Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

RFC: Should psychometrics be listed as being characterized as pseudoscience?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is for 3, Exclude psychometrics from the list. AlbinoFerret 01:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Which of the following options should be followed for whether to list psychometrics in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience?

1. Include psychometrics in the list.

2. Include psychometrics in the list, but with a notation that it is categorized as pseudoscience by a minority of scholars.

3. Exclude psychometrics from the list.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please state your view as Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3 in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 3 Exclude psychometrics as a whole from the list, but allow for the possibility of particular psychometric approaches and controversies to the included as pseudoscience. --Mark viking (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3. Exclude psychometrics from list I don't think there is sufficient evidence that anyone, Gould included, considers the entire discipline to be pseudoscience, or that the discipline is inherently pseudoscientific.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3. Exclude psychometrics from list Without some consensus on how to describe the field, I see no value in including it. Roger (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3. Exclude. Psychometrics is now based on the scientific method, with collection of data and testing of theories. It has had disappointingly little success; early practitioners made unjustifiable claims for it; and some modern practitioners overstate their case (as in many sciences). But it is not, now, pseudoscience. Maproom (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3. Exclude psychometrics from list until some form of a "criticism" section is added and remains stable at the parent article. List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should not be used to launch WP:POVFORKs and WP:LABELs should only be applied if it is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Something "widely used by reliable sources" should be prominent in the parent article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3. Exclude Pseudoscience does not apply to psychometrics as a whole, although it may apply to certain tests and the interpretation of such tests. Psychometrics is just too broad, if it also includes assessment of reading, writing, and mathematical skills, as stated in the article. To say that ALL measurements of mental/psychological phenomena are pseudoscience would be overreaching. -Iamozy (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3. Exclude Psychometrics is an integral part of all empirically oriented psychological disciplines and many other fields of social/behavioral science. Calling it a pseudoscience is tantamount to labeling enormous amounts of scholarship as pseudoscience. The sources cited in support of this thesis in the article are generally related to controversies in IQ testing, are not written by experts, and espouse views on IQ testing that are not shared by experts. Psychometrics is not synonymous with intelligence testing and most applications of psychometrics have nothing to do with intelligence testing.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3. Exclude psychometrics from list there doesn't seem to be any major claim, so it shouldn't be included. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 2. Although this survey is inadequate at describing any consensus, as most users have responded in the threaded discussion below, but not here.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 1. would be better, but Option 2. would also be OK. Logos (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 4. Exclude the ability of random, biased Wikipedians to censor content from abundant independent reliable sources. Such censorship would in one fell swoop invalidate any credibility achieved by Wikipedia so far. Promoting mysticism and waging a war on science will not get Wikipedia to where it wants to go.--TDJankins (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The issue of whether to include psychometrics in this list was previously discussed on this talk page, and was then the subject of moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The conclusion of the discussion was that a Request for Comments (this RFC) be used to establish consensus. As the volunteer moderator, I will not be offering an opinion, but will let the Wikipedia community provide a collective opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but censorship of content with independent reliable sources is not allowed, especially content with abundant independent reliable sources. Also, I don't know where option #2 came from or how one would support such a claim. It looks like the passage now reads pretty much how Myrvin and Grayfell had it which makes enough sense and is good enough for me.--TDJankins (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not adding something because there is consensus that it is not a good addition is not censorship.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• There are a number of problems here: 1. This list is useless and should be deleted. 2. Historically psychometrics has obviously been a pseudoscience, but that is true of most sciences. Most of Gould's argument is specifically about the early history of psychometrics much of which was uncontroversially mostly pseudoscientific in nature. 3. Even today a lot of psychometrics research is, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, junk science, not pseudoscience, but simply bad science. 4. But there is nothing inherently pseudoscientific about psychometrics, and there is today a good deal of psychometrics research that is not pseudoscientific, or bad science, but rather which is rather fairly reasonable attempts at quantifying aspects of the human mind. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

All that is true. Good luck clearing it up. In the meantime, I added some balance with some reliable sources. Roger (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately those sources do not say anything to the effect that Mismeasure has been generally considered rejected because it hasn't - some specific points have been contested bysome and defended by others, others are generally accepted as valid critiques of psychometrics. Also Gould is not the only scholar who has strongly criticize psychometrics, so the critique does not stand and fall with the acceptance of his book. What you should try to add instead is the view of scholars who do not consider psychometrics to be a pseudoscience. Here the APA report and the mainstream science might work because it shows that it is not a fringe area within psychology. These sources however do not show anything about the rejection or acceptance of Mismeasure.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I did include just what you suggested -- why did you revert it? The reason I mention Mismeasure is that the criticism of psychometrics is almost entirely based on Mismeasure. This is an extreme POV as there is no mention of the controversies about that book. If the entry is going to rely on that book, then it should, at the least, explain that much of the book is contested, and have a link to the WP article so readers can get the details. Roger (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It is wrong that the criticism is "almost entirely based on mismeasure", that may be the case in the general public but not within the field. Psychometrics has prominent critics also within psychology, and many others in education. Gould's book may have given the critique its major voice in the public but as I said it does not stand or fall with mismeasure.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The listed accusations of pseudoscience are almost entirely based on Mismeasure. (I am not sure about Shermer's -- he does not seem to be making a pseudoscience accusation.) Do those other critics call it pseudoscience? Being criticized is not the same as being pseudoscience. If it were, then we would list the DSM-5 as pseudoscience, as it has many critics both within psychology and outside. Roger (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the problem with this list. It has useless inclusion criteria, and could include pretty much any science. Also don't think Gould actually denounces psychometrics as inherently pseudoscientific, just specific past and present incarnations that rely on factor analysis, biological reductionism and racist assumptions. So that is the other problem, is Gould actually calling psychometrics as a field of knowledge inherently pseudoscientific or is he denouncing specific practices in psychometrics. I think it is the latter. I also think the entry should be deleted altogether. And the list.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. Continental drift meets the inclusion criteria, and here is a reliable source: When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience But it is not included in the list, because current editors do not wish to malign workers in that field. But I still do not see why you revert my edits. All I am saying here is that if Mismeasure is used to show that psychometrics is pseudoscience, then the entry also explain that multiple reliable sources say that Mismeasure is wrong. That is the neutral way to handle it (other than deleting the entry, or deleting the whole list.) Roger (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No, because there are also multiple reliable sources that say that Mismeasure is right, and that the ctiriques are invalid. So adding only that view accomplishes nothing by way of NPOV. The neutral solution of it has to be in the list is to say that Gould called it pseudoscience in his book and then link the book so that readers can see for themselves.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I added the following per the APA report in order to counterbalance the section: "Many of those within the field of psychology believe that psychometrics is a legitimate study that yields worthwhile information."--TDJankins (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

These are weasel words. Does anyone refute that APA statement? If not, then just state the conclusion as a fact. Roger (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus. I think option 3 is best but 2 is also acceptable. Psychometrics isn't a pseudoscience, in my opinion. Notwithstanding the criteria in the article, a pseudoscience must include a concept that is entirely at odds with objective science. Pseudosciences all require such a non-scientific leap, something which sets the scientific method aside and makes a claim like "pyramid-shaped objects affect pathogens" or "positions of stars influence human lives."

Psychometrics makes no such reference to the supernatural. When it makes conclusions that don't logically follow from the observations, or when it claims that it is more effective than it actually is, it qualifies as junk science or bad science. A battery of tests can't determine a person's future behavior or their suitability for a particular job. But -- and this is why I think it is not a pseudoscience -- the results are better than random chance. That's not the case if you use astrology or phrenology to screen job applicants.

The pseudoscience article should provide readers with information on all things that are sometimes held up as scientific but which are not. That's because it's better known and better understood than bad science. So I wouldn't be opposed to including psychometrics in the article, provided that it's clear that it's in a different category than, say, dowsing or free energy. Roches (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think our opinions really matter, but anyways it's pseudoscience as it claims to be able to measure elements of the mind which it cannot. Being better than random choice does not somehow rescue it from being pseudoscience. That really has nothing to do with anything. Almost any test, even bad ones, will have at least some predictive validity. In the study the UC and the SAT, tests with so called "psychometric properties" were proven to be far less effective at predicting college grades than regular or "achievement" tests. Therefore, the pseudoscientific medling of psychometricians has been proven not only useless, but counterproductive and indeed detrimental to society. Psychometrics went head to head with regular valid testing and psychometrics got crushed. --TDJankins (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any non-psychologists or non-psychometricians (those who do not practice psychometrics) who undertook a thorough investigation of psychometrics and were able to conclude that it's a legitimate science. I do however know there have been several entire books dedicated to why it's a pseudoscience; we can only say that for a small handful of the other items on this page.--TDJankins (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Only as I was asked to pitch in ... it's a long time since I read the article on Psychometrics here and I guess that is the subject of this thread: "Psychometrics (Life sciences)" as a page by that title doesn't exist here. My opinion on whether it is a pseudo-science is that this depends on what you mean by a pseudo-science, which in turn depends on what you mean by science. My problem with psychometrics is the exaggerated claims that come from the field, and the fact that a lot of its leading proponents' foundational research seems questionable to say the very least. But none of that is to say that the field CANNOT be scientific. There are those working in many fields whose scientific method is questionable. I have a simple definition of science: the observation of phenomena, collection of data, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Is it the field itself that is unscientific or the work done by those in it? There's no reason that "psychometricists" (?!?!) cannot be scientific in their approach to psychometrics, indeed I would hope that such an approach would drown out the rest, but whether any of them do I do not know. Many people argue that psychology of all kinds is not true science. You pays your money aand you takes your choice. Personally I don't think that a health warning of such a general nature as this article presents on Pseudosciences is helpful and I would delete it, or leave it to contain only a definition of pseudoscience. It is the individual articles themselves, the first port of call for readers, that need to be clarified. Pillorying and name calling is at best unhelpful. IMO this list of pseudosciences can only generate polemics. This seems to me to be the root of the problem here, not whether or not something fits or does not into a certain interpretation or concept of a taxonomy. Our common interest as users and editors of wiki would be addressed best by addressing the problems of this page in its entirety rather than in its minutiae. But I can't find that the moderator/mediator/arbitrator/judge has provided this option ... so, enjoy!  :) LookingGlass (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Option 3 Pseudoscience does not apply to psychometrics as a whole, although it may apply to certain tests and the interpretation of such tests. Psychometrics is just too broad, if it also includes assessment of reading, writing, and mathematical skills, as stated in the article. In the field of neuroscience, there are "psychometric" assays for assessing psychological conditions such as depression, anxiety, adaptability, etc in animals. To say that ALL measurements of mental/psychological phenomena are pseudoscience would be overreaching. -Iamozy (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

yes, and it also would misrepresent the source since Gould is talking about only specific examples of pseudoscience. Probably a better inclusion would be scientific racism which is basically what he is denouncing in the book, and which is widely considered pseudoscientific.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Number 3 - exclude psychometrics from this list -- (1) I'd suggest general resistance to adding more to a long thing, as it seems awfully long and why would one more be better, plus pseudoscience I think is a vague epitet so one often would not be able to tell anything definitive except whether others say it for various reasons (hence different meanings?). and then (2) by googling I see generally a LOW percent of google books 'psychometrics' also have 'pseudoscience', but in common web most uses are in common. So seems like maybe technical experts with substantive material usually say psychometrics is NOT pseudoscience, but the masses frequently gripe using the word ... which is consistent with it being a vague slur or something complaints turn to hurt the topic ... feels like they didn't like the result of the metric more than an intellectual consideration. Markbassett (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm hearing what you guys are saying, but I still think that it's pseudoscience as no aspect of the mind is isolatable, therefore no aspect of the mind is measurable, and therefore every instrument is impossible to actually validate. Yet psychometrics claims that it's able to do all of these things all while claiming to be science.--TDJankins (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you presented sources making that argument I would be willing to reconsider. I would disagree with all three propositions (aspects of mind are isolatable, they can potentially be measured even if they are not isolated, and some measurements of aspects of mind can be empirically validated), but a good source making the argument would be enough for inclusion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@TDJankins: Your statements all sound like philosophical arguments to me, not science at all. In the field of neuroscience you can definitely use behavioral assays to assess things such as adaptability, anxiety, despair, etc. With the understanding and explanation that psychometrics aren't 100% accurate, you can still use them to show statistically significant changes in cognition, and you can reliably use them to reproduce results. For example, "psychometrics" are used to test the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals, which cause behavioral changes in both animals and humans. To use your argument "no aspect of the mind is isolatable" to say that there is no legitimate assay measuring cognition or mental faculty - it just doesn't make any sense, and it sounds pretty anti-science to me. -Iamozy (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Psychometrics is a multifaceted field. One one end, it is concerned with the statistical foundations of measurement in psychology; theories like item response theory, structural equation modeling and the ordinal analysis of ranked data, such as Likert scale data, are as mathematically solid as anything in statistics. I have never seen a claim of pseudoscience for these statistical methods. In applied psychometrics, there are careful scientists who simply want to measure psychological behavior as well as possible. But there are also charlatans who claim their psychometric tests are the one true way to predict, e.g., educational success; they often have no scientific backing for these claims, which lead careful scientists to reject their claims as pseudoscience. Thus while there are particular people and products in the field deserving of the label pseudoscience, it is wrong to paint the whole field with this brush. --Mark viking (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The same could be said of Economics or any other social science. Or any other branch of Psychology. Roger (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Option 2 Psychometrics does have a range of detractors, as presented elsewhere here and in the Psychometrics article. If some WP:RSes say that X scholar or Y scholar believe that it's a pseudoscience, then we should notate that and include it in this list. Full stop.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hee hee, and now we will have an orthodoxy/heterodoxy discussion in the Grand Old Tradition! Consider the early Ecumenical Councils and their agonies deciding True and False Christian doctrine. Look at the endlessly schisming Communist parties with their purist Marxist/Leninist/Trotsky-ite/Maoist/etc. branches. When the Skeptics start comparing their lists of Innies and Outies, there is no better show for April Fools day. With a little luck, we can cancel a tenure or two, or burn a Wikipedian in the town square! Even better if we burn a pile of his books beside him just to show we are serious! And I like Option 2 -- burn everything ever denounced by anyone! More burnings, more destruction, more reputations ruined, more human misery.

I just noticed your subject is denounced as a pseudoscience in the Wikipedia, Professor. No student will want to take your classes now. Will you be resigning soon, or will you wait until after lunch?

Good Lord, what a festival of fiendish delight! Let it rain blood everywhere -- Hell is always thirsty. Slade Farney (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: would you like to dispute that some WP:RSes show that there is at least a large group of individuals in the scientific community who believe that psychometrics is a pseudoscience? Or would you like to continue making straw men? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No dispute at all. A large section of the "scientific community" is happy with the prospect of burning heretics. They have no sense of history and no appreciation that their own doctrines were once heretical and they would be burned for espousing them. Many so-called scientists are not scientists at all -- they are doctrinaires. Like puritanical Communists, puritanical Christians, and Procrustians everywhere, their real problem is not a love of their own doctrines, but the impurity of heretics. And once the Procrustians complete their conquest of Science (and it won't be long now), all progress of science will stop. Knowledge is Orthodoxy. Long Live True Knowledge! Death to all Heretics! Sadly, we've been been here before. Slade Farney (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I dispute it. Where is that "large group of individuals in the scientific community who believe that psychometrics is a pseudoscience?" From what I have seen, the critics of psychometrics are mostly crackpots. Roger (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That statement says more about what you have seen, than it does about psychometrics or its critics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I have yet to see any credible source demonstrating the whole of psychometrics to be a pseudoscience. They all focus on particulars (such as IQ) or the history of psychometrics, which was undeniably pseudoscientific (and sometimes used to justify terrible arguments). Today, psychometrics are used more reliably and with the understanding that while the metrics may not be 100% accurate, they can be used to reliably measure changes in aptitude or some other mental faculty. Psychometrics that measure anxiety, depression, attention span, adaptability, and working memory are very reproducible. This is not to deny the fact that psychometrics CAN be used unscientifically (say, to match people with romantic partners, or determine if an employee is suitable for a job), but that isn't the WHOLE of psychometrics -Iamozy (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Iamozy: okay then, sure. So then why don't we include "Certain aspects of Psychometrics" on this list, and then delineate which parts of Psychometrics as a field have been called pseudoscientific in the literature. Though I did just find several sources calling the psychometric measure of depression, etc. pseudoscientific, so we'd have to include those as well. With properly metered rebuttals, of course.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: It would seem to me to be more accurate to include Personality Tests, Intelligence quotients, and other psychometric tests that have been credibly debunked. "Certain aspects of Psychometrics" is much too vague and inclusive. -Iamozy (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Iamozy: That makes a lot of sense to me. I would probably include the word Psychometrics though, because that is what these are. Like "Certain Psychometric tests such as Personality Tests, Intelligence Quotients, etc have been thoroughly debunked, but remain controversial. Others, such as depression quotients, anxiety checklists, and the PCL-R, remain thoroughly debated topics." How's that? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for Psychometrics as a pseudoscience

Since this seems to have devolved into hearsay, here are the WP:RSes I could find in a ten minute google search saying that X scholar or Y scholar or Z part of the scientific community believe that Psychometrics is a pseudoscience:

"Psychometrists argue (e.g. Cattell, 1981) that with high-quality psychometric tests of this kind it is possible to construct a genuinely scientific quantified psychology, similar to the natural sciences in its rigorous quantification. However, some distinguished scientists, of whom Medawar (1984) is perhaps the best known, have claimed that psychometric testing is pseudo-science..."

