but it doesn't need to be taken to talk first, although I should have been clearer and noted that your comment appears to be OR. By whom is it seen as today's version of a steady state theory? In fact the two are fundamentally different, and it's definition as "steady state" seems to be a subjective rather than objective definition. Hell, I can't figure out how steady state theory fits in this cat: it was not a pseudoscience, it was a scientically valid theory theory that was falsified, there's a big difference. In any case I placed a fact tag on that statement meaning a cite is required.

   Citations supplied, although I share your reservations about what SST is doing here in the first place. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   There are newer inflationary models that show the univers expanding until it essentially shuts down (thanks to "dark energy"), but other than brane theory, this is not in the cosmic inflation article, but that's really a separate issue. •Jim62sch• 10:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Brainwashing or mind control theory says a person can have his belief system and basic values changed involuntarily by the use of sophisticated manipulation techniques.

   I have real doubts about this one. Certainly, there are well documented cases, Patty Herst, for example, of people making radical changes in belief systems and basic values, in the context of certain kinds of coercive environments.

5. Polygraphy is the psychophysiological detection of deception using "lie detector" machines that monitor several physiological variables.

   This is certainly widely used in the field of crime investigation, even though it is not admissable in court. In fact, it is standard practice to administer polygraphs in all aspects of the national security aparatus. It isn't so much that this is fringe, as it is not terribly accurate.

6. Memetics is what proponents argue a scientific approach to evolutionary models of information transfer based on the concept of the meme.

   This is very mainstream.

7. Cryptozoology is the study of rumored or mythological animals that are presumed by many to exist, but for which proof does not yet exist.

   The description is unclear. Looking for animals rumored to exist is mainstream zoology that has produced, e.g. the living fossil coelith and many new species. Studying animals that have not been discovered, in contrast, is fringe.

   I think this refers to things like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, which is quite fringe. Basically, it refers to looking for animals based on mythology.

8. Gene Ray's time cube, which states that there are 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth, and that Time is Cubic, not linear. Some people doubt whether this concept qualifies as a theory as they consider it to lack testable constructs.

   There is already a physics entry on this, a repeat in Misc. isn't necessary. I am deleting the duplicate entry since that doesn't go to the merits of the issues. --?????? (See history)

---

It would be nice to have you re-evalaute these using the criteria that I can up with above. For fringe theories, I think that the stanards for that designation should be

1. is not considered to be likely to be found to be true by an overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields,
2. has not received much support from scientists in the relevant fields,
3. has remained of interest to a dedicated minority for at least 5 years, and
4. is noteowrthy.

Your remarks point out the extent to which the list is based of very subjective criteria which involve scientific acceptability instead of the lack of scientific acceptance. For example, in accupunture it amy be qi that is discredited instead of accupunture itself. --EMS | Talk 05:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I added the vaccine theory of autism. Though widely held, the Institute of Medicine report finds no evidence for the the theory and statements by the IOM and the American Academy of Pediatrics firmly establish the theory as outside the realm of the accepted practice of medicine. --149.142.201.98 03:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Alchemy

I added alchemy under "Physics" for lack of elsewhere to put it. This certainly qualifies as a pseudoscience and felt it should be included, even though it is essentially "dead". If anyone has any objections to including it, then it may be removed. Rt66lt, August 3, 2005

• Alchemy isn't really anything to do with striving to convert molecular lead to Gold; this is better thought of as a metaphor, as explained in Alchemy. While some alchemists were able to extract rare elements (including gold) from impure sources of lead, the phrase "turning lead to gold" simply means the process of turning things of little value into something that does have value. Alchemy is the father of modern Science; for instance, Isaac Newton considered himself first and foremost an alchemist. In summary: "Alchemy" is not a theory to be disputed. --User:mugwumpjism, 15 Aug 2005

Alchemy is a protoscience, but many alchemists did try to convert things into gold. There were also alchemists who tried to make humans immortal and such. Since alchemy led to a lot of chemistry, it's a protoscience, not a pseudoscience. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Neurotherapy on the list ?

Someone has some explainin' to do. How can applying the scientific approach be speculative ? Franc28 22:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Neurotheology was added to the list, but this is legitimate science. It is a new science and some of the results have been disputed (according to the article), but the basic idea behind it (that religious experiences are biological in nature) is widely supported in the scientific community. I tried to remove this entry from the list yesterday but it was put back. If it is put on the list because the main scientist involved in this research has been accused of improper scientific conduct, then that fact must be mentioned as the reason why it is on the list.Count Iblis 16:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Quantum evolution

And this newest update is another bungling. Mutations are not random even in standard Neo-Darwinism. That's an old urban legend that comes from simplistic vulgarisation of the topic. Franc28 07:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted. It appears we have yet another crank on our hands. Mutations do not of course cause significant evolution, but provide a mechanism for creating new material on which natural selection (which is certainly not random) can act. Mutations are effectively random (some changes are more likely than others for biochemical reasons but that's just nitpicking). So, quantum evolution is patent nonsense. Dunc|☺ 18:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No, mutations are not random. In fact, you could even say that some mutations are hard-coded in the genome. Countless studies have demonstrated that the mutations themselves, their rythm, and even location of mutations are caused. But quantum evolution is still nonsense. Franc28 18:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but like I say that's just nitpicking - Transitions are more likely than transversions, and so on. But mutations taken as a whole are still effectively random, and when explaining that to someone without an understanding of statistics or biochemistry, they're random. You need to walk before you can run. Dunc|☺ 18:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I failed in providing a goof one-sentence summary. But I fear that doesn't make the article in question better. --Pjacobi 19:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is way off-topic, but you're simply wrong. The causes of mutations are not random, the timing of mutations is not random, and the location of mutations is not random. THERE IS NOTHING RANDOM ABOUT MUTATIONS. Here are some studies you can find on the Internet : Modulating Mutation Rates in the Wild (SM Rosenberg, PJ Hastings, I Bjedov, O Tenaillon, … - Science(Washington), 2003), Selection for increased mutation rates with fertility differences between matings (KE Holsinger, MW Feldman, L Altenberg - Genetics, 1986), Rapid change in mutation rate in a local population of Drosophila melanogaster (T Mukai, M Baba, M Akiyama, N Uowaki, S Kusakabe, … - Proc Natl Acad Sci US A, 1985), and for a final refutation, see "NATURAL SELECTION AND THE EMERGENCE OF A MUTATION PHENOTYPE: An Update of the Evolutionary Synthesis Considering Mechanisms that Affect Genome Variation", Annual Review of Microbiology, October 2003. Franc28 19:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I KNOW!!! But mutation is such a weak evolutionary force, that it's pointless. Note the word *effectively*. Taking a holistic approach towards all mutations, they're random. Dunc|☺ 19:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Einstein. And taking a holistic approach towards the universe, we're all totally insignificant and meaningless. Big whoop. Franc28 02:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The rate of mutation may vary between places in the genome, species, sexes, and time in the lifecycle. This does not make mutation non-random, only not evenly distributed. Mutation is not simply a "weak evolutionary force" but the basis of all material on which natural selection works. These matters aside, the article could be cleaned up easily. Instead of :

Quantum evolution, the hypothesis that mutation is not random but directed, due to quantum effects.

It could be:

Quantum evolution, the hypothesis that mutation is directed through quantum effects.

And i'll make that change now. —Pengo 02:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again, there is nothing random about mutations. Not the cause, not the location, and not the timing. I defy you to find one scientific study that proves any randomness in mutations, on any property. Only quantum events are "random" in any meaningful sense. You both speak total nonsense. Franc28 04:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

...except that they can be described by probability distributions. The papers you refer to talk of "better than random" chances where random means "all outcomes are equally likely". The paper [4] says in its abstract "An updated evolutionary theory includes emergence, under selective pressure, of genomic information that affects the probability of different classes of mutation, with consequences for genome survival." Note that it still says mutation is probabilistic and therefore, in a the sense of being describable through probability distributions, has a random element, so there is something random about mutations. To say there is no random element is to propose Intelligent Design from within. —Pengo 05:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What are the criteria?

If you include memetics here you could just as well include all of the controversial but legitimate scientific theories/ideas.Count Iblis 13:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's my impression that 'memetics' is largely philosophical and not falsifiable, so it doesn't qualify as science. But I wouldn't consider it pseudoscience any more than Freudian psychology. --128.205.80.124 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't these 'hypotheses' rather than 'theories'?

I thought that theories contained the requirement that they be verifiable via experiment. Intelligent design, for example, is not verifiable via experiment. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 09:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

plan to mark for AfD

I already started to improve this article but it looks to be an impossible task, according to me it doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all -- it's the kind of junk yard article that Wikipedia can do without. The above comment sketches the problem: "xyz is indeed a disputed theory and not popular among physicists, but it's indecent to have it listed on a page that includes the Flat earth theory. Oh well. If that's what the mob decides."

To make de facto a blacklist of everything non-mainstream seems incompatible with Wikipedia's purposes, and possibly constitutes Original Research as well. The best solution I see is to copy-paste useful parts to other places, and then feed the article to the sharks. But maybe someone else has another solution? Harald88 21:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion. I'm the one who made that earlier comment that you quoted, and I stand behind it. However, I removed it because I don't want to be seen as a supporter of Plasma cosmology, even though it's a legitimate set of hypotheses. Back to the matter at hand, I agree that this list is indeed rather POV. Many scientific hypotheses are "controversial", from minor ones relating to pharmaceuticals to major ones dealing with cosmology, but we can't list them all. Alexander 007 21:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This was the last discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. --Pjacobi 21:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that it was discussed before -> there seems to be large agreement that it's too much throwing incomparable things on one single pile, making it nearly impossible to give a fair treatment of anything. Harald88 23:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that may agree with both sides a bit more. We should make two different lists: one for theories (or hypotheses) that no longer have scientists relevant to the respective field supporting them (e.g., "the Hollow-Earth hypothesis", which no current geophysicists or geologists support, I assume) and theories/hypotheses which are still supported by some scientists in the relevant field (e.g., some current physicists support Plasma cosmology) but which are not popular. This is more useful, more achievable, and more fair. Alexander 007 22:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

For example, the Hollow Earth hypothesis, until a relevant current scientist is cited in support of it, will be in the more cranky list, while Plasma cosmology will go in the more reputable list. This may cause some problems with verification, but if a current scientist relevant to the field can't be found in support of a theory, it will go on the cranky list (ex silentio). Alexander 007 22:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, except for the POV word "crank list". And I see input for at least four existing articles (which could be linked):

- pseudo science (not testable according to generally accepted scientific standards)

- pathological science

- obsolete scientific theories

- fringe science (little corroborated or impopular scientific theories)

However, I don't know if enough peer reviewed literature exists on these subjects. Anyway, this "collect all" article can be spun off to give examples to those articles on precise, existing subjects, and next each article can be discussed separately.

