Talk:Pseudoscience: Difference between revisions

Archives
Antiquity – Jan 2003 Jan 2003 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – Apr 2006 Apr 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – August 15, 2006

Setting the bar

There's a significant issue with where the bar for inclusion as pseudoscience has been set for this article, and it's reflected in the section title "Fields termed pseudoscience by one or more critics."

Setting the bar at "one or more critics" directly conflicts with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight which says "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." I know you're all a smart bunch here and immediately see the issue: "Fields termed pseudoscience by one or more critics." vs "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." This will need to change in the article, making the question "Where to set the bar"?

Again, WP:NPOV provides the answer: The WP:NPOV policy has a specific clause dealing with pseudoscience, NPOV: Pseudoscience which states "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." So the bar for what is to be included as pseudoscience in this article is the scientific community's opinion, not one or more critics. I'm changing the section title to reflect this and subjects included here not supported cites that reflect a significant opinion within the scientific community should be removed until proper sources and cites are provided. FeloniousMonk 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think we have a problem in that the two chiefly cited sources in this section, Carroll and Williams, are not the scientifc community. Even a source from a scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal, does not represent the view of the scientific communitity.
• See the WP:NPOV section "Attributing and substantiating biased statements"[1] where blanket statement involving "many people" and presumably the unsubstantiated "scietific communitiy" are considered weasel words, and that "By attributing the claim to a known authority..." is the way to go.
• We already attribute to Carroll and Williams, but they are not the scientific community. --Iantresman 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources, the trouble is that they are not being sought out. Sagan could be quite useful here. Jefffire 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, there is no "scientific community" that speaks with one voice. And were Sagan's views peer-reviewed? --Iantresman 13:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please. When a viewpoint is repeated by a significant number of individual scientists, or when notable and credible scientific professional organizations issue policy statements, or when the National Academies of Science issue a policy statement, then one can safely say the majority viewpoint of the scientific community is thus. FeloniousMonk 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that, for example, "the National Academies of Science issued a policy statement..." which is completely unambiguous. --Iantresman 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should be doing that. We shouldn't be assuming Carroll speaks for scientific consensus. -Jim Butler^(talk) 09:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take a shotgun approach to references and throw in a moderate number that appear reasonably notable. Obviously some will be better than others so once it's done I suggest we sort out the better ones. Help would be appreciated as finding references is a real pain :) . Jefffire 12:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Think you could move the deleted references to a subpage or a section here so that we can more readily see whether some others should be included? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jefffire. Your suggestion is constructive. I believe it'll take a bit of doing though. I will help out as much as I am able to (struggling with a full time job right now). I believe adding more specific citations to the article will take a while. Though certainly in my readings of pseudoscience literature, the lists and facts presented are very well supported in the literature. I encourage others here also to find more reliable references on the various views covered. Lets cooperatively make a well researched article long term. ATB KrishnaVindaloo 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found what may be a useful reference, trouble is, it's in French, a book, and not online. It's called "L'Imposture Scientifique en Dix Lecons" and there is a review [2], which tells us a little about it. Jefffire 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no way of demonstrating any sort of scientific consensus for at least the great majority of the topics listed, and possibly this is true of all of them. Many of them still do not even have a single reference to back up their inclusion! Right now their inclusion simply represents the fact that some critic (in some cases, apparently just an editor of this article!) has deemed them worthy of this title. The section title should accurately represent this. Better to say honestly that these topics are criticised by some author or another than to claim that there is consensus on such a wide range of themes.Hgilbert 12:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is no way of proving consensus unless you do your own OR and give a survey to a representative portion of the scientific community. Subjects are considered pseudoscientific for various reasons including the behaviour and claims of the proponents/promoters. Presently the list of pseudoscientific subjects is not just by some author or another. Carroll is a professor who teaches about ethics and the nature of pseudoscience. Williams et al are all professors or specific experts on the subject and they handle pseudoscientific subjects properly. Beyond that, there are other references placing the subjects there. They are all notable pseudoscientific subjects as far as I see. The sources are good and so the subjects can be included according to NPOV policies on this matter. KrishnaVindaloo 09:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, for most topics we can't prove sci consensus that they are pseudoscience. All the more reason in those cases to present arg's in article body, and use lists on this page with a lower threshold (i.e. Carroll is fine), and NOT to use the cat. That certainly appears to follow NPOV per WP:CG and Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people. We should reserve the cat for those cases where we reallt can document scientific consensus per WP:RS, e.g. "creation science", flat-earthism, certain forms of global-warming debunking, etc. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't need to "prove sci consensus that [topics] are pseudoscience"; we only need to show that a number of scientists say a topic is pseudoscience, that is all. And WP:NPOV applies to categories as well; what you propose is a form of POV fork, which are specifically proscribed by the same policy. Also read NPOV: Pseudoscience "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." FeloniousMonk 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your silence on the guidelines WP:CG and Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people continues, and doesn't escape the notice of other editors. These guidelines are very clear on how to apply WP:NPOV to the category namespace. That namespace is unique because categories appear without annotations. I disagree that judicious use of categories represents a POV fork. On the contrary, it's a way of making sure that (per NPOV) "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." That's easy enough in the article namespace, but with controversial categorizations, NPOV and WP:V dictate judiciousness.

Your threshold for applying this category is wildly low. Would you suggest the same for other cats? For example, if a few historians say G.W. Bush is a fascist, then he should go in category:fascists? And how on earth is Robert Carroll, a philosopher of science, a reliable source for what "some" or "a significant portion" or whatever of scientists say? Are all things designated as pseudosciences equally pseudoscientific? Is intelligent design just as pseudoscientific, in terms of across-the-board violation of the scientific method and broad consensus among scientists, as chiropractic or acupuncture? Of course not. Chiro and acu make falsifiable claims, are taken seriously by mainstream researchers, and have a body of research supporting them. Shades of grey do exist here, which is the whole point of WP:CG's suggestion of setting the bar higher.

Sorry if I sound a little steamed here, but I've addressed your points before and I believe your continued refusal to reply, while nonetheless editing according to your POV, is both uncivil and counter to WP:DR. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No I think, to the contrary, "intelligent design" is more clearly pseudoscience than chiropractic or acupuncture. "Intelligent design" ignores universally accepted scientific fact in order to defend religious beliefs and attempts to pass off religion as science. Chiropractic and acupuncture are more like 19th century medicine that had no other agenda than to find truth (and make money) but whose standards were not as rigorous as those of physical science or of more modern (evolution based) biology. I do not think that the main justification of acupuncture is pretended to be science. It is more of a folk medicine. (And I am for including George W. Bush in category fascist too. His pretense of accepting intelligent design as science supports that.) David R. Ingham 07:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Credible sources

Before considering a subject as pseudoscience, shouldn't we provide peer-reviewed sources noting that evidence is consistent, or not consistent with a subject? For example, I have no idea, whether there is evidence supporting or not supporting "phrenology" --Iantresman 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd direct you to read WP:RS, but I know you already have. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. But presumably we have some peer-reviewed sources providing evidence that is inconsistent with the aims of phrenology... I guess we're not out to PROVE the veracity, of the fields of study, just indicate whether field doesn't meet the rigours of the scientific method.

• If someone takes the claims of phenology, and does a scientific study, following the scientific method to the letter, does the subject remain pseudoscientific? --Iantresman 18:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please show us exactly where WP:RS and WP:V require sources to be peer reviewed for inclusion here. I know you know that they don't, so please stop trying to set your own criteria for inclusion here.

WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience tells us "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. . . . pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article."

WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 says "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..."

So the only criteria for a topic to be included here is whether a notable source per WP:V in the scientific community is available per WP:RS that says a topic is pseudoscience. Period. And the more the merrier. FeloniousMonk 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about the scientific community.--Dematt 21:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Keating or Homola fit the scientist description.--Dematt 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Journalists and authors who cover science are perfectly acceptable secondary sources, and secondary sources are generally preferable to primary sources at Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 21:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So if I can find some secondary sources, based on primary sources, that suggest that alledged pseudoscientific fields are not not pseudscience, then you'd be happy to include them for balance? --Iantresman 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk is way off the charts in assuming who speaks for "the scientific community". Remember, under NPOV we report who says what, and why. Carroll et. al. do not meet WP:RS for scientific consensus. WP:RS says:

Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but fortunately there is an easier way. The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs.