"One unfortunate result of all this commotion has been, according to Carroll, that many 'public intellectuals' see psychometric research and intelligence as discredited pseudoscience alien to the ideals of a democracy (Giroux & Searls 1996)."

"The Behavioural Insight team, or "nudge" unit, which was created by David Cameron in 2010 to help people "make better choices", has been accused by the Ohio-based VIA Institute on Character of bad practice after civil servants used VIA's personality tests in pilot experiments in Essex despite being refused permission to do so. The £520,000-a-year Cabinet Office unit run by Dr David Halpern was told by VIA – whose members devised the personality test – to stop using the questionnaire because it had failed its scientific validation."

"This article claims The Bell Curve merely reiterates the fallacious argument long embraced by psychometricians: that intelligence can be reduced to a single ordinal measure (g) that is the primary factor for determining group or individual social-class status. The book's policy recommendations, particularly its call to dismantle initiatives designed to ameliorate social inequality, are shown to have evolved from pseudoscientific theories about the distribution of cognitive abilities across racial/ethnic groups."

"Non-scientific premises and procedures upon which the persistent theories tracing intellectual inferiority to race and social class were based are examined. Modern forms of "psychometric illusion," such as intelligence tests, I.Q tests and creativity tests, are discussed in terms of cultural bias and built-in fallacies."

As a result, I think Psychometrics deserves inclusion in this article. Since it's very contentious, we should obviously append the entry with all the facts about Psychometry is taught everywhere, etc etc, in the form of WP:RSes sourced material. Obviously no OR.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Only two of those sources actually apply the term pseudoscience to psychometrics as a discipline, The other three criticize the validity of specific studies or theories, without claiming that the discipline is pseudoscience. Unfortunately the two first are en not high quality sources, and dont even attribute the view to specific scholars except Medwar 1984.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: There might be another route out of this tangle. When used as a tool of coercion (courts, governments, compulsory education, occupational screening, etc.), psychometry can result in the violation of civil rights and injustice. That is because psychometry depends on delicate and fallible human operation and administration. Psychometry might be compared with a stethoscope. Can a stethoscope diagnose heart murmur? In the hands of a skilled professional, a stethoscope can be a valuable tool for diagnosis. But in the hands of a fool, a stethoscope is mere foolishness. Similarly, not everything that is labeled "intelligence test" really does test intelligence. On the other hand, the right test in the hands of a skilled professional is better than a blindfold and a pair of dice, right?

"Psychometrics" is far too broad a term to decide either way. Many tests are deservedly denounced. But not all denouncers denounce deservedly. There is, after all, no scientific test that can detect a "pseudoscience." To determine the boundaries of science, a denouncer must step outside the boundaries of science. Therefore the listing of pseudosciences might itself be denounced as a psuedoscience. And therein lies the frailty of this page. Slade Farney (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Characterization of pseudoscience is not even categorically appropriately referred to as science in the first place, so no one should be calling the list pseudoscientific. Further, when you say "route out of this tangle," what you mean is "new way for you to argue that Psychometrics shouldn't be included." which doesn't negate the numerous WP:RSes describing Psychometrics as pseudoscience. Sorry.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eugenics (proposed)

Under racial theories in social sciences, what do you guys think of adding a subheading on Eugenics? Or at least a shout out in the racial differences subheading. I think we should acknowledge the former scientific thought, now dismissed as pseudoscience, which advocated for its use.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question. First, of course, I think we would need an independent RS specifically calling eugenics a pseudoscience, although I don't imagine that will necessarily be particularly hard to find, like maybe here. But it might not be unreasonable to add links to Scientific racism and the articles on the various forms of same to some sort of specific subsection. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The important thing is the primacy of such content and sourcing in the original article. Get it right there, and then mention it here, using the same sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Eugenics can't be classified as pseudoscience because it clearly can work. The only question is whether it is ethical.Cutelyaware (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Because it clearly can work?" Work to achieve what? Where are the Randomized Controlled Trials showing it's efficacy at doing what it claims? Where are the scientists saying it would even be efficacious at what the intent is? Originally eugenics was intended as a method of improving the health, wellbeing, and overall condition of the human race, and numerous studies have shown that diversity is the key to a healthy gene pool.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Google Scholar/Google book search, Eugenics is classified as pseudoscience by many and definitely belongs to the article. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The best sources I have found so far -- scholarly treatments of the subject -- are explicitly against classifying eugenics as pseudoscience.[1][2][3] We should be careful not to rush into labeling something pseudoscience because we consider it to be unethical or abhorrent. Re the above comment that eugenics "works", Yao Ming is arguably a product of eugenics.[4] Manul ~ talk 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

My personal thought is that you're going to have a lot of individuals (both in reliable sources and outside of them) commenting that the term 'eugenics' is extremely broad and that many aspects of it are non-controversial and scientific. Take, for example, efforts made to provide pregnant women with the proper micro-nutrients in order to improve the fitness of the child after he or she is born. As well, look at measures made to discourage cigarette smoking around young children. And then you have cases such as Yao Ming's, as pointed out above, which are arguably unethical but aren't scientific (he IS all around an excellent athlete). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed the section on Psychoanalysis (Psychology)

Per the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience, psychoanalysis is considered a questionable science and should not be listed as a pseudoscience. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That content is long-standing consensus content here. You fail to understand the nature of this list. It is not exclusively about "pseudoscience", but about "topics characterized as pseudoscience" (bold added). That parallels the Arbcom description "but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" (bold added). At the top of this page you will see the Arbcom decision's four groupings. Here we include items covered in the first three groups, but not the fourth. This matter is addressed in the FAQ at the top of this page, number eight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." I put in bold the relevant part for you as well. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We are not including it in Category:Pseudoscience, nor are we calling (characterizing) it pseudoscience. We are just documenting that some people have characterized it as such. That's a very different matter. We document what RS say, and there is no policy which forbids it. That's what we do. That content is very old consensus material, so you'd need a consensus to get that changed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You write "It is not exclusively about "pseudoscience", but about "topics characterized as pseudoscience" (bold added)"". I respond with the exact language of the arbitration committee decision "but generally should not be so characterized.". There is a clear contradiction there. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no contradiction, because these are two different things. Arbcom is not referring to what RS do. Arbcom is referring to what we should NOT do in Wikipedia's voice. We should not go around writing that it's an example of pseudoscience, or include it in Category:Pseudoscience. We don't do any of that.

Arbcom doesn't say anything about it's inclusion in this list, nor does it say anything against documenting that RS have characterized it as such, and that's all this list does. Inclusion in the Pseudoscience article as an example of pseudoscience would be a different matter entirely, and wrong according to the Arbcom decision.

The Arbcom decision refers to how Wikipedia, in its voice, should NOT characterize it, and we do NOT characterize it as pseudoscience. We only document that it has been characterized as such by RS. It's in a grey zone and we don't take a position on that. Some think it is, and some think it isn't. For the purposes of this list, we don't really care. We, as Wikipedia editors, do not characterize it as pseudoscience in this list, and that's what the Arbcom decision forbids us from doing. We follow that advice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we do a request for comment and bring in some other opinions. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk Section Names

[repost reminder] Since there are numerous unrelated topics in this article, I think it is helpful to append the "high level" section to the end of section names on the talk page in (parens). If there is a better way to do it, please provide suggestions or throw rocks at me. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Scientific Racism (Social Sciences)

From the article: "Scientific racism – claim that scientific evidence shows the inferiority or superiority of certain races."

First, this is a narrower definition than what it says in the article "Scientific racism". "Scientific racism is the use of scientific techniques and hypotheses to support or justify the belief in racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority, or alternatively the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races."

Second, there have been studies showing differences in intelligence between human races. What makes those studies pseudoscience? NumericalWarfare (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Races are a social construct. They've no foundation in science. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You likely refer to human race when you say race. The difference in human races is there whether we define it and use words for it socially or not. A race is a kind/type, it can't be differentiated without proper differences. It's often used about humans, dogs and cats and at times also as a substitute word for species. Although mostly used about biological differences it can also be used about people of different status or nature. It's not a "social construct", it's a word. And if we are talking about the biological differences in humans then they are very real, the medicine industry will back that up.NumericalWarfare (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

relevant AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fringe science organizations — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Architecture and others

Why we need a separate section for Architecture? When it is included under others before, as "Feng Shui". This is what I have fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.231.72 (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Vastu shastra is the ancient Hindu system of architecture, so Architecture is a good spot for it. Feng Shui is a religion and is in a subsection about religion.

Also don't change the spelling of the wikilinks. We link directly to the articles. Stop the edit warring and IP hopping. You'll just get blocked and this article protected so IPs can't edit it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How about moving Feng Shui to architecture? It is not a religion, but a architectural theory, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Architectural_theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.231.72 (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Architecture and furniture arrangement are just a part of Feng Shui's beliefs. It's much more than that. Placing Feng Shui under Architecture would be equivalent to placing Hinduism under that heading.

Now if Feng Shui's beliefs about architecture have a special doctrinal name, and if there are RS singling out that doctrine as pseudoscientific, then you might be able to build a case for adding that particular doctrine to the Architecture section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's the solution then we have sources too: [5], [6] 180.215.149.206 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please propose some wording to use, together with the sources you would use. Do that here and we can work on it together. We edit collaboratively and seek consensus whenever there is a difference of opinion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer it should be :-

• Feng-shui - Feng shui, a Chinese system of architecture is often regarded as a pseudoscience for its superstitious elements.

116.202.89.180 (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080626113312/http://www.godslasteraar.org/assets/ebooks/Sagan_Carl_Does_truth_matter_-_Science_pseudoscience_and_civilization_-_includes_related_articles.pdf to http://www.godslasteraar.org/assets/ebooks/Sagan_Carl_Does_truth_matter_-_Science_pseudoscience_and_civilization_-_includes_related_articles.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051212141225/http://www.waldorflibrary.org:80/Journal_Articles/RB5103.pdf to http://www.waldorflibrary.org/journal_articles/rb5103.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad citations (Astronomy and space sciences)

I'm not going to check every single one, but considering the first one I checked is a false citation, I think this needs to be looked into. I have less than 10 edits to wikipedia, so I can't change it. Citation #16:, about the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory, is not related to "Lunar effect – the belief that the full Moon influences human behavior." I recommend instead finding a citation that talks about how police officers patrol more on a full moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epigeios (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. jps (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked after and see cites 2 is good repute NASA pub, cite 3 a porr duplication of it, so whacking that cite 3. Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Annunaki from Nibiru EDIT

I am neutral on this subject, neutral towards the author, and have only read 1 of his books--this one. I propose that this section is removed on the grounds of:

• his book is very scholarly, detailing and referencing many, many sources.
• Sitchin's writing is not out to prove anything; it reads like anyone discussing their observations and readings.
• this book is based on his translations, transliterations, etc. As anyone--including Sitchin--would say, "this is up to interpretation".
• there is absolutely no authority on the Sumerian cuneiform written language, as scholars who study this language must learn the language from ancient text dictionaries, ancient language learning courses (in written form of course), etc.
• one of the sources (8) for this is an article written by, basically, a critic that writes for a popular, powerful magazine. Definitely not a credible source, and closer linked to the possibility of propaganda.
• this is more of a debate subject for scholars and book club members, and less of a pseudo science.

I find this little part of the Pseudoscience Topics to be quite unfair, and more appropriate for the category of deliberate mis-information. This dilutes the quality of this article. Source 9 of "The Skeptics Diary" made me look and dig into this further. I was very curious about it, and ultimately inspired me to do something about this. I am still unable to find a peer-review of Sitchin's work authored by someone credible in the field. I have learned that there are very few scholars in this field anyways. To my amazement, I'm having a very hard time finding a source other than some guy's popular internet website quoting other people's popular internet websites or biased articles lacking proper sources. There's nothing scientific at all about the link to "The Skeptics Diary", nor the sources, and I believe it is an embarrassment to the scientific community that wishes to keep others safe from disinformation.

Erich von Däniken is out to promote his books, as his methods and communication are appropriately categorized under pseudoscience. If we're going to list Sitchin here, we may as well list some other author of a book concerning the subject of Greek gods and goddesses, or something obvious like the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozeplyn (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean to say, you were neutral, then you read the Sitchin book, and you are now on Sitchin's side. BTW, it's "Skeptic's Dictionary, not Diary. Why are "popular, powerful magazines" "definitely not credible"? Because you decided so.

What Sitchin writes is classical pseudoscience. But someone who reads it while knowing nothing about the subjects touched by Sitchin's ideas, such as yourself, will not recognize this - you need knowledge about the subjects as well as about the scientific and pseudoscientific methods. That is the reason pseudoscience exists - it needs victims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in on this per se, but have removed the cite of a blog as not needed and only minor amount of Nibiru content at it. Markbassett (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Scientific Racism (Social Sciences)

I have before challenged the validity of calling the knowledge of differences between races pseudoscience. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&oldid=679408501 I think a few things has been added since then but the description is still there so I will remove just that part now as it is not pseudoscience. I'm referring to "claim that scientific evidence shows the inferiority or superiority of certain races". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NumericalWarfare (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Caveat

The author of the article "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" has put forward an immense amount of data from secondary evidence. Lots of factual errors are present in the page. It should be left to the discretion of the reader to decide how much of the information is to be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tej Sanyal (talk • contribs) 04:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no single author here. This is a collaborative project and we follow the policies and guidelines in the production of articles. Content is based on what reliable sources say. More information is found at the respective articles. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 08:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Gender Studies?

According to the most scientists Gender Studies are a pseudoscience!--141.19.228.15 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

are they now? do you have sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070626233425/http://www.iacad.org/download/positionstatements/ias_statement_psudoscience.pdf to http://www.iacad.org/download/positionstatements/ias_statement_psudoscience.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080910045820/http://www.psych.org:80/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx to http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111228204150/http://www.allergy.org.au:80/pospapers/unorthodox.htm to http://www.allergy.org.au/pospapers/unorthodox.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080529152509/http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf to http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016205458/http://randi.org:80/jr/2006-11/111706rampa.html to http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-11/111706rampa.html#i3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091004082420/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/chiropractic_a_profession_seeking_identity/ to http://www.csicop.org/si/show/chiropractic_a_profession_seeking_identity/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sungazing - Missing Pseudosciences

I recommend that sun gazing be added to the list of obvious pseudosciences. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sungazing DrMattB (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not every crackpot idea needs to be listed here. Sungazing is only a problem for those that try it, and it doesn't need any more attention. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Sungazing is necessarily widespread enough to merit inclusion on its own, but it could be included in a section on Breatharianism (which it is related to and which is also currently omitted from this list) which is much more widespread, and should probably be added to the list as several people have died as a result of attempting it, a fact that gives it quite a bit of notability. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources calling it a major pseudoscience? This is not an exhaustive list. DreamGuy (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, as someone pointed out (in a now moved discussion) the sole qualification for inclusion on this page is "Is it described on it's own page as a pseudoscience?", which it is, and it is certainly more of a "major pseudoscience" (in terms of notability) than Lawsonomy or Penta Water or the Nibiru cataclysm, none of which (as far as I know) have lead to verifiable deaths.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's one page about it: https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/people-stare-at-the-sun-on-purpose/

It's getting more widespread, and I recently found out that one of my acquaintances practices it. And she told me of a number of other people she knows who practice it. DrMattB (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Recommend Orgone to be added to the Energy section.86.147.131.172 (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Womb Detox (Health and Medicine)

Here is a subject that might need to be added. If you agree, please add it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Women putting herb balls in vagina to 'detox their wombs' have been warned of dangers"

• NEWS = http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-putting-herb-balls-in-vagina-to-detox-their-wombs-have-been-warned-of-dangers-a6814671.html

• EXAMPLE = https://embracepangaea.com/uncategorized/all-about-herbal-womb-detox-pearls/

Deprogramming as pseudoscience?