Harald88 23:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Most people agree that the article as it is now is chaotic and hardly serves its purpose, which is to organize. It has to be organized further by applying stricter discrimination. And of course, I never implied that any article would actually be titled a "crank list". "Unsupported" would have been a less inflammatory choice. Alexander 007 23:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we reach a consensus to divide this article into more discrete categories? Any opposition? Alexander 007 23:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

We should only keep a list containing crackpot theories. In the previous VFD I voted like this:

keep. I would suggest that point 5: Adhered to by a limited group be dropped as a criteria for incusion in the list. This is too vague and will lead to disputes. Only crackpot theories should be included. To decide whether or not you are dealing with a crackpot theory is simple. just check out peer reviewed scientific journals (with the exception of the Journal of Creation Science, of course). Count Iblis 15:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Count Iblis 01:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be very POV by definition, as the word "crackpot" constitutes name-calling, similar to the words "nigger" and "sect" -- and just as debatable. Harald88 07:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I now do have another suggestion though: make this a list of theories and hypothesis -- that's again a neutral and straightforward subject, without inherent (improper) discrimination. I now think that it would be useful to have such a list, and independent of the popularity (it should only be sufficiently notable) Harald88 07:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Harald, that won't work, because you would then have to list the tens of thousands of theories that are out there. That's why I think one should focus only on "crackpot" theories. I do agree that we shouldn't cause offense by calling that list "a list of crackpot theories". We can find another name for the list. However, there aren't that many notable theories that are "crackpot" in the sense that you can't publish about them in peer reviewed journals.Count Iblis 12:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that that won't work? Only notable theories should be included, and notable theories (mainstream and impopular alike) are likely to get one full article each in Wikipedia. If I'm mistaken, please someone point out my mistake! It may be useful (and interesting ) to have an index page with one-line descriptors for all theories and hypotheses that are in Wikipedia. (Does anyone know if it's possible to search Wikipedia for that? If so, what is the count now?) Harald88 19:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a thought: Call the list "List of Non-prevailing Theories and Hypotheses" and separate into groupings: 1) Current theories not prevailing; 2) Formerly prevailing theories but overturned, 3) Testable hypotheses, 4) Non-testable hypotheses with current notable adherents, and 5) Non-testable hypotheses with no current notable adherents. Something like that, as I'm uncertain my language is precise enough. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 08:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Stevie, my concern is that this is too broad. What would happen is that most entries of such lists would consist of theories that are clearly "crackpot". But because the broad definition fits respectable theories as well, you would have a few of those appearing on the list. That would be extremely offensive to the people working in that field. Note that google does index this page and a google search for a non crackpot theory could yield the the list on which the theory is appearing.Count Iblis 12:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the list could be broken down into two: theories/hypotheses seriously researched, and those not seriously researched. Probably not exact enough, but my basic gist is that it would be worthwhile to cover both the crackpot and the non-crackpot non-prevailing theories/hypotheses in the Wikipedia. I don't personally insist that they should all go in the same article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

A list is not really an article, and a discriminative list can't be objective. However, a list of theories and hypotheses makes sense for Wikipedia, and as long as it contains those that are worth mentioning and thus have or will have an article to go with it, it can't be too long. The only argument against it would be if there already exists an automatic index for generating such a list with a search engine. Does that exist? Harald88 22:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I now found by chance the article proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Title_Neutrality Obviously the subject matter is similar, as well as the issues about "crackpot" and so on. It enforces my recommandation for a neutral theorie list (and no ranking in crackpot etc.!) just here above. Harald88 23:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

alternative = alternative to "mainstream"

In addition to the above, there was today (not on this page but on the main page) a question why an article that is titled "Talk:List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories", and that describes itself as a list of theories that are "considered to be fringe or pseudoscientific by the mainstream scientific community" should have as possible criterion for a theory that it's "not mainstream". Is there any need to explain that "alternative" +"disputed" + "considered [...] by mainstream" + "respectable theories that are simply the minority view" imply such? This independent of the question if examples of that are currently included.

Listed theories that are currently included but about which there may be no complete concensus that, as listed, they belong to any of the other 4 categories (except perhaps in "mainstream", but that is an invalid, for circular argument!):

- Irreducible complexity - Dowsing - Flood geology - Acupuncture - AIDS reappraisal - Bates Method - Homeopathy - Vitamin C - Autodynamics - Luminiferous aether - Steady state theory - Scalar waves - Parapsychology - Graphology - Recovered memory

Harald

Huh? Can you please re-state your point in simple, clear message?

Is the above list meant to be a list of articles not fringe enough to be included?

Pjacobi 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? And what does "fringe" mean to you, (in an "unbiased" article!), if not "not mainstream"? Harald88 23:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. And I don't understand the common point in your list. "Fringe" in physics is in my understanding everything unsuitable to get your PhD. --Pjacobi 23:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that's compatible with what the dictionary says; and even, likeley on some of the above subjects one can get a PhD. In any case, the title and introduction of an article should be consistent with the selection of its contents. Harald88 07:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you now please clarify what you mean? Which are the other 4 categories? --Pjacobi 08:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My reply was to Hob Gadling's comment; With the 5 categories I mean the criteria in the intro of the list. Harald88 14:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this helps:

To the list

1. Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;
2. Asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
3. Failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results; or
4. Violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

someone added

1. Incompatible with the current mainstream paradigm.

I removed that fifth point, commenting "removed bad criterion: this page is not for everything non-mainstream. Is there any item in the list for which the four other criteria are not sufficient?"

Harald88 seems to think that the items he listed are not covered by the four criteria. But:

• Dowsing, Flood geology, Acupuncture, Bates Method, Homeopathy, Luminiferous aether, Scalar waves, Graphology, Recovered memory belong to category 1, 2, and 3, and some of them also to 4.
• Irreducible complexity, Parapsychology belong to category 4. All of these are clearly pseudoscience.
• AIDS reappraisal, Vitamin C, Autodynamics, Steady state theory: I don't know about those. Can anybody comment? --Hob Gadling 15:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hob, you are right "Incompatible with the current mainstream paradigm" is not a valid criterium. A large percentage of physics would fall under this. The main stream paradigm for physics at the Planck scale is superstring theory, so Loop Quantum Gravity should then be included. The main stream paradigm for dark matter are WIMPs, so you would have to include all alternative theories, ranging from Axions, Simps, MEV dark matter, nonstandard theoies of gravity etc. etc.Count Iblis 15:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it's clear to me: the title of the article "Alternative, speculative and disputed theories" is inappropriate for its contents; obviously the purpose is to make a kind of blacklist of what Western mainstream science journals reject, based on their paradigm but without acknowledging that fact. Its intentions are evident from the provided references. I can not regard that other than as a breach of Wikipedia principles, so that I will now reinsert the POV banner, and when I have the time I'll propose this article for AfD. Harald88 16:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald, I would say that the title should be changed to something like "A list of pseudoscientific theories". Inclusion in that list means that there is wide agreement in the scientific community that these theories are indeed pseudoscientific. That would just be the inclusion criteria which must be clearly stated. Then, even if someone has a different opinion about a particular entry, he could still agree that the scientific community things otherwise. So, basically the article just gives the scientific opinion in a NPOV way.

This is not that different from an article about, say, a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. You clearly state at the beginning how you define that interpretation and perhaps that if it has widespread support or not among physicists. Then you just elaborate on the particular interpretation. The Wiki rules would only be violated if you write about that interpretation in a POV way. But the mere fact of having that article on wikipedia doesn't violate any rules regardless of the support in the physics community.Count Iblis 12:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very different to call something a different interpretation than to accuse it of being pseudoscientific in the article's title. Interestingly, there is also a category pseudo-science, but anything that is accused of that may be put in that category, as well as in science. And in most cases there is no such thing as a "scientific community" that can be cited as having a certain opinion. Harald88 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

TRIZ

Should TRIZ really be listed under Divination? It doesn't even seem to belong on this page. Bobby1011 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kinesiology and Applied Kinesiology

A disctinction has been made between Kinesiology and Applied Kinesiology. But both are not science. It's the same bullshit, but thanks to this "difference", kinesiologues can say "no, I don't do AK, I'm a serious kinesiologue". Serious kinesiology doesn't exist, and if some governments reconize kineziology (it's written on the French page, maybe Quebec ???) it's a serious error. In France, a baby died because his parents was kinesiologue and wanted to attend him only with kinesiology. You can read what is written in the both articles, if this theories are disputed, it's because it's not science at all, and it's presented like a medicine, so it's very dangerous. I think we must make one only artice, because this 2 articles have been created to make an advertising for this dangerous activity. If some doctors would read this articles, they would see that it could be dangerous when people think it's an efficient method.

A french article linked with kinesiology (Méditation Kinémantra), is about a meditation method used in kinesiology. They tell that its efficient is proved by science. But they also say that you can have your own religion too... It's the first time I read that in an article about science, health or medicine... In France, this movement is suspected to be a dangerous sect.

So, I hope serious people will take care of it. If you have a scientific debate with kinesiologues, I'm sure it will be short, you will see that it's not a science at all. I'm french so I can't edit articles in english, it would be horrible. I'm trying to work on the french version. I hope you will do something about it.

Korr 11:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you also want to list it under list of cults? ;-) Anyway,I agree that alternative medicine isn't science. But does Kinesiology really claim to be science? Harald88 20:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate name for this wiki...

An appropriate name for this wiki should probably be "alternative theories generally not accepted by the majority of the science community", but the current title is long enough. I find it seriously hard to believe that the bickerers in this talk page that have bloated it to a nearly unreadable size, can't comprehend the purpose of an article like this. I wanted to read this list to find alternative theories not generally taught as main stream, not read a bloated talk page to find out why the article is disputed. I don't even know if an equivalent statement like this has already been brought forth, I don't have time to read such a novel.
So, if a theory is generally more accepted by science than it is not, just leave it be and off of this list.
Thank you,
--Filthy swine 00:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero point origin of inertia

I trimmed considerably the line about zero point origin of inertia, which included detail that properly should be in the linked article. (In this case, the linked article is nonexistent and I don't have time to actually write it, sorry). I am a little surprised to see the ZPOI immediately under the Time Cube entry -- I knew Haisch and studied some of his earlier ZP papers when I was a graduate student at Stanford (and knew a lot more QED than I know now) -- and he was considerably more coherent and the ideas considerably more plausible than a lot of the other stuff on this page. In particular, it seemed to me that ZPOI might be wrong but it certainly didn't fit into the "not even wrong" category. I'm leaving it here since it's definitely an alternative theory to the usual Higgs mechanism, but I'd love to see someone write a bit more about what they are doing these days. zowie 05:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's after Time Cube because it's alphabetical. To see more about Haisch, read Stochastic electrodynamics, which you cut from this entry, incorrectly. Maybe this item should be Stochastic electrodynamics. GangofOne 08:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting stuff. I suppose stochastic electrodynamics should probably be given its own entry, separate from (or instead of) ZPOI. I can't speak to that body of work, but Haisch's work always seemed to me to be a serious and sober attempt to explore a rather far-out idea (Of course, that makes it eligible for listing here as it is an alternative theory to the mainstream -- but it is more rigorous and closer to the mainstream than, say, the Electric Universe concept.) Cheers, zowie 17:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

plate techtonics

The article says " Some currently respected theories, such as e.g. plate tectonics or the idea that stones could fall from the sky (meteorites) were rejected just because they contradicted popular belief amongst scientists, not because they were in conflict with known experimentally established results of that time. "

In the case of the predecessor of plate techtonics (i.e. Continental drift) it was not accepted not because it conflicted known results but because there was not sufficient evidence in its favor to accept it. I think that is pretty much the case for meteorites too - the idea that rocks fell from the sky did not conflict with any experimental results, but there was insufficient evidence to support it. Bubba73 (talk), 17:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and changed. AAMiller 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that is better. I didn't want to change it without getting some other opinions. I might prefer to leave out the whole phrase not because they were in conflict with experimental results. Bubba73 (talk), 05:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bubba, if you leave out that phrase then you don't have the contrast with how such ideas would be received today. What we want to say there is that if a theory is dismissed as pseudoscience today, it is not just because there isn't sufficient evidence for it. It either has to be in conflict with well established theories based on experimental facts or it has to be a theory that isn't falsifiable or something of the sort.

Now, I have to admit that I'm not really sure if plate tectonics was just "not accepted" but still regarded as a legitimate scientific theory, or if it was really regarded as pseudoscience. If the former is the case then we shouldn't mention plate tectonics at all. Count Iblis 13:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I get the point about contrasting then and now (perhaps that point needs to be clarified or expanded then). Wegener proposed continental drift. I don't think it was ever rejected, just not accepted. Unlike pseudoscience today, it was considered by scientists in several European countries and the US (see Continental drift). So it was probably not considered pseudoscience, at least it would not under today's terms. The theory of plate techtonics was introduced at one of conferences in the 1920s. But it wasn't accepted until the data started to come in around 1960 or so. Plate techtonics was rapidly accepted after the evidence came in. The original continental drift theory has never been accepted (due to a lack of evidence, and that plate techtonics replaced it). Bubba73 (talk), 15:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Topological geometrodynamics

Anything which by admission the idea of a single individual (and returns only about 800 google hits) simply is not important enough for wikipedia. The argument "let the reader decide its notability" simply doesn't hold under wiki rules. Wikipedia is not an advertisement for people's pet theories. I am therefore removing the entry again. JoshuaZ 21:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That rule refers to whether there is an ARTICLE about it or not. The article about it has already been deleted. It can't be an advertisement, surely they wouldn't willingly put it in the pseudoscience catagory. The topic of this list is pseudoscience. It's on-topic. You are destroying information which is useful to sociologists studying the developement of beliefs. GangofOne 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And there will be people who find and wonder about the TGMD site and won't find any thing in wikipedia about it. You do them a disservice. GangofOne 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of my edit by Count Iblis

"Many of the items on this list conform with scientific method but conflict with the well established views held by a scientific elite who have reputations and status to loose by accepting change. See work of Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend". I hold this to be a valid point of view worthy of inclusion.