There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.)

Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.

So, let's go ahead and state scientific consensus about evidence (or lack thereof) for a field, but refrain from assuming that the scientific community's would necessarily use the term "pseudoscience" whenever the skeptics do. Instead, we just say who calls a field pseudoscientfic. No overreaching, please, per NPOV and WP:V. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've missed a crucial distinction: WP:NPOV is official policy, WP:RS is merely a guideline. Policy always trumps guideline here. Furthermore, WP:NPOV clearly says "These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." The policy says "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." So who is it who is "way off the charts"? FeloniousMonk 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I missed your response. Still a hot topic though. FM, I think your selective quoting of certain parts of NPOV misses the forest for the trees. NPOV is much more than the portions specifically mentioning pseudoscience. For instance, there's WP:NPOVT#Categorisation, which says specifically to be careful of overpopulating "sensitive" categories. Then there's the first paragraph of the body of the article on NPOV, which says "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."

So maybe you could clarify your view here, FM. Are you saying NPOV trumps itself? :-)

Your persistent argument that policies trump guidelines is legalistic, and in any case falls apart when policy pages themselves argue against your approach. The guidelines are there to help apply the policies. We're supposed to use some common sense here. Designating entire fields as pseudoscience because Carroll or Shermer said so is NOT representing "all significant views fairly and without bias". Here, we need to differentiate adequately between what scientists say about evidence and what some scientists and non-scientists say about psuedoscience. That's NPOV 101, not to mention WP:VER: saying who says what, and why. Cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution as pseudoscience??

Evolution was added to the section "Fields regarded as pseudoscience" citing, as only source, a non-scientific publication: Tradition - ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM. This entry must be removed. Dermeister 14:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Killed it dead. Blatent POV. Jefffire 14:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes this POV-pushing, and not say "Morphic resonance"? Both use a Web site as a source? Neither push one view at the detriment of any others --Iantresman 15:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Morphic resonance was criticised as pseudoscientific by reliable, scientific sources. Take a look at WP:RS. Jefffire 15:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard for me to believe there's even a question about this. •Jim62sch• 15:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's WP:Point, Jim. Jefffire 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the article by David F. Marks and John Colwell [3], I can find no suggestion that they consider "Morphic resonance" to be pseudoscience; "An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization" is how they describe it. And surely skepticism does not equate with pseudoscience? --Iantresman 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the references used in the article itself, and ignoring the consensus agreement that statement from a scientific source that the field is demonstrably untrue yet work continues is sufficient for the category of pseudoscience to be applied. Jefffire 15:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The references just support the various statements and data in the article. They DO NOT say that "morphic resonance" is pseudoscientific. Can you find ANY quote in ANY of the articles or references, which effectively say that the subject is considered pseudoscience. Criticism is not pseudoscience. --Iantresman 15:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted two more, found in the article on Rupert. You should have researched such things before begining such a crusade. Jefffire 15:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, which quotes in each citation claim say that "morphic resonance" is pseudoscience? --Iantresman 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A serious treatment of the psudoscientific aspects of evolution can be found in the philosopher Mary Midgley's book, Evolution as a Religion. Similar points, dealing with physics (particularly cosmology) and AI can also be found in her book Science as Salvation. Maybe all these subjects can be added or perhaps a section dealing with/mentioning this particular aspect of the traditional sciences should be included.Davkal 15:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the crux of the matter, that is not a scientific criticism, it's a pseudointellectual one. It would make as much sense to reference the AiG. Jefffire 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can label anyone who disagrees with you as psuedointellectual and expect that to be the end of it. The fact is that Midgley (a respected academic) has put forward various reasons for identifying aspects of those theories as psuedoscientific.Davkal 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a better criticism, your saying that one source is more reliable than the other. --Iantresman 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS, read it. Jefffire 16:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And presumably you'd expect the same standard of reliable sources for all citations? So if as Davkal suggests, Midgley is a qualified academic, but Carroll who does the Skeptics Dictionary is less qualified, then presumably you wouldn't accept any of Carroll's citatation? --Iantresman 16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, mes amis, virtually all of the critiques of fields as pseudoscientific cited in this article stem from philosophers, not scientists; in fact, the whole topic of pseudoscience is one chiefly treated by philosophers of science, not scientists (Popper, Kuhn, Williams, Carroll). We are having parallel discussions on the page. Both historically and in contemporary discussions, it is not a scientific distinction, but a philosophical one, hard as that is for some of you folks to believe. (Oh, yes...sociologists sometimes write about it, too.) Hgilbert 21:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And furthermore, the main sources used to categorise certain fields, eg. Carroll and Williams, do not appear to be either scientists or philosophers, but skeptics. --Iantresman 09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The rub with alt-med

Read this scenario and decide:

• Goofus the alt-med dude develops "holistic foo-ology" treatments which involve sessions of sequential hot-tub soaks, massage and yoga postures, while listening to side 2 of Abbey Road repeatedly.
• Goofus states (with abundant testimonial evidence) that patients enjoy his treatments and find them refreshing, and goes so far as to say that "holistic foo-ology treatments use ths ancient science of yoga to heal the core essence of the human spirit at a deep level", and republishes that remark on the holistic foo-ology website.
• Gallant, the ever-vigilant adjunct professor of the philosophy of the history of the philosophy of science, pounces on the "science" thing, and says that to the degree Goofus is making unverified empirical claims with holistic foo-ology, that field is a pseudoscience!
• Gallant also points out that no evidence exists suggesting that holistic foo-ology treatments are effective beyond a placebo, and astutely notes that "no scientific experiment has ever verified the existence of a 'spirit' with a 'core essence' that can be 'healed' on a 'deep level'". Gallant says you would have to be a "holistic FOOL" to believe this stuff, and that zinger earns him a byline in Smirktical Dismisser magazine! His career as a Smirktic is launched!
• Goofus responds to Gallant by saying that "well-being" is a subjective, not an empirical claim, that "science of yoga" just means yoga is systematic, that he is speaking metaphorically with the spirit business, and that Gallant needs to loosen up (and he knows just the ticket).

Is holistic foo-ology a pseudoscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Butler (talk • contribs)

Goofus and Gallant? Ugh, reminds me of trips to the dentist's office when I was a kid -- he had a massive supply of Highlight mags in his office. I owe you one now, Jim Butler, for the mental pain you've inflicted. Maybe I'll go listen to side two of Abbey Road. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)

I personally would be satisfied to see evidence of Gallant's degree in "philosophy of the history of the philosophy of science" -- well, maybe he's published a book on the subject and we can cite to him in the article on pseudoscience. ... Kenosis 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll start an online diploma mill offering such degrees.  ;-) The requirements will be $500 and a 200-word essay on whether claims of affecting "health and/or well-being" are necessarily empirical in nature. Beautifully framed and guaranteed to make, um, an impression of some sort. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How about that. Let's see, $500 times, say, 2000 people. A million bucks? (USD of course--uhh, better yet, make it Euros). Cheers indeed. ... Kenosis 06:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kenosis. Chiropractic is considered pseudoscientific by many reliable authors. Just because there is an aspect that is supported, that does not mean it is not a pseudoscientific subject. It is considered PS because; The theory is total pseudoscience, chiropractors tend to use a wide variety of other PS subjects in conjunction with "core" chiro, including acupressure, homeopathy, bogus vitamin therapies, etc, in practice it is used as a panacea (eg, for dyslexia, psychological problems, depression) and the beliefs and activities of the proponents are pseudoscientific (eg belief in vitalism, anti-science advocacy, etc. Its all in the article. KrishnaVindaloo 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd hold up on chiropractic as a whole (and this coming from someone who thinks chiro is bullocks). Yes, it contains elements of pseudoscience, but it contains elements of "things that work" (or at least appear to in the minds of the patients/clients). Whether these things are scientific is debatable, but as there is still debate it might be best to hold off judgment. On the other hand, homeopathy and vitamin therapies, which have shown to have the same level of efficacy as placebo effects, might warrant inclusion if you can find supporting sources. Vitalism is really more a philosophy (a silly one, but that's neither here nor there) as is any anti-science advocacy. •Jim62sch• 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in the AMA antitrust case, there were some government-sponsored studies entered into evidence, empirical research showing a strong correlation between treatment and effective results, so it's not just in the minds of patients. From Wilk, et al vs. the AMA, et al ND Ill. and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1990, certiorari denied

"data from Workmen's Compensation Bureau studies comparing chiropractic care to care by a medical physician were presented which showed that chiropractors were “twice as effective as medical physicians, for comparable injuries, in returning injured workers to work at every level of injury severity.”

