Jump to content

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 11:09, 26 October 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 15.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI
  • 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.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Template:Multidel

Archive
Archives

Recognizing that statements by an organization of scientists (i.e. "xyz scientific academy", etc) does not make something pseudoscience, I propose that the following sections be deleted, considering there are numerous legitimate scientific books, based on the scientific method, published on topics in these areas, which seem to contradict the "reliable" source of a statement made by a group of scientists that appear to have an agenda:

All text for each section is direct from the Wikipedia page that was restored by Bogdangiusca. My comments are below each section, indented:

Creation Science - belief that the origin of everything in the universe is the result of a first cause, brought about by a creator deity, and that this thesis is supported by geological, biological, and other scientific evidence.

This is the "parent" to many others below

Creation Biology - subset of creation science that tries to explain biology without macroevolution

The study of creation without macroevolution classifies something as pseudoscience? Last I checked macroevolution was a theory.

Creationist cosmologies – cosmologies which, among other things, allow for a universe that is only thousands of years old.

Again, the study of the universe based on an age of thousands of years, makes something pseudoscience? Does that mean that people who believe it's 5 billion years old, also think that those who believe it's 9 billion years old are studying it based on pseudoscience?

Flood geology – creationist form of geology that advocates most of the geologic features on Earth are explainable by a global flood

Another, multiple published books that look at scientific evidence in existence today, perform real experiments on scale models, and match them up to characteristics of the earth. How this classifies as pseudoscience (besides the fact that it's written about in the Bible) I hardly know. Perhaps archaeology of the city of Tyre, Jericho, and ancient Jersualem is also "pseudoscience" because the Bible talks about it.

Intelligent design – maintains that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Same as above. ID publications & books look at evidence & conclude that some form of intelligence is behind what is seen in that instance. Whereas evolutionists presume there MUST be no intelligence, ID proponents conclude there appears to be intelligence. One presumes, the other concludes, and yet those who conclude based on evidence are labeled as pseudoscience.