[7] has an editor asserting that Deprogramming per se is a pseudoscience. The APA source given refers to "brainwashing" and does not refer to "deprogramming" per quote used. Collect (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do the research and read the references before raising objections. The DIMPAC#Reported_conclusions_of_the_DIMPAC_task_force was Singer's thesis that cults use brainwashing on members. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And note that Brainwashing is listed as pseudoscience - but that deprogramming is not mentioned as a pseudoscience in the source you give. Unless reliable sources call something "pseudoscience", we do not call it "pseudoscience" here as a statement of fact. Collect (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The theory that cults use brainwashing and mind control on the members is propounded as a science in literature (particularly DIMPAC) and expert witness testimony; the APA declared that it is not science. Please read the sources and references, particularly DIMPAC. The two subjects are inextricable. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see "deprogramming" nor "pseudoscience" in the source at all. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Brainwashing by cults is the subject of the thesis. The character sequence "brainwash" appears at least 20 times in the document. "Cult" is used about 150 times. "Deprogram" is used about 10 times. This exemplary passage combines them all: The brainwashing/deprogramming controversy. How much of the harm associated with cults is causally related to group practices? Why, for instance, should one consider "child abuse and cults" a meaningful topic of study, but not "child abuse and Methodists" or "child abuse and sociologists"? Many would answer that cults, unlike Methodists or sociologists, tend to be very controlling and characteristically use disturbingly subtle manipulations: deliberate attempts to manipulate someone else's behavior seem exploitative when they are covert. One can always imagine that the victim might have resisted had the attempt been more overt or had informed consent been solicited (Andersen & Zimbardo, 1985, p. 197). This emphasis on harm-producing manipulation has given rise to the brainwashing/ deprogramming controversy.[8]

The thesis linking cults, brainwashing, and deprogramming was purported to be science. The APA denounced the thesis as "unscientific." Therefore it is pseudoscience. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk)

WP:OR. You need a source stating specifically that "deprogramming is pseudoscience" not a source saying "brainwashing is pseudoscience" (which I daresay your source does not do, in fact) and leaping from that to your own conclusions which are unsupported by that source.

The APA report starts off " In recent years, cultic groups in the areas of religion, politics, and psychotherapy have generated considerable public criticism as a result of the harmful consequences of the techniques such groups use to recruit, persuade, and control their members. Many of these techniques are highly, though often subtly, manipulative and deceptive." The BSERP report is in no way a report finding the providing of counter-arguments to such "techniques" to be "pseudoscience" at all. Nor do the reviews opposing that report make such a claim.

The APA memorandum does not say what you appear to think it says: "The report was carefully reviewed by two external experts and two members of the Board. They independently agreed on the significant deficiencies in the report. The reviews are enclosed for your information."

First review against official acceptance of the report states "And the difference between science and religion, it seems to me, is in the readiness to admit that we don't know, and we don't have explanations for everything. In its present form, I think that the report should not be made public." In short - he does not call the report "pseudoscience" at all.

Second review: "In fact, the report sometimes seems to be characterized by the use of deceptive, indirect techniques of persuasion and control - the very thing it is investigating. ... In the abstract, it is unfair to cluster cults and LGATs together. Overall, the abstract states stronger conclusions than justified by the data presented in the paper. ..." and is specifically addressing "first full paragraph, seems to involve a lot of emotional scare tactics, unrelated to the facts, but related to the self-interest of psychologists." That is, the person thinks the paper is written to advance the self-interest of psychologists. And does not use "pseudoscience" at any point in that review.

Sfarney appears to regard Massimo Introvigne's blog post as his/her core source. [9]. Introvigne's column is not an official column of any sort for the APA, and, as a commentary piece in its entirety (as head of CESNUR), is not a reliable source for the intent of the APA at all, nor does Introvigne even use the word "pseudoscience." Alas - we seem to have a clear case of source abuse here, which should be noted. See [10] where Introvigne complains about people "demonizing" Scientology. And his essay "So Many Evil Things: Anti-Cult Terrorism via the Internet which seems fairly self-explanatory. Collect (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The first source mentions neither term. You'll have to quote from the second as I'm unable to search the google books version. From the discussion above, this appears to be OR to present a POV that's either undue if simply not in the sources at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ronz (talk · contribs)We should clarify something here. Your statement that "You'll have to ... as I'm unable to ..." is utterly cockeyed. I am an editor and you are an editor. We are equals. If your library does not contain the source material, get it or get off the topic and work on some other topic that your library covers. You should not be reverting my edits based on the inadequacy of your library. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

WP:V is policy. I can't verify that there is anything more there than what's been discussed, but I do my best to look. When I can't, I make note of it so that others can help. This is just one way editors assume good faith and work cooperatively. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WP policy does not require that all book sources must be verified from web sites. :-) Try this link. Read the whole section, which includes a number of pages. In that text you will find the whole sorry saga of Margaret Singer using her "brainwashing" theory to justify deprogramming, her career as an expert witness using her pseudoscience against minority religious movements, the damning rejection of her thesis by the APA, and the consequent series of reversals in the courts as a result -- I believe you may learn about the amicus brief filed directly by a dozen psychologists condemning the whole brainwash/deprogramming argument. Incidentally, you seem not to understand "pseudoscience." It is simply an idea or thesis represented as science that has been falsified or has not been scientifically verified. UFOs are not disproved (cannot prove a negative) they are simply lacking scientific verification. Likewise, the brainwashing thesis that justifies deprogramming. The brainwashing/deprogramming thesis was (1) advocated by a number of people, (2) a source of big money income for a number of deprogrammers (3) publicly rejected and renounced by the APA in 1987, and (4) never proved objectively and scientifically in all the years since then. But that discredited theory continued to be marketed as science by a number of people, including Rick Ross and Robert J. Lifton, M.D. That is pseudoscience. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(od) This particular "list article" requires that sources specifically characterize something as "pseudoscience" and does not allow us to say "the topic is against science in my opinion therefore it is 'pseudoscience' for purposes of this specific list on Wikipedia" or "I know it is discredited, therefore I can label it 'pseudoscience' for the purposes of this list." Collect (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The Brainwashing entry is based on the same equation: APA determination that DIMPAC is not a science ==> pseudoscience. The Force is strong in that source. You might reconsider your reasoning. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The brainwashing entry should probably be written from a more straightforward source, and there are such sources to do so. If that is the case for deprogramming as well, please suggest some other sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm happy with that one. X says it's science, Y establishes that it is not a science, and X keeps selling it as a science. From that point on, it's a pseudoscience. Many of the entries in this list are based on the same. The policy does not require the word pseudoscience® to appear in the RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• For example, "autodynamics" is found to be a pseudoscience by the declaration (quoted in the footnotes): "Shedding Light in the Dark". Wired News. Retrieved 7 February 2008. "Mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics a crackpot theory for decades". Shall we redact "autodynamics" from the list of pseudosciences, too? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Social science theories

If it is not permissible to list neoclassical economics here as a 'pseudoscience' (despite references I provided to this effect), then neither should Marxism be there. The latter clearly falls under "4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."

It is also not a "consensus of the community" that it is a pseudoscience (or indeed a separate science at all), since its status varies wildly from one social scientific discipline to another. Moreover, the two references given are 1) Karl Popper, whose views are not consensus in any social science today, and 2) an obscure right-wing sociologist whose influence is minimal. I object to the presentation as it stands, which is not NPOV. McCaine (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems like a blatant violation of NPOV. 85.81.99.30 (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. No consensus is provided of the field, and most of all that Marxism was ever considered a "science" in the first place by its practitioners. I removed it, let's see if it stands.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090110183905/http://www.wired.com:80/science/discoveries/news/1999/07/20663 to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/07/20663
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080217191252/http://www.bccla.org:80/positions/privacy/88graphology.html to http://www.bccla.org/positions/privacy/88graphology.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012142730/http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0008D31F-BD5B-1C6F-84A9809EC588EF21 to http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0008D31F-BD5B-1C6F-84A9809EC588EF21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121031231949/http://www.visioneducators.com/articles/advocates_see_only_benefits_from_eye_exercises.pdf to http://visioneducators.com/articles/advocates_see_only_benefits_from_eye_exercises.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040212063825/http://www.upledger.com:80/therapies/cst.htm to http://www.upledger.com/therapies/cst.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060105134931/http://www.cranial.org.uk:80/page2.html to http://www.cranial.org.uk/page2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071116024800/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/index.html to http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100824075150/http://www.intelihealth.com:80/IH/ihtIH?d=dmtContent to http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?d=dmtContent&c=358826&p=~br,IHW/~st,24479/~r,WSIHW000/~b,*/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614085504/http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml to http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091004020227/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/china_conference_1/ to http://www.csicop.org/si/show/china_conference_1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091004014428/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/china_conference_2/ to http://www.csicop.org/si/show/china_conference_2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512110411/http://www.capco.com/sites/all/files/journal-32_article-10.pdf to http://www.capco.com/sites/all/files/journal-32_article-10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091011125731/http://www.timesunion.com:80/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=732861 to http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=732861
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091009020435/http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED460829&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b8006f304 to http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED460829&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b8006f304
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121228213923/http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za:80/2001/may/numerol.htm to http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/may/numerol.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140514065211/http://www.godslasteraar.org:80/assets/ebooks/Sagan_Carl_Does_truth_matter_-_Science_pseudoscience_and_civilization_-_includes_related_articles.pdf to http://www.godslasteraar.org/assets/ebooks/Sagan_Carl_Does_truth_matter_-_Science_pseudoscience_and_civilization_-_includes_related_articles.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105184642/http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/press/pv200801-en.html to http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/press/pv200801-en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Good job, robot slave. GangofOne (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160124155003/http://www.jaoa.org/content/104/10/405.short to http://www.jaoa.org/content/104/10/405.short
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520070252/http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1364389 to http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1364389
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100923005253/http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk:80/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4120343&c=1 to http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4120343&c=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721080348/http://helios.e-e-e.gr/medicine/files/History_of_medicine_days.pdf to http://helios.e-e-e.gr/medicine/files/History_of_medicine_days.pdf#page=17
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101106014704/http://www.scientificamerican.com:80/author.cfm?id=597 to http://www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm?id=597

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is just based upon opinion and is not scientific- in fact this article is pseudoscience.

This article has no place in a real modern philosophy. Sure some of the things listed have been disproved. The rest are mere speculation with no real science undertaken to determine what the truth of these matters is. It is disgusting that this kind of drivel is in Wikipedia, but I guess professional skeptics are at it again trying to get their radical opinions published. These are the same kinds of people who try to say they can disprove God. Good GRIEF. 206.172.0.204 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Little tweak to Feng Shui text

Feng Shui is listed twice. The first mention is short, while the second one is detailed. I propose that the following text is added to the first mention: "(See below for more information.)" Or something like that. 90.154.70.0 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

predictions by a parrot

While astrology is quite popular and well known in most parts of the world predicting the future of the subject and has been included in the "List of topics characterized as pseudo-science ), palmistry is another method of predicting the future of a curious person and palmistry has been and is still quite popular in India. 

Besides palmistry , we have in India another method of prediction of future called parrot astrology or fortune telling <information sourced under -Parrot astrology from </ref></ref></ref></ref> wikipedia> , but I observed that Palmistry is not been included in the above-mentioned list.

In addition to parrot astrology, fortune telling by women of Erukula tribe (called "Erukula Chepputa" in Telugu) is also popular in Andhra Pradesh. The Erukulas are a tribal people . they are spread over the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The women from a sub tribe of "Parikamuggula Yerukula " .<Information sourced from Yerukula.com>. This kind of fortune telling was quite popular ,but they are not as conspicuous as they used to be. Fortune telling by Erukula women is not included in the above-mentioned list.

117.213.145.240 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Under the same logic, we could include the verse about "Step on a crack, break your mother's back." But since those subjects were never claimed to be science, and since they are not denounced by any science scholars, they will not be included here. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ayurveda

I am wondering why only Maharishi Ayurveda is listed in this article as opposed to Ayurveda medicine in general. The Wikipedia article for Ayurveda already states that it is widely considered pseudoscientific.Sega31098 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ley lines

Please add Ley line, as that page already links to this one. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Creationist cosmologies reference error

Just a tiny fix, the reference for Creationist cosmologies is currently "Technical Analysis in Financial Markets" - obviously a mistake. This reference is still relevant to the Finance section. I'd suggest adding the same tag as for the previous entry, "Creation science", which says "not in citation given" linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability - alternatively, a relevant citation could be found. I hope this is a useful suggestion. Thanks :) Refractions (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Himalayan Salt Lamps

Recently, I noticed posts from some friends on Facebook concerning Himalayan Salt Lamps (and Salt Lamps in general), which sounded like 100% bunk, thus pushed me to cleanup the Himalayan salt article. This subject sounds like a topic for this pseudoscience article, though I wasn't sure if it's a new entry or related to an existing entry. If someone would like to debunk this topic, please go for it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• http://theheartysoul.com/salt-lamp-for-anxiety/
• http://www.naturallivingideas.com/himalayan-pink-salt-lamp-benefits/
• http://wellnessmama.com/23569/himalayan-salt-lamp-benefits/
• https://www.powerofpositivity.com/heres-how-salt-lamps-are-helping-people-with-anxiety/
• http://fitlife.tv/the-science-behind-himalayan-salt-lamps-how-they-benefit-your-sleep-and-mental-health-original/

Not done: - Claims about this and controversy that it is a pseudoscience must be reliably established at the parent article first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add the topic "Astral Projection". It's already listed in Wikipedia as pseudoscience under its own entry and should be included in this list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:480:10:76:0:0:0:2135 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Transhumanism, mind uploading, and related subjects?

Are transhumanism and mind uploading generally considered to be pseudoscience? If so, perhaps they should be added to this list? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Are references really needed here?

Almost all of the topics listed here have a wiki page where evidence for that topic being pseudoscience is discussed and references are given in support of that. It seems a waste of time and effort to relist those same references here. IT seems to me that all that is needed is a quick description of the topic following the link to the page. If the wiki page says it is pseudoscience, then it gets listed here. Any arguments over if it is pseudoscience is waged on that page and not here. This article is huge because it has so many unnecessary references that are basically duplicates of what is found on the wiki pages. I propose that if a topic already has a wikipage that all references be removed here. That would also make this page easier to handle and edit. --OtisDixon (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is objection here soon, I'll edit the document to remove citations for the reason given. --OtisDixon (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your removals because of WP:V which demands inline citations. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, because references are very important in controversial articles, since they provide a verifiabile source for the "debunking". Though this article is big, it's a useful "ONE STOP" place to find pseudoscience bunk. I watch this article as a "reader" to stay up to date on new "bunk". Everyone keep up the great work! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverted it back to the non-referenced version per WP:BRD, this cleanup has been noted in talk and ongoing for quite a while now without objection. List does meet WP:V, references are at the parent articles. Per: WP:LISTVERIFY "obviously appropriate material.... will not be supported by any type of reference". This list has a very narrow WP:LISTCRITERIA:

• Entries have an article
• Those articles must have reliably sourced material that the topic is "characterized as pseudoscience" or equivalently controversial (WP:V established at the parent article)

Any member of this list must be "obviously appropriate" for this list due to the nature of the established list criteria. Any that are not "obviously appropriate" should be removed from this list. Asking for reference at this list encourages WP:CONTENTFORK, making a case here that is not made in the parent article. The experts on whether these topics are in some form "pseudoscience" are the editors who work on the parent articles. Entries here should be short and sweet. Extensive coverage, addition of further wording/references, and disputes in relation to whether these are, in some form, a pseudoscience should be carried out at the parent articles, not here. Extensive wording with multiple citations and back to back WP:REFBLOAT is argumentative, this is not the article for an argument.... it should (again) be taken to the parent article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the history of this article and the many, related disputes on topics in this article, references are almost certainly necessity.

If someone wants to change the inclusion criteria here (or maybe we're just clarifying it?), then it will require a strong basis in policy (as opposed to guidelines), given that multiple ArbCom decisions are relevant here. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Because of the nature of pseudoscience, I don't understand how we can even consider "obviously appropriate" as a criteria. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether something is a pseudoscience is not the discussion that takes place at this article (with or without sources). The only criteria for this list is "does it have an article, does the article discuss whether its a pseudoscience". Any article that meets that is "obviously appropriate" for this list. "obviously appropriate" is for things that are obviously appropriate in a list e.g. Apple belongs in the List of fruits, articles matching the two given requirements belong in this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Citing sources "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear". Doug Weller talk 19:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr:Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't clear what you meant. I don't think that "obviously appropriate" as used in the linked guideline applies. I do think that the other criteria you give is fairly accurate.

does the article discuss whether its a pseudoscience. I'd like a stronger criteria than this. "Discussion" isn't enough. Characterized as pseudoscience, meeting WP:FRINGE, is what we're after.

Given the huge problems we've had establishing and enforcing FRINGE, we need sources for anything that might be controversial or disputed. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Doug Weller and Ronz on this: we must put the citations inline where they can be found to support the assertions. The problem of watching for POVFORK is not solved by having no references on this page. The inclusion criteria cannot overrule the simple WP:V requirement. LISTVERIFY doesn't support the removal of citations here. We must restore the cites. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is adding references to this list does not solve POVFORK either. If anything is controversial or disputed, that wording and those source go at that article. This list only reports the topic is controversial or disputed - one sentence and maybe one ref should be enough for that.... if not.... something is wrong somewhere. Its not our job on this list to try to prove something one way or another with multiple sources, that should have already been proven at the article.