I see that some things I added have been discussed and excluded already , however the focus of this article is confused. Is it just crackpot ideas, is it minority science , is it bad science. What is it? Needs to be split into several clearly defined articles. Lumos3 06:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumos, while this seems reasonable, what Kuhn was saying was somewhat different, possibly you mean just ideas that do not violate one of the above but are still fringy? JoshuaZ 13:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumos, as discussed here earlier, the title of the list isn't very appropriate. This is effectively just a list of crackpot theories. We are not puting theories in the list just because they are speculative or disputed but otherwise legitimate scientific theories. It is actually almost impossible to makle a list of speculative theories, because then half of physics would be in there. Everything which is beyond the experimentally verified standard model is speculative, and that covers more than 50% of physics research. Count Iblis 14:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case we really do need a better name for this list. JoshuaZ 14:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Count Iblis 14:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest "Alternatives theories in science" or "Fringe claims in science." What do you guys think? JoshuaZ 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I like Fringe better than Alternate. "Alternate" sounds like it is a viable arternative. Bubba73 (talk), 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Split this article into three

I suggest there are 3 categories:-

• Obsolete Theories which were once part of science but have been discredited e.g. Phlogiston
• Pseudo Theories that have never been accepted as part of science but have made claims to be considered as such e.g. Marxism, Astrology and pseudoscience in general.
• Fringe Theories which can be considered science but have not yet won the support of a majority of scientists. i.e. the fringe category discussed above. Lumos3 09:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have had similar thoughts. Please see #Reworking_this_page. One note: Your idea seems to imply a split of this page into at least three parts if not three pages, and that is a good suggestion. --EMS | Talk 17:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think to keep them as one list does a disservice to new and emerging theories which are at present listed alongside obsolete and pseudoscience. All mainstream theories were at one time alternative, speculative and disputed.

So I suggest 3 articles:-

• List of speculative theories in science - I prefer this to Fringe science since its less POV. No list seems to exist at present. It could have an indication of the level of acceptance but should only include potentially falsifiable hypotheses.
• List of theories considered to be pseudoscience - Suggest this article is renamed this and then weeded. Everything claiming to be science but not trying to show how it could ever be proved wrong would go in here.
• List of obsolete scientific theories - Already exists at Superseded scientific theory

Lumos3 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. Splitting into separate categories will also allow some to be counted in multiple categories (which will be useful for a few, such as geocentrism). JoshuaZ 00:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Support - I think that this would do a good job a segregating the contents of this list. Also since each list is for a specific cause, there is less wiggle room for stunts like placing evolution in here (not that this will stop the creationists from doing so on occasion). I would suggest however, that the second category simply be "List of pseudoscientific theories". No matter how much you try to sugar coat it, you are still saying that someone's pet theory is not science. --EMS | Talk 03:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Support - I was just thinking about something similar to this. Maybe make this page like a disambiguation page explaining the differences between the three different categories of theories? How long/how many votes does it take before the change can be implemented?--AAMiller 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

That may help to clean up the list and reduce defamation by association. The proposed titles are perfect, and I suppose that you propose to redirect List of obsolete scientific theories to Superseded scientific theory. Note the difference between Obsolete, Superseded and Discredited; nevertheless, obsolete as well as discredited do fall under Superseded I think. Harald88 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Support split into Obsolete, Pseudo, and either Speculative or Proto, where Proto-scientific theories are those still being disputed. A Protoscientific theory that had been made obsolete might be phrenology, which had been superceded by the more scientifically viable neuroscience, while the Protoscientific theory of plate tectonics with few modifications holds today. Vonkje 04:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Snowball Earth theory

This is a respectable theory, albeit controversial. To put this theory in a list containing theories like Flat Earth Theory and Ley Lines is just stupid. Count Iblis 00:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that if it is controversial, then it is disputed, and fits the criteria. Bubba73 (talk), 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps 10% of all published scientific theories is similarly controversial. You can't put them all on this list. If you do put a few of these theories in the list that is dominated by nonsensical theories, like e.g. Flat Earth theory and Ley Lines, then that is defamation. Count Iblis 00:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin C

I have removed Vitamin C because it does not fit the criteria for this page. See the Vitamin C article. The debate on vitamin C and health is a respectable theory conducted between scientists.

• Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;

Large amounts of supporting evidence are available.

• Asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;

Experimentqal results support high dose claims

• Failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;

Results have been reproduced in multiple studies

• Violating Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

Does not apply here.

Lumos3 08:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think its a bad idea, but maybe the proposer can explain at greater length? ---CH 17:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am against the merger. One article is about a type of person and the other is about theories. The list is referenced in at least one article where it wouldn't make sense to link to "crank". Also, not all such theories are by cranks. Bubba73 (talk), 17:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am for the merger. The suggestion isn't to merge the whole "Crank" article, just the list of crank topics within that article. The lists are redundant, and contain similar items. --AAMiller 03:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The list in Crank (person) is redundant, and at least it should be merged. Bob A 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is probably a good bit of overlap between that list, the list at Pseudoscience, List of alternative, disputed, and speculative theories, and perhaps List of alleged conspiracy theories. Bubba73 (talk), 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the list in Crank (person) makes sense separately as a list of topics about which cranky theories are often proposed, rather than a list of individual theories. Henning Makholm 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has happened since May and I just rewrote Crank (person) to remove entirely the previous overlap, so I removed the merger flag since it seems this is now moot. ---CH 08:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good .. the list in Crank(person) was not much more than a sideshow. The new incarnation of that article is much more encyclopedic in that it describes the crank mentality rather than examples of crank beliefs. Unfortunately, this article listing pseudoscientific theories is becoming a sideshow. see the above discussion titled: Split this article into three. Vonkje 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Other alternative theories

If the Internet had existed in times past...

• would Copernicus' theory about the sun be listed on this page?

It would have appeared on the online Spanish Inquisition page :) Count Iblis 19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• would Darwin's theory of evolution be on this page, instead of creationism?

• would Pasteur's theory of tiny microorganisms (germs) be here?
• would the wave/particle nature of light be listed here?

all of these were, at the time of their discovery, disputed hotly. but they are now "commonly accepted." And some of them had no proof whatsoever against them.

We don't add hotly debated controversial theories here; only crackpot theories are added to te list. Crackpot theories are not hotly debated at all in the scientific community. Neither of the three examples you gave would have qualified for inclusion in the list. Count Iblis 19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely the 'wave/particle' debate (indicated above) is continuing and controversial. In relation to atomic physics. I suppose it is a matter of who you cite as authoratative on the subject. Even Feynmann believed his conclusions were 'adequate' after years of Government funded and University research; implying that such investigation is irreducible to an objective or subjective event... And i did try to amend the tone of this article (a few words in the intro to create a neutral viewpoint of what the list is composed of) that implied that 'all' these 'fringe' theories are entertained 'only' by a minority of crackpots. I just didnt think that the article title would attempt to debunk the theories before they are even described. It is merely a list of theories, and as such should be descriptive. Interpretations and debunking takes place at snopes.com. As an encyclopedia, I imagine that the list should be as a accurate and fair as possible. I mean, David Icke's theories are really wild, but I wouldnt even understand who he was or what he thought if the narrator of his biographical detail and of his theories set out to say he is nuts and its not even worth discussing what he thinks. It should be assumed that readers are intelligent enough to make up their own minds as to what is crackpot, loony, intuitive, imaginative, creative, scientific, reasonable, etc... So description of each theory is paramount! Drakonicon 12:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC) User talk:Drakonicon

Drakonicon, the problem all along with this list was that the title didn't cover the contents. A not too small fraction of all scietific theories is controversial. But this list only contains theories that are of a crackpot nature. It would be impossible to list all controversial theories and it wouldn't be fair to add a controversial theory to the list if prctically all other entries in the list are crackpot. That's why I changed the title. Count Iblis 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Add a subject

I think that "Cold Fusion" should go somewhere in this article...unless it's considered a hoax...although there are those who believe that it is still possible.NCartmell 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving to "list of pseudoscientific theories"

This is necessary, because the title doesn't cover the content of the list. Count Iblis 13:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Was this article previously named (by previously, I mean an hour ago!) 'List of controversial, disputed, speculative theories'? Why does every theory in wikipedia have to be referenced in terms of science and non-science? I'm detecting this bias more often than not in Wikipedia articles. I suppose it would reflect my interests. Anyway... It the article should remain with the original title. If not, should alternative histories be added to this pseudoscience page? Well I suppose Atlantis and Lemuria are already here.

Also, the entire introduction has been changed. The commentary about theories moving between boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable by mainstream and minority groups, I think, is very important, because it highlights that their are at least two points of view about the articles contents. It is simply labelled pseudoscience now, which in my readings of Wikipedia are sometimes likened to cast off ideas ready for the waste disposal bin and should not even be included in an encyclopedia. More bias. I would suggest reverting to the way the article was originally entitled and introduced. It was comprehensible with the short outline... now it is just introduced as a boring pseudo-list. Sections entitled 'pseudoscience' are everywhere on Wikipedia. Maybe this article could be retitled again as the List of Research into Pseudoscientific Theories.. If not, maybe we need to warn the reader with an NPOV tag? Drakonicon 14:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We need clear, as much as possible unambiguous, criteria for inclusion in the list. Otherwise you get POV disputes. Alternative theories can be respectable enough to be considered as regular science. E.g. there are many alternative theories on the dark matter problem that people publish about in respectable peer reviewed journals. We never included such theories in this list. The title didn't cover the contents.

The current title is more appropriate for the current list. Roughly speaking you can add a theory to the list if that theory is not taken seriously by the scientific community. Simple criterion: will a submitted article be rejected out of hand by the editor? Whether or not the scientific community is biased regarding certain theories os another matter. This can be mentioned in the intro, if you like. Count Iblis 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that "pseudoscience" is how the scientific community regards these theories. This is clearly mentioned in the intro. Whether or not a theory is considered as such by the scientific community is a NPOV criterion. What can be argued is that the scientific community can be sometimes be wrong. Count Iblis 15:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is still way too fuzzy, and a bit 'pseudo-scientific' as well. True pseudoscience is markable objectively, it fails to actually propose a scientific theory, generally by being non-falsifiable. Much of the stuff on the page clearly fits that definition. The stuff that doesn't, shouldn't be here, but perhaps on a page called 'List of controversial scientific theories' for instance. Arker 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This list is not consistent. Some theories are minority theories, but are not pseudoscience (doubt is everything in science) as long as the claims are falsifiable. That's why I removed AIDS reappraisal. Although some of those supporting this theory are spreading un-falsifiable claims, the reappraisal is not un-scientific per se. Another problem is that some theories are not looked upon as scientific theories by their authors, but rather as philosophies and worldviews, and science has no authority over these. Anyway, this list is heavily biased and should have an NPOV tag. Either that or it should go.--88.152.62.177 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest to removing theories that are not pseudoscientific but just controversial theories. World views don't belong here. But when people promote certain world views to science then it becomes suceptible to scientific criticism and such theories can then be classified as pseudoscience.

Before you add the POV tag you should first discuss what theories are incorrectly labeled here. Only if that discussion doesn't lead to a broad consensus here should the POV label be used. Note that for the list to be POV there must be incorrect labeling of theories here. E.g. some theories are not listed that should be listed or others are not listed. Wheter a theory should be listed depends on whether the scientific community considers a theory to be pseudoscientific. That's how we define the list and that in itself is not POV. The scientific attitude can be POV, but what that attitiude is is not POV but in moist cases a fact.

