Talk:Pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pseudoscience article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Rational Skepticism (Rated Start-Class)
	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Sociology WikiProject (Rated Start-Class)
	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Pseudoscience, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated Start-Class)

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-Class)

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Additional information:

Related task forces (core areas):
	Logic
Related task forces (major fields):
	Philosophy of science

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: 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.

Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Pseudoscience article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents the fields it lists as "pseudoscience" in an unsympathetic light or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

Notes to editors:

This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.
Please use edit summaries.

Archives
Antiquity – Jan 2003 Jan 2003 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – Apr 2006 Apr 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – Sept. 2006 Sept. 2006 – Oct. 2006 October 2006 November 2006 November 2006 — Dec 2007

[edit] Back to testability...

I really think the topic of testability is too large to be included as it is in the intro statement. Although it is true that "they do not adhere to the testability requirement of the scientific method", that is certainly not one of the defining features. As SA has pointed out, it's not the testability that's the problem, it's the response to the tests, when carried out, that generally defines a pseudoscience.

More to the point, I think the statement below is a much clearer set of definitions: "Pseudosciences may be characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development."

I propose moving that statement up to the intro para, removing the current statement, and covering the testability requirements in the existing section, one paragraph down. I really don't think we're doing anyone a service by putting this potentially misleading statement so early in the document where it cannot be properly explained.

Maury 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of Astronomy has the same problem of testability. A young n***a from da street 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Although MAury says that testability is not the problem, it actually is one of the biggest problems in pseudosciences in most disciplines (See How to Think Straight About Psychology (Stanovich) for a more thorough explanation. FAlsifiability is so important in evaluating claims and also in just plain straight thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the definition of 'falsifable' then String Theory should be considered pseudoscience, most of modern Physica theory cannot be tested , then how could we make the difference between them and pseudoscience ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.100.144 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That is something of a gray area, but those subjects are generally better classified as protoscience. The difference is mainly that those theories haven't been refined to the point where they can be tested yet. On the other hand, pseudoscientific theories show no signs of ever being testable, or, if they are, contradictory test results are ignored or handwaved away. Sometimes it is hard to judge, though. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right Infophile. With regards to string theory it is unfalsifiable at the moment, but does not meet the other criteria for pseudoscience (for example string theorists have a continuity between their theories and the rest of physics, they don't think everybody else in their field are idiots (as some pseudoscientists do), and they will move on to other work if there theory is falsified - unlike pseudoscientists, etc etc). But even with string theory, one can see the importance of the falsifiability, it helps us understand that although string theory explains everything, we should still take it with a grain of salt until we can test it (many religions explain everything, but are untestable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudosciences that became sciencies

Did some pseudosciences, like the continental theory, turn into real sciences? Let me doubt this statement. An hypotethical theory, which still has not been verified nor refuted, doesnt mean it is a pseudoscience: pseudoscientific theories and statements , actually, cannot be verified nor refuted. And theories such as the continental derive can be eventually proved to be true or false.

pseudoscience is a term of abuse used by the establishment to disparage new ideas and as a barrier of entry to new scientists. Think Galileo - an obvious psuedo-scientist! A young n***a from da street 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it can happen, if only rarely; continental drift is probably the most famous case of a theory almost universally thought to be nonsense by mainstream scientists that was eventually accepted into the canon of scientific belief. Continental drift earned its acceptance in the traditional way; by the presentation of compelling experimental evidence of its reality.

For every theory such as continental drift that is later demonstrated to be a valid hypothesis, there are hundreds that are not, and they share one thing in common; an inability to present convincing evidence that meets the criteria of the scientific method.

Implausibility, of itself, has never been a barrier to eventual scientific acceptance -- consider quantum mechanics and general relativity, both of which violate the assumptions of normal human common sense. Even today, the theory of evolution struggles to find universal acceptance outside of the scientific world -- again, for the reason that it offends many people's "common sense", based on their observations in everyday life that cats never turn into dogs and monkeys never turn into people. All of these theories initially met resistance within the scientific community, but did not have the same problems as continental drift.

The remarkable thing about science is not that it is closed to new ideas, but how open it is to them.

You might want to follow the recent developments in cold fusion research to see this in action; new experimental results have recently re-opened the debate on cold fusion, after many years of cold fusion being a pariah theory.

-- The Anome 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Galileo (or Einstein's or Newton's, or Pasteur's etc etc etc etc) early work on their testable and logical theories were NOT pseudosciences, and they did not meet criteria for a pseudoscience. Although they were criticized by the church, does not mean fellow scientists did not help them develop and improve, and yes... test their original ideas. This "galileo argument" is very popular with people with unfalsifiable new ideas that they have a financial stake in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote EL

Wikiquote external link, that 71.105.19.9 is reverting to retain, contains only the following example:

If a person replaces most of the water in his body with Koranic water, his body begins to emit steam which contains the Koran. This creates a halo of steam around him, containing the Koran, which fends off Satan.

Sharif Shukran in the United Arab Emirates who claimed to be an inventor, The "Science" behind Healing with Koranic Holy Water. MEMRI (December 3, 2007).