A stronger criteria than just "discuss" is a good idea, but strongly proving something is considered a pseudoscience or meets WP:FRINGE means (once the article is properly sourced to pass that test) it is even more "obviously appropriate" for this list, really requiring no sources here. The current standard of "inserting an item with REFBLOAT trying to prove something" is the worse way to go about this, it inserts POVFORKs or duplicates the target article or it brings an argument away from where the experts are (or all three at once). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If this was simply a list of links to other pages, I would be in favor of no references. It is written as an overview and calling this a list is a misnomer. The page contains a great deal of text and I expect there will be reliable references supporting the text, as in any other written article. There is no such policy saying the reference is not required because it exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. Dougmcdonell (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016

Change Energy topic Hydrino from:

Hydrinos – are a supposed state of the hydrogen atom that, according to proponent Randell Mills of Brilliant Light Power, Inc., are of lower energy than ground state and thus a source of free energy.

   Free energy – particular class of perpetual motion which purports to create energy (violating the first law of thermodynamics) or extract useful work from equilibrium systems (violating the second law of thermodynamics). This is in contrast to proposals made most notably by Harold Puthoff a real energy which in quantum mechanics is thought not to be available to do work.

   Water-fueled cars – an instance of perpetual motion machines. Such devices are claimed to use water as fuel or produce fuel from water on board with no other energy input.

to:

Hydrinos – are a supposed state of the hydrogen atom that, according to proponent Randell Mills of Brilliant Light Power, Inc., are of lower energy than ground state.

I can find no reference for the claim of "and thus a source of free energy".

The association of the Energy topic "Free energy" as a nested topic under Hydrinos is also something which I cannot find a reference source for. "Free energy" should stand alone as its own Energy topic or be eliminated as it has no referenced relation to the Hydrino topic.

The association of the Energy topic "Water-fueled cars" as a nested topic under Hydrinos is also something which I cannot find a reference source for. "Water-fueled cars" should stand alone as its own Energy topic or be eliminated as it has no referenced relation to the Hydrino topic.

Zaleski59 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)zaleski59 Zaleski59 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done--The statement that hydrinos are a free source of energy is definitely correct.I am reordering the free-energy and hydrino nesting.There are definitely some problems with it.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Aruneek - Thank you for looking at the nesting of topics. Can you defend your position "The statement that hydrinos are a free source of energy is definitely correct." with a reference or some other rationale. It is inconsistent with what precedes it, "Hydrinos – are a supposed state of the hydrogen atom that, according to proponent Randell Mills of Brilliant Light Power, Inc., are of lower energy than ground state". There is no claim of free energy, in fact the opposite is true, the energy is extracted from a ground state hydrogen atom by catalyzing it to a fractional state (reciprocal of an excited state). The energy available from such transitions is finite and quantifiable. Look forward to your response. Zaleski59 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done--I concede to your arguments.Will be incorporating the changes.Thanks!Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 16:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Expanding Earth

Need to add this theory next to hollow Earth and flat Earth Andrew Mc Andrew (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Formatting of top section

Please format the introduction into paragraphs. I suggest dividing the text before and after the "Criticisms of..." sentence. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalgard (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, i do not know format etc. Suggest topic on medicine. Ancient wisdom on medicines, power of light, sound, cathedrals, waves, love, water, effect on human body, healing. natural molecules, ancient wisdom, treatment of illness with as little as one molecule. India, China, ancient knowledge. Cooling, heating effects. Balance. Nutrition. Hospital foods :). processed. genetics, abnormalities, fact of humans, life, adapt to surrounds. epidemic, of illnesses, from toxic surrounds. non genetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.139.73 (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Innate intelligence --> Energy medicine?

Innate intelligence is not an article and the entry is described as chiropractic medicine. The linked term following it, putative energy, is a pipe to Energy medicine, does not discus chiropractic medicine, and does not explain "Innate intelligence". We mean Energy medicine here? .... leaves me clueless for one. Needs a total rewrite and maybe should be about Energy medicine. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. wave lengths, vibrations, energy. Its is Innate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipe_organs This is known. It is well documented, and known in the past. Egypt, pyramids. Could be linked to many things, ancient civilizations, beliefs, history and cultures.

Topic on Neuroplasticity, in relation to brain dis orders, healing. This is more modern.

Genetic dis order?, Causes of toxins in our environment? In relation too.

"Mental illness", treatment of the brain as an organ. In, relation too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.139.73 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Brain, function. exercise, stimulation. Sense is, touch, eyes, ears, nose, tongue. exercise of mind, to learn, teach, heal. Is in relation to, feel, light, sound, smell, taste. Love.

The, pages, chiropractic medicine, and energy healing page, is a bit.. not really where i was going. More, knowledge of the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.139.73 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Google "Human Seven Sense"

Humans Really Have Seven Senses (Don't Forget Proprioception and Vestibular Sensation) The way we understand the world is mediated by our five senses: touch, taste, sound, smell, and sight.

www.7senses.org.au/what-are-the-7-senses

www.collective-evolution.com/2014/11/16/your-7th-sense/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.139.73 (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

this molecule, Ephedrine. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ephedrine#section=Top electric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.139.73 (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic, Climate. Stop. Nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.139.73 (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Animal magnetism

Why not adding Animal magnetism? Is it the lack of notability or because it is confined on the ideas of a single person? Thanks All the best Wikirictor 16:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

References revisited

This discussion followed by these edits points to consensus being reached via WP:SILENT. An argument can be made re: WP:LISTVERIFY "obviously appropriate material" for having no references.... and that, or some other rational, seems to have been accepted. So reverting this edit per WP:CCC so we start discussion here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A local consensus cannot determine that WP:V should be ignored. What would be recommended if someone adds Evolution to this list and says that no reference is needed? Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:V would not be ignored here since references do exist---> at the parent article. The entry here would not (can not) differ from the parent article. I don't think this list is ideal and I agree with views from the previous consensus discussion that descriptions on this list should be one sentence instead of mini-articles. FORKing full blown name-calling to this article, in detail and language that does not appear in the parent article, gives us a need for references. Shot summaries of other article sections do not need those references. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The entries should be in WP:SYNC, but references are required per WP:V/WP:LISTVERIFY. Core policy cannot be overturned by a WP:LOCALCON. Alexbrn (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A local consensus cannot determine... and I don't actually see a consensus for this -- only a couple claims that there was (or that people didn't speak up quickly enough, which is not such a compelling argument when concrete policy objections are raised and the number of participants in the discussion multiplies). Absolutely everything given the label "pseudoscience" falls under "likely to be challenged" for WP:V purposes and cannot be considered "obviously appropriate". Also, from WP:SAL: "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." At least two and maybe three of those four certainly apply here: challenged statements (see talk page archive, for example) and likely to be challenged statements. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Our articles are not reliable sources, and one reason for that is that they get changed frequently. What is referenced today may not be referenced tomorrow. @Fountains of Bryn Mawr:, you say that short summaries don't require references, but WP:SUMMARY clearly states that "every article must follow the verifiability policy, which requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style subarticle." I think that should settle the issue. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged " is the key here. A list of cheeses might not require per item sources to show that each is a cheese, but in an article on this topic, any of these items is very likely to be challenged. Thus the references are useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything claiming something is pseudoscience is likely to be challenged by its adherents, so yes, it's certainly a key if not the only one. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Our articles are not reliable sources" and "any of these items is very likely to be challenged" misses the point of a list. Lists specifically relate to the content of the article they list, i.e. the article is the source in the case of a list (a type of alternative navigation to a Category). "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" is a list of like items, not a list of claims. It simply reports that (somewhere in the linked article) the topic has been labeled a pseudoscience. Its the same as reporting that "all articles included in this list contain a picture of a red car". Its a verifiable list of like items that is "obviously appropriate", you do not need a reference for that. If editors at (a specific) article reach a consensus to delete the picture of the red car there then they follow up and delete the entry from the list article. Lengthy descriptions, references, and battles about whether the picture of the red car should have even been in a given article belong at that parent article, not at the list.

Not using sources does get iffy where topics are not clearly labeled a "pseudoscience". That, again, is an argument for that article's talk page, not here re: WP:CFORK. Its a different argument: to cut back items in this list or delete the entire list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The general result of the previous discussion was that because this was a LIST of wiki pages where the discussion of if these were pseudoscience is already discussed, therefore there is no need for that same discussion to be repeated over again on the list page. It's a waste of space and effort. All you need to do is go to the home page. After the end of the previous discussion, I proceeded to systematically remove the sources from the list. I did this off and on for over a year. No one made any move to stop the progress until this bully came along and decided he knew better than everybody else. I'm not the one who started this unprovoked edit war.

none of these items in the list need any sources. --OtisDixon (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In the previous discussion I see OtisDixon and Fountains of Bryn Mawr supporting to the idea of removal (and reverting those who disagree, citing things like BRD). And I see Binksternet, Sbmeirow, Ronz, Doug Weller, and Dougmcdonell disagreeing (the latter for somewhat different reasons). Here again I see the same two users saying that there was consensus for removal in the previous discussion (????). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to add another voice to this, I too can see no consensus in the Archive #18 (and I know of no other places to look) for references not being required in this article, or that references (needed or not) should this be removed en masse. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's consensus on anything, it's to follow V and FRINGE. I suggest that editors who think differently review WP:ARB/PS carefully, and make sure their suggestions do not contradict the multiple principles regarding sourcing. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, that followed by that and continuing for 4 months implied WP:SILENT. I simply followed the next step at WP:CCC: starting discussion is preferred over reverting. Its here in talk now... if editors did not speak up before... well ... that's on them. I am actually on the fence as far as references.... the big problem is they encourage POV-FORKing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

This should probably be removed because it is clear that this list pays no attention to the four categories agreed upon. In group three it explicitly states psychoanalysis should not be classified as a pseudoscience. But it is included in the list. The article opens with WP:WEASEL words to make items included in the list to be as indiscriminatory as possible. I don't understand why the guidelines that the arbitration committee are not being used. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There are a few on the list that I feel at least fall into categories 3 and/or 4. But to start it off, is there objection to me removing Psychoanalysis per Pseudoscience Arbitration Final Decision. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's been characterized as pseudoscience, it belongs on the list. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, the pseudoscience arbitration final decision explicitly states that it should not be characterized as a pseudo-science. The language reads "17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."-Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a list of topics which have been characterized as pseudoscience, so if psychoanalysis has it remains here. Arbcom have no standing to make content decisions (and in any case you are misunderstanding this ancient ruling, which pertains to how Wikipedia characterizes psychoanalysis, not to how Wikipedia reports others have characterized it). Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I am having a difficult time making the distinction between "have been characterized" as you describe it against "should not be so characterized" by the Arbcom decision. Even more, it seems to be a bit of wikilawyering in trying to draw a distinction between how Wikipedia characterizes an item, and how wikipedia reports how others have characterized it. If the arbcom states it shouldn't be categorized at such, it would seem WP:POV pushing to include it.-Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not wikilawyering, but a crucial distinction. And to repeat Arbcom (let alone Arbcom from 11 years ago) has no standing in deciding this article's content - even if they thought their ruling applied. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The word "characterized" in the title allows for a long list of entries. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Monatomic gold

A Wiki search for "Monatomic gold" redirects here, but there is no mention on the page. Was its inclusion here deleted without cause? RobP (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't know why its not here but (bad memory, it was me) one very good reason is topics here should be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Monatomic gold does not meet that criteria. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed it. We do not WP:LABEL without good reason. There is a suggestion here that it should have an article and that is more of a requirement at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, should be a "topic" (article) first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Went ahead and reinstated it. Please see my new section at the bottom of the Gold article for my argument as to why such an item is needed - regardless of whether it has enough material to be covered by its own article. This is a real thing and dangerous. If WP does not mention it, and point out that it is bogus, there is no hope for dissuading people from using it who find only positive hits via Google. RobP (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

rv'ed again, please read the note at the top of this article re: "notability should be established at the main article first", notability is disputed there. Also please note: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, material should not be included solely because of good (or bad) intentions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Two things: First, where is it written that a link in such a list MUST BE a stand alone article? If that is so I stand down gladly, but please point that out to me. Second, your revert comment mentioned that you dispute Science-Based Medicine as a WP:RS just because it is "a blog". That is a ridiculous assertion as this particular blog is definitely a WP:RS and is used all over WP to counter health pseudoscience. RobP (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Blogs are iffy (see WP:USERGENERATED). Even if it passes that criteria we have WP:LABEL - Contentious labels "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". So we need more than one blog and "widely used" would naturally have to be widely covered, a notability of article topic level. Also- this is a list, its used to navigate to articles that have a certain content, need to have an article to navigate to. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709085757/http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024 to http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008122956/http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/IBSFullGuideline.pdf to http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/IBSFullGuideline.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090328/http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=78fc94dd-c0b2-4ade-891d-98770bfae388&k=70777 to http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=78fc94dd-c0b2-4ade-891d-98770bfae388&k=70777
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312050805/http://www.theftstopper.com/solutions/polygraph-testing/ to http://www.theftstopper.com/solutions/polygraph-testing/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080627223232/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0005/ai_2699000587 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0005/ai_2699000587
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070331124027/http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm to http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100930160317/http://texscience.org/files/faqs.htm to http://www.texscience.org/files/faqs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526184646/http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band116/b116-8.html to http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band116/b116-8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004231233/http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/SenseAboutHomeopathy.pdf to http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/SenseAboutHomeopathy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120221233457/http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/360060.html?d=dmtContent to http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/360060.html?d=dmtContent
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111023207/http://parapsych.org/glossary_e_k.html to http://parapsych.org/glossary_e_k.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111023207/http://parapsych.org/glossary_e_k.html to http://parapsych.org/glossary_e_k.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

All the archive links work. I did not check content.

Jeff U. ^(Talk) 05:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Silver bullet

Resolved

Hi all, just noticed the page for Silver Bullet is categorized as pseudoscience but not on this list. Silver bullet Thanks. 131.156.156.22 (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that it is more mythology and folklore than pseudoscience, but I do see a section of that article suggesting that some believe these bullets would have actual ballistic advangages but that it is unlikely. The silver bullet is also already listed at List of mythological objects. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree - any minor mention of pseudoscience with regard to the Silver bullet should be in the silver bullet page.

Jeff U. ^(Talk) 05:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

"Multiverse" under astronomy and space sciences, as the many theories are all pseudoscience considering their lack of falsifiability. TreyGrows (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll let another editor answer the request as a third opinion but will comment: similarly to with theoretical particles which were not yet discovered, the hypothesis that they exist is not pseudoscience; we're not looking for something outside of physics. Looking for multiple universes is indeed much more difficult as it may be "outside of the universe", but we're still not looking for something outside of the realm of physics there, even if we've not found convincing evidence of the existence of other universes. I'm sure that some fringe pseudoscience related to multiple universes exist (there's also fiction), but that does not make the possibility of multiple universes and our search for them pseudoscience. Since multiverse is then not unambiguously pseudoscience I contested its addition. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Since multiverse is then not unambiguously pseudoscience I contested its addition. Except in the universe where it is.

 Not done It is a fairly widely accepted / documented theory by notable individuals / field experts. Hardly suited amoung the other articles when comparing its depth of analysis & scientific consensus. See also WP:TINFOILHAT — IVORK _Discuss 05:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree After searching Google Scholar for academic papers on the subject, I found two. There are several books, but academic papers were harder to come by.

Liberty University, Is God the Necessary Being?

University of Maryland, MOSF Journal of Science Fiction, Avoiding Paradoxes in Multiverse Time Travel Narratives

Academic papers on religion and science fiction do not, in my opinion, lend enough credibility to justify removal of Multiverse. Therefore, I disagree, Multiverse should be included. However, I invite other editors to comment.

2nd opinion requested

Jeff U. ^(Talk) 05:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This template is not to be used for getting people's attention. Nihlus 21:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This List is not the place for a debate on whether something is, or is not, a pseudoscience. That debate should take place at the relative article. If the relative article has an established section relating to it being characterized as pseudoscience in some way then it goes on this List. This is only a navigation list to articles that have that defining parameter. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Climate Change Denial

I would like to state for the record that I think topics that are hotly debated politically and that there are serious scientists on both sides of the argument should not appear in pseudoscience. One might regard disagreement with the majority opinion on climate change as questionable, but it would be unscientific to call it pseudoscience. Climate science is measured in time scales outside of human lifetimes, generally speaking, so it is too soon to confirm either side of the argument. It is relatively trivial to find examples of eminent scientists in multiple fields who are skeptical about different topics involved in the debate. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Evan Pokroy - Nullius In Verba 08:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvPok (talk • contribs)

Agree - as per the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience, I believe the section meets the criteria for inclusion in Group 3: Questionable science. As such it should not be included in the list. If another editor agrees, please note your reasoning here and remove the section.