E.g., creationism is, according to almost all scientists, a load of nonsense. That's a POV statement by the scientific community. They have good reasons to think that way, but it is nevertheless POV. However, the fact that almost all scientists reject creationism is a NPOV statement. So, putting creationism on the list is not POV. Count Iblis 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism

I have never before heard the theory of technological singularity described as pseudoscience. It seems to me to be based on sound extrapolation and not pathological science. Can somebody explain the reasoning behind putting it here? If there's a good reason of which I'm unaware, that's fine, but it seems at odds with many other theories here. Greyscale 09:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be removed from the list. Note that the title of the list was changed recently to make it less ambiguous whether or not a theory should be listed here. Count Iblis 12:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics

Should this be removed? It seems to me that the basic idea of eugenics is simply selective breeding, which is fully supported by evolution. The specific theory described in this article is a bit beyond what classic eugenics covers, but I don't see it as necessarily being unscientific. ---DrLeebot 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Eugenics historically has not just consisted of the trivial claim that selective breeding is possible, it has made pseudoscientific claims about the desirability of certain traits and the existence of racial stocks and body politics. It also has used rather unscientific methods of determining the fitness of individuals and races. It is almost a perfect example of a pseudoscience in how it uses the terminology and some of the superficial methods of science to gain legitimacy. The history of the eugenists' adoption of Mendelian genetics is another interesting example - even though it has proved correct, they championed it because it supported their own biases. Similar to how the Soviets backed Lamarck. Deleuze 15:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. I guess I'm just too biased towards the way it's used in all the Sci-Fi novels I've read, rather than how its advocates operate in the real world. Thanks for clearing that up. ---DrLeebot 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to shore it up a bit. In this case it all depends on the definition used. Nobody denies, of course, that the mainstream eugenics of the 1910s-1930s was pseudoscience, but the question is generally whether that is all that "eugenics" means. Defining eugenics is quite difficult; Diane Paul has a good discussion of this in the first chapter of her history of eugenics (Controlling human heredity, 1865 to the present). I tried to make the entry here reflect this a bit better, while still being concise. --Fastfission 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Criteria for Inclusion

The first and fourth criteria presented constitute what Karl Popper called the 'Baconian Myth'. There is no way of proving that sufficient experiments have been done to 'prove' a theory. However, only one is required to disprove it. Ergo, the scientific endeavour seeks to construct experiments to refute established theories. Long established theories have withstood this merciless bombardment, initial speculations have not, but that in itself does not constitute grounds for their dismissal out of hand.

A pseudo-scientific theory is one that cannot be disproved, even in principle. These are 'theories' for which the adherents will always find supporting evidence, and turn a blind eye to the many counter-examples. It is not the supporting evidence that is important - a single counter example is sufficient to refute a theory. Gordon Vigurs 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Popper K R -Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963

Some pseudoscientific theories can be disproved, and have been (see Astrology and Homeopathy, for instance). Falsifiability is one standard, but we have to leave the door open for those theories that are held onto despite strong evidence against them and no evidence for them. ---DrLeebot 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No we don't. A single counter-example is all that is needed. Unfortunately, many of science's 'sacred cows' do not stand up to this criterion. However, much of pseudo-science relies on intrinsic untestability. Theories are irrefutable because it is impossible to construct experiments to refute them, as such they cannot possibly be considered science. Gordon Vigurs 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what is a counter-example? This is not always a well defined thing; you need a theory to start with to interpret experimental results. That's why most physicists reject Popper's theories as a gross oversimplification. Does Aspect's experimental verification of the violations of the Bell inequalties rule out deterministic theories? No, says 't Hooft. Loopholes such as pre-determinism (in a deterministic setting the experimenter's actions are pre-determined so, strictly speaking, you cannot assume that the experimenter could have measured some other component of the spins).

Has dark matter been detected in the DAMA/NaI experiment? No, says the CDMS team, because we have a more sensitive experiment and we didn't detect anything. Yes, says the DAMA team, because we use different methods than the CDMS team and there is no way our signal could have been caused by experimental error. Dark matter could have properties such that it doesn't show up in the CDMS experiment. Count Iblis 23:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That you need a theory to start with is precisely Popper's position. If you cannot predict the bounds of error before conducting the experiment, the entire endeavour is pointless. Again, it is merely because the criterion is too difficult to meet that it is rejected. The alternative of requiring 'sufficient' corroborative results is nonsense - how many, and who decides? Gordon Vigurs 07:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have to restart the debate on the Demarcation problem? We're trying to come up with a demarcation for Pseudoscience here, not Science, and that's a lot easier. Pseudoscience is basically something that claims to be Science, but isn't. It may fail to provide testable hypotheses, it may provide testable hypotheses that don't pan out, or it may fail another standard of good scientific practice. ---DrLeebot 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cross-reference to the Demarcation problem I knew the discussion had to be here somewhere .Gordon Vigurs 18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mainstream" criteria

Wikipedia is supposed to use a NPOV, right? But claiming that mainstream scientists call creationism a pseudo-science is fair just in case that the "less-tream" scientists also make a point against evolution.

According to a recent poll, 44% of the americans believe in creationism, 38% in theistic evolution and 18% in atheistic evolution. 44% is almost the half of America! Calling it "mainstream" is just refer to people to work based on consensus, not scientifical data.

Evolutionary theories like the Big Bang, Continental drift and evolution itself have been largely debated and proved wrong but "mainstream" scientists still deny it. Evolution, Big Bang and Continental drifts ARE pseudo-sciences and they'll never stop being that way, cause there's no way to bring God back (according to 82% of americans) and make him "scientifically" create the whole universe again, no matter when (4001 a.C. or many many billion years ago) or how (evolution or creation)

What I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia's NPOV policy should be respected and, as it goes, do not support neither "mainstream science" nor "less-tream science" cause both of them my have right arguments for what they believe and that is just the right thing to do: debate. Wikipedia shouldn't call creation sciences pseudo-scientifical without calling evolution pseudo-scientifical, just depends on which side would you take: "mainstream" or "less-tream".

And it's not even mainstream at all! 44% of americans believe in creation, 56% in evolution, and there is a AWESOME rise of creationism in Darwin's homeland, UK.

And I'll point something else. Cryptozoology is as much as pseudo-science as most physical theories and geological theories are. Cryptozoology is a "science of theories" cause it tries to prove the existence of a certain animal or plant by scientifical methods, and there are millions and millions of proofs supporting most cryptids to be true. It doesn't even fail Occam's Razor, cause we all know that MANY animales were once thought to be extinct or mythical (like gorillas, okapis, coelacanths, saolas) and they turned out to be real animals, so calling cryptozoology a pseudo-science is just arrogant "mainstream" consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo 7 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2 August 2006

More scientists named Steve believe in evolution than scientists of any name believe in Creationism; if that doesn't prove consensus among scientists, I don't know what does. We're talking about consensus among the scientific community here, not the American public. Also, note that America isn't the only country that matters (even on the English Wikipedia). Even if we did decide that the public belief mattered, we'd have to poll the entire world rather than simply America.

You say that the Big Bang, Continental Drift, and Evolution have been proved wrong. So prove it; put up or shut up. Don't simply say you could provide evidence, do it. Give us a link to a verifiable source of information that proves them wrong and I promise you we'll consider it fairly.

You are correct that the NPOV policy does not support mainstream science. However, it does state that fringe theories should be treated as fringe theories:

But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil. [Emphasis added]

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

See this humorous illustration of the "equal validity" issue.

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. [Emphasis original]

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.

Notice how "numerical majorities of followers" is up there as something pseudoscience uses? That's exactly what you're trying to do here. In the end, the only majority, or even consensus, that matters is that of the scientific community.

This list is simply a list of what mainstream science considers to be pseudoscientific (which is really the best definition we have of Pseudoscience. If there was a List of scientific theories that Christianity doesn't agree with, then Evolution would go on there. ---DrLeebot 13:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and "mainstream" stuff does not mean they're right. They just mean that the majority BELIEVE so. Continental drift, evolution and big bang are theories. Creation is a theory too, based on a falsifiable concept. NPOV is absolutely necessary for an encyclopedia. Theories are not science as they're not factual truth and cannot be proven right nor wrong. Evolution cannot be proven right and it can be easily dismissed using other scientific LAWS (notice that according to Occam's razor science should use the assumptionless theory for developing one, perhaps evolution is based just on assumptions for astronomical processes, chemical decays and biological metabolism that yet cannot be proven right. Evolution is not a fact unless it's proved unquestionable right, but there're tons of problems within it.

The same thing for creation. Me being a creationist, I accept creation as just a theory as it cannot be proven right, but at least it's falsifiable and it cannot be proven wrong.

You can prove that the world's crust was created in 3 minutes according to polonium haloes in continental granite, but you cannot prove that the universe was created in 6 days. Trying to prove THAT is senseless, as it's a falsifiable belief. You can prove that the world was created about 6,000 years ago according to astronomical, chemical, physical and geological laws; but you cannot positively prove that there was Adam and Eve nor the literal 6 days, just that the earth is young. They're falsifiable beliefs; they cannot be proven wrong but they cannot be proven right.

I believe in 6-day creation as a matter of faith, not science as it cannot be scientifically proved. Perhaps evolution, continental drift and big bang can be proved wrong, and they've already been proved wrong. What I'm trying to say is that according to the science concept, the pseudoscience term should not be used just for theories that are dismissed by mainstream consensus, perhaps every single theory that cannot be proven neither positively nor negatively. Science is a fact, faith is a belief.--Arturo 7 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arturo 7, I'm just wondering about something...how can a theory be falsifiable, and impossible to prove wrong at the same time?

Falsifiability is precisely a dividing line between pseudoscience and science. A scientific concept may be falsified. A pseudoscientific concept is a concept passing itself off as science but which is not falsifiable. A belief in the literal truth of Genesis is not pseudoscience, because it isn't claiming to be scientific. But attempts to prove the literal truth of Genesis using science are pseudoscientific, because the truth of Genesis, as you rightly say, is not a concept that can be scientifically addressed: it comes down to faith.

Moreover, many of the claims made by so-called "creation science" have been soundly falsified, in various ways. Byrgenwulf 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I mistook concept and I'm sorry. I don't remember the actual name for it, but it's something that you cannot prove wrong.

I'm currently editing a book on it using the Laws of Epistemology (coined by me). Using the Epistemic Law of Dicotomy, we got 2 kinds of knowledge: Faith and Science. Faith is to believe something that you cannot prove positively true, but you cannot prove it wrong, just like the 6 Day Creation account in the Bible. Science is to know something that is proved truth, such as the weight of things, size, mathematics and all that stuff.

Then I got that everything must be doubted to prove it true. That's the Epistemic Law of Doubt. Nothing can be proved true without doubting it. So according to the concepts of faith and science, they both cannot be proved wrong. But what about "faith dogmas" and "scientific theories"? Part of the Third Law of Epistemology (Doubt) is that. You should be able to doubt something and prove it true, but you can't.

Scientific theories and catholic dogmas share the same background: both are suppositions and can be proved right or wrong according to empirical studies. The difference is that catholic dogmas can be proved false and they'll still believe in it.

You cannot prove wrong the creation, as evolution is based on assumptions, something that does not agree with Occam's razor.

And what I tried to say is that you CAN prove the world to be 4,000 years old and the earth crust being created in 3 minutes, but still you can't prove that the world was created in 6 days. If you believe in God, scientifically you'll KNOW as a factual truth that God created the universe about 6,000 years ago but you won't prove that it all happened in 6 days. It could have been 6 months or 6 years! Empirically it's impossible to prove that they were 6 literal days but it's also impossible to prove that they were wrong. That's what differs creation as a theory and faith, theories can be proven wrong like evolution and continental drift and faith dogmas cannot be proved wrong. But that all doesn't make them truth.