The "Science" behind Healing with Koranic Holy Water

Does anybody really think that, as it stands, this provides the reader with significant additional useful information? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

q:pseudoscience also has a quote by Adnan Oktar who "scientically" explains how "Darwin is responsible for global terrorism"[1].--71.105.19.9 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- A recent addition, and just as tangential. And what's with the repeated links? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

One link is to the transcript while the other is for the video clip.--71.105.19.9 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Overkill. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concede.--71.105.19.9 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Hi. I'm curious. This article is written mainly from the positivist/critical rationalism angle which is widespread in America. Many of the examples of pseudoscience follows other kind of scientific philosophies or other post-modern approaches. While it may be tempting to use the popular science "scientific method" as a basis for criticism, there are a lot of scientists that allows hypothesises and unprovable things to be discussed without sinking to sling the perojative pseudoscience at it. While I am not terribly good at post-positivism approaches (which are popular here in Norway) it is clear that pseudoscience as defined here is defiend from an anglocentric perspective. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I either wasn't aware or didn't recall that these ideas (Positivism, Postpositivism) had a name. And yet there they are in Wikipedia! I think your point is a very good one, and it deserves to be considered as the article is edited. Please feel free to make edits that occur to you. NuclearWinner (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conservationist physics

I was doing a cull on Category:Creationism stubs for articles that were either no longer stubs, or needed further attention & came across this article. Has anybody heard of this topic/its founder? Does anybody know of any sources that might substantiate its notability? Should it simply be redirected to Pseudophysics? It's been wholly unsourced for a year, so probably should have something done about it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed protoscience sentence from user Vapour

It is redundant. NuclearWinner (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also section

So as not to edit war, let's discuss this section here. Levine, I checked the link you provided before making the initial revert. I also checked WP:SEEALSO, and it didn't mention anything related to this issue there. I felt that it didn't actually appear to be a characterization in light of the other items currently on the list. Certainly, some of them are obvious pseudoscience, but many are also simply related topics. We have Protoscience in there even though it's specifically called out by the policy you cite as not being pseudoscience, for instance. In the end, the relevant question I see is simply: Would somebody reading this possibly also be interested in reading about the subject of alternative medicine? Since it seems obvious they would; it should go in.

However, I do see a problem with the section becoming too listy. We've already got an article for that. I'm going to go and trim it down some after posting this, get rid of the items that are more like listing pseudosciences. I might leave in a couple really prominent examples though, such as Intelligent Design. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with your edits. Please read WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience (if you haven't already). I think it sets a good bar in terms of how to deal with characterizing subjects as examples of Pseudoscience. And I get how "See also" works, but in a sense it is arbitrary - leaving it up to us to guess at what another reader might be interested in. It is too easy for See Also to be abused for a WP:POVPUSH. I totally agree with your "too listy" rationale - as you say, We've already got an article for that. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember a while back we had both evidence-based and alternative medicine in this list (though I might be thinking of another article), after a similar discussion. That seemed to be a good solution at the time. I don't have time to go history diving right now, but I'd be interested to see why that was changed. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just as soon leave them both out or anything else where its appearance in this list could be construed as being presented as an example of Pseudoscience, thereby violating WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think there's much threat of that as long as we keep the section from being too much of a list, but it's hard to make that call definitively. Perhaps we could see what some other editors think to get a feel for consensus on this. (I'm fine with leaving it out until that time.) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And again, I can understand the logic train getting to the assumption that someone reading about Pseudoscience might also be interested in reading about Protoscience. I don't however see such a clear logic train for Alternative Medicine. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the way I look at it at least, Alternative medicine is a mix of "pseudomedicine," "protomedicine," and a few cases of typical medicine which has been co-opted under the label of being alternative (I'm using the prefixes there like with -science, in case my meaning isn't obvious). Seeing as we have links to other pseudo- topics (Pseudohistory, for example), alternative medicine seems to fit under this banner. Or, in another way of looking at it, alternative medicine is to evidence-based medicine as pseudoscience is to science (it's the closest parallel at least, even if, as I noted before, not all of alt-med is "pseudo"). That's my logic, at least. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet, mainstream medicine also includes pseudo-medicine and protomedicine (as well as EBM). I know you think that "alternative medicine is to evidence-based medicine as pseudoscience is to science", but that is simply a POV and a mischaracterization of a general term. You are saying to include "Alt Med" in the See Also section because is is equivalent to pseudoscience - a logic train which violates WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. I am not denying that Alt Med does have some pseudosciences lumped in with this general categorization, but I also acknowledge that it has much scientific-based practices in its composition as well - similar to Mainstream Medicine. Alt Med is not generally considered pseudoscience as a whole, but more along the lines of comprising some topics which are "Questionable Science" and some which are "Alternative theoretical formulations" (as well as some which are very much EBM). Accordingly (by the policies set forth by WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, we would be in violation by including Alt Med in the See Also section using the logic you have outlined. Make sense? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well I think I see where our impasse comes from, at least. We seem to have different pictures of what Alternative Medicine is (and for that matter, mainstream and evidence-based medicine), and I can understand how your view of it leads to your conclusion here. Now, we could try to hash all that out, but I just don't see it being worth the effort that would necessarily entail. I think the most reasonable solution here is to just wait for/seek out the opinion of a third party. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Some (popular) definitions or usages of "Atlernative medicine" include biologically based therapies that have definite theoretical, experimental and/or clinical bases for Science but are not (yet or again) accepted as (FDA approved or class 1 EBM) mainstream Medicine (including substances that are categorically exempt, such as nutrients recognized as foods). There are several structural economic, social and scientific problems that both maintain and create the classification of valid, science based therapies as "Alternative medicine". This also means that medicine of yesteryear, now old and generic, with valid evidence acceptable for its time, and still useful with biochemically measurable results, can be (has been) disparaged (publically attacked) in some (commercially and scientifically) trivial way, and become deprecated as "Alternative medicine" simply because there is no automatic economic mechanism to support and "defend" it. Hypothetically there are (or were) cumbersome mechanisms institutionally to *possibly* address this, but these very same institutions often are in hostile (economic & political) opposition in practice, as well as simply not functioning. Furthermore there are a number of historical medical controversies with economic and political dimension that are simply scandals awaiting recognition as scientific bias, incompetence, and/or fraud. This applies to "mainstream" drugs that are more dangerous and less beneficial than their captive documentation claims, and to cheap biologically based therapies (some biochemically measurable) abandoned, severely delayed (decades or major fractions of a century), or ~~murdered~~ disparaged aborning. In this latter category, are historical cases that continue to drive major public controversies. In the former category, a number of the recent drug scandals fit. Automatically confuting (complementary and )"alternative medicine" as pseudoscience furthers errors, and for some, an agenda of non-scientifically based disparagement, all too common at WP. Altmed categorization as PS appears to directly violate WP:NPOV, and, by overgeneralization, WP:V.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Hola Infophile - I'm not sure about the "see also", but for some excellent (and varying) V RS's on the definition of alternative medicine, check out the lead at Complementary and alternative medicine. Some notable folks do define alt-med as the set of things outside evidence-based medicine, but the Institute of Medicine doesn't (and they're certainly the strongest source there and the only sci-consensus one). Under their definition, and in the view of others as well like Edzard Ernst, it is certainly possible for a modality to be both EBM and CAM. Even so, the overlap is not huge, and there will be within CAM a significant amount of all different categories of pseudo- and questionable science that the ArbCom talked about (top of page). In what proportions, no idea; I guess one might look at CAM's by economic precedence, and see how they would be classified under our pseudoscience rubric.