2nd opinion requested

Jeff U. ^(Talk) 05:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree Use the source, Luke! The Climate change denial page says "Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism[7][8] and pseudoscience.[10]", giving sources. Skeptic organizations (the real ones, those who counter pseudosciences, not the climate "skeptics") regularly point out how flimsy this thing called "climate change denial" is. It has moved into their province in the last decade.

The "eminent scientists in multiple fields" talking point is a well-known tactic deniers use. Creationists employ it too. But "scientists in multiple fields" are not relevant. Scientists in one field are: climatology. Listening to experts for something else instead of experts for the subject is a sure way to get it wrong. It is also one of the markers of pseudoscience: real scientists do not defend their theories by listing scientists from other disciplines who happen to agree with them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree There is no debate among serious scientists. Deniers exhibit plenty of signs of pseudoscience: they want to maintain an appearance of a scientific debate, but don't publish any serious research and point to "eminent" supporters from unrelated fields or with questionable credentials. See also Merchants of Doubt and "Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know" by Joseph J. Romm, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190250178. Retimuko (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CIC8C6iz?url=http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/manualhealingandphysicaltouch/colon-therapy to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Colon_Therapy.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080204225953/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Electromagnetic_Therapy.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Electromagnetic_Therapy.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305051629/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Hypnosis.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Hypnosis.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I restored sources lost from a number of "to sfn" edits, most of which were not conversion to sfn but source removal or replacement by a footnote to an unexisting source. I advise page watchers to pay careful attention to OtisDixon's edits. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Omega Point

Would someone read through the article for Omega Point and assess whether it should be included in this list? I realize that Singularity is still seen as not quite pseudoscience, but I think Omega Point is where the scale tips.

An article such as Dynamics: Seven Misconceptions About The Nature of Time (Part II) is clearly pseudoscientific. Dalgard (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The controversy there is "Theological Controversy" and this is a list of pseudoscience. So not the same topic unless I am missing something. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

insert Individual psychology?

I also think we should add Adler's individual psychology to the list here because its claims are not testable and cannot be refuted; that is, they are not falsifiable. --Notgain (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Duplicate entries

Baraminology, Creation biology, Intelligent design, Irreducible complexity, and Specified complexity are currently listed at the top of "Life Sciences" heading and the same entries are duplicated under the "Religious and spiritual beliefs/Creation Science" heading. Many of these entries infringe on multiple areas of proper science. How do you decide under which heading and entry would fit here? --Notgain (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

insert Rorschach test

Is there any reason why Rorschach test is not in the list? It has an article dedicated to it and has been discredited as a pseudoscience. This would best fit under the heading 'psychological assessments' alongside MBTI. Both practices are discussed at length in "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology", Second Edition edited by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey. --Notgain (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Marxism interpretation of history

I just checked the archives here. Whether Marxism should be included in this list has come up a few times in this talk page's discussion archive. It was listed until 2016 when it was removed without any justification. Popper argued that Marxism interpretation of history was unfalsifiable: "In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx's analysis of the character of the "coming social revolution") their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified.[2] Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree."[11]. See also: [12]. See also: Criticisms_of_Marxism#Historical_materialism --Notgain (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Needs to be an article topic, we have---> Historical materialism, and needs to be characterized as pseudoscience, which it is, third lead paragraph. Looks like Historical materialism meets the requirements, if that's what you mean. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Here is my proposed insert into the History section of this list: Historical materialism has been discredited as a pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable. Marx predicted that wages would tend to depreciate and that capitalist economies would suffer worsening economic crises leading to the ultimate overthrow of the capitalist system. Yet, according to Popper, "instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree."[13]. --Notgain (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This does not seem like a very good fit for the list. The addition of Popper's claim about pseudoscience in the historical materialism article is relatively recent, and there, as here, it seems largely based on his writing. On one hand, Popper, of course, is not a fan of "historicism" in general, of which the "Marxist interpretation of history" is an example. Do others really include in their definition of pseudoscience these branches of historiography (i.e. methods, not just specific claims)? On the other hand, he even hedges his judgment saying that some versions of the "Marxist interpretation of history" were not pseudoscience, and his problem seems to be with specific practitioners who force Marx's specific predictions into interpretations that comport to the course of history (as opposed to the thousands of people who have used the lowercase-m marxist historical methodologies). Without the addition of additional sources I would oppose this addition. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Similar criticism citing Popper appears on several wikipedia articles: historical materialism, Criticisms of Marxism, Scientific socialism. --Notgain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

References

If anyone has the time to help (I currently don't), a socking regular tends to often play with references, i.e. "to sfn", while at the same time discretely suppressing some. From time to time those edits should be monitored and citations restored as necessary, unless there's a consensus to remove them. Example:[14]. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding the "Anti 1080 campaign" to the agricultural/or natural sciences section of topics characterized by pseudoscience

Hi

I wish to propose the 'New Zealand Anti 1080 campaign' has a section in the 'topics characterized by pseudoscience' page, under the section about agriculture or new section environmental sciences.

The 'anti 1080 campaign' is an emotive argument using pseudoscience to justify the banning of sodium fluroacetate, 1080, in New Zealand. In doing so the 'anti 1080 campaign' is disregarding the body of published scientific evidence built up over time for the use of sodium fluroacetate, 1080, as a chemical to control introduced and harmful animals to New Zealand's Natural Environment.

The science that sodium fluroacetate, 1080, is not only effective and relatively safe method of introduced animal control is presented succinctly in the New Zealand Commissioner for the Environment's 2011 report looking at the use of sodium fluroacetate, 1080. A 2017 reprint of the report can be found here: https://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/1689/pce-1080-2017-web.pdf . This report is a thorough piece of secondary research bring together a wide range of scientific research, and accurately portraying the facts around sodium fluroacetate, 1080. The report also definitively debunks any "scientific evidence" that is presented by the 'anti 1080 campaign' and scientifically addresses any concerns and objections the 'anti 1080 campaign has towards the use of the chemical sodium fluroacetate, 1080.

The 'anti 1080 campaign', is against the use of sodium fluroacetate, 1080. The Pseudoscience they are using is presented here: http://1080science.co.nz/ to justify in why they believe the chemical sodium fluroacetate, 1080, should be banned. For example as presented here: http://1080science.co.nz/is-1080-safe-in-water/ . The 'anti 1080 campaign' believe that the harmful level of 1080 in waterways is just above that of detection level , but they don't justify what detection level is of sodium fluroacetate, 1080, or what is the actual level in the water and dose that the chemical sodium fluroacetate, 1080, is needed to do harm to humans, but instead reference a wide range of resources looking at the toxicology of sodium fluroacetate, 1080.

A good simplified version of the types of pseudoscience the 'anti 1080 campaign' continue to uses and the scientific evidence that debunks the evidence around the justifications to ban sodium fluroacetate, 1080, that was recently presented in the media can be found in the video presented here : https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/rural/2018/09/1080-works-but-there-s-no-arguing-with-anti-1080-activists-expert.html

I believe these examples given clearly shows the 'anti 1080 campaign' is based on pseudoscience - to create an movement based on emotion rather than scientific rational. This is why I think the 'New Zealand anti 1080 campaign' should have a section on the page of 'topics characterized by the use of pseudoscience.'

Thanks (The dirtbag consultant (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC))

Not done: - This list is "topics characterized as pseudoscience" so there needs to be a Wikipedia article covering this and it has to have wording explaining that some think it is a pseudoscience before it can be listed here. You failed to mention a topic article but I see 1080 usage in New Zealand... is that it? What part mentions its a pseudoscience? Also see WP:WRITEITFIRST. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Psychology additions

Add Enneagram of Personality and Socionics. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Monoatomic Gold redirection

"Monoatomic gold" redirects here, but the topic does not appear on the page, or anything about gold. How does this happen? Lucy Kemnitzer (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Lucy Kemnitzer

Cryonics

The cryonics entry is awful. It doesn't really belong in this article and, even if it did, it's incredibly poorly written with several major grammar errors. Can we please get it removed? Jchapman25 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I attempted to clean it up a bit, but I've tried reasoning with the editor who put it there before, and I am loathe to try again. You're welcome to try, just don't say you weren't warned. Sumanuil (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics is not accepted by mainstream science. The Cryogenic Society of America says the belief of Cryonics are untenable. See [15]. The Society for Cryobiology banned cryonicists from membership in 1982. The Society for Cryobiology says : Preserving a body, head or brain after clinical death and storing it indefinitely on the chance that some future generation may restore it to life is an act of speculation or hope, not science. For details please see the society position statement on cryonics [16]. The RationalWiki classify Cryonics as pseudoscience or quackery. Sorry for bad grammar as I am not a native English Speaker, please help for revise and fix the grammatical error. Joeccho (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would agree that the entry for Cryonics belongs in the article. I would also agree that it is poorly worded. I'll try myself to edit it to more wiki-standards but I'm afraid I don't have a ton of time to put forwards. But I wanted to put out another opinion saying that Cryonics is absolutely a recognized pseudoscience rejected by mainstream scientists in the relevant fields. User: Joeccho has said as much above, but all it takes is an examination of the evidence to show there is no reason at present to believe preserving human tissue like this will be helpful in the distant future. It's essentially a religious belief. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Also note that Cryonics works on future doesn't imply it is possible to revival any person that frozen on present. The Human Tissue Authority in UK say Cryonics is scientifically unproven. See [17]. Top Scientist in UK also call a restriction for cryonics marketing. See [18] Joeccho (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"characterized as quackery" is all you need to be on this list so the OPs comment of "doesn't really belong" is a bit disingenuous. The linked article is a bit fluffy, but that is the only problem I see. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"Racial Theories" replaced by its sub-header "Scientific Racism"

This section seems disingenuous. Scientific racism has absolutely (and rightly) been characterized as a pseudo-science and I agree with its place here. But giving that section the title "racial theories" (when no other sub-headers are included) seems like an attempt to delegitimize the study of race/ethnic group differences. The study of differences between human races/ethnic groups is an important part of understanding modern-human evolution and there is no credible source that would characterise racial theories as a pseudo-science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.189.240.37 (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Perhaps Anthropology would be a better suited term? I would also add Nordicism and the Mediterranean race theories on here as well, as they were both quite popular in the 19th to early 20th century, and were connected to the idea of Aryanism. --RoBG97MEX (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Would this be considered worthy of being on here? It certainly fits the idea of pseudoscience; the existence of Jesus is generally accepted by mainstream historians (regardless of religious background) yet it's fair to say the 'Christ myth theory' has enjoyed a revival of sorts within the New Atheism movement. Would it fall under the History section of religious section? --RoBG97MEX (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a hypothesis, not a theory. And not every minority hypothesis is pseudoscientific. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It very much is a theory. Its existed for centuries and dozens of books have been written on the topic by proponents. Despite this, the theory has found no ground in scholarship and all major arguments regarding it have been dismissed by scholarly consensus. I would say it should be added. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a nice analysis at [ https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory#The_historical_Jesus_spectrum_or_color_me_completely_confused ].

One of the issues is that there is a range of beliefs. On one far end we have "no such person ever existed". A little closer to center is "he existed but most of what we 'know' about him is unproven". Way over on the other end is "Jesus existed, he was born of a virgin, the star of Bethlehem existed, the miracles really happened, and he came back from the dead". Actual historians are somewhere in the middle. There is wide acceptance the Jesus existed. Some of the details, not so much. For example, the Census of Quirinius almost certainly happened, but no historian places it within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 9 years earlier. The idea that Jesus never existed is a fringe view, but is not pseudoscience. The view that at least some of the details about Jesus are myths is a mainstream view among historians. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

We are probably using different definitions of theory. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Tantra: Science or pseudoscience?

Greetings, all. The article on Tantra is currently presenting the topic without any hint of criticism, let alone scientific retorts against it. Unless the subject of the article is a scientific fact beyond any dispute, we should follow WP:BALANCE and present opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Titles such as Ayurveda, whose main components are tantric, are alteady part of the category of alternative and pseudo‑medicine. Any opinions or suggestions? -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You should say this on the talk page for that article. You're not wrong in my opinion but this is not going to get the attention you want.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

This: "...as a fuel.[33]Critics..." needs a space before the "C". Many thanks. 31.50.156.94 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Sumanuil (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Dietary supplements

I think there ought to be a specific entry about the pseudoscientific use of dietary supplements in addition to the entries mentioning usage of specific dietary supplements. I just can't figure out how to word it quite yet. Any suggestions? Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Stimulus control

Chomsky wrote "Skinner's account of grammar and syntax as autoclitic processes (Chap. 13) differs from a familiar traditional account mainly in the use of the pseudo-scientific terms control or evoke in place of the traditional refer" http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm - I was considering adding stimulus control in the psychology heading in this list. Chomsky was and is a harsh critic of radical behaviorism. Not sure if it fits within the scope of this list though. Notgain (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Linguistics

ISTM that there are a number of hypotheses about language and languages which merit mention as pseudoscience. There are wild speculatons about the origin of language, and about the origins of particular languages and groups of languages - for example, about the origins of Indo-European. I have heard various stories abut particular lanugages which supposedly mark them as unique among lanuages - language X is perfect in some respect, or is the original lanuage of all. There are claims that without "language police" that language will deteriorate to mere animals grunts. It may be to dignify fanciful etymologies as being pseudoscience - but fanciful etymologies have been the basis of philosophical speculations from the ancients to the present. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can source it I'd be interested to read about it. Currently not a project that I can dive into though.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Dominant brain hemispheres

There are a whole bunch of myths that have been circulated about left and right brain dominance that spread since the first split-brain operations. Some of it has some truth to it but most oversimplified. Why not have a section on myths in brain science? e.g. The logical left brain and the creative right brain. Notgain (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes some are oversimplifications or outdated misconceptions more than pseudoscience, but if you find related articles and they include sourced criticism as being pseudoscience, they may belong here... —PaleoNeonate – 10:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

There is 40 years of evidence from cognitive neuroscience and neuropsychology that show there are reliable differences in brain hemispheres. However, there's definitely myths out there such as language is only processed in the left or emotion is only processed in the right when important aspects of each are processed across different hemispheres. This quote from Hines highlights the concern of those concerned with the popularization of some myths about the brain hemishperes... "Researchers have tested the claims that various ability reside in one hemisphere or the other. The results of these studies contradict the claims of hemisphere mythology"...“Such simplistic thinking is reminiscent of the 1800s pseudoscience of phrenology“…“The claim that right hemisphere is creative, whereas the left is not, is, as has been noted above, a cornerstone of hemispheric difference mythology, especially as it is applied to management and training.” Hines, T., 1987. Left brain/right brain mythology and implications for management and training. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), pp.600-606. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306708 Iain McGilchrist lists a bunch of papers in the Bibliography of his book The divided brain... http://178.62.31.128/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Bibliography_The_Master_and_his_Emissary.pdf Notgain (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2019

Change "The theory is disounted by the mainstream physics community.[39]" to "The theory is discounted by the mainstream physics community.[39]". 50.197.191.177 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Nice catch. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

EMDR

Do you want to add an entry for EMDR? EMDR in the field of psychotherapy has been (and still is) characterized as pseudoscience (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735899000173). The detractors argued that the eye movements did not add anything so they called it pseudoscience (see https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00017-3). It was argued that the mechanisms for action were the same as CBT/imaginal exposure. Two large meta analysis (see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.11.001) show the effect size was large when eye movements were used. Now the quality of those meta-analyses are disputed. Also there is some evidence that eye movements serve as a response aid for those who do not engage fully in imaginal exposure (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2019.03.001). At the same time EMDR is included in evidence-based guidelines and supported by evidence from systematic reviews that it is equivalent to CBT for treatment of certain disorders, e.g. https://www.cochrane.org/CD003388/DEPRESSN_psychological-therapies-chronic-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd-adults My opinion is that EMDR serves as a good edge case of science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology, and teaching example for science educators, so it would be good to include in this list. Notgain (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I added a dot point about EMDR here. Notgain (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD: if it gets contested we'll see. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have just been templated by that special template that looks like that one that begins this TALK page. Basically the purpose is that, after you've been warmed, it's even easier to block or ban you from Wikipedia for editing in any way that somebody doesn't like about "pseudoscience." Which gets defined on this list, like some holy law.

Now, there is a problem here with "pseudoscience creep." You might start characterizing homeopathy as pseudoscience, and the next thing that happens is speculation about the future gets labeled as pseudoscience. That leaves any admin who is psychologically bothered about that subject, simply block any editor who wants to improve the article. Under the new lax guidelines that you've so carefully laid out. That hasn't happened to me, yet, but after 13 years of editing a very broad list of topics on Wikipedia, I can see the writing on the wall.