I BELIEVE in a 6-Day Creation 6,000 years ago and I has been proved the earth to be 6000 years old, but you cannot prove the 6-Day proccess or Jesus walking on water to be truth nor wrong. That epistemic concept for unknown is something really amazing. Soon I'll write about it on my user page. Happy editing! --Arturo #7 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"it's falsifiable and it cannot be proven wrong"?! Sorry but that's nonsense: falsifiable means that it can be proven wrong. If a theory or hypothesis is claimed to be scientific but it can't be proven wrong, then it is pseudoscientific by definition. Harald88 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Creationism is pseudoscience because it is a body of scientific-sounding arguments designed to dress up a faith-based belief. There is no test that creationists agree would falsify the theory (as Arturo 7 just pointed out), so it is not falsifiable and hence not part of the scientific process. However, creationists and creationist literature point to many phenomena that they claim support their hypothesis that the world is young, and describe those phenomena in scientific-sounding words. Hence creationism (as currently practiced/presented) appears to be science but is not. Hence it is pseudoscience. zowie 22:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, creationism fails all scientific requirements. It is merely a religious belief based on the specific sociological needs of one group of people 2500-2800 years ago.

in any case, it fails the following:

• Consistent (internally and externally) (First, there are two different creation stories; second, there is YEC, OEC, ID, etc.)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)(A supernatural deity would certainly be a proposed entity)
• Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)(it describes what was observable at the time, but no that is longer true)
• Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
• Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments. (No)
• Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)(what data?)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)(it's regressive)
• Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) (see Arturo's comments above)

•Jim62sch• 23:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Mainstream"

According to epistemic principles, the argument of authority does not mean anything. A few millenia ago the people thought that electricity was fake, the earth was flat and that there were unicorns and phoenixes going around as a FACT. Nowadays we know that the earth is spheric, that electricity does exist and that unicorns and phoenixes may exist.

Pseudo-science does NOT refer to mainstream consensus, it refers to theories that are NOT proved right. You can prove continental drift, big bang and evolution wrong. They're just THEORIES, and theories are NOT science cause science MEANS factual truth.

Evolution, big bang, continental drift, creation, Jesus walking on water and stuff are THEORIES so they are NOT scientifical.

A "scientifical theory" is a theory that tries to look like science but it's not as it's not a fact. Faith dogmas like Mary's virginity and Jesus' chastity are THEORIES that try to look like faith-based but they're NOT.

Pseudo-science EQUALS something that cannot be proven right, perhaps astrology may be proved easier than evolution.

ALL theories are pseudoscientifical as they're NOT scientifical, and calling a theory scientifical is as dumb as saying that there were winged cows these days.

WIKIPEDIA REQUIRES A NPOV.--Arturo #7 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, Arturo. Pseudoscience refers to a line of thinking that claims to be science but that doesn't follow scientific principles, i.e. something that is not testable or falsifiable, something that does not systematize our knowledge, something that doesn't answer more questions that it generates. And so on. Your claims about theories shows that you have absolutely no understanding of how science works, so could you please stop inserting nonsense in the article and stop littering the talk page before you have learned at least a few fundamental things, such as what a theory is. --RE 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And, according to you, evolution is scientific? --Arturo #7 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Most definitely. It's one of the best scientific theories there are. --RE 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

- RE, please explain how evolution theory can be falsified. Harald88 13:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of modern humans living in the Jurassic. Brontosaurus killed by hunters using spears. :) Count Iblis 14:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that cannot falsify evolution theory! Or do you instead argue that creationism is thus falsifiable? Then you make a good point here. Harald88 13:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? If one can show that humans and other species did not evolve according to any reasonable scenario, you have falsified the theory. Such examples are ridiculous only because evolution is well established. Similarly, the theory that stars are objects like our sun is also falsifiable.... Count Iblis 13:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your above evidence happens to apparently falsify Creationism (in the narrow sense of the word, with capital letter). Having been falsified, pseudoscience is an inaccurate description for that theory. However, discoveries that falsify Creationism don't falsify Evolution. Please indicate how the theory of evolution is falsifiable, thanks! Harald88 20:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that not all non-mainstream theories are "pseudoscience"—there are lots of non-mainstream scientific theories, for example, and in any case the definition of pseudoscience used by scientists and philosophers is not defined by its mainstream status but rather by its epistemic status. However the article does not say that pseudoscience is defined by its mainstream status—it simply says that anything on this list is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. What this means is that it is attributing the epistemic judgment to the relevant group, which is how NPOV works in situations with problematic (and undesirable) labels. We cannot make that attribution ourself—aside from being original research, we will run up against the demarcation problem very early on and it will sallow into pointless epistemic debate. Attribution of a POV is the only approach in such a situation, and mainstream science is the most relevant POV in this sort of case in most people's minds (which is to say, it is the POV which usually conforms to how most people think about this issue; people should not be surprised at things listed or not listed here). Perhaps that can clarify things a bit, or at least focus discussion a little bit further on what you are objecting to? --Fastfission

Also, your criteria seem a little mixed up. You wrote, "Pseudo-science EQUALS something that cannot be proven right". This is not how pseudoscience is defined; in fact, most philosophers of science doubt that you can ever actually prove something right. They do generally agree though that you can prove many things wrong. One standard criteria for the "pseudoscience" definition is the inability to prove something wrong. If you can't prove something wrong, then the theory does not make strong epistemic claims, and is inherently not testable. See our falsifiability article for a full discussion. I also have no idea what you are trying to express with lines like "Faith dogmas like Mary's virginity and Jesus' chastity are THEORIES that try to look like faith-based but they're NOT." This sounds very self-contradictory (you consider them "faith dogmas" but then say that they are "theories" which try to look "faith-based" but are not?). I'm not sure if it is a language difficulty here but that doesn't make any sense. --Fastfission

- I agree with Arturo on one for this article essential point: pseudosience is defined as a theory that is without scientific foundation; it is not defined as a theory that is unscientific in the opinion of mainstream scientists. That means that we have to choose between several options:

*1. Change the title to include the word "alleged": it's definitely a POV and the article only discusses this one-sided POV; thus it should be indicated in the title. However, a one-sided POV article is by itself forbidden, and this article should then be deleted.

or,

*2. Make this article NPOV by *not* only including a one-sided POV, but repair the NPOV policy infingement by including notable counter opinions, where applicable.

or,

*3. Eliminate all theories that are not strictly pseudoscientific according to well defined objective criteria (see for example the one mentioned under creationism), and add the theories that also don't fulfill those criteria (with a risk that evolution should be included!).

IMO, options 2 and 3 (or some combination of them) would allow this article to reach an acceptable quality.

- Harald88 13:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Harald, we all agree on the definition of pseudoscience. The problem is that there is no unabiguous way to determine which are or which aren't. The reason we go with the consensus of scientists is because that's the POV most people expect to see when they are looking for a list of things which are pseudoscience. They don't expect to see evolution on the list, however much a Creationist might want it to be; a list of what UFO-ologists think is pseudoscience is going to be useless to everyone (including UFO-ologists). #3 is a recipe for long, endless debates over everyone's pet theory, which is why we do it the other way. The article as it currently stands meets a very good criteria: it includes all of the theories most people would expect to be included in such an article, and doesn't include any which people would obviously not call pseudoscience. I think that's a sign that it doesn't need to much re-working, personally. The only people who seem to have a problem with this are people who advocate the most pseudoscience-y of the pseudosciences, i.e. Creationists and so forth. --Fastfission 21:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, option no. 2 doesn't imply a significant change to the list; it only implies to make the list NPOV. I agree that little reworking is required, following that option. Many Creationists are scientists, while many scientists are Evolutionists. What you propose is similar to relying on the opinion of the Catholic church to determine what sects are. That is, of course, unacceptable for Wikipedia. BTW, your last remark is probably a misunderstanding. There are more people like me who strive for NPOV, even when that implies including POV's that are against one's own (see for example Bell's spaceship paradox where EMS and I are tolerant of a POV that we know to be erroneous). Harald88 13:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Epistemic definitions...

Faith: Belief in something that cannot be proven wrong Sciencie: Knowledge of the universe as a factual truth

Catholic dogmas are theories, as they have not yet be proven right and there's a lot of stuff proving them wrong. Catholic dogmas do not believe in something that is not non falsifiable, they consist in the invention of supernatural altered processes against common scientifical laws. For example, there are no historic results for Mary's virginity in the Bible.

Theories are also a belief, not science. They have not been proven right, and their acceptance and belief depend on how much faith do you use for it.--Arturo #7 02:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic dogmas are not theories, they are tautologies—they do not predict anything, they do not explain anything, they simply assert. Theories are part of science. Arturo, I don't want to sound rude but I'm not sure you have a good enough grasp on what these words mean in English to make the determinations necessary for this. Many of the things you are asserting are simply not correct. Your knowledge of the philosophy of science seems almost nonexistant—science is not "knowledge of the universe as a factual truth", it is a method for assessing and gathering knowledge in the form of "facts" (observations) and "theories" (explanations). There are additional requirements for something to be a scientific theory (i.e. falsifiability). Please don't rename this page again, especially if you have not reached any consensus to rename it with other editors. --Fastfission 21:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

: Epistemic definitions... Faith: Belief in something that cannot be proven wrong Sciencie: Knowledge of the universe as a factual truth

This has a certain specious appeal, but reflects a certain common naivety. Supposing we somehow came across 'factual truth', known technically as 'episteme', how do we prove it is, and not more human created knowledge 'doxa'? What experiment can we conduct to 'prove' that we have the ultimate theory?

To quote Einstein: 'There could be no fairer destiny for any...theory than it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on, as a limiting case.'

Dogma has absolutely no place in science, everything is up for grabs. It is right and proper that revered theories should be continuously bombarded with experiments to try to refute them. The best we can say is that a well tested theory is definitely superior to one which has been tested and found wanting.

Pseudo scientific theories are either intrinsically untestable, or have been tested and found wanting. Creationism fails the first test, hence the second cannot be applied.

However, the Wikipedia policy as to what consititutes a valid encyclopedia entry, is in direct conflict with this fundamental philosophy of science, in trying to present 'doxa' as irrefutable 'episteme'. Perhaps all science articles should be deleted, and only lists of historical or biographical facts retained. Gordon Vigurs 10:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See above where Count Iblis pointed out [apparently unwittingly!] that Creationism has in fact been falsified (it's more appriately labled a Superseded scientific theory). Apart of that, I can't follow your last argument. Harald88 13:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Creationism fails because the faithful will interpret any available evidence as supporting it. For this reason it is irrefutable, and hence it is not science. My point is that science may have theories that are 'factual truth', but there is no way of proving that they are. The best we can do is identify what is false, ergo only falsifiable theories are admissible. Now an encyclopedia is based on the premise that the knowledge contained within it is indisputable, but if it is indisputable, it is bad science. Gordon Vigurs 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that true for any theory? The faithful will interpret any available evidence as supporting it! It's essential to make annotations to indicate the reasons why a certain theory is called pseudoscience.Harald88 07:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Harald88: to answer your question, Count Iblis already made some statements about falsifying evolution. However, something that seems to be missing from this discussion is that there has happened quite a lot in the philosophy of science since Popper's idea of falsifiability. This is not the one and only way to tell apart science from pseudoscience – just pick up any text on the philosophy of science and read about it. In fact, some argue that no theories can be falsified, scientific or pseudoscientific, and that you have to use other criteria. There is no single cut and dried definition of what science is. It's a case of you know it when you see it. --RE 03:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RE, Count Iblis first made statements about how Creationism was falsified, and I haven't seen any about how Evolution can be falsified. And about criteria: I think that we all know that the criteria are POV, as the article Pseudoscience also emphasizes. Harald88 07:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We need a better description, for each entry, of possible scientific viability.

There doesn't have to be a complex classification system, but something has to distinguish between potentially accurate theories and the completely bogus ones. Time Cube should not be anywhere near Heim's Theory, for example.

• Why is Heim theory even on here? From the article it sounds like it has testable predictions. It hasn't been peer-reviewed, but that doesn't mean it fits any of the criteria for pseudoscience. --Fastfission 21:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Heim Theory is like acupuncture. It may work in some cases, but it isn't compatible with modern science anymore. It makes a lot of predictions that would already have been falsified (two extra light neutrinos, neutral electron), were it not for the fact that the theory doesn't make any predictions about how particles interact with each other.

From the article: "Most of the resulting masses are in remarkable agreement with experiment; however, many of the particles whose masses he calculated (specifically the hadrons) are now known to be composite particles and not elementary after all."

That's similar to a traditional Chinese doctor explaining how acupuncture cured your migrane. Yes your migrane was indeed cured by acupuncture, but that doesn't validate his explanation. Count Iblis 22:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing that I think should definitely be used as a criteria is that every article included on here should have a discussion on the article's page as to whether or not it is a pseudoscience, so that people can see both sides of it. The Heim theory article does not include anything which would indicate that it is regarded as such. It should either include something to that effect, or be removed from the list, IMO. --Fastfission 23:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that the best thing to do in this case is to remove this entry from the list and edit the Heim theory page to make clear that it isn't a theory at all. The moment it is presented as a theory it becomes pseudoscience. Similarly, if you consider acupuncture to be a set of rules of where to stick needles into your body to cure certain illnesses, then that is not pseudoscience (assuming it does work). The moment you present the traditional Chinese justification for these rules as science, then it becomes pseudoscience. Count Iblis 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mv?