I just noticed that at quackery there is a "see also" for (sic: all on one line) Conventional medicine, alternative medicine and evidence-based medicine, so if it's fine there (and I think it certainly is), it should be fine here: healthcare is a major focus of science. I'll try that, and if it isn't good, someone just revert and we'll take it from there. (Am somewhat flummoxed as to why we haven't merged the articles on alt-med, comp-med and CAM all together, but those discussions always get hung up with a few highly opinionated folks with, imho, tenuous logic.) regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about it, but as you have listed it does seem to balance out any POV claims about any one of these subjects. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly; trying for something that "mildly unrevolting" to all parties. :-) cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for catching that on Quackery. I knew I remembered coming to that compromise somewhere, just got mixed up as to which article it was (though I got shot down when I mentioned it, and it's accepted now. Interesting. Analyzing the source more than the arguments, perhaps?). Anyways, quick note on the definitions of C/A/EB Medicine: Yeah, I realized not long after my post on what I see AltMed as that my two different analogies don't really say the same thing. I consider the first to be more accurate (and it matches up quite well to most of the definitions there); the second just benefits from simplicity, and I thought using it would make a clearer case for why we should have the link to AltMed here. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Pseudoscience up for deletion ... again

As you will notice from the cfdnotice I've just posted above (as the nominator didn't bother to do so), Category:Pseudoscience is up for deletion again. You can find discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 27#Pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

KEEP, KEEP, KEEP. Knowing the difference between science and pseudoscience is an essential part of everybody's education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place to express the opinion, and the CfD has already been closed as a "keep". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I prefer the original simple definition to the now much more complicated one diff. I find that there is virtually no difference in the various definitions given in the sources aside from slight differences in wording, and it is important for this article to be firm and precise in the scope of its applicability. Rather than simply reverting, what are the opinions of other editors around here regarding the recent changes to the first sentence of this article? Silly rabbit (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the downside of my first edit. But it's important to have a wider definition because there is, outside natural sciences, well accepted research which doesn't adhere to the natural scientific method, within social sciences and other disciplines studying human beings also qualitative research is used. So the earlier definition would have made some of the existing research "pseudoscientific". Your new arrangement was ok, but I'll edit a bit more for grammatical reasons. Of course other ideas are welcome too, but what used to be there was too much a simplification, and it also looked a bit misleading to have many sources for one definition when in fact those sources do not give the same definition. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 07:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Now that I know your mind, I am much more comfortable with the changes to the first sentence. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article of interest

Could people who watch this article check out Psychohistory - I am not sure if it counts as a pseudoscience or not. Judging from the article it seems to be the invention of one guy, Lloyd deMause (try googling him) and his students/disciples. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good eye, Slrubenstein. It looks like a borberline case of pseudoscience because of the untestable premise, circular arguments and focus on confirmational evidence and ignoring vast swaths of disconfirming evidence. It is similar to Alice Miller's bleak and blinkered view of childhood and history, and deMause may have influenced by others like Arthur Janov and similar proponents that say that ALL children were abused and that frames history and explains politics and EVERYTHING. There is a lack of boundary conditions too, another sign of pseudoscience, because de MAuse applies psychoanalytic theory (which is suspect to begin with) to the whole history of mankind. Also, a lack of continuity from other areas of science (social aspects, evolutionary, and genetic factors are ignored; or at least do not mesh with the 'theory') is another sign of pseudoscience.Zonbalance (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Science and IT

WP:NOT#FORUM

The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Creation Science and IT should not be listed in this article. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience they might be considered to be questionable science, not psuedoscience.