This is just a small part of an increasingly large body of empirical evidence related to chiropractic today. ... Kenosis 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the kicker here in this whole wrangle about chiropractic is that is does not hold itself out as scientific, one of the two basic components of the definition of pseudoscience. ... Kenosis 02:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC) ... On the other hand, maybe I'll take that comment back; apparently there are many references to "chiropractic science", and some references to the "science of chiropractic". My mistake. ... Kenosis 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the issue of misprepresentation is tough. "Science" does have a generic meaning of "systematic body of knowledge". Some hold that making any empirical claim automatically puts one in science territory. Anyway, good points about chiro generally, and they apply equally to acupuncture/TCM, which have scientific support (probably more EBM than chiro) and generally aren't portrayed as scientific. The issue of when to apply category:pseudoscience isn't really resolved on WP (Cf. WP:CG), and I'd appreciate some input from interested editors on User:Mccready's recent rampage of tagging recent TCM-related articles, and general incivility and personal attacks (see Special:Contributions:Mccready and User Talk:Mccready. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, a bit of reasoning! It really helps. OK, I see there are some confusions over the section in question. How about we try to agree what the section is about. Could you pass comment on/correct my statements below. From what I understand, the section is to help the reader see fields that have unequal levels/various types of pseudoscientific elements in order for them to understand the subject of pseudoscience. It would be unhelpful to state subjects that are pseudoscience per se, as it is not a clarifying fact, the levels are different, and the reasons why people call them PS are different in each case. From your above comment, it seems that you are still trying to do OR to identify pseudosciences. It doesn't matter that much if a subject states itself to be a science. That is only one possible identifier. But that is all beside the point. We are not here to identify pseudosciences. Our main purpose is to explain to the reader why subjects are considered PS, and to provide useful examples. So the present section on PS subjects is 1, inconsistently labeled (pseudoscience in the title, and pseudoscientific in the description) 2, inconsistently populated (Many subjects listed are reported to be gray areas (and lit on PS in general says that all PS subjects are intrinsically gray areas anyhow), though only chiropractic is excluded for that reason). Again, just because a small area of a subject is supported, that does not mean that a subject is not PS. There are many identifiers, and it is up to reliable sources to say if a subject is PS. A subject can have science and PS in it. The verdict; the subject is pseudoscientific (not a pseudoscience per se). If any part of this does not make sense, please specify. KrishnaVindaloo 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

KrishnaVindaloo, I would be remiss in not letting you know you are already up to four reverts on pseudoscience. Three different editors have disagreed with your assertions on an issue that has been extensively argued on the talk page by many editors including but not limited to Dematt, Jim62sch, Levine2112, FeloniousMonk, and others. Any further reversions on the issue of chiropractic in this article will perhaps result in a block of your access in accordance with WP:3RR. ... Kenosis 05:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis. I understand the 3RR. My last edit was a correction, and not a revert. Re-parenting is not mentioned by Lilienfeld. Lilienfeld classes chiropractic as pseudoscience and he criticises chiropractors for using spinal manipulations for such "ailments" as mental "imbalance", the vapours, add, dyslexia, mental trauma, and increasing "human potential". Your so called extensive discussion is completely unclear, as is the description and title of the section in question in relation to the entries already there. Plus, in order for you to be consistent with your deletion of chiropractic, you must delete other entries from the list. Now, if you are interested in being even halfway convincing, perhaps you would like to discuss and refer to the literature in question. I know consensus is important here, but being tag-teamed by the Marx brothers is hardly Wikipedia convention. KrishnaVindaloo 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Marx brothers? Levine2112 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comedians or Communists? Either way, you have to admit, that was good! The Karl brothers would be impressed, too(Popper and Marx). I would complain about uncivil and ad hominem attacks, but I'll have to admit that was funny, I don't care who you are, that was funny! --Dematt 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this is just becoming a regular Night at the Opera, no? •Jim62sch• 11:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, I'll give you a hint: I used different contexts, added verifiable references that added different contexts, and clarified the article in every case. I discussed. Three other editors have not even tried to discuss this new improved issue. KrishnaVindaloo 06:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is all too obvious you are looking for a confrontation of some kind, but why me? when there are at least six or seven editors thus far who have, based on the WP:VER evidence, rejected the idea of chiropractic as an example of pseudoscience. ... Kenosis 06:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, confrontation is not the issue. It is verifiable from the new source, and from the article itself, that Chiropractic is considered PS. If not, then remove acupuncture and all the others that have some aspect that is partially supported with weak evidence. If you are still on the crusade of supplying the article with a list of absolute 100% pure pseudoscience fields, then you are not clarifying the article but making it less accurate. It is extremely easy to see the PS nature of chiropractic. Its like applying phrenology to brain surgery. Nobody has discussed the fact that chiropractic has been applied to a ridiculous expanse of ailments. Now tell me, what do you think is the actual purpose of the list of examples of fields that are "pseudoscience"? Is the purpose to say "these are pseudosciences"? Or is it to show the reader a range of PS fields that have different levels and types of pseudoscientificness? Chiro is a perfect example for the article because the proponents still behave in a PS fashion, even though the main intervention has been dramatically restricted to a specific form of back disorder. You removed the entry and wrote that fabulous explanation in the edit summary. I provided well researched information that satisfied your requirement, and continued to get tag-teamed without any discussion. I clarified by placing the information more usefully in other sections, and continued to get reverted - without sufficient discussion. It is not my POV that chiropractic is A PSEUDOSCIENCE. It is my intention to make the article clearer and more consistent. I don't care how much discussion you claimed to have done in the past. This issue requires fresh discussion. KrishnaVindaloo 06:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You might do better if you gave up on this specific crusade for a bit. •Jim62sch• 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, this is a matter of clarity, reducing confusion, and making sure we are all on the same page. KrishnaVindaloo 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That horrible yet necessary suggestion again - good research

Hi again, I wish to remind folk that there are plenty of claims made in the article which are not backed up by sufficient citations. There are also plenty of mis-interpreted papers that are easily cleared up with corroborating sources. EG, the Beyerstein source says chiropractic is a grey area in the field of medicine (because it partly works in one aspect of medicine). But his other papers say it is total pseudoscience (when applied in psychology). This is corroborated by other research by Keating et al, and a Benetto also corroborates this. So we need to stop being selective about things also. In addition, I noticed that some editors here tend to rely on single experimental articles, but it is the review articles (reviews of all studies) that are necessary. OR is not an option, let the authors answer the questions for us. KrishnaVindaloo 09:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So then find a way to relate it to psychology, assuming that your post above is accurate. If you mean as a treatment for specific phycological disorders, the source is likely correct. But if you mean psychology in a looser manner, I'd be skeptical. Chiro does appear to have short-term psychological benefits -- even if these results are only in the mind of the patient. But then, the mind is really what psychology is all about, no? ;) •Jim62sch• 11:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Jim62sch. The Lilienfeld ref already did that in the pseudo in psych section. He says it is applied to psychology erroneously and in a pseudoscientific manner. KrishnaVindaloo 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Gradual expansion of "Identifying Pseudoscience" section

OK, here's a solution to the continued problems with identifying "pseudoscience" in this article.

• The main purpose of this article is to explain to the reader what pseudoscience is about. Explaining clearly does involve using examples. Those have been provided to some extent in list form.

• It would be clearer for the reader to have a characteristic of pseudoscience illustrated by mentioning a particular field and its pseudoscientific aspect (with citations) within the section of that characteristic.