Whats with mv'ing the article? I've locked the mv permissions for the moment until this gets talked about properly. I'm happy with the current title. Other opinions? William M. Connolley 20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See the above discussion: for sure the title is not (and cannot, IMO) be in accordance with NPOV. I propose to add alleged to the title. See also the article on pseudoscience. Harald88 20:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you DEFINE "pseudoscientifical"? Pseudo scientifcal is something that is NOT sicentifical. This list just includes non-mainstreamly accepted theories... It makes no sense supporting this mainstream POV, as wikipedia has a NPOV policy. If you wanna have a list of pseudoscientific theories, you should include ALL theories, as theories by definition are NOT science. This is a non-mainstream list, evidently and there's no case for it. William is supporting a mainstream POV rather than following Wikipedian NPOV policy.--Arturo #7 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Arturo, you have an incorrect definition. Pseudoscience does not just mean "not scientific", it means "something which purports to be scientific but is not." "Scientific" here has a more precise definition than you are giving it, it refers to specific methodological considerations. Theories are part of science; see our page on Theory#Science. Please read that, as well as our article on pseudoscience, make sure you understand it, and then come back to discuss this. Otherwise you are just wasting our time, because you clearly do not understand what these terms mean in English, or else are not expressing yourself well. --Fastfission 20:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

These are not "non-mainstream" ideas. Flat Earthism and crystal healing are not "non-mainstream", they are pseudoscience. It seems the reason for moving is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of terms. There is no consensus to move, just one person's misunderstanding. The article should stay under the current title. Byrgenwulf 20:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You're just trying to adapt definitions to you POV. Science comes from the greek word scientia, which means truth. Pseudo is the greek word for false. A theory is NOT a factual truth as it's unproven. If you want you refer to "pseudosciences" you should do it under its real definition and remove the thing "not accepted by mainstream scientific community" as working on consensus is senseless as it doesn't prove it right. Decide if this page will be a list of "pseudoscientific" or a "non-mainstream" list of theories, trying to mix them both is like mixing water and fire. --Arturo #7 21:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. Science comes from the Latin word "scientia", which means knowledge. But, since etymology only tells us what speakers of classical languages thought of the matter two thousand years ago, to accept an etymological argument would be to neglect the two millenia of philosophical thought since then (such as the pseudo-Popperian argument you seem to be offering). Byrgenwulf 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Popper's position is that all scientific theories are tentative, because it is impossible to prove truth, we can only prove falsehood. Pseudoscience is characterised by bogus certainty amongst its adherents. Concensus amongst the learned was the criterion adopted before the days of empirical science, and we don't really wish to revert back to then, do we? Gordon Vigurs 08:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Science has a rather strict definition as fastfission pointed out, and pseudoscience is also rather well defined. Neither one depends strictly on its etymology -- the words have been co-opted relatively recently (about 200 years ago for "science" and about 50 years ago for "pseudoscience") into their more nuanced modern meanings. Not all pseudoscience is out of the mainstream of public thought (e.g. astrology), and not all non-mainstream endeavors are pseudoscience (e.g. cryonics). Some scientific ideas that are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community are perfectly valid hypotheses, in the sense that they are falsifiable but not yet falsified or rigorously tested. Several fifth force theories meet that criterion, though they are largely rejected by mainstream science. Other such ideas (that appear scientific but are rejected by the mainstream science community) really are pseudoscience. Some of them appear to not be falsifiable, either because they are poorly formulated or because they contain circular definitions that do not generate specific predictions of experiments. Others have been falsified through experiment but still hold thrall over believers who do not understand or who choose not to pay attention to the falsifying experiments.

Classifying things as science or pseudoscience is thus not inherently POV -- except perhaps in the sense that sorting truth from falsehood demonstrates a "truthy" POV. Although most pseudoscience is also "not accepted by the mainstream scientific community", that is not part of the definition of pseudoscience -- it is only a heuristic that many people apply when judging a newly encountered idea. zowie 22:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia though that heuristic has to be part of our definitions, per NPOV and NOR. We do not encourage people to evaluate the methodological content of a given theory themselves—most people will find it difficult to do persuasively and philosophers of science themselves cannot actually decide on the way to determine "science" from "non-science" 100% of the time. So we go to the most relevant POV—the scientific community in this case, which everybody agrees "practices science" by definition. This definition also conforms very closely to what would be expected in such a list, which is a good heuristic in itself (a list with astrology, crystal healing, and creationism would be what most people would expect "pseudoscience" to refer to; if the list was instead evolution, general relativity, and neuropsychiatry people would think that the article was incorrect). --Fastfission 23:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with your argument, I am saddened that we must revert back to criteria which pre-date empirical science. The unique attraction of science is that any lowly laboratory assistant can potentially disprove the most revered Nobel Laureate. Yet we give the impression of a stagnant, fossilised area of study, which is hardly attractive to the young intelligent newcomer, who we would want to consider a career in science. Research grants are for finding new discoveries, not to inflate academic egos. Gordon Vigurs 08:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of problems

OK, actually looking at the article (:-) I see a couple of problem inclusions:

• Le Sage's theory of gravitation
• Luminiferous aether

LSToG is wrong, but was a not unreasonable theory at the time. Not psuedoscience though. The LE pages sez its an obsolete sci theory - and that seems fair enough to me... Oh, and I see that the intro mentions LE. There should be some system for ranking sensible-at-the-time-but-not-now theories against currently-proposed-but-junk William M. Connolley 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Harald88 20:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorting the theories by their age would be a good start. --Vuo 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to have a "falsified in + date by such-and-such" clause after historical theories...that way, anyone currently touting the theory can be said to be indulging in pseudoscience because they are propounding a falsified theory. Byrgenwulf 20:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good way to do it. Luminiferous aesther, steady state theory, etc. were not pseudoscience in their time nor neccessarily pseudoscience today. However there are forms of them advocated today (by cranks, mostly) which would probably qualify as pseudoscience. That being said, though, that aspect could be said about almost any crank—cranks advocate all sorts of theories which are incorrect or wrong, and listing everything that was once considered true, is now considered false, and is still followed today by people who use really sloppy methodology, would be a very long (and pretty useless) list indeed, especially if we are talking about the internet, where nuttiness abides. --Fastfission 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Newtonian mechanics has been falsified, yet remains universally used by engineers, and often by scientists. Your implication that the entire engineering profession is made up of cranks, is a little extreme. The point is that it is falsified as a universal theory, but its bounds of validity are now known, so we know where and when it can be applied. Arguably, this is a better position to be in, than not knowing the bounds of validity at all. In fact a lot of theories which are known to be false remain as handy approximations in appropriate circumstances. Scientific progress is a process of replacing theories which are wrong with theories which are more subtley wrong.Gordon Vigurs 10:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I found Superseded scientific theory (via the AFD...) William M. Connolley 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to clarify what people think, I've removed Le Sage and Aether from the list (while the page is protected, which is naughty, but still). I'm arguing that these are obsolete, not psuedoscience. Is that fair? OTOH people looking for these on the list won't now find them... William M. Connolley 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The luminiferous aether was not so much disproved, as rendered superfluous. It was discarded using Occam's razor as unnecessary. Gordon Vigurs 08:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

POV tag by arturo#7

I reverted the POV tag. Let's discuss it here first. Let's first focus on entries that are now on the list that shouldn't be on the list or vice versa. If there are any problems about how pseudoscience is defined then that's a less urgent problem if that hasn't led to any disputes about actual entries on the list. Count Iblis 22:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

VFD List of non-mainstream theories underway

Please come and vote :) Count Iblis 01:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine does not belong here. Orthomolecular medicine is molecular medicine on the natural side with (usually) unpatentable substances for individualized physiological uses, often not yet accepted for conventional medical practice in the US. Orthomed is based on the work of a number of *outstanding* scientists (pls note the plural carefully). Orthomolecular medicine areas may sometimes classify as protoscience, some claims may require modification as data and experience are added, and some claimants whose statements may be classed as pseudoscience may "borrow" the title - this happens in many fields too. Any and all are invited to read the OM talk page first. Please also read the vitamin C discussion above.--69.178.41.55 05:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Typical defense of pseudoscience. Orthomolecular medicine is widely recognized as pseudoscience.[5][6] -- 70.232.110.230 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of quack doctors who practise conventional medicine; that doesn't make conventional medicine a pseudoscience. Same for orthomolecular medicine. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The above links are points of view and not the last word. Orthomolecular medicine is practised by qualified medical practitioners and researched by scientists. It represents a debate within science on the proper place for nutrition in treating illness. Orthomolecular medicine does not belong here. Lumos3 18:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The leading practitioners of orthomolecular pseudoscience, by the admission of the POV-pushing authors of the orthomolecular medicine page, are notorious pseudoscientists pushing snake-oil.[7] I've restored it with cites. -- 70.232.110.230 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cites for removal --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

All those cites come from pseudoscientific sources, and are further evidence of orthomolecular medicine's problems. Serious medical professionals consider orthomolecular medicine pseudoscience.[8] -- 70.232.110.230 19:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your cite says "A few hundred physicians now use this approach to treat a variety of conditions, both mental and physical." so clearly this is not anything like a universal view even amongst medical professionals. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of astrologers; it doesn't mean astrology's not pseudoscience. -- 70.232.110.230 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are studies that support various orthomolecular studies. If I cite some will you stop pushing your POV? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Show me a legitimate medical society recommending orthomolecular medicine as a result of these studies, and we'll be somewhere. Until then, the judgment of every medical organization to evaluate the claims of orthomolecular medicine is that it's "deplorable" and dangerous pseudoscience. -- 70.232.110.230 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the JAMA has come round on this:

Vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults: clinical applications. Fletcher RH, Fairfield KM in JAMA 2002 Jun 19;287(23):3127-9 PMID: 12069676 “Most people do not consume an optimal amount of all vitamins by diet alone. Pending strong evidence of effectiveness from randomized trials, it appears prudent for all adults to take vitamin supplements..... We recommend that all adults take one multivitamin daily..... It is reasonable to consider a dose of 2 ordinary [i.e. RDA levels] multivitamins daily in the elderly”

Vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults: scientific review. Fairfield KM, Fletcher RH in JAMA 2002 Jun 19;287(23):3116-26 PMID: 12069675 “Although the clinical syndromes of vitamin deficiencies are unusual in Western societies, suboptimal vitamin status is not [unusual].”

--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Here're three studies on folic acid and colon cancer:

Multivitamin use, folate, and colon cancer in women in the Nurses' Health Study. Giovannucci E, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Fuchs C, Rosner BA, Speizer FE, Willett WC in Ann Intern Med 1998 Oct 1;129(7):517-24 PMID: 9758570 Long-term use (>15 years) of folate-containing multivitamin supplements produced an almost 5-fold reduction in the incidence of colon cancer. Other cancers not analysed. The protective effect (relative to age-matched controls) increased with the duration of supplementation. The relative risk of colon cancer over the period 1980-1994 (against folate intake in 1980, without adjusting for other vitamins) was: 1.0 (<= 200 ug/d), 0.92 (201-300 ug/d), 0.79 (301-400 ug/d) & 0.69 (>400 ug/d). This risk declined with time: comparing the >400 with the <=200 folate ug/d group the risk declined from 0.85 (1980-mid1988) to 0.56 (mid1988-1994). Amongst multivitamin users (pooling all folate categories) the risk declined with duration of use: 1.02 (4 years use), 0.83 (5-9yrs), 0.80 (10-14 yrs) & 0.25 (15+ yrs). Women who had 15+ years of multivitamin use and >300 ug/d energy-adjusted folate (in 1980) had a RR of only 0.22[CI: 0.05-0.88] compared with users with <15 years multivitamin use and 201-300 ug/d (>RDA) of energy-adjusted folate. FDA regulations forbad the use of 400ug of folate in multivitamin supplements prior to 1973, which limited the ability for a longer -term follow-up. The study abstract concludes: “Long-term use of multivitamins may substantially reduce risk for colon cancer. This effect may be related to the folic acid contained in multivitamins.”