The proximate problem is cryonics. Is is a pseudoscience? Don't you have to claim to be a science (and not just a practice like mummification) to be a "pseudoscience"? So does cryonics generally claim to be able to cure you of death and promise to do the same? Not really. Cryonics companies are very careful to tell you nothing of the sort.

Whether cryonics might "work" (in some way) is a separate question. How would we know, since it involves the technologies of the future? Is interstellar travel a pseudoscience? How about faster than light travel? If so (nobody have proven they are possible) then why aren't they on the list here, and why are there such nice articles about them?

Let me hone it closer. There are just TWO citations supporting the idea that cryonics is a "pseudoscience" (which my argument opponents take as gospel). The problem is the first one does not say it's impossible, just unlikely. Okay, how unlikely must it be? The second article is titled as an attack on cryonics, but it's actually an attack on getting at the problem by mind uploading. Okay, fair enough, but why isn't mind uploading here on this list, and that article used to justify it? Mind uploading is actually a pretty good Wikipedia article. Can you see the problem? The problem is hypocrisy. And also people who think that words define reality. And even worse, a very legalistic bunch of people on Wikipedia who dont' like what they don't like, and to get rid of it, one reason is as good as another. A common problem in life. SBHarris 08:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is probably best for you to keep the discussion on this in one place, at Talk:Cryonics where you have been given your answer. Forumshopping isn't going to change that. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that best. In fact, looking a bit of history, it's farily dangerous, as many sanctions have been given out for "tendentious editing" on a primary page instead of seeking some kind of dispute resolution. There is referenced a page of old pseudoscience sanctions so old it needs to be updated, but there it sits, gathering wikicobwebs. And since I'm in the process of trying to figure out where to go to see how Wikipedia defines various topics as "pseudoscience" or not, and since several editors have linked to HERE, I came HERE in search how to resolve this (being a person never before involved in a pseudoscience editing fight, you see). To accuse me of "forumshopping" while I'm doing that, is incredibly lacking in assumption of good faith. And your advice is very bad also (I'm assuming YOU have good faith, but think you have no idea what you are doing). The place to raise such metaquestons on categorizing things as pseudoscience is apparently now [19]. That's FYI. On going there-- lo!! -- I see familiar names. Several involved editors I see already know about it, but they haven't let anybody else know about it. Two of them have templated myself and another editor about dire consequences possible for editing on pseudoscience, but that template ALSO contains no link the fringe theories noticeboard. Apparently, it's a semi-secret. It's almost as though anti-pseudoscience warriors intend people to get ignorantly into trouble with the editing-process, then nail them. Oh, I guess that's assuming bad faith. Very well, I guess it's just a template lapse. It could be fixed, but nobody had time. Anyway, now that I know, I'm go to go forumshopping over THERE now. You're welcome to follow. Or not.

And long rants are unlikely to help, you'd have to focus on content and sources instead of hypothetical nefarious motives of some editors. WP:PSCI is policy, BTW. In relation to space travel, some proposed propulsion methods are indeed pseudoscientific. Wikipedia is quite diverse and fringe topics are addressed on a case by case (article by article) basis as needed. —PaleoNeonate – 10:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah? I see you're of those people who knew about Fringe Theories/Noticeboard also, but never referenced it for this "case-by-case" process you speak of. I'll be glad to go there and focus on content and sources, now that I know it exists. Gee, thanks for letting me know. Your integrity is a beacon. SBHarris 17:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics proponents say it's a science and claim it has a reasonable chance of working. It's an obvious pseudoscience (and as a bonus we have sources saying so too). Alexbrn (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Quite simply, that's not true. There are two companies cryopreserving bodies in the US presently, and AFAIK neither of them describe what they do as science, in the sense of natural science. One of them used to describe their process as a science (meaning applied science like engineering and medicine) but they no longer do. Their critics are another matter, but their critics use every word in the book. All of which deserve to be included in Wikipedia, as line-attributed opinions per WP:ASSERT. Since they vary and can't all be right. If one guy says it's a speculative science, another a protoscience and other a pseudoscience, and another guy says it's a theology, they can't all be right in the sense of "water is wet." They need to go in as contrary line-attribution opinions, as that's what WP:ASSERT is for. For you, the editor, to pick your favorite individual opinion and put it in as a non-attributed one, and suppress all others, is to violate NPOV rather badly. You aren't doing your job. And perhaps here is not the place to point that out. For that, I'll just go (what the editor above calls) "forumshopping." Though I call it going to the right place. I need a different forum where they care about the niceties of NPOV, and don't care per se about cryonics. And I really don't care what you say about cryonics either, so long as you follow you own policy, since that all works out, if followed carefully. If John Q. Smith, Ph.D. says cryonics is dogshit, you can put that in the lede. Just include who said it, and ALSO include the other equivalently RS opinions (with RS not decided retroactively based on what that opinon is). SBHarris 17:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

The Alcor web site and the Cryonics Society literally say that cryonics is a science. Alexbrn (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The Cryonics Society is not a cryonics provider-- they are a scam adveriser loved by nobody. If I set up a webpage and claim cryonics will revive you in 5 years, I don't count either. I'm not in the business. The Alcor web site says that where? SBHarris 19:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The Cryonics Society are cryonics advocates. The Alcor statement was already discussed at [[Talk::Cryonics]] (or have you got your buddies there to "deal with" it?) In any case we follow the sources: they characterize cryonics as pseudoscience, so Wikipedia relays that, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the Democrats and GOP have a lot of "advocates" too. Do we take the words of all their websites as official democratic and GOP positions? There are a lot of groups who wish some of their "advocates" would disappear, and this is one of those cases. "Cryoncists" are not anybody who advocates cryonics. There are only two organizations that cryopreserve bodies in the US: Alcor, and the Cryonics Institute. Unless I have missed something, neither claims to be a bunch of scientists practicing natural science. I believe Alcor did fix the wording at my complaint, but if they had meant it as a natural science and not a formal science, they certainly would have resisted, don't you think. Here you take guess at the beliefs of my "buddies" and strike out (sorry). Again, English is a tricky language about "science." Your quote from Through the Looking Glass, like most of Carroll's, contains not a silly child's assertion, but a deeper philosophical riddle. We each have a private vocabulary. Words have several meanings, and these change over time (go, let, electrocute). Words are born, have a lifetime, and die. Sometimes courts simply make up their own meaning, deciding to be master over a word in a document rather than the reverse (like Humpty says). Example, the Constitution of the US gives the fed gov power to "coin" money, but nothing is said about the power to print it. The courts decided that for this purpose, "coin" also means "print". Though there's nothing at all in the etymology of "coin" to suggest that use. Or intended use. The word here means what the courts decided they wanted it to mean, and that's the origin of the US federal reserve note we all use in my country.

Finally, we are not relying on reliable sources. They aren't reliable sources for these purposes, as the people referenced don't know what they are talking about! Or are greatly biased, but that isn't noted in the article. The cryonics article now, if it were political, would say something like "The UK has two major parties: The Conservatives, who are Tory nationalist protofascists [ref][ref], and Labour, who are Ingsoc Communists [ref][ref]. Or the article lede on ISO would simply state flat out (no attribution) that the organization is not resistant to intensive corporation lobbying, and that causes standardization problems and lack of trust.SBHarris 20:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add: Vega Testing as done by Vega Machine

Vega machine is listed on Wikipedia as a supposed allergy tester - with a large number of medical governing bodies saying don't use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abz zeus (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

EMDR

EMDR is widely used in treatment of trauma and related disorders. Isn't it UNDUE to include EMDR on this page? Puduḫepa 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

WP Article

We should add this article - List of topics characterized as pseudoscience - on the list.
Pseudoscience accusations only make sense in the context of the claim of science. Many of the topics listed here do not even play on this field. So putting them on such a list mimics the pseudoscience strategy. Or illustrates it. Was this the idea? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you give an example of an item you think has been incorrectly added to the list? ApLundell (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Examples of concepts that never claimed to be scientific:

• 'Technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, ... .which .. stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory.' - so there are competing theories, yes.
• Acupuncture
• Aromatherapy
• Transcendental Meditation
• TCM is a different case, it is correctly described here to be "fundamentally different from modern medicine" - but there are several university branches who study it. Its effect is not disputed by 'modern medicine' - as it uses the same substances, just in combinations.

Other question - how about reputable sources about pseudoscience - in the eyes of Sociology of scientific knowledge?
Otherwise, it seems is that WP authors founded their own pseudo science by this collection. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Those are all very clearly pseudo-sciences. They purport to be a way of understanding the cause and effect of the physical world, and to help you apply it in a useful way. That is the definition of an applied science.

The fact that practitioners don't use that word, or that they narrowly redefine "science" to not include their field doesn't change that. ApLundell (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry, Acupuncture, Aromatherapy or Meditation are definitely _not_ a "way of understanding the cause and effect of the physical world" - they address the mental sphere. In other words, why are Buddhism or Zoroaster not in this list?

Apart from the specific claims, where are reputable sources explicitely about 'Pseudoscience' - not just ones that editors felt to fit here?

"All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources ... Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." - Wikipedia:Five_pillars

Have a look into this article from Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt that some individual practitioners (especially western ones) re-frame those things as being "mental" in nature, but that is simply not a good description of those fields. ApLundell (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not just individual practitioners, it's the lot of them. Aromatherapy without medical claims is just saying you might enjoy having scented candles around. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Why look at individual practitioners, and not at the founders resp. main proponents of these concepts? There is no need to "re-frame" anything, for example read a book by Maharishi Yogi. The blurb might suffice, if your time is scarce. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Such as his book "The Science of Being"?

ApLundell (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Good example, just because 'science' appears in the title does not mean it plays on the same field as our - natural - sciences, in "understanding the cause and effect of the physical world". It claims "... its main object is to bring Enlightenment to Humanity through Pure Knowledge aflame with Love, and Power. Though a book of Science, it is a friend of true Religions and philosophies."
So it seems that it does not confront (our) natural science with a different system - like for example 'Free energy' concepts do.
The term 'pseudoscience' should be reserved for the latter kind of concepts.
BTW, have you read the Scientific American article? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you're defining "science" far too narrowly. (This is pretty common among proponents of pseudoscience, btw)

Science is more than just physics and test-tubes. (For example, There are branches of science that wholly deal with the "mental sphere" as you put it. They don't stop being sciences.)

Acupuncture, Aromatheropy, and TM are all presented as a means to understand and effect real things in the universe. The fact that the mechanism isn't described by an established branch of science doesn't change that. (In fact, that part of what makes them pseudosciences.)

(Incidentally, I did read that article and was confused as to why you thought it supported your argument, as the author clearly makes the point that to be categorized as pseudoscience does not require that the field "claim" to be scientific, as you seem to be arguing.)

Regardless, it doesn't matter. This article is about items "Characterized" as pseudoscience specifically to avoid arguments like this. Even if you convinced everyone reading this talk page that those fields are not pseudoscience, they would still belong on the list, because it is widely believed by mainstream reputable sources to be a pseudoscience. ApLundell (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

How about Social Bot Research

e.g. see (german)

https://www.spektrum.de/news/forscher-klassifizieren-haeufig-social-bots-auf-twitter-falsch/1734898

english translation:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spektrum.de%2Fnews%2Fforscher-klassifizieren-haeufig-social-bots-auf-twitter-falsch%2F1734898

and therein mentioned puplications. 37.116.222.38 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

I suggest adding the following topic to the "Psychology" section of this article:

• Polyvagal theory – a collection of psychological, neuroscientific and evolutionary claims focusing on two of the brainstem nuclei of the vagus nerve as playing distinct roles in the triggering and regulation of fear responses. Among other things, it claims without any empirical evidence that the vagal branch originating from the nucleus ambiguus is a more recent anatomical structure in evolutionary history than that originating from the Dorsal nucleus and that it supports social emotion regulation behaviours exclusively in mammals, while immobilization (Freezing behavior) behaviours are dependent on the unmyelinated vagus nerve branch. In addition, it draws upon correlations between vagal tone and stress to infer a causal effect of vagus nerve anatomy on stress responses in mammals (see Correlation does not imply causation for more). In recent years, it has been contested and some of its unsubstantiated claims falsified. Despite its lack of scientific substance, the "polyvagal theory" remains popular among psychotherapy practitioners, possibly due to its simplicity compared to more up-to-date scientific knowledge on the origins of fight-or-flight and freeze responses. Oleasylvestris (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Its not done here. Entries on this list should follow WP:WTAF, the linked article should clearly present reference supported opinions that this is pseudoscience before being added here. Your write up above is to the point but it also seems to be your opinion (the source cited don't make that case). None seem to be calling it out and out pseudoscience. Above is also wordy. I would suggest a more focused Polyvagal theory#Criticism section with unambiguous sources before adding a short synopsis here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2020

I suggest adding an explanation of what part of the “Gay frogs” conspiracy theory has to do with the paranormal. The entry as it stands looks like it is taking a negative point of view on Alex Jones giving no substance to its claim of the topic as this type of pseudoscience. Unless the topic objectively has anything to do with the paranormal, it should not be on this part of the list. 24.89.22.25 (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the entry. Items on this list have to be notable topics (Wikipedia articles). Redirect removed by consensus on 16 May 2019 and no covered at the target Endocrine disruptor. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)

The final sentence under the main heading for TCM states in part "...some of the procedures and remedies have shown promise under scientific investigation". The links to which this refers largely appear to relate to acupuncture, and do not appear to support the procedure. There is an indication in one that parts of TCM have become medicine (i.e. no longer 'alternative medicine'), and so they presumably should not be classified as part of TCM/pseudoscience.

The classification of TCM seems too broad to be addressed ass a single item. This explains why there are several sub-items below it, but given that all of these are pseudo-scientific it is unclear whether the parent discussion adds any value or simply confuses the reader by suggesting that some TCM is potentially valid. 58.6.173.12 (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Have removed. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Extra-sensory perception

Under Paranormal and ufology, this item refers to "the five main senses". There are a lot more than five senses, as is clear from the Wikipedia entry to which this references. Perhaps it should instead state "independent of scientifically measurable senses..."? 58.6.173.12 (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

More issues under 'paranormal and ufology' heading

Firstly, Lizard people has no citations. While this is allegedly something popularised by David Icke, there is nothing showing that. (The fact that it fails to mention the TV series V is also a little disappointing.)

Secondly, I am unsure on what basis the Tunguska event appears on this list as a subject. While there are plenty of crazy theories about it, one would expect those theories to be covered by their own titles rather than under an historic event. 58.6.173.12 (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Issues in 'religious and spiritual beliefs'

1. It is unclear from context whether 'traditional meditation' as mentioned in the introduction to this section, is being classified as pseudoscience.
2. The entry on exorcism has no citations. This is particularly lacking when it claims to quote a source (unidentified).
3. The citation for 'Koranic scientific foreknowledge' in fact appears to refer to ancient Egypt - and the link is dead. It is unclear whether Bucailleism is intended to be an equivalent to 'Koranic scientific foreknowledge, and this needs to be clarified.
4. No citation for 'creationist cosmologies'.
5. The subsection discussing Scientology omits its ideas about the origin of life on earth (Xenu).

58.6.173.12 (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What about these?

I'd just like to suggest that handwriting analysis and the electric universe be considered as candidate pseudosciences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C6E0:7050:9D41:286B:4814:CBE5 (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Graphology is already listed. Electric universe leads to a dab that suggests Plasma cosmology but that article does not cover it at all....so.... need to write that article first. Items in this list need to be a Wikipedia articles with a pseudoscience claim. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

omeopathy as pseudoscience?

Please... Pubmed has 5000+ articles on the positive effects of homeopathy, why is there no reference? It should at least be treated as 'currently debated'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.70.139.221 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Listing should note the article contains the characteristic "pseudoscience'. That's all it really should say but the article does state it is a pseudoscience as its lead sentence definition and goes on to call it "quackery". So you would need to change that article first (see WP:POVFORK). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

'Consumer products'

1. Essential oils are already discussed under 'health and medicine', as part of aromatherapy. Is there any value in listing them a second time? If there is a perceived need in both categories, perhaps the second mention should simply be a link to the previous discussion.
2. There is no discussion of 'health foods'. While it is a complex topic, it is also one that is characterised by pseudoscience.
3. Similarly, a discussion of vitamins and other supplements may properly belong in this category if appropriately addressed to make clear that there are some dietary supplements that provide benefits for at least some of the population.