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does it says this? And what is IT? Information Technology?--Filll (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire. They're obvious pseudoscience, and we have sources ranging from the courts to national science academies stating as such. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

JBFrenchhorn, Just because something is pseudoscience, doesn't mean it is not true. And just because something is scientific, doesn't mean it is true. ^ross ^nixon 01:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite right infophile, again. Creation science and Intelligent Design (ID, rather than IT I guess) are pseudoscience and meet ALL the criteria for pseudoscience: unfalsifiability, lack of continuity with other science, lack of boundary conditions, disconfirming evidence ignored, emotionally charged reasons why it is desired to be true, etc etc. They are religious beliefs, which is okay, religion is not always bad. The evidence for natural selection and evolutionary theory is overwhelming and evolution is both a theory and a fact (gene frequencies change from one generation to the other, that part is a fact we can observe all the time)Zonbalance (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

These should be removed. Creation science subjects itself to the same objectivity of "regular" science, but begins with different starting assumptions with which to interpret their evidence. It is incorrect to assume they do not apply the scientific method. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The starting assumption is that a very old book is literally true, and no evidence to the contrary will ever change that assumption. It's shoehorning data to fit a pre-concieved notion. That's not science, and attempting to claim the respectability of science makes it pseudoscience. WLU (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess in saying that, you subject evolution, for example, to the same scientific frailty and capability to change or be utterly up heaved? As long as we are all consistent. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the index to creationist claims. All creationist attacks against evolution have been rebutted, in some cases by Darwin himself, over 150 years ago. Science regularly changes its theories in response to new evidence. Evolution is not a pseudoscience, it is well supported by a myriad of not just evidence, but lines of evidence, from a huge array of disciplines and sub-disciplines. See the talk origins archive for more information. WLU (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

208.188.2.101, "Creation science" IS pseudoscience: just like the various other pseudoscience topics that you did NOT remove. So why did you not remove those others? Do you think it's right that a supporter of any specific pseudoscience should arbitraily remove his/her favourite from the list of pseudosciences? Do you actually not accept that anything at all should be classed as pseudoscience? How about astrology, or phrenology? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor makes edits on that which he understands. I don't have to write / rewrite an entire article. 208.188.2.101 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read History of evolutionary thought -- the Theory of Evolution has been subjected to continuous testing, alteration and improvement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Shortcut

In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Pseudoscience up for deletion

Discussion is at WP:TFD#Template:Infobox_Pseudoscience. This seems to be "try to delete anything connected with the topic of pseudoscience" month. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falsifiability

As regards my now reverted edit here, I'd like to discuss the matter here. I think the reversion is improper because of a misunderstanding of my meaning, or I'm just plain wrong. (Maybe I'm just too tired!) Falsifiability is generally considered basic to whether a claim is considered within the scientificly testable realm. Homeoapathy is probably the most egregious pseudoscience around, and it makes obviously falsifiable claims. If it didn't, it would be a pseudoscience.

Basically any idea that is pseudoscientific must either

Claim to be scientific, but not adhere to the scientific method.
Be made to appear scientific, but not adhere to the scientific method.
Make falsifiable claims, but not adhere to the scientific method.

But not necessarily all three.

If it doesn't make falsifiable claims, appear to be scientific, or claim to be scientific, then it's possibly a metaphysical idea or something else, but not a pseudoscience. If it makes unfalsifiable claims, it probably wouldn't appear to be scientific, and therefore would not be a pseudoscience.

Basically any idea that is not pseudoscientific (IOW be scientific) must either

not make claims to be scientific, but not adhere to the scientific method.
not be made to appear scientific, but not adhere to the scientific method.
make unfalsifiable claims, but not adhere to the scientific method.

Am I just too tired to realize I'm tripping over my own tongue here? -- Fyslee / talk 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My first thought is that none of the sources assembled even mention falsifiability as part of the deal at all. Instead, all sources available indicate that the putative pseudoscience must in effect claim to be a science (or be made to appear scientific). Find sources which include falsifiability as part of the basic definition, and we might have grounds for inclusion here.