Specified Complexity

See ID above


I rarely edit on wikipedia, I just don't have time, so I'm not sure the entire process for making these changes on the main article itself. Personally, I think the case I've made is clear and concise, and now I believe it is on Bogdangiusca to rebut my points if he believes that these should still in fact be declared pseudoscience. Barwick (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about topics that are characterized as pseudoscience by scientists. All of the above are since they ignore and are contrary to the evidence, whatever you may claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're trying a proof by hand-waving (much like those who claim these are "pseudoscience"). Barwick (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FIRSTLY: The problem with all of those topics is that the proponents do indeed claim that what they do is science - yet they do not do proper experiments or write up their findings in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. That is what makes them pseudosciences. A pseudoscience is a field that claims to be science - but which doed not follow the scientific method in making its' pronouncements. Let's take one of these topics more or less at random: Flood geology.
Whitcomb and Morris (proponents of Flood geology) claim that the reason dinosaur fossils are buried deeper in the ground than (say) monkeys is because the dinosaurs were denser and therefore sank to the bottom of the floodwaters first. Well, OK, we can be open-minded about this. That's a somewhat interesting new hypothesis. But a new hypothesis has to explain all of the facts that are adequately explained by the existing hypothesis or it cannot be considered valid. This hypothesis fails on many counts. For example, we see delicate fossil proto-birds that are buried in layers deeper than monsterous things like T-Rex. T-Rex's have massively solid, dense bones - proto-birds have light, hollow bones. We know the proto-birds had to have a very low density because they could fly. You might argue that the T-Rex also had a low density, but then how do you explain that they are always found in deeper layers than (say) mammoths? T-rex cannot simultaneously be denser than a mammoth and less dense than a proto-bird - so why does it exist in a layer between the two? How do they explain fossils of animals like crocodiles and sharks that have existed from the time of the dinosaurs until the present - whose fossils are found at many different depths? Were there crocs with many different body densities around in the pre-flood oceans? If so, how the heck did the densest ones swim without sinking and the lightest ones avoid bobbing up the surface? Surely all ancient crocodiles had to be more or less identical in density in order to bask on the surface of the water for weeks at a time without consuming too much energy?
The list of problems with the hypothesis goes on and on - but being merely coming up with hypotheses that are obviously wrong isn't enough to get your field labelled "pseudoscience". To get that label, you also have to fail to apply the scientific method.
If this were real science, they'd have measured the density of various fossils as a function of burial depth. Where is the list of fossils that they measured? Where did they publish the detailed description of the methods used to obtain this data? Where is the data they obtained? Where did they publish the graph of depth versus body density? Where did other scientists independently repeat their results? In what peer-reviewed journal was all of this information published?
Without the proponents even attempting to answer these questions (which standard geology and evolutionary biology explains beautifully) - they aren't just talking incorrect or bad science. The critical fact is that they aren't doing science at all. Hence we give them the label "pseudoscience".
SECONDLY: Rightly or wrongly, this page is not "List of pseudosciences" it is "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience". That said, note that we have referenced between one and four reliable sources for each one of those topics. Each of those little blue numbers links to a document someplace where someone with some reasonable degree of scientific standing said "Topic XYZ is a pseudoscience". That constitutes a "characterization" of that topic - so what we're claiming here is undeniably true. You may argue (as I have) that this is a poor choice for a list, and we really ought to be writing "List of pseudosciences" (which would change or eliminate some of the entries) - but consensus has been to not head out in that direction.
SteveBaker (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a poor scientist, and a pseudoscientist. Without digging into your example too much, and not trying to defend them, you've just performed scientific debate on their theory. Whether you disproved it or not doesn't make it pseudoscience. It may make it "not the right theory", but it's hardly pseudoscience.
There are plenty of creation scientists out there who *have* done those same experiments, and have plausible theories out there. Even if they're disproven, that doesn't make them pseudoscience. Do you know how many scientific theories have been disproven in history? None of them were pseudoscience.
Heck, the current theory, about sedimentary layers being the source for the fossils we see today, is riddled with holes, but I'm not calling it pseudoscience, just "not the right theory".
In short, if you want to disprove the theory, all power to you, but you can't call it pseudoscience just because it's been disproven. As a matter of fact, the fact that it can be falsified puts another check in the "is it science?" box on the "yes" side Barwick (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to logically argue that Creation science is not widely characterized as non-scientific and pseudo-science? If so, it might help to remember that it's not our job to make the arguments. Please stick to discussing specific sources and article issues. aprock (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already did that, I pointed out that a "statement by a group of scientists" does not make something pseudoscience. You can equally find a group of Creation Scientists who, if they weren't intellectually honest (as I believe these "groups of scientists" are being intellectually dishonest), could also put together a statement saying "The study of Macroevolution is pseudoscience". That doesn't necessarily make it so.
Barwick (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed " a difference between a poor scientist, and a pseudoscientist" - that is precisely what I tried to explain in my previous post. The arguments against (to choose that one example) flood geology easily demonstrate that it is poorly reasoned - it is indeed 'poor science'. But (as I went to some pains to point out) that's absolutely not what makes it pseudoscience. It's pseudoscience because they didn't measure anything, they didn't document what they measured and how, they didn't give other scientists the opportunity to repeat their experiments or examine their data. In short, they didn't actually do any science - they thought up some idea and wrote books about what they thought up. That's not real science - that's (as Richard Dawkins calls it) "Cargo Cult Science". It's what you get when you've seen scientists in movies coming up with some idea without understanding the actual scientific process that real science requires one to undertake.
A good example of poor science that isn't pseudoscience is cold fusion. It turned out to be false - and a lot of people deluded themselves into thinking it was true - but because they used the scientific method, it was possible for others to attempt to duplicate their experiments and thereby deduce where the error happened. That was a resounding success for the scientific method. Doing all of that formal writing down of methods, data, math, etc paid off in the ability for the general scientific community to figure out why this experiment produces the anomalous-seeming results that it does. Hence NOT pseudo-science, just bad science. SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're saying the same thing, and I think you're backing up what I'm saying. Finding an example of a poor scientist who as you claim "didn't measure anything, didn't document..." does not make the whole study pseudoscience, that's my point. As I've said before, there's an absurd number of creation scientists out there who've done real science, but they're ignored by men like Richard Dawkins because they don't make good fodder for the media to portray as quacks.
As an example, look at some of Dr. Walt Brown's work. Here's some links to his technical reference section:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes23.html
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes4.html
Just browse through a few of those pages (you can click "next" or "previous" to go to the next/previous page respectively, or browse through the TOC for other sections, etc.
Barwick (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So let's just pick one of these documents - the easiest one to discuss is the second one:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html
...which basically says that on the basis of some simple tidal force calculations, the moon cannot be more than 1.2 billion years old - and concludes that mainstream claims for there being fossils that are as much as 3.4 billion old must be false.
The trouble is that Brown evidently didn't read any of the existing science - he picked up a couple of random factoids and mis-applied some basic formulae. If he'd stopped for a moment and read some of the basic science material about the orbit of the moon, he'd perhaps have read the Wikipedia article: Orbit of the Moon - and come across the statement about tidal friction that says that the numbers he's plugging into his equations are only appropriate for the current configuration of continents and that the numbers for tidal friction were about half that for most of earth's history when the continents were in one convenient lump (See: Pangea). It then refers you to a more detailed article: Tidal acceleration which completely explains (with copious references) why what he is saying is a pile of total steaming bull crap wrong - and that the estimated age of the moon (4.5 billion years) is about right.
All of this took me (a non-expert in lunar history) about 10 minutes to track down. It completely destroys Browns' hypothesis and restores our confidence in the conventional age of the moon at around 4.5 billion years.
Thus far, what Brown did is merely bad science (VERY bad science) - but what makes it pseudoscience is his failure to follow the scientific method. Having (seemingly) found some horrible anomaly in the current estimates for the age of the moon, he should have questioned his findings. Conventionally, he should have read books and articles that explain the current age of the moon (and even just checking on Wikipedia, you can find the answer inside 10 minutes!). If he didn't get a satisfactory answer that way, he'd have asked an actual moon-science expert why this is (and then he'd have been corrected) - or at the very least, he should have attempted to publish these findings in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. At which point, the peer reviewers would have caught his rather childish error and (a) told him his research is bunkum and (b) refused to publish the paper. In the VERY unlikely event that his paper would get published someplace significant, then other scientists would attempt to reproduce his results - discover the error and publish a scathing debunking. Either way, the B.S that Brown is peddling here would not make it from "hypothesis" to "theory" - and would be swiftly dismissed.
The total failure of Brown to question his anomalous results rather than just gleefully assuming that he is right and 100% of the experts who have spent a lifetime in the field wrong - is a clear mark of a pseudoscientist. He has an agenda to find "facts" to back up his hokey hypothesis - and once he finds something that kinda-sorta fits, he's happy to run with it rather than question how he, with zero training in astronomy or lunar science, can have discovered something that all of the hundreds of experts have failed to notice.
A swift glance at the other two pieces you reference suggests similar problems there also - but this is not the place to discuss this kind of thing in detail. Suffice to say that these links you have provided go a long way to confirm the label "pseudoscience" and nowhere towards denying it.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're talking about Pangea? This isn't a science debate here, there's plenty of forums we can do that on, so I've refrained. But if I may simply make a point, the 4.5 billion year age is based on a number of presuppositions, namely, Pangea's existence, the timeframe for its existence, etc. Besides, the 1.2 billion year upper maximum limit is one small part of his problem with the age (and existence) of the moon as we know it today, with its orbit as exists.