So I suggest those characteristics or identifiers of PS should be expanded, perhaps even to have sections of their own with actual examples mentioned in the section. I realize that requires research and it will no doubt be a gradual effort, but the reasons for doing so will help all sorts of problems on this article. It will reduce the "pejorative" objection, clarify the characteristics, and eventually may remove the need for that highly disputed (and quite unenlightening) section on so called pseudoscience examples. It would be helpful if editors were not accused of POV pushing when in fact they are simply doing their best to clarify the article by providing examples for the identifiers of PS. KrishnaVindaloo 07:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if/when scholars use the term, it's still considered pejorative in general usage. That should be taken into account when we edit. Agree with the trend toward more citation. Citation and annotation are good. Slapping the label on field like chiro and acu which have PS elements but also sci elements, without annotation, is bad. It's asserting a single POV rather than presenting the range of sig POV's, and should be avoided. For those who have argued that NPOV allows unqualified categorization in the area of pseudoscience, please read WP:NPOVT#Categorisation. That's just as much an aspect of NPOV as anything else that's been cited here. Thanks for considering this. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing, Jim Butler. If a field has characteristics that are PS, then those elements or characteristics are pseudoscience. Which makes subjects such as chiropractic and acupuncture pseudoscientific. Which is why I suggested to change the title of the section. It is the case that some sources call chiropractic or acupuncture pseudoscience. However, for the sake of clearing things up for the reader, it is far more accurate to say - fields considered to be pseudoscientific. I know it is only a small change, but the meaning is very different in this context. And I see nothing wrong with showing the reader subjects fully accepted by science, but have small bits of them considered pseudoscience. The pejorative issue(thanks for the spelling lesson, whoever it was), is neither here nor there. Wikipedia says to handle PS subjects as science sees them, so the label is indellible (hope I spelt that right). KrishnaVindaloo 06:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the real problem lies in the phrase: "a significant portion of the scientific community". That means that not only do ou have to cite that the fields have pseudoscientific characteristics but this opinion must be agreed upon by a significant portion (is that a majority?) of the scientific community. So far, I haven't seen a citation that shows that is true for chiropractic. How about accupuncture? Is there something that can be cited that shows that for sure there is a significant portion of the scientific community agrees with this? What if there is also a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees that something is a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific? Levine2112 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed passage from "Identifying pseudoscience"

I've just removed the following passage from the section on "Identifying pseudoscience" ... Kenosis 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscienceuse use grandiose or highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the superficial trappings of science. e.g. Engrams (Dianetics), engram chains (TFT), submodalities, representational systems (Neurolinguistic programming), innate (chiropractic). ... 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kenosis. Do you realize your unreasonable actions are highly antagonistic? You seem bent upon provoking conflict. Editors are to provide reasoning for their actions on the talk page. I have given you examples of such reasoning for each of my actions. Your actions are for the most part devoid of reasoning. Are you to be considered unaccountable? How are we to know the reasons for your actions? Do you wish to remove half the article just in order to avoid the name of chiropractic being mentioned? Are you just trying to prove a point? Is it consensus that examples of obscurantisms are to be abolised from the article? Is it just that you need a nap or an asprin? It would be nice if you could provide some sort of explanations for your rather fact-obscuring actions. KrishnaVindaloo 07:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey KV, you don't have to use chiropractic for every example to "educate" your readers. Try some examples from other professions, perhaps traditional medicine has a few examples you can use. If you are only interested in teaching pseudoscience correctly, you only need a list of examples, you don't need questionable and/or controversial issues. They are questionable or controversial because the scientific community even has trouble deciding. WP is not supposed to be making that decision. You could use chiropractic to illustrate how the word pseudoscience can be used pejoratively to discredit a profession. Heck, the Wilk antitrust suit can be part of your argument. Even Carroll mentioned it. But I don't see you doing that. Are you willing to include all ideas that have pseudoscientific elements? Including a discussion of pseudoscience on the chiropractic page does not make it eligible for inclusion on the list. --Dematt 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are they unreasonable? Are they antagonistic? If so, how? I personally doubt (in fact discount) the charge of Kenosis' actions being devoid of reasoning; if they are devoid of anything it is the endless repetition of reasons that remain ungrasped. If you note what was deleted, and pay attention to the discussion on the page it should become evident to you why it was removed. This isn't M-theory, you know. •Jim62sch• 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely relieved to see that charges of being-devoid-of-reasoning are being discounted today. ;-) ... Kenosis 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It was more of an observation than a charge. Multiple reversions without any discussion is futile and causes conflict. There is still a lot of confusion over various issues on this article and discussion is required. If you are unwilling to discuss, as you mentioned yesterday, please refrain from editing. KrishnaVindaloo 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that "innate intelligence" as it was used in chiropractic is not a good example of scientific terms being used to give a pseudoscientific gloss to a subject - in fact it's a better example of the opposite; this is a frankly mystical term used at a time when chiropractic was being promoted as a quasi-religion. Innate is a residue of a prescientific past of chiropractic. As an example of pseudoscientific justification therefore this is just a bad example. Chiropractic might have some very shaky scientific foundations, but calling everything with shaky foundations pseudoscientific is unhelpful. I think it is important to think of why a categorisation is useful. It is useful if by knowing that something is a member of that category, then it has certain attributes. If you start including in your category things that do not clearly belong, or partly belong or belong on some interpretations but with exceptions, then the categorisation becomes unhelpful. I am not a chiropractor, I have never visited a chiropractor, do not know any chiropractors, am not a promoter of chiropractor, am a skeptical rationalist, but do not see the utility of categorising chiropractic as a pseudoscience, and do see that doing so will dilute the value of the category.Gleng 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gleng. Chiropractic has not been categorized as a pseudoscience. Please read the description of the category. KrishnaVindaloo 04:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Oh also, chiropractic refers to the "innate" in the same way that acupuncture uses the "qi" concept. They are both equally PS in this matter. Explaining to the reader that these aspects are pseudoscientific will help them understand why chiro and acupuncture are considered pseudoscientific (and why universities will not include them in their orthapedic schools). KrishnaVindaloo 04:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now let's stop looking at "Innate Intelligence" as it was described over 100 years ago. Today, in terms of chiropractic, the body's innate intelligence is taught and propounded merely as the living body's self-healing ability. Here's a simple experiment to verify innate intelligence's existence. Cut your arm with a knife and wait. Did it heal? Of course. Now cut 100,000 people's arms and wait. Wow, they all healed as well (except maybe that one hemophiliac who tragically bled to death). Okay, something is at work there. Why did the body heal itself? How did it "know" to do so? Was it the band-aid that we put on the cut which instructed the body to heal? Was it the topical ointment we applied to the cut which commanded the body to self-repair? Okay, let's do another experiment. Let's take a cadaver. Let's cut its arm and apply some Neosporin and a band-aid. Now let's wait. Hmm. No healing... Okay, now before I overstate the obvious, I think it's clear to us what the modern chiropractic usage of the term "Innate Intelligence" is. Has the source or cause of this "intelligence" been identified or quanitified? Perhaps not. The answer to that riddle lies within the question, "What is life?" And who can answer that for sure? Empirically, we can observe "innate intelligence" at work. In a universe where physical laws dictate that things tend to move toward the state of greatest disorder, our bodies seems to "want" to fight against this. There is a prinicple of "survival" at work, but what guides that? Here is where we can as of today only postulate and dream. Is life a coincidence? Is it divine? Who knows for sure? Each person can have their own answer. Some scientific and some not. Some chiropractors may believe its God at work. Some may believe it's all Darwinian coincidence. The same goes for any doctor in any healing art. However, I don't think the "why" is as important to the doctor and the patient as is the "how". Your body just knows to try to heal itself or to cure itself. Chiropractic, like modern Western medicine, explains scientifically how the body heals. Where chiropractic differs is its approach to injury and illness. Chiropractic looks to aid the body's self-healing abilities by trying to clear up obstructions in the nervous system - the body's communication system. Research (which I have pointed to numerous times) shows that chiropractic is effective in doing just this - putting the body in a better place to heal and recover from a variety of injuries and illness. Notice that I didn't say all. There are some illnesses and injuries from which even the healthiest body cannot recover through its own doing. Now is the time for the surgery and the drugs and the more risky treatments. I think the point here is that "innate intelligence" as defined by chiropractic today is grossly misunderstood and confused with its religious roots from over a 100 years ago - a time when even medical science was still rooted in the spiritual. The confusion of chiropractic's innate intelligence still being a religious concept persists today because - despite the vigilant efforts of chiropractic researchers and educators - some people remain ignorant or make it a point of keeping other people ignorant for various reasons (see Wilk v. AMA). However, when looked at empirically, most if not all modern healers would recognize that the body tries to the best of its abilities to recover from all injuries and illnesses. That is "innate intelligence". Now who can disagree with that? Levine2112 18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I encourage those who are interested to looks at the WP entry on innate intelligence especially the first two paragraphs which do a far superior job of stating that which I have stated above. Levine2112 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