However, I think I can directly address the issue of falsifiability without resorting to the sourcing problem. Simple charlatans and confidence artists make falsifiable claims all the time, do not adhere to the scientific method, yet are not pseudoscience. Homeopathy is pseudoscience, not because it makes falsifiable claims, but because it claims to be scientific while refusing to adhere to the scientific method. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion, psuedoscientists make UNfalsifiable theories, theories that cannot possibly be proved wrong. (see work by Scott Lilienfeld, Karl Popper, Kieth Stanovich). And yes, falsifiability is essential to the pseusoscience definition. Good Scientific theories are both falsifiable (can possibly be proved wrong) yet tested many times and not found to be false (not falsified). Hope that doesn't give anyone a headache. Zonbalance (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mention below, some pseudoscientists and scammers actually make falsifiable claims, but fail to adhere to the scientific method. The making of UNfalsifiable claims isn't always a factor. -- Fyslee / talk 07:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have caught the confusion bug as well Zonbalance. Fyslee was saying, or seemed to be saying, that disciplines which are falsifiable, yet do not adhere to the scientific method, are pseudoscience. I agree that falsifiability, as it generally is thought of as figuring in the scientific method, is often vital to the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. That fact is in no way at odds with my reversion. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why revert it? Maybe reword it a bit better? -- Fyslee / talk 07:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, to incorporate falsifiability into the first line of the article is going to be difficult. Really it falls into the "scientific method." If you are an astute reader, you should be able to pick out the falsifiability bit in the NSF reference, as a part of their description of the scientific method. However the author they cite is quite careful not to overplay the falsifiability card (he doesn't even specifically use the word), and I don't think it should be in the first sentence of the article. The most important thing is the scientific method. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we basically agree. The lack of adherence to the scientific method is the main thing, and other things can be tacked on in varying degrees. Some pseudosciences make unfalsifiable claims, yet claim to be scientific, and on the basis of their false claims are considered to be pseudosciences. Others make falsifiable claims, while disavowing any pretense to be scientific, and on that basis (their claims get falsified) are also pseudosciences. We actually have some editors here playing that game. They think that because their favorite pseudoscience doesn't make overt claims to be scientific, that it can escape being listed at the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Well, it can because it both makes falsifiable claims that are falsified and fails to adhere to the scientific method. So as regards falsifiability, it can go both ways. It isn't an absolute requirement, but is often a major factor when combined with other factors. The making of a falsifiable claim involves an attempt to appear scientific, whether the one making the falsifiable claim admits or disavoys any attempt to claim to be scientific. They are trapped on the basis of their falsifiable claim. Smooth conmen are careful to fly under the radar by making claims that are unfalsifiable, but still pretend that their scams are scientifically proven, when they are actually unproven anecdotes. They are failing to adhere to the scientific method. Are you confused now? It's really not that bad. There is simply more than one way to cut this cake and pronounce a method or idea to be pseudoscientific. Although falsifiability is mentioned several places in the article, it doesn't have to be mentioned in the first sentence. Neither does the definition have to be a precise quote from one or more sources, but can be written following the principles for writing the LEAD, IOW a summation of the places in the article that involve definitional matters, and thus the definition can include falsifiability as a possible factor, if we so choose. -- Fyslee / talk 07:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I have yet to come across a pseudoscience that didn't make UNfalsifiable claims, because even if they are testable the proponents dismiss the evidence as bogus or very often as further confirmation (believe it or not). So I see unfalsifiability as covering those pseudosciences that you mentioned who you think make falsifiable claims. If a proponent has an answer for every possible falsifying evidences then I call it unfalsifiable. I agree with you fyslee, though, there are other ways to cut the cake.Zonbalance (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think it's important to avoid commitments about the specific details in the lead sentence, anyway. What constitutes confirmation and testing, and thus "falsifiability" (whatever that means), can vary depending on the sciences. There is, I believe, an especially great rift between the natural sciences and social sciences. So falsifiability can be (and in fact is) dealt with in the article, but it has to be done properly, and in a way that doesn't make it seem as though this is the only available demarcation criterion. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you on the edit Silly Rabbit, (though for different reasons). Fyslee please give your source on the "falsifiable but not following the scientific method," I'm intrigued. Glad to have you both protecting the article from the bendy-thinkers. :) Zonbalance (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience is defined? By who?

According to this, "psuedoscience" is not "defined" -- not at all "defined". I've adjusted the intro to remove WP:OR and WP:SYN, and attribute this description of the term to the individual who created it. WNDL42 (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A Google scholar search does not establish the lack of definition of something. (For instance, here are some searches which tell a very different story: [2], [3], and [4].) The definition cited in the article is a very reasonable one, and attempts to accommodate all available points of view. If you have a real objection, consisting an alternative definition you feel is not represented here, then you are welcome to raise the issue and use it to improve the article. However, please do not edit-war and use spurious arguments to attempt to override the existing consensus version of the lead. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "defined" has a very specific meaning and it's use in the lead as I found it is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Seems pretty clear to me. WNDL42 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, not one of your google searches establishes a "definition", much less "tell a different story", nor even tell any story at all. Not this one, nor this one, nor this one. True or not true, "the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifyability, not truth", right? WNDL42 (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the OAM def up front -- workable? WNDL42 (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) We have here two mainstream dictionaries which define the term, a reputable source such as the National Science Foundation, and other sundry sources (which I have not personally checked). All of these definitions are basically in agreement. It is not WP:OR to present a widely agreed upon definition as such. If you wish to bring other, comparably reliable, sources in to challenge the definition, then we can start trying to fix the wording per WP:NPOV. Otherwise, you appear to be trying to force your own WP:POV on the article. I don't find the present "compromise" workable. All of the definitions are basically the same. Is there another definition that you are aware of? If not, I suggest going back to the previous consensus version of the lead, unless another editor objects. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The NSF document cites Michael Shermer only tangentially...you will note this if you read the source. Also, Shermer has been discredited on numerous occasions (Stenger himself refutes Shermer on Orch-OR, for example) and Shermer has been broadly discredited on many other occasions. Citing Shermer as if citing NSF, merely because NSF "quoted" Shermer...is deceptive. WNDL42 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from the NSF:

Pseudoscience has been defined as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" (Shermer 1997, p. 33).[28] In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation" (Shermer 1997, p. 17).