On top of that, his entire theory is based on the existence of a massive continent similar to Pangea, just his theory is that it didn't exist billions of years ago, but rather thousands, and his claims are backed by scientific study.

Now, if you'd like to debate the points Dr. Brown brings forth in a debate, by all means, let's do so (eMail works fine for that), though I'll likely have time to spend doing so in about ten years from now at this rate.

The entire point is, these guys are doing *science*. They are just as much doing science as any other scientist out there. I mean, for heaven sake, we have an entire 83kb page here on Wikipedia about *string theory* of all things. You want something that's freaking wacked out and seemingly pseudoscience, look no further than string theory. Science? Try falsifying that one, let me know how you do. But I don't see it on this list, nor do I think it should be put on this list. Barwick (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd have some sympathy for placing string theory on this list, and we have debated that possibility here before. However, this list remains "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and not "List of pseudosciences" and until we find reliable sources stating that string theory is a pseudoscience, we can't add it.
As for Browns' arguments about Pangea - you're just adding to his pseudoscience credentials. If he has evidence that the earth's continents were united much more recently than conventional science says - then he should have taken that into account when considering the frictional drag of the tides on the orbit of the moon. He did not. So even if he has unconventional views about when Pangea was around - he should have included that into his calculation for the moons' orbit. Had he followed the scientific method, he would not have made that error. This goes beyond being merely being a "bad scientist" - a key part of good science is to fit your ideas into the rest of mainstream science - and to get your work published in established peer-reviewed journals - he has not done that.
At any rate, all of this debate is pointless. We have reliable sources that state that flood geology is a pseudoscience - and that's all we need here.
SteveBaker (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* yes, because we all know peer-reviewed journals are the best way to further scientific knowledge (*as I roll my eyes*)
These agencies are rife with corruption and bias. Remember Hal Lewis resigning from the APS? How about Ivar Giaever who just recently resigned from the same organization for similar reasons? You honestly think APS publications & peer review isn't influenced by those same factors that both Lewis and Giaever speak of? And don't tell me you believe that bias like this exists for AGW, but not for creation-related studies. And *these* are the organizations respected as "Reliable" sources, while those who dissent from those positions are "not reliable".
Barwick (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant.
Wikipedia rules apply here. If you wish to debate that, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources - and you know as well as I do that you'll be shot down in flames. Wikipedia content is grounded on the reliable sources rule and the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE rules that tag along with it. If you disagree with this rule, you might as well go find another encyclopedia to work on. SteveBaker (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: Actually, now that I come to think of it - if Brown truly believes that Pangea is more recent than conventional science claims - then the earth has had a lower tidal drag over more of history than conventional science says - which in turn would mean that in his version of the story, the moon had been losing energy more slowly at around the 1.2 billion year mark than mainstream science now believes. That would mean that the lunar orbit had been increasing at that slower pace for much longer than conventional science says - which in turn (if Brown had done the math right) would have resulted in him concluding that the moon was actually even older than 4.5 billion years. Hahahaha! SteveBaker (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Regardless, I don't expect you to agree with my point, so I don't expect anything in this place to change (how rare is it that an occasional editor on here actually has his point well-received by the "elite" who regularly frequent wikipedia?) I've shown that these guys do science, and that shows that these "reliable sources" who "issue a statement" are not reliable in this case in their claiming something is pseudoscience (because that's the easiest way to get a dissenter off your back, make fun of them).
Barwick (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is get robust sourcing that these fields are widely considered science by mainstream secondary/tertiary sources. Once you do that, it doesn't matter what the "elite" say. On the other hand, arguing the point yourself isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. aprock (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