hey Levine, this indeed appears to be a very smart property of biological entities. Was this designed in, or did it come about by some sort of natural evolution process? :-) (That was just intended to be a smart-ass rhetorical question--please do not answer.) Of course it's a reasonable way of expressing the concept. ... Kenosis 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said here (not the spirit, don't quote me on the letter); the point I was making was rather that the term innate intelligence was transparently NOT introduced to give an apparently scientific gloss to a concept, but was introduced in a quite different context and the term persists today (with as you say a more enlightened usage as convenient shorthand for a host of endogenous repair mechanisms)Gleng 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. Levine2112 21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Agrred! Some scientific skeptics seem to have a very hard time with the idea that such concepts are used metaphorically. To my mind, terms like "innate intelligence", or TCM's qi, reflect the "art" part of healing and not teh "science". They aren't to be taken literally, but to the extent that they help the clinician, then they're valuable. Valuable in a pragmatic sense, cf. the first section of this essay by Rorty. Dangerous ideas. :-) cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jim Butler. Scientists see a problem with such pragmatics because they do not adhere to the practitioner-scientist view. Metaphors are vague. In medicine they would need to be well defined in order to be rigorously tested. Really, your view of skeptics is not what is required here. If you have a reliable source saying that innate is just a metaphor, then present it. The only ones I see that come close are the ones written by professors who say chiropractic remains full of dogma and rhetoric because a restriction to manipulation to back pain only, will severely reduce the income of the majority who use chiropractic as a panacea. KrishnaVindaloo 06:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Critics are frequently the ones taking metaphor or prescientific concepts literally as science, e.g. Carroll with TCM theory. What reliable source did he use? Jim Butler^(talk) 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) ... P.S., nothing wrong with pragmatism from a scientist-practitioner's view if a system is clinically useful... Jim Butler^(talk) 21:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If one likes to use obscurantist language as a marker for pseudoscience, one might try cladistics, with its plesiomorphy, synapomorphy, Retrotransposon Markers, etc. This is a bogus criterion that depends on numerous other factors to make an assessment whether the language is merely technical, or obscurantist. Same with evidence-based medicine too, with its massive roster of obscure terminology. Countless legitimate fields use highly technical language that is quite easily termed obscurantist; indeed that's been the overall trend in most scientific fields, . ... Kenosis 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, if you can get refs to say they are obscurantisms or jargon, then they will do well. KrishnaVindaloo 04:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

KV, this line is simply not sustainable. Every field has its jargon that appears obscure to the outsider, and I doubt if any serious scientist would dispute that their field uses jargon extensively. The issue is do they use apparently precise scientific sounding terms for fuzzy or mystical concepts in order to give something a spurious scientific justification. Innate intelligence as used in chiropractic is a frankly mystical term used for a frankly mystical concept introduced at a time when chiropractic was overtly being promoted as quasi religious. It makes about as much sense to call this pseudoscientific as it does to call the Holy Ghost a PS concept. Gleng 09:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gleng. I only meant that an obscurantism should be offered for clarity. Of course, if a reputable source states that the term is a pseudoscientific piece of jargon, or an obscurantism, then it will be better. I've seen plenty of examples. It is the view of reputable sources that PS uses obscurantisms though. The basic line (with or without examples) is entirely useful for the reader. KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fields regarded as pseudoscience (continued)

Please note that this section of the article is now written as follows. This, of course, is roughly equivalent to the earlier approach (the relaxed standard for inclusion in the list) which was used back when the list grew to very unweildy proportions, along with numerous arguments over each editor's favorite POV (may the best POV win; ahh, for the good old days). Among the many fields that now legitimately fit on the list? evolution. ... Kenosis 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• == Fields regarded as pseudoscience ==

  The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor that are characterized in part or whole as pseudoscientific by various scientific, philosophic, journalistic or other sources. (Note that some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community; see the individual articles for more information.) ... 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell, the earth being an oblate spheroid is pseudoscience then. •Jim62sch• 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We probably need to change the title of the section again then.--Dematt 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dematt and Kenosis. I don't believe the list was ever really unwieldy. Its just a list, and fairly easy to maintain as such as long as there are no quibbles over annotations. I am not happy with the present state, as you can see by my objections above. But I'll be patient. As I said, the title should be consistent and not give the impression that we are identifying pseudosciences (pseudoscientific not pseudoscience), and all of the subjects have some aspect that is supported by science, so a subject cannot be removed on that basis. Whatever helps the reader understand the nuances of PS is the way forward. KrishnaVindaloo 03:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, KV. It seems that as far as chiropractic is concerned, you are the only one intent on including it in the list despite the overwhelming concensus that it doesn't belong. Your doggedness is clearly evident,and admirable, but is this fair to all concerned?

You are pushing your agenda on everyone here, ignoring everyone's objections. Why is that, KV? Why are you passing off your view as the only correct one?

You are getting your way on other edits here, why aren't you being sensitive to the other good editors and, in the spirit of compromise, leave chiropractic off the list once and for all? Thanks, Steth 04:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Steth. It is not my view that chiropractic is a pseudoscience. I am not pushing a view. I am not engaging in POV warfare or edit wars. Any movement towards that has been reversed by my reducing to zero reverts per day. I am making edits based upon verifiable and reliable sources. And I am explaining my actions. It is not a matter of getting one's own way. As an editor, I have to assume good faith. In which case, other editors getting their own way doesn't even come into it (unless things are being deleted or added that are unverifiable). The goal is to present the facts in order to help the reader understand the subject of pseudoscience, and all its nuances. Now you just passed your judgment on me as an editor. Why not instead, pass your judgment on the verifiability or reliability of the facts I have been presenting? That is what this talkpage is for. KrishnaVindaloo 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Significant portion

Hi all. This really is not easy to understand. Could someone please explain to me how you can PROVE that any of the items in the PS list are considered PS by a significant portion of the sci community. How are we to determine who is significant? If 3 profs say that a field has pseudoscientific elements then do we consider them insignificant next to the thousands of testimonials that pseudoscientists present to promote their ventures? KrishnaVindaloo 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is very difficult to prove. I don't think it is a matter of defining who is significant, as the sentience doesn't suggest that significance it attributed to credibility. The sentence eludes more to an amount of people. How many people does it take for an opinion to be significant? Again, this is why I think we should only list the most obvious examples here (astrology and what-not). Levine2112 07:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure Levine2112. Its pretty impossible, even with astrology. But its not a useful activity anyway. We list things such as astrology and say its obviously PS, then the reader decides for themself that its not! Same with chiro, acu, NLP etc. So here is a more clarifying or helpful suggestion:

• Provide only those subjects where there is a definite issue of pseudoscience, where there is sufficient information in the literature or on the article, so that the reader can look at the article, and decide for themselves.