The NSF is explicitly adopting the definition of pseudoscience, and his definition of science. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. The NSF attributed it to Shermer, as any responsible publication would. Take the quote in context, not out of context. WNDL42 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This article attributed the statement to Shermer as well. But there is no reason not to note that this is the definition adopted by the NSF as well, thus lending considerably more weight to it as a viable definition. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "adopted" by the NSF, it's "referenced" by NSF. Big difference. WNDL42 (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They explicitly present the definition as the one that they use in the paper. It is adopted as the definition that they use in the document. Had they presented it, along with other definitions, then you might have a point. But they present this definition and only this definition, and make no attempt to contest it. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The NSF document does not "define" pseudoscience. The NSF document "cites" professional skeptic Shermer. You are reading too much into it to assert that the NSF is "defining" anything. WNDL42 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Strawman. The WP:CONSENSUS version of the reference says that the NSF adopts Shermer's definition. It doesn't say that the NSF originated this definition. Also, I note that the NSF does not feel the need to qualify its assertion by saying that Shermer is a professional skeptic. I think you may want to look at the way that source is written again. Silly rabbit (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit, a straw man would be when I create an absurd version of your argument, in order to refute the absurd version of the argument you didn't make, in order to avoid the argument you actually made. I don't think I did that, but correct me (specifically please) if I'm wrong. Did you perhaps mean to accuse me instead of pulling a red herring? WNDL42 (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, FYI, the NSF has dropped Shermer's "definitions" for the 2008 release of the very same document you are attempting to use as your holy grail. If NSF dropped Shermer, Wikipedia should too. WNDL42 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the Oxford definitions define the adjective "pseudoscientific", while "pseudoscience" is a noun. That's a BIG difference too. WNDL42 (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the word games. This is getting to be tendentious. Do you have a legitimate dispute, such as an alternative definition, or a reliable source saying there is no definition? If not, then we should revert to the original consensus version, which was based on the input of many editors. Silly rabbit (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Requiring proof of a negative? Now there's a misuse of the Scientific method. You are attempting to define something, which is (by definition) a "word game". This is an encyclopedia and your arguments are quite unencyclopedic. WNDL42 (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

More word games, by the way. I have restored the consensus version. It is clear you have an agenda. Silly rabbit (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This version provides a clearer presentation while fairly and accurately summarizing numerous sources. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, your opinion is noted, as such. With the addition of some sources, your opinion will become more than just opinion, and thereby useful. WNDL42 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit, your statement -- "It is clear you have an agenda." is so patently ridiculous that it fails as a personal attack only to the extent that it makes me laugh so hard. Take a look at the hard evidence from the Palo Alto Research Center on this article and do tell me more, Silly Rabbit, about which editors here "have an agenda". My "agenda" is to properly attribute this so-called "definition", and to attribute it where it is first used, in the lead. WNDL42 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like an agenda to me. Maybe you are trying to prove a WP:POINT? Silly rabbit (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit, of course every editor has a POV, and every edit on Wikipedia represents a POV. By definition, therefore, every edit on wikipedia represents an "agenda". My "point" in this comment is to hold up for ridicule the silly notion that one editor here (me) has an "agenda", and that other editors somehow "do not" have "agenda", which is the thrust of your ridiculous and personally directed comment about my "agenda". It is just plain silly for you to be the pot calling the kettle black. FYI, every edit here should make a "point" of one kind or another, is that not also obvious? Is it not also obvious that if a point is made and then refuted, the point should be defended via proof? If not, you may wish to have a look at Socratic discourse. Therefore, yes...I am definitely (not "maybe") "trying to prove a point", and YOU are trying to "dismiss" the point with your silly and personally directed assertions about "agenda", like when you said "More word games, by the way. I have restored the consensus version. It is clear you have an agenda". What is clear here is that you are unwilling or unable to address the point, and must resort to an ad hominem argument -- a clear fallacy. WNDL42 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed the point, but perhaps not the WP:POINT. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have looked into this issue a bit when writing some drafts. The general problem is called the demarcation problem and it is essentially an unsolved problem in the philosophy of science. This has not stopped various attempts to define pseudoscience, or come up with a fool proof scheme for describing what is science and what is pseudoscience, or even the courts from making assorted arbitrary choices of demarcation criteria for this purpose (such as the Daubert standard). Unfortunately, all of the demarcation criteria that have been suggested over the decades fail in one way or another. Currently, courts define science as what scientists say it is, and pseudoscience as what science says it is, together with a few rules of thumb. The most advanced criteria I have come across are by Paul R. Thagard [5][6], but there are many other candidates. After having spent many many hours reading this philosophy of science stuff, I would not be surprised if there are holes in Thagard's proposed criteria as well, just as there was in verifiability and falsifiability and Judge William R. Overton's standards [7] and all the others.--Filll (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether it is possible or reasonable to give a dictionary definition of pseudoscience in the article. It's been awhile since I have read up on the demarcation problem, but I think that there is at least some agreement as to what pseudoscience "is." It is non-science posing as science. The difficulty, then, is how to distinguish it from science. The label usually seems to refer to the kind of gestalt which is inherently difficult or impossible to specify precisely. That said, I don't see any problem giving a widely agreed-upon definition in the lead. The demarcation problem, however, currently receives only scant treatment in the article, and there is definitely room for expansion. Silly rabbit (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The great thing about science and words are that they give wiggle room. But this article give a great set of check-off's to what makes Pseudoscience and what isn't. What I've noticed is that anti-science POV warriors will claim everything is science, and those of us who have no POV on science, just that it be verified by reliable sources, can quickly point to what is and what is not pseudoscience. Even Cold fusion (just the first thing that comes to mind as being debatable), meets most of the fundamentals of pseudoscience. The fact is that almost every pseudoscientific item will undergo scientific analysis and move from pseudoscience to real science. It's like what I say (ok many say it) about Alternative medicine. There is only medicine. Everything else is folklore, faith or belief. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This thread is starting to get at the problem as I see it. I will create a section for a proposed aletrnative approach...thanks. WNDL42 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Silly Rabbit and Eldereft on this. The definitions of pseudoscience by Popper, Stanovich, Shermer, Lilienfeld, etc. etc. are fairly consistent and extremely valuable. Sincere thanks to silly rabbit for watching over this article and restoring the consensus version. Zonbalance (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quackwatch is good