Are dietary factors involved in DNA methylation associated with colon cancer? Slattery ML, Schaffer D, Edwards SL, Ma KN, Potter JD in Nutr Cancer 1997;28(1):52-62 PMID: 9200151 “We did not observe strong independent associations between folate, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, methionine, or alcohol and risk of colon cancer after adjusting for body size, physical activity, cigarette smoking patterns, energy intake, and dietary intake of fiber and calcium. However, when assessing the associations between colon cancer and a composite dietary profile based on alcohol intake, methionine, folate, vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, we observed a trend of increasing risk as one moved from a low- to a high-risk group”

Dietary intake of folic acid and colorectal cancer risk in a cohort of women. Terry P, Jain M, Miller AB, Howe GR, Rohan TE in Int J Cancer 2002 Feb 20;97(6):864-7 PMID: 11857369 “Folate is crucial for normal DNA methylation, synthesis and repair, and deficiency of this nutrient is hypothesized to lead to cancer through disruption of these processes. There is some evidence to suggest that relatively high dietary folate intake might be associated with reduced colorectal cancer risk, especially among individuals with low methionine intake. […] Folate intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk (IRR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.4-1.1, p for trend = 0.25). The inverse association was essentially similar among individuals with low and high methionine intake, and was similar for colon and rectal cancers when those endpoints were analyzed separately. Among individuals with low methionine intake, folate intake did not appear to lower the risk of rectal cancer, a finding that may be due, in part, to the low number of cases in the subgroup analysis. Overall, our data lend some support to the hypothesis that high folate intake is associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.” --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"It's good to take the USRDA of vitamins" (which I agree with) is not ortho's claim that "Vitamins can cure almost every disease." I don't agree with your attempt to bait and switch legitimate medicine with the claims of orthomolecular medicine.

Hardly bait and switch. BTW the nurses were getting more than the RDA. OM does not claim that "Vitamins can cure almost every disease." It is about prevention much more than cure. Reread the opening of OM:

Optimum nutrition and, most broadly, orthomolecular medicine emphasize the use of natural substances found in a healthy diet such as vitamins, dietary minerals, enzymes, antioxidants, amino acids, essential fatty acids, dietary fiber and intestinal short chain fatty acids (SCFA) in the prevention and treatment of diseases. Orthomolecular medicine focuses on the role of proper nutrition in relation to health. Optimum nutrition asserts that many typical diets are insufficient for long term health. Nutrition comes first in orthomolecular medical diagnoses and treatment, drug treatment is used only for specific indications.

Sadly, I'm not surpised that being presented with evidence doesn't change your POV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't just "my" POV. It's the POV of the NIMH, the APA, the AAP, the AMA, etc., etc. Citing mainstream articles on vitamin research doesn't move the quackery that orthomolecular medicine espouses out of the pseudoscience category. Fletcher and Fairfield are not orthomolecular scientists. The people who are identified as orthomolecular scientists on the orthomolecular science page are known for pushing unsubstantiated claims. You haven't refuted a single sentence from a single one of the multiple sources I identified. Instead, you're burying the talk page in irrelevancies that have nothing to do with why orthomolecular medicine is considered pseudoscience. -- Cri du canard 23:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your approach is twisted. If I cite orthomolecular sources they are derided as self-serving. If I quote mainstream sources I'm told they "doesn't move the quackery that orthomolecular medicine espouses". So what sort of "evidence" are you after? Sounds like the stuff that you agree with and nothing else. As for "burying the talk page in irrelevancies" the OM article starts by stating that optimum nutrition is a subset of OM, therefore any nutritional studies are relevant by definition. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This conversation belongs on Talk:Orthomolecular medicine. From what I can tell, this is not a pseudiscience, and so I removed it. linas 22:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed to both. OM is probably more of a proto-science that is, as yet, largely unproven. I suspect that a number of the claims will be falsified, but I also suspect that others will be upheld. If OM can abide by the usual scientific standards of being correctable and dynamic, as well as provisional it should be able to avoid being classified a pseudoscience. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed

This list is an excellent alternative to category:pseudoscience whose existence is imo an NPOV violation (see WP:CG and WP:Categorization of people; the category namespace presents unique NPOV problems because it appears without annotation). I think topics on this list do need to be sourced. I strongly disagree with the idea that if something lacks scientific evidence in some respect and has been called PS in some respect by a critic, then it must be considered PS by the scientific community. Scientists generally comment on evidence or lack thereof. "Pseudoscience" is more a political and pejorative term. As such, no problem presenting views about PS on WP, but we do need to source them. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes an article allows to discuss the issue. But it remains a POV problem to have an article that uses such a pejorative and opiniated term as matter-of-fact. Thus IMO it's required to at least add "alleged" to the title.

Apart of that, it certainly is not good to have both a cat and a list of such theories. I think that one should go. There are arguments for and against each. Shall we start a "merge" discussion on it? (I don't know how else to lable that issue) And if so, start it on the cat page or the list page? Harald88 18:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP doesn't shy away from controversial stuff. I agree with the approach of including all significant views if they're appropriately sourced. I'd like to merge the cat with the list, but there's no point in trying right now; it would just be a stalemate. If you want to attract more editors, and see what they say, consider whether Template:cleancat should be restored to the page, as I've suggested. Maybe other editors will agree with eliminating the cat, maybe they won't. Remains to be seen. Obviously, keeping the tag off the page discourages sunshine. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

category:pseudoscience is hardly a violation of NPOV. I'm not sure, Jim Butler, what your exact dislike of this topic is (aside from its treatment of chiropractics) but you clearly appear to be trying to eliminate the topic from wiki. Perhaps you might be willing to explain why. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim, honestly that isn't my intention. If it appears that way, then I need to improve how I communicate. Basically, I don't like the "sound-bite"-ish quality of just slapping the pseudoscience label on a page without explanation, especially when not all things labelled pseudoscientific are equally in violation of the scientific method. Shades of grey exist, and I believe that it's important not to throw away the baby with the bathwater. At the same time, I agree with Carl Sagan that "valid criticism does you a favor". I'd like to see both the "baby" and "bathwater" aspects of stuff dear to me explored more fully (see my user page -- I believe that intelligence testing of disabled people has huge pseudoscientific elements, and does great damage to some of the most vulnerable among us). So, I kind of like to stick up for the underdog, and hate seeing labels slapped on people, or ideas, without qualification. There you have my motivations. As for WP technicalities, I like the fact that lists include the ability to annotate -- to say who makes arguments and to summarize why, what aspects they criticize, etc. Does that make sense? cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for the thoughtful reply, and I suppose in rethinking the issue that some of what appears to be an attemppt to excise the category may be inferrence on my part, or maybe just a bit of a "failure to communicate" on both of our parts.

Carl Sagan was a very wise man, and he was quite correct regarding valid criticism. One can never fully understand a subject unless one looks at it from all angles, including those with which one does not agree, and in so doing sometimes one's opinions can change, which is as it should be in science. There are indeed many gray areas in science, although often that grayness can be rather more subjective than objective. (Ah, but true objectivity is hard, if not impossble, for mere humans ;)

In any case, what you said makes sense. I'm not sold on the idea of a list rather than a cat, but that may simply be a difference in how each of us classifies things. I too object to labelling the everyday person, as I see no reason to pigeonhole and introduce more bias into an already biased culture. However, I also have a very limited ability to suffer fools, and when I see people attempting to defraud others by using something purported to be science (intelligent design, astrology, erototoxins, etc.), I lose my patience with them and am happy to note that they are engaging in pseudoscience. I suppose that that's my way of protecting the underdog. Cheers, &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you too for that thoughtful reply. (Boy, did things get rowdy at Category Talk:Pseudoscience in the intervening time!) It's a good feeling to reach a higher level of understanding with anyone in cyberspace, especially when your user page radiates an obvious intelligence and high degree of cognizance of the human condition. I share your predilection for not suffering fools; it's a double-edged sword with which I've cut myself on occasion, presuming I'm light-years more clever than the unwashed mob. It comes back to seeing things from multiple points of view, while retaining discriminative understanding. As Socrates said, about the unexamined life...

You make an excellent point regarding the relativity of playing the underdog role. A predator who cries foul from the medical establishment's criticism, while knowingly scamming ill and desperate people with snake oil ,is plainly a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Past bedtime in my time zone, so good night, and strike a notch for the good faith thing. Best regards to you, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

POV edit by MichaelCPrice

MichaelCPrice vandalized the article by deleting cited and referenced text, and falsely called it "restore vandalized text." -- Cri du canard 23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You missed the irony in the edit summary: look at the previous edit summary (made by Cri du canard as an anon), which was made without comment or talk page discussion.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cri du canard; please do not make false accusations. If you insist on arguing this matter, please take it to Talk:Orthomolecular medicine. linas 01:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposing page move

It seems to me that simply labeling these theories as pseudoscience is an NPOV violation. This is because the proponents of any of these theories will obviously contest that, and by simply stating that they are pseudoscience we're ignoring their viewpoint. Even though they're the minority, we still have to give them a modicum of respect, but make it clear they're in the minority.

This is why I'm proposing we move this page to List of theories commonly considered pseudoscientific. The summary of the list within the article should make it clear that by this we mean that a notable number of scientists would agree that this theory is pseudoscientific (and they are, of course, not outnumbered by those who believe it's valid). ---DrLeebot 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree: I prefer that title over the one I suggested earlier. It's a perfect and NPOV description of the criteria of this article. Thanks for this good suggestion! Harald88 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems resonable. Perhaps instead of "commonly" it should be made clear that the scientific community reagards it as pseudoscientific. Not sure if you can make a concise title. The problem I see is that some pseudoscientific theories have a lot support (e.g. astrology) from lay people. Count Iblis 13:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds unreasonable. Being scientific/pseudoscientific is a matter of whether or not the scientific method is followed. Pseudoscientists do not follow the scientific method, as becomes abundantly clear when engaging with them. A minority view can still be scientific, as the intro states:

Pseudoscience should not be confused with unpopular or minority-opinion scientific theories.

Pseudoscience is:

Asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;

Asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;

Failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not a universal definition. Just google for "pseudoscience define OR definition" and you'll see a range. The article pseudoscience basically says "things misrepresented as science", and debate and extrapolation flow from that (demarcation problem, nature of misrepresentation). thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I actually agree with this. The scientific community will only regard a theory as pseudoscientific if the relevant criteria are met. Changing the title would only have the effect of taking away any unjustly perceived POV. But this would come at the expense of introducing another POV problem. If the word "commonly" is included then the title would suggest that "pseudoscientific" is an inherently POV labeling while in fact it isn't. The only real POV thing that can occur is whether or not the relevant criteria are met. But that's bound to happen with almost any list where entries can be listed according to certain criteria. Count Iblis 14:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS does not support the idea that critics who use the term "pseudoscience" necessarily speak for the scientific community. Please see WP:RS#Physical_sciences.2C_mathematics_and_medicine. Scientists generally comment on evidence for something, or lack thereof. "Pseudoscience" is not a a real scientific category with clear, objective criteria for inclusion. It's a term used by a number of critics and advocacy groups, writing for popular audiences. (Interestingly, some of the most prominent sources are themselves non-scientists: Randi, Shermer, Carroll.) Obviously, those sources don't quite meet WP:RS for scientific consensus. Of course, they do represent a significant view, and there is basic popular understanding that the term means "fake science", and that it's a pejorative (since it basically means someone is engaging in misrepresentation, deliberately or not). So we can cover it, but we shouldn't overreach in doing so, or "assert" the argument rather than "present" it (cf. NPOV).

Pseudoscience is a meaningful social concept that deserves coverage, but we shouldn't overreach and put the words of critics in the mouths of a large body of scientists. I think the article's title is adequate as long as we keep the current intro wording derived from editorial consensus at pseudoscience, which differentiates between what critics say and what scientists say: "The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects, and which a significant portion of the scientific community faults as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another." thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact it is a POV, as the pseudoscience article emphasizes. It's similar to "terrorist", "cult" etc. Harald88 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I considered that, but the conclusion I came to was that it would constitute original research for us to make that judgment in many cases. So, we have to rely on the consensus opinions of experts to make the judgment for us. This opinion doesn't go uncontested however (thanks to the unresolved nature of the demarcation problem), and even mainstream scientists may disagree. But yeah, we've already gone over all of that. The point is that we can't treat it as a fact that these are Pseudosciences; it's a consensus opinion at best. The title must be able to stand alone.