Otherwise we are just asserting that such subjects are pseudo. KrishnaVindaloo 09:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an article for the list of controversial theories, and it is probably best that Chiropractic goes there rather than the list on this article. I would prefer that only subjects with are fairly obviously nonsense, eg. astrology, homeopathy, phrenology, are used rather than chiropractic. The list on this page is really a set of examples, rather than a diffinitive list, which is why I don't think we should bother about geniuenly controversial areas, or insignificant ones. Jefffire 07:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jefffire. Then why havn't all of the other fields been removed to the controversial areas list? All of the most informative books on pseudoscience, eg, Lilienfeld et al, Shermer, Williams et al, talk about pseudoscience in terms of controversy and make accounts of various views. There are controversial subjects that are not PS, but all PS subjects are controversial. From reading the literature on most of the list, it seems to me that they are all in dispute, rather than all examples of obvious PS. One might find statements that say, most scientists think astrology is PS, but that is hardly what an encyclopedia should be doing. To inform the reader, subjects should be presented that have varying levels of PS. There are subjects on the list that do not have a core theory per se, and there are subjects with a core theory that is pure PS according to verifiable sources (chiropractic) that are missing. Thus, in order to be consistent and fair, it is not right for us as editors to say that this or that subject is obvious PS. Its just not our job. The job is to present elements of fields that are PS in order to properly explain PS to the reader. That is how the most informative literature is presented, and that is really how it should be presented here. As I said before, the list really does look like a list of Wikipedia approved pseudosciences. It shouldn't. It should be a selection of subjects where there are pseudoscientific activities and issues. That includes very accepted subjects that have a PS element. KrishnaVindaloo 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with this article from the very outset. The lead declares that "Pseudoscience is a term applied to a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by sufficient scientific research. " The two references given do not support this very broad definition, which encompasses all areas of scientific activity that are controversial - in fact all of science, since nothing would be controversial if there had been sufficient research. I like language to have content. Now you don't mean to use pseudoscience to cover everything, but don't use this sloppy definition as an excuse to include everything you happen to want to include. If you're fuzzy about what you mean by pseudoscience, if you're using it as a label to suggest some serious analytical content when the content is not in fact there, then you're using the term pseudoscience in a manner that is itself pseudoscientific. It's not the label that matters but the content implied, and if it isn't clear what the implied content is, then attaching the label is either spurious and derogatory or indeed pseudoscientific. It is rather easy to express an opinion that something is pseudoscience, when the expression of such opinions doesn't have to be tempered by the discipline of peer review in serious publications, and when the only demonstrable notability of the source of opinion is that the source has an opinion. We have some duty I think to be judicious here, and chiropractic is simply not in the same class as your other examples. You need to tighten the definition, and find consensus support for the tighter definition.Gleng 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to change the lead in the introduction. The definition put forth there is quite consistent with the citations, and involves two things. (1) A claim of being science or scientific; and (2) divergence from scientific method or inadequate research to justify the claims. Simple – the rest is left to the [often difficult] process of sorting though the critics' cited claims about the various fields being accused. ... Kenosis 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've remove the statement that "a significant portion of the scientific community" considers the field lists as being pseudoscientifc. As explained SEVERAL TIMES above:

• While there are citations to individuals claiming certain subjects are pseudoscientific, there is NOTHING to suggest that (a) a significant portion of the scientific community (b) considers ANY of these fields to be pseudoscientifc, let alone all of them.
• The phase "scientific community" is consider a Wikipedia weasel word to avoid

Unless editors can come up with suitable citations, they are a preaching pseudoskepticism. --Iantresman 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Iantresman. Pseudoskepticism is a little harsh, considering the lack of sci support for each core concept. But you have good points that I would agree with. I can see far better ways to present the section. Firstly, though not pejorative, it is still too much like a list of pseudosciences. As with the PS cat, this article should stay away from saying so and so subjects are wholly, very, significantly, ridiculously, pseudoscientific etc. It says nothing about what makes subjects pseudoscientific. Its unhelpful. So here is what I propose:

• The list can easily be subgrouped in terms of concepts and PS characteristics: Untestable theories, tested but unsupported, not compatible with known physical laws, etc.

• This would inform the reader better (talks about aspects of pseudoscientific subjects), and says why the subject is considered PS. This would also mean the list really is a list of PS ideas, rather than fields. There are no PS fields. Rather the subjects in them are PS. (there are PS activities and attitudes, but that would be too hard to represent. At least we get to talk about theories).

Anyway, its fairly easy to see the grouping from the present state of the list. KrishnaVindaloo 05:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychotherapy

Thanks for the edit KV. Can you help me understand the parcing of this sentence. I have taken this from the article because I am questioning the section in quotes that does not seem to match the first part of the sentence that is talking about pseudoscience in psychotherapy. My other question is "are we to assume that these treatments are psychotherapies?" And what does the second sentence have to do with anything? It sounds a little whiny. I am a little concerned we're stretching to make a point.

• A typical application of pseudoscience in psychotherapy is orgone therapy, which is used in "treatments such as Reiki, herbal therapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, pyramid therapy, shamanism, and high-colonic enemas" (Klee 2005:1). According to Klee, alternative therapies seem to be rapidly overtaking conventional medicine in popularity and market share, which is threatening public health and reducing money for funding conventional medicine.

--Dematt 13:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that KV (assuming he wrote that section) didn't correctly summarize the original reference, available online here, which says:

Orgone therapy is frequently advertised on alternative-medicine sites, along with other treatments such as Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, herbal therapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, pyramid therapy, shamanism, and high-colonic enemas. There is an increasing degree of overlapping and blending of orgone therapy with New Age and other therapies that manipulate the patient’s “biofields,” such as Therapeutic Touch and Reiki. “Biofield” is a pseudoscientific term often used synonymously with “orgone energy.”

Orgone energy's being "advertised on alt-med sites along with other treatments" doesn't mean it is being used "in" those treatments. Certainly orgone energy isn't part of the standard curriculum in acupuncture schools as tested by the National Certifying Commission for acu. Is it part of chiropractic curricula?

As for Klee's statement about reducing funding for conventional medicine, this criticism ought to be made explicitly where it belongs, e.g. at alternative medicine, and not slipped in as an incidental, mini POV fork elsewhere. (It's a perfectly valid POV to include where appropriate, but I don't believe the facts bear it out: the $122 million budget for NCCAM is a drop in the bucket next to NIH's overall budget.) Jim Butler^(talk) 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks Jim. --Dematt 23:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it was nothing. All in a day's work, now that I've become a Healthy Skeptic! For just $374, I have filled my toolbox with Useful Knowledge from Experts, like Drs. Beyerstein and Sampson! Don't you feel terrible that you missed out on this? Granted, it's less impressive than my contemplated mail-order degree program in the Philosophy of the History of the Philosophy of Science. But it's so obviously, totally different from all those other feel-good, spread-the-meme, money-making seminars out there. Plus I feel very healthy now. (I just hope it isn't the placebo effect.) Jim Butler^(talk) 03:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will make the appropriate adjustments. The full quote is more appropriate. I have plenty of other sources that say orgone energy is the same pseudoscience as innate intelligence, qi, prana etc. That can be added to the article. The reason Klee listed those alternative therapies is because they all use the same pseudoscientific notion. I have to admit, I'm having lots of fun reading up on this stuff. It seems the more people object to the facts, the more of the can of worms gets exposed. Just the nature of research, I suppose. I should thank the objectors. KrishnaVindaloo 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

KV, thank you for acknowledging your faux pas. I am sure it was just an oversight on your part. That is the sort of mistake, however, that we need to be careful about in an encyclopedia. Especially in a subject that professes to be scientific. BTW, this sentence:

• Organizations and publications such as the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice (SRMHP) [4] and the publication Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (SRAM) [5] have been created to raise awareness of pseudoscientific practices in medicine, self help, and business education.

I put the (fact) marker on it because I am concerned that a scientific organization would not be created for a purpose such as raising public awareness. I would think science doesn't care what the result of the research is. I would think that these organizations are for testing the efficacy of alternative medicine and someone has used WP:OR and assumed what the results are going to be before they are in.

Any comments?--Dematt 14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. We forgot to mention orgone therapy is also advertised on the Internet, along with such things as Raelism, chiropractic, SUV's, "global warming", plate tectonics, the big-bang theory, orgasmatrons, psychoanalysis, "conventional medicine", Wikipedia and darn-near everything else. Did I forget to mention "chiropractic"? ... Kenosis 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And the Frolov Anti-Aging Device, Energy Therapy, Telehypnosis, mood rings, pet rocks, and Chiropractic.  ;) •Jim62sch• 16:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Dematt. Read the articles on the srmhp site. Scientists, skeptics, consumer health experts have a duty to inform the public. This is part of ethics in their fields. The science of clinical psychology has a purpose; to determine which is efficacious and which is not. The journal is not only for testing theories, but also for creating reviews of research already done. This is standard practice in such journals. It is especially important in SRMHP's case, as reviewing large bodies of research is important for sifting the wheat from the chaff. Pseudoscientists are often determined to fool the public into buying into their scams and creating the reputable image of science, when no such privilage has been earned. KrishnaVindaloo 08:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fields that are not YET sciences and still include much pseudoscience?