58.6.173.12 (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this should be removed. The product itself [20] is never science or pseudoscience. If anyone makes fraudulent claims about products, this belong to a list of fraudulent clams, products or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda

I'm guessing Ayurveda was removed with no one noticing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: Maharishi Ayurveda is still present in the section List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Health and medicine. - DVdm (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That is too specific. All Ayurveda is pseudoscience, not just one brand of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Brainwashing

I would suggest to exclude this from the list. There is no really any unified pseudo-theory/pseudoscience of brainwashing. This is just a catchphrase for a number of propaganda techniques which do work as a matter of fact. According to our page, "Brainwashing is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques". Yes, it certainly can, and we see it every day. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

What do the references say? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a large number of sources, and they say a lot of different things (I think the lead of our page summarizes them more or less OK). For an outside tertiary summary source, one can look at EB: [21]. It does not say anywhere this is pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's completely irrelevant that a source doesn't include a certain viewpoint. Acting on such comments would violate POV and FRINGE rather blatantly. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• We need to check if the subject was generally described in RS as pseudoscience (there is a lot of subjects which are simply not science, rather than pseudoscience). So, I simply followed WP:RS [22]: "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.". If you can suggest other good tertiary sources for that purpose (on par with EB), let's take a look at them too. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

As about current referencing of the statement on this page, it uses this ref. It does not say brainwashing is pseudoscience, and it looks like a primary source. So, if there are no objections, I would exclude this some time later. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What matters is what's in Brainwashing, right? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, one should check our page as well. It includes a single source (that one), an opinion mentioning brainwashing as pseudoscience ("Sister of women who helped plan 1978 Jonestown massacre says she is disheartened by how casually the word [brainwashing] is used", author argued that her sisters were just "converted" to the deadly cult, not "brainwashed"). This is a single primary source. One can also find info about Jean-Marie Abgrall, whose theories of brainwashing were criticized as pseudoscientific, but that is her theories, not the general subject of brainwashing (it is hard to say though if his work was really a pseudoscience; in fact he published a book criticizing pseudomedicine).

Lead of our page tells correctly that it "is not generally accepted as a scientific term". Yes, certainly. A lot of things are not scientific terms (love, for example, I am borrowing this example from Richard Feynman), but it does not mean they are pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As EB tells [23], "The term is most appropriately used in reference to a program of political or religious indoctrination or ideological remolding. The techniques of brainwashing typically involve isolation from former associates and sources of information; an exacting regimen requiring absolute obedience and humility; strong social pressures and rewards for cooperation; physical and psychological punishments for non-cooperation ranging from social ostracism and criticism, deprivation of food, sleep, and social contacts, to bondage and torture; and continual reinforcement.". Yes, this is certainly a very bad thing. But how is that pseudoscience? To put it simple, the "political or religious indoctrination" is a fact, reality, not a pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It can be kept though in the list after some rephrasing. Will do later. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

More examples

Somatotype and constitutional psychology and brain types are also pseudoscientific ideas. 176.228.51.29 (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Weasel word in title

"characterized" should not be included in the title, unless there are major objections I will change it to "List of pseudoscience topics". cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Why? Including a topic characterized as pseudoscience is simple and does not require much of a reference. However, proving that a topic really is pseudoscience might require scientific investigation and references of a kind that are rarely available because scientists have better things to do. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Characterized implies that there is room for argument.

There is none. Most of the items have been refuted by science.

It is also not as simple as removing it, and from the discussions and arguments, the page already exceeds the necessary level of evidence, by a wide margin. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"Characterized" avoids argument I think. It gives us a bigger list than if we confined it to things which could be asserted to be PS in wikipedia's voice. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Been discussed before.

This is a list of articles that have a certain attribute---> article contains the a criticism of pseudoscience. So the title "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and the WP:LISTCRITERIA go hand in hand; the subject of the article has been "Characterized" that way (true or false).

This is, therefore, not a "List of pseudoscience topics".

There is no need for argument (or even reference) for items in this list, the article being linked already has the arguments and references - the list simply has a Yes/No criteria. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Mormon archeology, genetics, history

surprised these aren't listed. --142.163.195.212 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Monatomic gold redirects here…

…but it does not get explained here.Sivizius (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

The AAH is included as pseudoscience, indeed we assume that most scientists will agree on this, and a few prominent anthropologists has publicly stated so. But I found a peer-reviewed survey showing that actually the majority of scientists don't find it pseudoscientific, to my surprise, even among the (paleo)anthropologists. I think it's misleading or incorrect to include the AAH under this list, as now we have the data that contradict the inclusion criteria ("generally considered by the scientific community"). It should be either (1) removed from here and Category:Pseudoscience, or (2) remain here but mention the survey for balance (that's what I've added). Chakazul (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That paper doesn't seem to say that, rather "Only proponents of the aquatic/waterside hypotheses (collectively known as the aquatic ape hypothesis or AAH) seem to maintain that it is possible to explain most of the uniquely human traits as adaptive responses to a specific external factor ... AAH has been fiercely opposed and criticized for being an umbrella hypothesis that attempts to explain everything, for being unparsimonious, for lacking evidence and even for being pseudoscience". Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The statements you quoted is an introduction that there exist criticisms, but for characterizing it as pseudoscience, the only credible source is Hawks 2005 (a blog post but from a reputable scientist) which is cited here. One main finding of the peer-reviewed paper is "A vast majority of the respondents disagreed with the critique that AAH is unscientific." That's the statistical finding that should be mentioned here for balance. Chakazul (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The trouble is what you say the paper has, "the majority of scientists don't find it pseudoscientific", isn't actually in the paper, is it? You seem to be interpreting the source to make it say the opposite to what it actually says. And you've tried to force your edit, by doing it twice now. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

More precisely, the survey said "the majority of scientists responded to the survey don't find it pseudoscientific". Of course the survey isn't perfect, but since we will need to ask all scientists to prove what the majority of scientists actually think (which is unrealistic), and the survey is peer-reviewed with proper statistical methodology, it's a trustworthy sample to contradict the AAH as pseudoscience. (in contrast the sentence you quoted is only based on N=1 sample, namely Hawk) Chakazul (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Could you please provide the exact quotation from the source? Maybe we are looking at different texts. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

From this https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.3887 (the authors used "unscientific" and "pseudoscience" interchangeably) -- "Although most respondents did not find the water‐related hypotheses likely, only a small minority found them unscientific", "In the other extreme, less than 3% of the respondents fully agreed and less than 12% mostly agreed with the critique that AAH is unscientific", "A vast majority of the respondents disagreed with the critique that AAH is unscientific." Also Figure 7 Chakazul (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, unscientific. That's a different matter. Source is not relevant then (other than in the quotations I gave above, which support the characterization of AAH as pseudoscientific). Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've just realised this is the Tuomisto, Tuomisto, Tuomisto & Tuomisto survey in some backwater journal, already much discussed and dismissed. It's junk and has no use on Wikipedia, mispresented or not. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is the discussion, can you show me? Chakazul (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

So it's relevant to discuss the definition of pseudoscientific, unscientific and non-scientific? Pseudoscientific and unscientific are not entirely separate matters, as you may claim. Pseudoscience is a subset and a narrower concept than unscientific ideas, i.e. unscientific/pseudoscientific things are against the scientific method, while pseudoscience has the extra condition that the proponents pretend or try to be scientific, but failed. "Unscientific" is the broader characterization. If one group of scientists don't find something unscientific, by basic logic, we would expect equal or fewer scientists from the same group to find it pseudoscientific, because to consider it fake, one has to consider it false as a prerequisite. There is no condition that something is pseudoscientific (fake) but not unscientific (not false).

Thus the survey result that vast majority of its respondents find the AAH not unscientific (including not pseudoscientific) is more reliable and more significant than the N=1 by Hawk 2005. The numerical data is also in Figure 7, labelled "Pseudoscience", that is summarized by the authors in the conclusion. Chakazul (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

At the main AAH article, and here. It's a fringey primary source, so not usable; we need WP:FRIND sources. And especially not usable as a basis for reinterpretation based on novel editorial argument, which is expressly against policy. If in doubt, ask at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, since the source has been decided as junk by a number of wikipedian veterans, I have no more to add here. Chakazul (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn has already linked to the discussion but here is a direct link to the noticeboard archive page for future reference: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#AAH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguous Reference to Meditation under Religious and Spiritual Beliefs

The Religious and Spiritual Beliefs section says, "...and some religions might be confused with pseudoscience, such as traditional meditation". I believe this is ambiguous and should be removed.

This was also called out in Talk Archive 18, where it says, "Issues in 'religious and spiritual beliefs' ... It is unclear from context whether 'traditional meditation' as mentioned in the introduction to this section, is being classified as pseudoscience". That concern does not appear to me to have been resolved.

• It is unclear from the wording whether the statement is saying that traditional meditation is a religion which might be confused with pseudoscience, or rather than traditional meditation is a good example of a pseudoscience in contrast to religion which is not a pseudoscience.

• It is unclear what is meant by "traditional meditation". If this is referring to religious meditation (prayer) to a deity, the text should say that. There are many ancient forms of meditation, some of which (e.g. Zen Buddhist meditation) do not involve invocation to a deity. Without identifying the specific type of meditation, how can an expected real world outcome of the meditation be identified, in order to classify the meditation as pseudoscience?

• Neither "Traditional Meditation" nor "Meditation" are included as first-level members of the list of "topics characterized as pseudoscience", although Transendental Meditation is. Likewise, there do not appear to be any references to articles that demonstrate either traditional meditation or meditation as a whole to be pseudoscience.

• The article used as a reference after the sentence in question, Carl Sagan's "Does Truth Matter...", calls out TM specifically as pseudoscientific. It says nothing about other types of meditation, traditional meditation or meditation as a whole.

HarriedSnail (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree and more should be deleted. This is a list. The entire paragraph should be shortened to "The following religious/spiritual items have been related to or classified as pseudoscience in some way: " This is not a place for a half-assed conglomeration of views on pseudoscience/religion. Even if referenced, its off topic, lead in sentence should just establish WP:SALLEAD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

add cryptocurrency to the list

it's been debunked numerous cryptologists and cryptographers, as well as numerous economists and financial analysts Lovebuny (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Scientific socialism

In the history section, scientific socialism is listed as a pseudoscience, citing Karl Popper. Popper stood in opposition with socialism and the like, so including scientific socialism in this article may lend a subjective political viewpoint. The entry itself even states "The theory has been criticised by its opponents [...] as being pseudoscientific." GreenlandGneiss (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed it. Claim that this is a pseudoscience must be established at the main article first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Trepanning

This entry stands out in the psychology section as being a surgical intervention and not a theory or treatment, and needing citations. There seems to be enough medical sources about the topic, but they don't bother to disprove possible positive psychological effects at all (trepanning is used more in archeology and burr hole in modern medicine, with distinctions with craniotomy and craniectomy). At least for some milder claims the risks involved seem to weight much more than the lack of evidence for the claimed benefits, the lack of extensive studies on the matter hopefully doesn't need to be justified. Another way to include it in the article would be referring to practices from the past, but the purpose/role of the procedure even in relatively recent times doesn't seem to be clear enough for that. I was mostly wondering how well this compares with other similar entries and wanted to clarify what we are or should be talking about in this one, if some better refs come along, it would be even better. Personuser (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed it, no citations and no citations in main article backing up the claim that it is "pseudoscientific". Needs to be established first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Historical materialism

I have recently added information on historical materialism, which was charactrerized as a pseudoscience by Karl Popper and others. This claim appears in one form or another in several Wikipedia articles (Historical materialism, Criticism of Marxism, Marxism, Falsifiability).

My edit was deleted with no explanation other than that I have "tried this before with scientific socialism". I have not made any edits to this page before 09.05.2021, at which point mentions of "scientific socialism" were removed from the article. I am in no way affiliated with the user who was the author of those edits. The contents of my edits was completely different.

I have re-added my paragraph. I believe Popper's critcism is notable enough to be included on this page. I have provided sources that discuss the claim in detail, as well as mentioned simmilar views by other thinkers to demonstrate this was not a singular opinion. I believe that the paragraph is written in a way which clearly demonstrates that Popper's claim is not an absolute truth and criticism of Popper is mentioned. Therefore I don't see any reason to delete it, especially if the sole rationale is "someone else wrote a simmilar, but ultimately different thing in the past". I'd like to hear comments on this. KtosKto64 (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I noticed that the pragraph was removed again, before I could post this. KtosKto64 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you weren't the guy who did the scientific socialism thing? ah crap, my bad man, I must have not noticed, my bad. In that case I guess it's not as bad, I think it's not wise though to include it on this page because some have called it a pseudoscience mayhaps for the same reasons the scientific socialism thing was removed. personally my take is that it shouldn't be here until some talk page consensus on the page itself says that's fine, but popper's criticism and all that can be included on the page "criticisms of marxism" and historical materialism, don't see nothing wrong with that, as it's more of a debate of validity rather than like "science" saying "it's wrong because x y z" and the response being some conspiratorial nonsense. I do thank you for getting back to me, and do again apologize for misidentifying you as another user, my bad. AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I was late to this but here's my comment, hoping it may be useful in the long term: the lead currently states "This is a list of topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers". The argument for removing scientific socialism doesn't seem to hold in this case since the historical materialism article mentions Popper's characterisation of it as pseudoscience. I think this is a different case from most of the other examples, but Popper fits the description as an academic or researcher and did characterize the topic as pseudoscience. The removed paragraph itself seemed otherwise quite NPOV. The solution would be to either open up the article to anything was ever described as pseudoscience by some academics/researches (limiting this to people working in the same field seems reasonable/implied, how much this needs to be up to date is debatable) or to limit the criteria for inclusion and rephrasing the lead in some other way. Depenging on how you define science/pseudoscience even the fact that Eath goes around the Sun and not the other way around may have been at some point characterized as pseudoscience by some authoritative figure (I'm not sure if any theory of history would fit Popper's definition of science as falsiability, but this is probably a simplification and may be true for a lot of other examples too). Personuser (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned before, claims of historical materialism being characterised as a pseudoscience are established in multiple articles, thus fulfilling the basic criteria for inclusion on this page. I agree that this characterisation can be controversial, hence why I tried to explain what precisely Popper meant by that term. I thought it would be relevant to include it for two main reasons. Firstly, Popper's ideas on falsificationism are rather influential in the debates of science vs pseudoscience, and historical materialism is one of his canonical examples, along with psychoanalysis, which is already on the list. Secondly, his argument has been brought up in debates on historical materialism by both supporters and opponents of the idea.

The topic has been discussed on the talk pages before, last time in 2018. Main concern raised in that discussion was that the section was primarily based on Popper's own writings, which I have attempted to avoid by providing additional sources (including those criticial of Popper), as well as simmilar opinions by others. Another point was that the additions of Popper's criticism to the articles on Marxism, historical materialism etc. were then recent, but given that 3 years have passed, I think this can be dismissed. I shall wait for other comments before reinstating the removed content. KtosKto64 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Monatomic Gold

This phrase redirects here but as far as I can see there is no entry. What’s the deal? RobP (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

How strange. It looks like it was in the article for a grand total of 22 minutes.

I've brought it up at redirects for deletion.

Anyway, the deal is that "monatomic gold" is dirt that is neither gold nor monatomic. It has no interesting properties except that you can charge $50 for a tiny vial of it and suckers will buy it. ApLundell (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed a related red link at Ormus. The matter seems too trivial for mentioning at RfD, reporting it here for transparency. Personuser (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Dogon and Sirius

I'm confused as to why this topic has been included as pseudoscientific? Or at least how the article indicates what is pseudoscientific. The claims that are flatly unscientific are the ones attempting to conjure a more recent Western source for the Dogon's knowledge (of a lighter fainter star in orbit with the main, no mention of a white dwarf). These supposed exchanges aren't recorded or effectively preserved in any way, assuming their existence is therefore unfalsifiable, ergo, pseudoscientific. Killswitchwp (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure which entry you mean, there were two of them..... and that may have been the confusing part. I deleted the less detailed one. See if it fixed what you saw. Good catch either way. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

The broken link to Aura from the Aura (paranormal) article:

• Hammer, Olav (2001). Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 900413638X. 2A02:AB88:248D:1C00:35:6FB0:23F7:5BDC (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. See [24]. - DVdm (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

The section on "Historical materialism" under "Social Sciences" under "History" should be removed. The only justification given as to why it is pseudoscience is that it is non-falsifiable, which also applies to other theories generally considered to be true, such as evolution by natural selection.

Furthermore, the section says, "Historians are overwhelmingly against historical materialism, as is the case with all theories of history", but the section on history does not list any of these other theories as pseudo-science. Because it would be unmanageable to list every totalizing theory of history under this section (religious, racial, economic, environmental etc.), the subsection on historical materialism should be removed.