I thought briefly of mentioning in the title that it's the opinion of the scientific community that counts, but I felt that would be better addressed in the article itself. After all, it should stand to reason that we're taking the expert opinion.

I tried to think of an analogous case before, but couldn't until now: Cults. Experts in sociological phenomena can spot one a mile away, but any member will contest the label. This label also fits the bill of being based in fact, but used as a pejorative. So, this is essentially the same situation. Now, look at List of cults, or rather, what it redirects to: List of groups referred to as cults. I would have gone with "commonly considered" in that case, too, myself, but the end result is the same. The title respects the POV of the members by not definitively saying they're cults.

I'll admit, Wikipedia shouldn't cater to those who insist on denying reality, but we must acknowledge that the demarcation problem hasn't been resolved. Some cases are obvious (like Time Cube), while others are on the edge. Since not everything is obvious, we have to err on the side of caution and say that these are just theories that are generally considered by scientists to be pseudoscience.

And if anyone can propose a better wording for the title, please do so. ---DrLeebot 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose the non-original label "pseudoscience" (!) on the grounds of current usage. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please tell us exactly how the title List of pseudoscientific theories is "an WP:NPOV violation." WP:NPOV specifically singles out how to present pseudoscience at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Whether particular topics are pseudoscience (and hence included here) is dealt with at each topic's article. That they are part of this list is well within "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories" as called for at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_"equal_validity" states specifically about pseudoscience "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..." Lastly, this supposed "NPOV issue" evaporates when one properly applies Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions which says "What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page? No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc."

What's missing here is not a lack of neutrality, but an understanding of our neutrality policy. FeloniousMonk 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey FM et. al., let's not forget this part of NPOV: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation. That says to be careful about the POVishness of "sensitive" categories (but lists, being annotated, are OK). Expanded discussion of that here. NPOV the principle per se is non-negotiable. Figuring out how to apply it (and balance it with WP:VER and WP:OR) is what good collaboration is all about. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Very simple: it's erroneous to think that presenting the mainstream view as fact in the title is not POV if in the article it is stated that minorities disagree with it. The title as it stands now is a POV violation, while the proposed title is sufficiently neutral. BTW, I'll now mark the article in accordance, to reflect this ongoing discussion. - Hmm, for now it's not possible to add anything; thus that's TBD, if needed. Harald88 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well put and very accurate. I sincerely hope that everyone arguing on this page pays heed to this excellent delineation of what NPOV really is, although I fear that some will now dispute policy becausde classifying something as pseudoscience "is not nice". Neither is the real world. Oh well. La vita è una puta ed allora morirete. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The key point I have in response to that is that the label "Pseudoscience" itself is contested. Contested only by a minority who is obviously (to you and I) in the wrong, but contested still. Therefore, we have to make the conceit, at least at the beginning, that these may not be Pseudosciences, but are generally considered to be so. And the very beginning of the article is the title. As it is, the title simply declares "These are pseudosciences," and then caveats are listed in the summary (which could easily go unread on a list article). If the title is taken by itself, it presents one POV while completely ignoring the other.

The problem here isn't whether the article itself is clear enough, it's whether the title must be NPOV when taken alone. If one takes it within the context of the article, it's most likely fine. But is that a requirement? Unfortunately, I can't find any policy or guideline dealing with this particular issue. In the end, we have two issues to deal with:

• Is the title, when taken alone, NPOV? (In this case, I believe it isn't)
• If we agree that isn't, does this matter?

If we then agree that it matters, we have to then decide what to do about it.

Further, I don't think the "necessary assumptions" clause applies here, as this isn't dealing with all the hundreds of steps taken after the acceptance of the scientific POV. It is instead dealing with the title of an article, which is the very introduction to the subject.

But besides that point, part of my reasoning in putting this proposal up here was to see if it would satisfy any of the pseudoscience proponents out there who are contesting the neutrality of the article (such as Arturo 7 who tried the "non-mainstream" change a few days ago). None of them are actually doing that, so it's not unreasonable to assume they'd still complain. The only reason to change it then would be on principle. ---DrLeebot 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph states the criterion for inclusion quite clearly, whether we agree with them or not. Wiser minds can simply take the remainder with a pinch of salt. After all, we all enjoy a good pillory.

However, there is something incongruous about deciding what constitutes pseudo-science, using a criterion which pre-dates modern science, and was positively obstructive at the time. Also, an examination of practically any undergraduate science course at any Western university will show that philosophy is conspicuous by its absence. The majority of scientists conduct their careers on the basis of the same naive empiricism which is extant throughout society as a whole. Consequently the criterion adopted is rarely better than basic Baconian empiricism at its most naive. Gordon Vigurs 08:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just thinking: If someone might be autistic, we get the opinion of an expert and then take it as fact. That's not a clear-cut case, either, so analogously, the statement that these are pseudosciences because the experts say they're pseudosciences might not be so unreasonable. Given that and the fact that no advocates are coming out of the woodwork to say that this change would satisfy them, I'm going to say let's keep it the way it is. However, if they do come out and agree with it, it might be worth moving just to avoid needless edit-warring. ---DrLeebot 14:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say that I think DrLeebot's proposed name change is fine. Though who exactly counts as "common" is endlessly open to dispute, I think it is very easy to establish that from the first paragraph of the article that we are not talking about sheer polls of the population. (I also want to just remind people that NPOV does not stand for NO POV; it means that Wikipedia itself be neutral on the question, but happily report relevant POVs). --Fastfission 15:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to use links to articles themselves to populate this list? Also, i realize i am entering this discussion at a really late stage but listen - i question the neutrality of any list that began with the word "crackpot" in the title. have we learned nothing from the history of science? this is probably a long tail phenonmenon - i.e. most pseudo-science is garbage, but the one or two gems it produces continue to make it worthwhile to maintain, even encourage, an open-minded, albeit highly skeptical stance towards such theories. in fact, one could argue that 'pseudo-science' is important to certain phases of theortical development of scientific knowledge. perhaps inclusion of this in the introduction and the additional requirement that the term "pseudo-scientific" (or some reasonable facsimile thereof) appear in the full text of the article could resolve this - or maybe a sub-grouping or flagging system of so-called pseudo-sciences that indicates why - i.e. - unsubstantiated, unverifiable, contrary to existing evidence, etc, etc,

i'm sorry if this edit isn't totally clear but i am thinking as i type and you know, i need a break. also, im a newby so be gentle, k? i dint have time to learn to indent.stranger 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

hi Stranger: Sorry you had to wade through a flamewar provoked by a particular crank (person). The most recent constructive suggestion for this article is to "Split this article into three" articles (see the topic by this name way above). The proposed articles are (1) discredited, (2) obsolete or superceded, and finally (3) fringe. I have a problem with the term fringe, since as you have observed that a few fringe theories gained enough evidence or provided enough explanation to become accepted (ie: plate tectonics), so please see this topic above. Vonkje 04:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-scientifical vs. Non-mainstream

As I've proposed earlier, this page is clearly a wikipedia's NPOV policy violation as it treats many mainstreamly rejected theories, but is valid amongst a large group of people reagrding it as a valid scientifical theory, like creationism and some medical sciences. The original NPOV violation stated that pseudoscience refers to what mainstream science refers, in that case is an obvious mainstream POV. It'd be much better to choose a title that doesn't violate wiki's NPOV, and discuss why it shouldn't be labeled "non-mainstream list", as the page states that pseudosciences are sciences not positively recognized by the mainstream community. That is not the definition of a pseudoscience, it's most likely a "non-mainstream" one. Happy editing!--Arturo #7 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Clear as mud... What part of FeloniousMonk's posting do you not agree with? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The first line of the article states, "The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects, and which a significant portion of the scientific community faults as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another." It makes it clear from the first line that we say these are pseudosciences because the experts (scientists) say they are pseudosciences. We are stating what the expert POV is, not endorsing it.

Later it says, "Because the term pseudoscience is almost universally regarded a pejorative (usually because it implies that the theory is not what it represents itself to be), those who adhere to such theories almost always challenge them, often on either epistemic grounds (challenging the diagnosis), or by pointing out that many mainstream fields of science can fail the same criteria." That states the minority POV, that these aren't pseudosciences. Both POVs are presented, and the majority is treated as the majority and the minority as the minority (majority/minority of relevant experts, that is).

And also, please remember that it's only the relevant experts whose opinions matter. For instance, you don't take a vote among the populace at large on whether it's possible for a particle to pass through a barrier of higher potential energy than the particle's total energy. You'd likely find that almost all people with a basic understanding of the terms will say no. However, if you ask any Quantum Physicist, they'll tell you that yes, it definitely is possible. Similarly, you don't poll the public on whether someone is following the scientific method, you ask scientists. ---DrLeebot 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Or philosophers of science. But anyway I think the use of the scientific community as a heuristic works a lot better, since philosophers have a hard time making conclusions about anything. (I'm a member of the "science is that which is done by scientists" school, personally, which avoids most demarcation issues). --Fastfission 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, you have summed my feelings on this exactly. This is precisely why I oppose the move. --TurabianNights 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Although a johnny-come-lately to this party, I also agree with the above arguments and oppose the move. --Dunraven 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the entire page violates NPOV. There is no useful definition of pseudoscience, and no consensus on what is or is not pseudoscience. I see just a big list of things that someone is opinionated about. A lot of the inclusions and omissions are very hard to justify. Sometimes a fringe or speculative idea gets proved correct, and all of sudden it is a work of genius. Roger 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Speculative and pseudoscience are very different things, and the distinction is almost always very clear. For example, there is a disagreement how much neutral drift matters for speciation. No one in either group accuses the other of group of practicing pseudoscience. Similarly, there is a disagreement about how to explain the existence of the higher temperatures superconductors but neither group considers the other to be doing anything less than science. The fringe views that have historically turned out to be correct have been much more of this sort, a minority but a respected one who tries to do science. Furthermore, even if you had historical examples of something called pseudoscience that turned out later to be correct, it would be irrelevant to whether we should report anything as pseudoscience. What matters is whether it is classified that way now, not what it will be seen as in 30 years. JoshuaZ 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So what would be a "useful" definition of pseudoscience, Rog?

This is a statement in search of a valid argument, "A lot of the inclusions and omissions are very hard to justify."

"I see just a big list of things that someone is opinionated about." As opposed, of course, to your blog. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny? Yes, my blog does have a bunch of opinions. And those opinions are from my personal POV. If you want to post your personal opinions, get a blog. Roger 23:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I have one (much better written than yours, of course, but I digress). Your personal opinions would be, I'd think, why you've avoided answering the first two items. Can you, in all seriousness (no jest, Shirley) provide a "useful" def of pseudoscience? Would you care to provide a valid argument for your statement? After all, qui adfirmat, probare debeat.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh Joshua, I got a HUGE historical examples of something called pseudoscience that turned out later to be correct... the Big Bang theory. It was mainly thought asshole and then athetists and evolution supporters started addressing it as a fact, perhaps no proof for it existed. Nowadays, the Big Bang is taught at school as a fact, even though there are still no proofs for it. In fact, it should be interesting to tell at school that the Big Bang developer was a sci-fi writer. --Arturo #7 18:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, Arturo. Unfortunately everyhting you wrote is either wrong or confused. You say Big Bang turned out to be correct. This is true. But it was not regarded as pseudoscience before that. But then you go on to say there is not proof for it, which is complete and utter nonsense. In fact it is extremely well-tested experimentally, for example through the cosmic background radiation. And it was not developed by a sci-fi writer either. Again, please learn at least a little bit about the things you talk about before you talk. --RE 18:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is quite clear as to the criterion adopted. The vague reference to 'critics' however, needs to be qualified. In each topic I suggest the criterion of 'name five', so that the astute observer may gain a balanced understanding based on the known biases of the 'critics'. Just a thought. Gordon Vigurs 11:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)