On Tuesday August 8, 2006, the science section of the New York Times had an article on useful contributions of alchemists. Alchemy included a non-scientific and now clearly erroneous doctrine that all matter is composed of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. BUT on the other hand many alchemists did useful empirical work on how to make various substances via reactions with other substances, etc., that served industrial purposes and eventually contributed to the founding of the science of chemistry. Maybe they didn't do their experiments in a way that would qualify as scientific by today's standards. Thus there was a field of study that included much pseudoscience and was not done in a scientific way but eventually contributed to valid science.

Is there some standard name for that sort of thing?

(I suspect graphology may today be in a such a state. Much of it is pseudoscience. Some of it is not, but neither is it science—apparently it hasn't been scientifically studied; current science can neither support it nor reject it, for lack of suitable experimentation.) Michael Hardy 19:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Alchemy, no matter what positive influence it may have had on science, is still pseudoscience.

As for graphology, I couldn't find any science, just the handwriting version of phrenology. •Jim62sch• 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"As for graphology, I couldn't find any science,". Yeah, that's what I said. Michael Hardy 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, there seem to be many pseudosciences that don't have any real hope of making positive contributions, but others, like present-day graphology or 16th-century alchemy, that at some stage in their develepment, may be a sort of "pre-sciences". Is there any standard name for that? Michael Hardy 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Such contenders may be termed "emerging science" or more controversially, protoscience. Problem is, of course, y'need'ta do a thorough analysis and argue each one on the respective merits-- and typically you can't know whether it's on a legit track until after it's already established itself. So we see a lot of arguing and speculation surrounding these kinds of issues. ... Kenosis 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure Michael, you could call the subject you mention many things; including emerging pseudoscience, if the sources were right. But it doesn't tell the reader much. In essence, this article talk page is full of completely unnecessary "analysis" that ammounts to OR (original research). A reputable author may state that graphology is pseudoscientific, and it would be fine to say graphology is PS according to that source on the article according to NPOV policy. Wikipedia should take no stance on that issue. The PS category has also been compiled with that in mind. If the author also states why they think it is PS, then that would help the reader. Eg, Graphology is only supported by testimonial, or it lacks a theory or mechanism of action. So lets save ourselves a whole lot of time and energy and research for sources that are reputable, and why those sources consider such and such ology to be pseudoscientific. Your help would be much appreciated. KrishnaVindaloo 07:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between

• a "protoscience" or "emerging science" that has plausibility in the light of known science but is not yet supported scientifically, and
• a theory purporting to be a science that can reasonably be rejected as nonsense by current science.

Graphology seems to be in the first category. Scientific research that could support or reject it simply has not been done. Is there some reputable scientist who has defended the position, in for example a scientific journal, that graphology is in the second category? Can anyone give the name of the author, the name of the journal, the title, the volume and page numbers? I haven't seen anyone do that. Michael Hardy 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some professional public relations from within the field can be found here, where it is claimed to be an empirical science. A link to many articles from within the field of graphology can be found here.
• A reasonable summary description of a skeptical view may be found here. A skeptical review from the "Encyclopedia of the Paranormal" can be found here (pdf file); and Robert Todd Carroll's treatment can be found here. A brief review of possible validity in personality testing can be found here, where the author holds that to date there are insufficient correlation coefficients to justify claims of empirical validity.
• The current legal status of graphology in court testimony appears to be as follows: Cameron v Knapp, 137 Misc. 2d 373, 520 N.Y.S.2d 917 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1987) (handwriting expert may testify as to the authenticity of a writing but not as to an individual's physical or mental condition based on a handwriting sample) stands as current U.S. case law for the rejection of graphology as psychological testimony.
• Some more specific analysis can be found here, and here; the latter has voluminous footnotes leading to a potential wealth of published information.... Kenosis 19:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you'll find, looking through these sources thoroughly, that there are two prominent applications of graphology, one a tool of questioned-document examiners used to help ascertain the validity of authorship of a handwritten document, the other a method of attributing psychological traits to the author of a handwritten document. It is primarily the latter that appears to have highly doubtful empirical validity. ... Kenosis 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Kenosis, this is pretty accurate according to my reading of the subject. It is quite dubious, and considered pseudoscientific. I will try to find more specific PS aspects. Certainly, its atomistic and loose methodology leaves it open to questions about its validity even now. Considering it is used together with hand analysis/palmistry, I would say it is pseudoscientific. Anyway, I'll get back to you on more specific aspects over time. It could be a useful one to compare or group with palmistry, phrenology, and even more esoteric "guestimate" systems such as chiropractic analysis methods and tealeaf reading etc. KrishnaVindaloo 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not YET looked at these links, and I will, but in the mean time, I'm not sure you two understood my question. As I said, I don't dispute that much of what is done in graphology is pseudoscience, and quite likely the parts of it that could in the future be supported by scientific research have not been, yet. My question was fairly specific for a reason. Michael Hardy 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Is there some standard name for that sort of thing?" Voodoo that by accident had a positive effect on a true discipline? Too long, huh? To the Greeeks it would have simply been "tekhne", art. •Jim62sch• 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Michael. I see what you mean. I believe the easiest way to look at this from an encyclopedic view is simply to accept that some people have said it is such and such. If some said it is almost a science, then thats their view. An explanation is always helpful also. KrishnaVindaloo 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Informative groupings

Hello Levine2112 and all. The list of pseudoscientific notions should be grouped, rather than just listed alphabetically. There are obvious groupings, and they will help in several ways. 1, it clarifies for the reader why those subjects are considered pseudoscientific, 2, it becomes a list of concepts rather than stating they are all 100% PS, it makes the list easier to maintain. Levene2112, deleting a whole grouping of those concepts/fields (ie Vitalism), is akin to vandalism. Please stop. KrishnaVindaloo 05:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't falsely charge me with vandalism. It is unbecoming to attack an editor and not the edits. I looked through EOP and it doesn't mention Innate Intelligence. Do you have a newer edition? Please provide the quotation of your reference here. Again, Innate Intelligence refers merely the living body's inborn ability to heal itself. All kinds of doctors rely on it all day long, though they may refer to it by another name. I think you (or your references) are perhaps confusing the modern concept of Innate Intelligence with the definiton of it from over 100 years ago. Levine2112 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112. It is clear that innate intelligence is a vitalistic notion. There are abundant sources explaining this. Williams also shows this if you are willing to edit in a non-selective way. The grouping is useful, and removal of innate intelligence is entirely unhelpful. The sources are clear on this matter. Your action, however, does have a positive outcome. In looking up the research of Williams, I also found some more information to add to the article to make it clearer for the reader to understand pseudoscience in general. It involves chiropractic. In fact, I am pretty certain chiropractic is an ideal example to explain pseudoscience in general. Not only does the subject involve many other pseudoscientific subjects, but its strongest adherants display quintessential pseudoscientific thinking and behaviour. Its further inclusion can only clarify the subject and all its nuances. KrishnaVindaloo 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet, Williams doesn't cite innate intelligence specifically as a pseudoscience. You making an assumption by putting two things together is a vilolation of WP:OR. I'm glad you are learning more about chiropractic. However, please realize that it sounds as if your research is very one-sided. Sure, if you are only reading sources from chiropractic skeptics, you are going to get a very slanted POV. Bottomline, there is far too much scientific evidence supporting chiropractic for its inclusion here to be anything short of a travesty and just add to the pseudosckepticism which your sources seem to promote.

You may be interested in learning that even the Skeptic's Dictionary doesn't refer to chiropractic as a pseudoscience. In fact it describes Innate Intelligence not as a vitalistic concept but rather a materialistic version of qi or prana. Therefore, based on Carroll, you can't group Innate Intelligence with Vitalism.

Even more convincing is the American College of Surgeon's "Statement on Interprofessional Relations with Doctors of Chiropractic" in which they position themselves to associations and cooperation which foster better health care for patients of medical physicians, doctors of chiropractic, or both. Sure, you could keep on citing your pseudoskeptics, but please listen to reason and at least the ACS. Levine2112 06:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112. Back to the issue of vandalism. you are reducing the quality of the article by refusing useful information from verifiable and reputable sources. It is very obvious from this and other related articles that innate is a vitalist concept.