Thank you Y2ursp7cr (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There is enough talk page discussion, not just in archives, but even right above. Y2ursp7cr Please read through before opening requests. Hemantha (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Crippled comments, hiding content

On 11 Decemer 2021, on her first article edit, user Jordanna.Nolan (talk · contribs) made this edit, replacing minus signs with dashes in 9 comment closure strings "-->", resulting in the hiding of a lot of content. I have tried to undo this ([25]), but there still seems to be hidden content, visible in the edit window, but not in the rendered page. So I have restored the situation of 26 November 2021, prior to Jordanna.Nolan's first edit. - DVdm (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: I will have a look at other users' edits, made after 26 Nov 2021, and make some changes. - DVdm (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done: [26]. I might have missed some. - DVdm (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The editor also messed up reference 4. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed.  Done: [27]. - DVdm (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Strauss–Howe generational theory

I don't think anyone has ever claimed this theory is scientific. Why is it included in a list of pseudo-science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.92.37 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the article does include "Strauss–Howe generational theory has also been described by some historians and journalists as pseudoscientific", with several sources. --Bduke (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, this article does not exclude subjects that are never claimed to be scientific. It is about subjects that are reliably shown to be pseudo-scientific. - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

==

==

health section, Rolfing - "memories storied in muscles", shouldn't it be stored? CamphorNoodles (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies too, screwed up the edit request again. I'll get it right someday. CamphorNoodles (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Economics?

On my Talk page here, I was asked about this edit and edsum. It was a very lazy edit, because I never looked at the page, just the diff and page history. I was looking for a quick and easy way to justify the removal of an innappropriate addition. It does not appear to have been a copyvio.

Instead, it was a couple of sentences and a huge number of refs with copious notes that did not support the placing of "Economics" on to a list of topics characterised as Pseudoscience. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 02:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Roxy!

It's good that we've been able to establish that your removal was inappropriate, and that's fine since we discussed it.

I think we could be more clear here. Let's look at the article which states, among other things:

"This is a list of topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers."

We can also note that "Many adherents or practitioners of the topics listed here dispute their characterization as pseudoscience. Each section here summarizes the alleged pseudoscientific aspects of that topic."

I would like to argue that it is clear that this topic has been characterised as pseudoscience by academics.

If I would, for the case of argument, buy into that the only thing I put forward was "a load of marxist critiques and quotes", the truth value of these statements would not follow from the authors political allegiance, but from the fact that these people are scholars and that they characterize economics as a pseudoscience.

So if we look away from the edit, we have a couple of different things going on here in regards to the pseudoscientific status of economics.

There is authors who critique:

economics as a field. -- Critique of economics as pseudoscience / a almost religious view of looking at resource allocation.

economic theories. -- Critique of the pseudoscientific nature of certain theories.

economic schools -- Critique of the pseudoscientific nature of some economical school, either fringe or mainstream.

The research methods and or simplified assumptions, the "shortcuts", of economists. -- Critique of the pseudoscientific nature of deeds such as tweaking data to the desired result.

Since I suppose that you have more experience than me here, It would be helpful if you told me which kinds of claims you deem suitable for implementation.

Kind regards, Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Pseudosciences on this list need to be clearly described as such in the parent article. Not there yet. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party. I think we need to clarify what is meant by the phrase "characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers". Does this mean that some academics or researchers have made that characterization (a very low bar), or does it mean that this is the consensus opinion (a high bar)? For example, it would not be hard to find some Alt-Med academics who classify all conventional medicine as pseudoscience - but I don't think we want to have Wikipedia say that, do we? How many need to make that categorization before we will flag it as pseudoscience? --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

TU for the correction.

Sorry to read about the cancer. 22 yr survivor here after having experienced for 8 yr outward indications something was wrong, then voila, chemo, radiation and a body fat count of about 1% so that I could attest that I did have a six-pack that reminded me of lamb chops! Keep up the spirit!2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if you are referring to Roxy or me, but in any case thanks! Doug Weller talk 08:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Lunar effect should not be listed as pseudoscience

Men are significantly affected by the moon. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34520928/

--InvestInSuccess (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The conclusion that you suggest is not the conclusion of that primary study. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing Feldenkrais

A 2015 systematic review in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine found that Feldenkrais has "broad application in populations interested in improving awareness, health, and ease of function". Meta-analysis showed significant improvements in both balance and functional reach. The authors noted, "as a body of evidence, effects seem to be generic, supporting the proposal that [Feldenkreis] works on a learning paradigm rather than disease-based mechanisms. Further research is required; however, in the meantime, clinicians and professionals may promote the use of [Feldenkreis] in populations interested in efficient physical performance and self-efficacy."

Cite: Hillier S, Worley A. The effectiveness of the feldenkrais method: a systematic review of the evidence. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:752160. doi: 10.1155/2015/752160. Epub 2015 Apr 8. PMID: 25949266; PMCID: PMC4408630.

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog. You removed the addition of a systematic review and meta-analysis without explanation... What is your problem with the source? See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Meta-analysis and systematic review of Feldenkrais Method . Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd note that Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is a contestant for the least reputable journal on the planet. Alexbrn (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why I missed that this is a Talk page, and deleted the whole section. Had I been paying attention I would not have done that, sorry. I have nothing further to add to Alex' comment. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC potentially of interest to editors watching this page

See Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#RfC_concerning_the_relationship_between_List_of_common_misconceptions_and_List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

EMDR

EMDR is an evidence-based therapy that is endorsed and utilised by government agencies and psychiatric associations around the world. It was founded in the 1980s by a prominent psychologist/academic and has been subject to the scientific method since day one. I understand that there’s been some limited academic accusations of pseudoscience, but as you note on this page – they’ve been refuted. The mere fact that it’s placed on a list like this (alongside topics such as ‘phrenology’ and ‘lizard people’ conspiracy theories) implies that it is pseudoscientific. The casual reader will simply place it in the same basket as those topics. Please can you consider removing it completely. The pseudoscience accusations are listed on the main EMDR Wikipedia entry, so they will remain cited.@ 1.157.112.63 (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Clearly characterized as pseudoscience on article page so meets the requirement to be on this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a process to allow topics to be removed from this list (i.e. if the sources claiming they're pseudoscience are refuted)? Or is any topic that is historically described as pseudoscience eligible for inclusion? For example, should heliocentrism be added - as it was officially described as pseudoscience in it's day (and would be regarded as scientifically incorrect today)? 1.157.112.63 (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If something has been characterized as pseudoscience in a reliable source it belongs here. I very much doubt heliocentrism was, in its day, "officially" or not. In contrast, EMDR has been categorized as pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If the source has been refuted can it be removed (has something like that ever happened on this page)? The issue I have here is that you're listing a scientifically evidence-based therapy as pseudoscience.

(Apparently a report was produced describing heliocentrism as "foolish and absurd in philosophy" which I'm guessing would be the closest they'd get to the term 'pseudoscience' in the 1600s). 1.157.112.63 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Items don't get de-listed if there are sources supporting the characterisation. If there are additional things to say which are directly pertinent to the characterisation, there may be a case for adding them. Alexbrn (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

typo

Sorry there is a typo on the page and I am unable to edit it. It says Jilly Juice] when there should be no bracket. Thank you

 Done Fixed, thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Resurrection

Resurrection is the concept of coming back to life after death. Death is the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism. In a number of religions, a dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and is resurrected. Belief in the resurrection of the dead, and Jesus' role as judge, is codified in the Apostles' Creed, which is the fundamental creed of Christian baptismal faith. The Book of Revelation makes many references to resurrection, about the Day of Judgment when the dead will be raised. Resurrection is often confused with resuscitation. Resuscitation is the process of correcting a physiological disorder (such as lack of breathing or heartbeat) in an acutely ill patient. Resuscitation is an important part of intensive care medicine, anesthesiology, trauma surgery and emergency medicine. Well known examples are cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. 98.192.49.136 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

What are you trying to say in relation to improving the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Resurrection should probably be added to the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. 98.192.49.136 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Characterized by who? Are there reliable sources who do that? If there are none, it would be WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration

I am in STRONG disagreement that GBD qualifies as pseudoscience. First, it was an opinion on policy, that is, by definition, not pseudoscience. Nor is targeted attention to the vulnerable population "pseudoscience" - we don't vaccinate mice against smallpox. I don't feel any objective editor would include the claim that the GBD contained an "impossible idea". That line alone should clue anyone in on the problem. Herd immunity, the ineffectiveness of various US State policies, and the FACT that resources are limited aren't pseudoscience. It is really unfortunate, imho, that, right or wrong, a different opinion on what the best policy should be is subject to name calling.174.130.71.156 (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Never mind your view. Has it been characterized by one or more good sources as pseudoscience? Bon courage (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

12-step program info is far from appropriate

It is not entirely clear how it ended up on this list, given that no one has ever made the claim that 12-step programs were confirmed scientifically as the only treatment for addiction or a cure, but the vast majority of substance use disorder and addiction medicine professionals tend to see the value of 12 step programs, but just typically in conjunction with other medicinal and psychological therapeutic regimens. In fact the only thing that really would place it on this list based on how pseudoscience is defined here would be if Dr. Bob’s written views were taken to speak as a verification of 12-step programs as a form of science, which is ironic because the Doctor’s Opinion in the Big Book of AA, which actually would be considered both a form of narrative as well as case study, phenomenological, and even to an extent ethnographic forms of qualitative research. Still, based on how many things on this list don’t totally fit the definition listed on here as pseudoscience, I understand the reasoning for including. However, as a Wikipedia article, it should be important that the information provided, even for something like a list of pseudoscience topics, should be as unbiased as possible. Otherwise, I mean then wouldn’t that be just as unscientific? I say this because the two articles used for the 12-step program entry on this list are both secondary source online magazine articles, and given that neither of those media outlets are psychological, medical, or scientifically based at all, and given the nature of both of those articles which I found and read, the source material used is extremely one-sided, which is all the more concerning considering that same “pseudoscientific” program model, that has at least some support from the supposed experts, has spawned more than 200 types of “Anonymous” fellowships and has tens of millions of active and in recovery members on all inhabited continents and most countries, even Iran and is made available online in sparsely populated countries such as Greenland as well as countries less conducive to open in-person, attendance such as The Philippines. Borrissj (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources here seem fine though. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The linked article 12 step program has no information describing it as a pseudoscience. So it should be removed from this list per editor's note: "ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't know where that note came from; seems wrong. If the main article needs updating that's another matter. Bon courage (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been consensus for a while that this is a list of articles who's topics have been characterized as pseudoscience in its main article. Articles need to have that aspect to be listed here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it's just your odd view. I've been watching this page on and off for years and although you keep raising this, everybody else defers to RS in the usual way, as per the WP:PAGs. Check the archive to see this. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Where would I find this editor's note? I'm unaware of it, although I am familiar with similar inclusion criteria on other list pages. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's in the hidden note when editors click 'Edit source'. Here's what the hidden note says:

Please note that due to the controversial nature of the label "Pseudoscience", we must demand a reliable source from an appropriate source in order to include it. If something seems to be obviously pseudoscience, then either such a source likely exists somewhere or it isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion. The inclusion criteria must necessarily be strict enough that notability should be established at the main article first, using RS. So ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here.

I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr that the specific article itself (in this case 12 step program) should have content characterizing it as pseudoscience first before being added to this article. Some1 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. But we're not going to introduce some kind of workflow policy based on hidden markup comment that hardly anybody sees or heeds. I'll remove it. Such hidden comments are inappropriate especially since editors mostly edit by section now. By contrast the FAQ at the top of this page says an editor "feel free to suggest a topic or be bold and add it yourself" with any mention of this supposed "rule". Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"notability should be established at the main article first" as part of the WP:LSC of this list is pretty obvious since "Detailed discussion of these topics may be found on their main pages" is the second sentence of the lead. There are 18 pages of talk archive for this list and a large part of it is WP:LSC discussions so simply removing the editors note is not an option. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me that if we're going to have an inclusion criteria that requires that the entry be treated as psuedoscience in the main article, then that criteria should be prominently displayed to potential editors, not in some hidden note.

Whether we have and enforce that criteria is outside the scope of this particular thread. Seems like there's enough confusion (for lack of a better word) about whether we currently have this criteria that another discussion thread would be in order to clarify it. Or perhaps there is some previous thread that explicitly addressed the issue in which case we may not want to re-litigate that at this time. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This particular "rule" was added to the original "edit note" in 2013, apparently without discussion. Having a HTML comment is ridiculous since any editor using the visual editor, or editing a section directly will miss it anyway. If anything there should be a proper WP:EDN. It's not 2006 any more. Bon courage (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Since it was added without discussion, it seems like a discussion is in order. I'll start a new thread. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Some1@Fountains of Bryn Mawr more precisely, we need sources showing that experts or noted commentators have described the program as pseudoscience. We don't need to show it is pseudoscience. I believe we have that below in the sources I've linked. Though to comply with WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDSCI we also should say something along the lines of "Though recent evidence suggests it is as effective as other treatments in providing relief from alcohol use disorder" etc. Probably needs workshopping. But you get the idea. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources describing 12-step as "pseudoscience"

• Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lynn, Steven Jay; Lohr, Jeffrey; Tavris, Carol (2015). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (PDF) (Second ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 9781462505814. Retrieved 27 January 2023.

...these findings suggest that AA is indeed a pseudoscientific treatment, persisting by virtue of intuitive appeal and strident adherents despite weak empirical support...To conclude, the role of AA in the science-based AUD treatment enterprise has been highly controversial....from a scientific standpoint, there are reasons to be critical of AA’s outmoded etiological model and to question the strong identification of formal treatment programs with AA principles (Kelly, 2013). Participation in community mutual-help groups like AA will not be for all patients, but, for some, AA may very well enhance formal treatment efforts.

• Kaskutas, Lee Ann (2 April 2009). "Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness: Faith Meets Science". Journal of Addictive Diseases. 28 (2): 145–157. doi:10.1080/10550880902772464. eISSN 1545-0848. ISSN 1055-0887. PMC 2746426. PMID 19340677.

At the heart of the debate is the quality of the evidence. AA critics have argued that AA is a cult that relies on God as the mechanism of action [11], and that rigorous experimental studies are necessary in order to convince them of AA’s effectiveness. Their concern is well-founded. As will be evident from this review, experimental studies represent the weakest of the available evidence. However, the review also will highlight other categories of evidence that are overwhelmingly convincing with respect to AA effectiveness, including the consistency with established mechanisms of behavior change

• Ferri, Marica; Amato, Laura; Davoli, Marina (19 July 2006). "Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005032.pub2. eISSN 1465-1858. PMID 16856072.

No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. One large study focused on the prognostic factors associated with interventions that were assumed to be successful rather than on the effectiveness of interventions themselves, so more efficacy studies are needed.

• White, William L.; Kurtz, Ernest (2008). "Twelve Defining Moments in the History of Alcoholics Anonymous". Recent Developments in Alcoholism. Springer New York. pp. 37–57. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77725-2_3. ISSN 0738-422X.

The ever-growing definitions of AA have reached a point where they tell us more about each author than about AA as an organization or a framework of alcoholism recovery (Miller & Kurtz, 1994). AA has been variably depicted as a society (Wilson, 1949), social movement (Room, 1993), culture of recovery (White, 1996), system of beliefs and speech event (Makela, et al, 1996); spiritual program (Miller & Kurtz, 1994), and a religious cult (Bufe, 1991). One of the most pervasive characterizations of AA is that of a “treatment” for alcoholism (Bebbington, 1976; Tournier, 1979; Emrick, 1989; Najavits, Crits-Christoph, & Dierberger, 2000; McGovern & Carroll, 2003). In 1994, psychologist William Miller and AA historian Ernest Kurtz, wrote a seminal article noting popular and professional misconceptions about AA. Using AA’s own literature, Miller and Kurtz challenged these misconceptions.

All we really need is to show some experts have characterized AA as pseudoscientific. And we clearly have that in Lilienfeld and Kaskutas. We don't actually have to show it's pseudoscience to have it included in this list.

To be fair, this is somewhat superseded by some recent sources, e.g. this 2020 review

Kelly, John F; Abry, Alexandra; Ferri, Marica; Humphreys, Keith (6 July 2020). "Alcoholics Anonymous and 12-Step Facilitation Treatments for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Distillation of a 2020 Cochrane Review for Clinicians and Policy Makers". Alcohol and Alcoholism. 55 (6): 641–651. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agaa050. eISSN 1464-3502. ISSN 0735-0414. PMC 8060988. PMID 32628263.

AA/TSF interventions produce similar benefits to other treatments on all drinking-related outcomes except for continuous abstinence and remission, where AA/TSF is superior. AA/TSF also reduces healthcare costs. Clinically implementing one of these proven manualized AA/TSF interventions is likely to enhance outcomes for individuals with AUD while producing health economic benefits.

But I would say an appropriate and DUE treatment would be to say something along the lines of "AA has been criticized as pseudoscientific, a religious cult, etc. but recent reviews of the evidence have shown it is effective blah blah blah"

Just my 2 cents. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, you are on the wrong articles talk page. You need to establish this at Talk:Twelve-step program. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

no local consensus supersedes any other local consensus. and we can do both. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"exorcism"

inasmuch as science does not deal with spiritual realities, exorcism cannot be considered a pseudoscience unless believers in it start making claims that could be subject to scientific enquiry. 142.163.195.41 (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The parent article Exorcism doesn't characterize it as pseudoscience, but it's listed on this article... and the paragraph about Exorcism in this article (List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Religious and spiritual_beliefs) doesn't even have a source. Some1 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)