User:Barwick has instituted: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/23 September 2011/List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal circumstances, as a mediator I would not normally concern myself with content issues and instead focus on helping the involved parties reach a mutual agreement. In this case, however, it is clear that all of the items listed above by User:Barwick are characterized as pseudoscience because they purport to be science but do not adhere to the scientific method. Unless (as noted by User:Aprock) a preponderance of reliable sources reclassifies any of these pseudosciences as something else (mainstream science, protoscience, fringe science or superstition), it would seem to me that informal mediation is basically unnecessary (and perhaps even inappropriate). If User:Barwick objects, I intend to close the related MedCab case and refer the matter to WP:DRN. Otherwise, I will simply close the case as resolved. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed this case on the basis that this is really an ideological debate unsuitable for informal mediation. If the filing party wishes to continue to pursue this, I recommend moving to WP:MEDCOM. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-linguistic_programming

Looks like Neuro-linguistic_programming#Scientific_criticism has enough sources to add it here. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - I agree. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle discussion

As mentioned elsewhere, I'd like to recommend that this article be moved to List of pseudosciences (which currently redirects to this article). "Characterized" is unnecessarily ambiguous and misleading to some Wikipedians. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Having "Characterized" in the name allows us to include things without setting some standard as to what is and isn't a pseudoscience. We shouldn't set Wikipedia as an arbitrator of what is what. We simply collect information about what others have said what is what. Having it keeps this page from violating several points of WP:NOT (ie. soapbox, crystal ball, battleground) and presents the prefer non-judgmental language of NPOV. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely reliable sources are the arbiter of what is what? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weakest of all keeps: unfortunately, the "characterized as" is ugly weasel wording. I suspect that this is used exactly because of the problem of POV pushing and endless debates pursued by various pseudo-science advocates. One need look no further than two sections above: [1] for a classic example of this, where one proponent of creationism attempt to bring the discussion to mediation over his own original research. *sigh* aprock (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would be better to have List of topics classified as pseudoscience, because "characterized" implies an opinion where "classified" does not. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be an interesting compromise. SteveBaker (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak rename: I think we should be a little more up-front about stating that it is a fact that these topics are pseudosciences. Sadly, this means more than just a rename - it entails actually checking for each topic that we're correctly representing the consensus, current, mainstream view. That's more hard work than this article currently is - but I think it's a more powerful message that stuff like creation science truly is a pseudoscience rather than just that we found some RS that say that it is. SteveBaker (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Been there, done that. There is no way to put forward any sort of "proof" that something is a pseudoscience that would not itself be Original research. In addition, Wikipedia standards expressly caution against classifying articles in controversial ways. Clearly, the best place to present the full debate for each topic is on the article on that topic; imagine this being played out here -- on both talk page and in the article space -- for 30 different topics! As the discussion above shows, it's unsustainable. Like it or not (and I had to overcome considerable distaste for the compromise in an earlier, similar discussion), the only clear standard is what fields have been widely classified as pseudosciences. Are they pseudosciences? We report, you decide. hgilbert (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think about using "classified" instead of "characterized"? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the former gives the impression of an objective systematization. Since that doesn't exist, I prefer characterized. hgilbert (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: This is the previous discussion on renaming from early 2009 where several other possible renamings were considered. There were some interesting arguments made on both sides of the debate. All were ultimately rejected in favor of retaining the current title. SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tunguska event

The description here needs to be fundamentally rewritten. That the event actually occurred isn't psuedoscience (and the current listing implies that). At issue is what caused said event, which has been subject to considerable debate.

Analogously: That President Kennedy was assassinated isn't up for debate. Whether or not the mafia, Fidel Castro, et al. were responsible is debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&oldid=457466884"