see here, by Rory Coker. I like this because it provides concrete examples. WNDL42 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rory Coker "pseudoscience" criteria

I've just extracted the "bullets", the essay is chock full of examples. I think Coker gets into trouble via overuse of hyperbole, but I like the way he's laid it out...WNDL42 (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.

Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.

Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.

Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.

Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.

Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.

Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.

Pseudoscience does not progress.

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).

Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.

Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.

Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.

Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.

Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.

Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."

Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.

Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.

[edit] The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page.66.30.77.62 (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudohistory

Considering that this article talks a great deal about scientific movements in the past, it is problematic that none of the critiques brought in come from historians of science. Many historians of science (myself included) take great issue with the concept of "pseudoscience," primarily because what is not considered science today was considered science during its time. The notion of science is not a timeless floating essence, but something that has been constructed and defined and fought over over the course of centuries. For instance, eugenics is frequently referred to as a pseudoscience, even though it was highly regarded as a science at the time, and an integral part of the formation of the discipline of biology and genetics. (Many present day genetics journals were originally eugenics journals.) This i because scientists today want to distance themselves with this history. Whereas Darwin is not considered pseudoscience, while many of his ideas are not believed by many scientists. (I'm not talking about creationism. I'm talking about Darwin's racial theories, for instance.)

Anyway, I wanted to offer the critique. When I have time I'll pull this together in the form of something that can fit into the article.

Fokion (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it that way Fokion, although I agree with some things you wrote. Darwin's natural selection basic theory is the science, Darwin's culturally effected racial use of the word "savages" (for example) is not the science. It is not uncommon for scientists to make scientific contributions while still believing in other things. The pseudoscience concept is an important one that can help protect people from scams and oportunity costs. I recommend work by Karl Popper, Keith Stanovich, Scott O Lilienfeld and others because I think there is a part of the puzzle you haven't looked into yet. In particular falsifiability is a key concept, and it is interesting to look back on the history of science and see how mistakes in "science" have often come from an ignorance of the falsifiability principle. Zonbalance (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the question remains... who gets to define the terms of the debate? Falsifiability implies that there is an already established methodology. These disciplinary practices are historically contingent-- to hold science of the past up to what is today considered legitimate science would be historically problematic. Also, by that definition, the scientific method is pseudoscience, since there is no way to prove that the scientific method works. And if we were to do that, what methodology would we use? The scientific method? Empiricism, like any other methodology or disciplinary foundationalism, is ultimately self-assuming.

On the question of Darwin, it is from our perspective today that we separate Darwin's racial politics from his evolutionary politics. They certainly weren't separated at the time. In fact, these racial politics were very much a part of recapitulation theory which formed the backbone for developmental psychology.

Anyway, I'll look for some sources and write up a section in the critique. I think it would be better for the article to acknowledge the existence of a social constructionist critique of the notion of pseudoscience. Fokion (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, falsifiability is just one criteria, and it simply means a theory should be constructed in a way that it is possible to prove it wrong. Methodology is found in other criteria for pseudoscience. Zonbalance (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear in my previous response. The point I'm trying to make is that in order to speak of "falsifiablity" in fact presupposes a great deal of things, none of which are subjected to tests of falsifiablity. Namely, the idea of the scientific method as a coherent timeless entity, when in fact the scientific method is something that is put into practice in very different ways in different disciplines. Those foundational claims of those disciplines cannot really be subjected to the test of falsifiablity, or at least they usually aren't. One example I was trying to demonstrate is that the claim "the scientific method works", for example, cannot be subjected to any test- it is taken as a matter of faith. If a mechanism were devised for testing whether or not the scientific method does work it would either have to: A) rely on the scientific method, in which case it would be circular, or B) use some other method. And if it does that, then that method somehow supercedes the scientific method, and THAT's the foundational assumption.

So we have that every discipline comes down to some sort of foundationalisms or axioms which are fundamentally not falsifiable. That's one of the problems with disciplinarity.

The other claim that I'm making is that "the scientific method" plays out very differently in different contexts. From the perspective of physics, for instance, sociology doesn't make sense. The claim that there's such a coherent concept as groups of people is an unquestioned claim.

Finally, we have to understand the scientific method as something that exists historically. It's an idea that was constructed by a small group of people with tremendous power, and has been modified and rearticulated constantly throughout its history. We have to understand ideas within their cultural and historical context. Mechanisms of falsifiablity that have been identified today were not available 100 years ago. The scientific method worked very differently in Darwin's time than it did today.

Furthermore... another aspect of the scientific method... the peer review. It's another circular logic because scientists exist within scientific communities. Part of the phenomenon of scientific racism in the 19th century (as opposed to scientific racism today, i.e the bell curve or watson), for example, was that scientists came from a very elite group that shared common cultural assumptions about race. They also shared common assumptions about delinating difference, what variables are meaningful and can be mobilized in analysis. They shared foundational assumptions about what was an acceptable methodology for measuring the size of skulls, for instance. The circular logic of the peer review existed within a greater mutual relationship between common assumptions that were held at the time by the particular elite class from which scientists came from. The idea that the peer review is inherently "objective" makes the faulty assumption that the body of reviewers is not opperating within a certain cultural context. No human is outside of cultural context. One of the problems that happened when craiometrists measured skulls to demonstrate that white males were superior was that even unconsciously they knew that they wanted this skull to measure bigger and this skull to measure smaller. (I forget what the name for that is, when you unconsciously fudge your data like that...) At the time, this was accepted within the methodology.It was publicly sanctioned by the institution of the discipline of anatomy. (Check out Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man.)

Of course, you are probably going to say that a lot has changed since the 19th century. I agree. But the point I want to make is that there is still a cultural commonality within scientific disciplines. This is part of what anthropology of science looks at. How do chemists drip liquid from a pipet into a flask? What if the drop is sticking to the pipet? Well... you just sort of twirl it a little bit like this. Or... this is how you stir a solution, etc... There's a whole physicality in a lab, for instance, that's a cultural product that has very little to do with the intellectual content of the science and a lot more to do with being a physical human body in a lab environment. And so there are culturally coded practices that people aren't necessarily even aware of, about how you do things in a lab. (And there are many that people are aware of.) Anthropology of science might show that in a lab in Tokyo people stir things slightly different than they do in New York. The point is that science does not escape culture. There's a constant need for culturally mediated processes by which to go about functioning as a scientist. It might turn out later that people argue that one of those unquestioned processes actually altered your data.

So then, when we look at things like psychology and sociology, it gets even messier.

That's all for now.Fokion (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to keep the discussion to possible changes or improvements to the article, so I will not follow the temptation to get too off track. Simply put I don't agree with your assessment, and do not support any efforts to change the article in a way that will attempt to discredit the concept of pseudoscience, because IMO it will be intellectual abuse to the reader of the article. There are clear pseudosciences out there. Science is a cultural development, yes, and it has proved to be by far the best way we have to evaluate claims and to forward real knowledge. Just briefly, I didn't disagree with all you wrote and I did read it (I do agree with Gould's book for example). However, physics doesn't contradict sociology and there are falsifiable theories in both psychology and sociology (Although Freudian and Marxist theories are unfalsifiable they have fallen out of favor to more falsifiable theories these days). Zonbalance (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fokion - A historical perspectives section could be interesting. If you really want to bring in Kant, the problem of induction, and the fact that almost everything we call "proven" or "describes reality" actually has error bars on it - go for it. Be careful, though, that the section remains focused on pseudoscience as opposed to critiquing science. Postmodernism already has an article, and this one should be written primarily from the perspective of modern scientific thought. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. When I have the time, I will put together something. A perspective from the point of view of some historians of science and people in science and technology studies I think is necessary. (For exmaple, the creationism page has a section on critiques of creationism, although that section could probably use some work...) As for the term "postmodernism"... it pretty much signifies nothing at this point, and in this context is only used as a means for scientists to shrug off critiques of science (much like the term "pseudoscience" is used to shrug off other things). Furthermore, the critique of the term "pseudoscience" is quite relevant historiographically right now.Fokion (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent resource

I was just pointed to an excellent resource: here that we should consider using for revamping, reorganizing this article. While not perfect, it gives a great solution to the "demarcation problem". ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed over the article and the solution you mention didn't jump out at me. Would you be good enough to point out the relevant parts if the text? --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that an example of anti-science is given as someone or something that "doesn't disagree with scientific findings but rejects the scientific method...". Thus throwing the entire field of methodology into disrepute. Or at least that's how I read it. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.