I am very happy to add citations to back it up. In fact, I am more than happy to reply to each of your objections with reference to reputable sources. EG Kaptchuk,Ted J. OMD, and Eisenberg,D M. (1998) The Persuasive Appeal of Alternative Medicine. Ann Intem Med. 1998; 129:1061-1065, says Innate intelligence is a vitalist concept together with all others listed....and Oh yes...there are other pseudoscientific aspects noted in that article also.

Each time you make an unreasonable objection (such as leaving in all other examples, but deleting chiropractic) you cause other editors to delve more into the research and reveal more pseudoscientific aspects of chiropractic that can help clarify the article. It is inevitable as chiropractic is a pseudoscientific subject with lots of very clarifying examples of aspects of pseudoscientific thinking and activities.

You are a part of this cycle of discovery. So keep pushing by all means, but the more aspects and examples added, and the more verifiable and clarifying facts you snip out, the more it will look like you are vandalizing the article. Other adherants of chiropractic may curse you for creating this situation, but the article will end up with very solid research to clarify the nuances of pseudoscience anyway. I'm an editor. You make objections and demands, I assume good faith on your part and provide verifiable information to deal with your objections. That information is presented. Its just a fact of life on Wikipedia. KrishnaVindaloo 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are insisting that chiropractic is a pseudoscience tells me that you haven't done enough research. Perhaps you should expand your field of research outside of the anti-chiro pool which you are in. I sincerely hope that my work here causes you and other editors to do more research on chiropractic. I just hope you are willing to expand your horizons rather than remain ignorantly stuck in pseudoskeptical world. The Untied States government (As well as many other counrty's including Australia, England, Japan and New Zealand) all recognize chiropractic as a legitimate science and thus licence chiropractors appropriately. Ask yourself "why?" "How can this be when I have all of these "skeptics" saying it is not a legitimatre science?" Hmm. There must be more to it.

Once again, please don't attack the editor, but rather the edit. Calling me a vandal violates Wikiquette and is unbecoming. It's also untrue. I feel that I am making the article stronger too (just as you do). Levine2112 07:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before many times, and will repeat it again. I am not here to identify pseudosciences. This article is about pseudoscience, not pseudosciences. Identifying pseudoscientific activities, concepts, and thinking is the goal, as is clarifying in a concrete way where those ideas and activities are used. There are some great editors here who are adhering to WP rules in order to show the reader the nature of pseudoscience. I am happily working through the facts myself, and presenting them in accordance with Wikipedia convention. I know a particular interest of yours is involved in that identification of pseudoscientific ideas, but don't get defensive. If a source is verifiable and reputable, it can be added. I have simply been improving the article by adding such clarifying facts. Please allow editors to get on with enriching the information in the article. KrishnaVindaloo 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am enriching and improving the article by removing poor examples that will only lead to confusion on the subject and inaccurate claims about other subjects.So you have a guy who wrote a book which says "A" is a pseudoscience. I have peer-reviewed science that says "A" is not. WP sides with peer-reviewed science.

The statment "Chiropractic adherants reject some aspects of conventional medicine, especially the use of drugs for certain conditions" is a fallacy in the context that you are using it. You are saying that chiropractic is pseudoscientific (which it is not) and it is calling conventional medicine pseudoscientific (which it does not). You have not provided a good source that claims that chiropractic is pseudoscientific or that its adherents calls certain aspects of conventional medicine pseudoscientific. Therefore the statement is a fallacy and must be deleted. For more of an explanation read what GlenG has written about this several sections down from here. Levine2112 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Enriching and improving"? Superfluously redundant, no?  ;) Anyway, your point re chiropratic is correct, although scientology does seem to treat conventional medicine as a pseudoscience. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I did jump the gun deleting Scientology also. I can't claim to know much about that topic... Perhaps if that deleted statement can be qualified with a reputable citation that shows that Scientology considers certain aspects of conventional medicine to be pseudoscience, than it could be reinstated. Without that qualifier, however, we are just to take the author of the statement's word on it. Levine2112 06:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

String theory

Removed it from the list. Maybe string theory is pseudo- or maybe it is proto-... Whatever, the reference listed isn't out yet and a link to the Amazon.com promotion page is not acceptable. Vsmith 00:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in a link to the American version of the book so that readers can order it easily. It is due out in September, so it won't be a long wait. The Britsh version has been out for a while and is the basis of much renewed discussion on the subject. If you cannot wait, you can find it on Amazon as well. In fact, there is a link from the page for the American version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk • contribs)

Here is an interesting essay on the tendency to overuse the term "pseudoscience". cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

String Theory, just like M-Theory (a more robust version of string theory proposed by Edward Witten)is hardly pseudoscience, and given that certain precepts have been mathematically proven, it's not really a proto-science either. It will, however, be quite some time before it is either accepted or falsified as a number of its concepts are rather more high-level than even quantum mechanics (branes, a multiverse, Calabi-Yau manifolds, supersymmetry, etc.).

No one dispute that String Theory is a mathematical theory, but math is not the same as science, and String Theory is the best example I know for that point. The issue here is whether String Theory qualifies as a scientific theory, and by any objective standard, it does not.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk • contribs)

I'd guess that the reason some see both string and M-theory as pseudoscience is because they simply do not understand them -- the concept of extra dimensions is counter-intuitive, and strings fly in the face of the zero-dimensional point particles everyone learns about in physics class. •Jim62sch• 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your guess is wrong (hence is better than String Theory, which is "not even wrong"). The concept of extra dimensions is extremely old (since the 1910s) and is well known to enable the magic of unifying gravity and gauge theories (since at least the 1920s). String itself was a worthy hypothesis in the beginning, but after 30 years we now know ENOUGH to say that it will NOT make any verifiable/falsifiable predictions because there are so many (10^500) ways to hide the extra dimensions and because they are all equally good under String Theory, in principle and in practice. Further research will be exactly like the medieval debate of how many angels can fit onto the tip of a needle--an exercise of intellectual masterbation for the practitioners.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk • contribs)

Actually, extra dimensions go back further -- remember time (or, more appropriately, spacetime) was once an extra dimension. The idea of 10 or 11 dimensions is relatively new however. As for it being "intellectual masturbation" that might be true if it were a philosophy, but it's not, it is real science (and has only been seriously studied for twenty years (see the first string theory revolution)). Not that the length of time it has been studied means much -- the warping of space predicted by Einstein was just proven in the past 5 years. Besides, that you, oh anonymous one, think string theory is pseudoscience means nothing unless you can back it up. Unfortunately, given that a sizable number of physicists are engaged in string- and M-theory researh, I doubt you'll be able to. •Jim62sch• 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen to yourselves. You guys are dilettantes. It is amazing that you know so little and yet feel confident enough to do so much. At least read the recent books and blogs before you try to dominate an important forum like Wikipedia. Einstein's theory was tested within a year in 1916. Even if it hadn't been, at least physicists would have known that it could be tested in their life time, thus making it falsifiable. In contrast, there is NO experiments, even in a thousand years, that can possibly falsify String Theory, period. Even leading string theorists have come to accept that, although some of them (e.g. Lenny Susskind) have begun to claim that String Theory is too special to be limited by "traditional" definition of science. Bottomline is, unless you agree with Lenny, you have to conclude that String is not a theory of Physics any more than ID is a theory of Biology. As for why I want to remain anonymous? Well, I happen to know and work with some string guys, who happen to be very nervous about their livelihood these days. I don't want to find a dead horse head on my bed one day.unsigned left by anon

The theory of special relativity was posited in 1905, not 1915. As for your assertion regarding the length of time to falsify string theory, you are incorrect, in fact, with the next few yaers newer and better supercolliders might very well cast light on the viability of string theory. Casting string theory in the same light as ID is simply asinine, and your alleged reason for remaining anonymous is simply not verifiable. Also note that I've never said that either string or M-theory is correct, but it sure as hell is not pseudoscience. BTW, re modern literature, see my comments below on Woit and Smolin. •Jim62sch• 10:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Just another indicator; string theory is not listed in the EoP. KrishnaVindaloo 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha! Settling a debate with an old book sounds like pseudo-science to me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk • contribs)

Removed again - Amazon is not a valid source, it's a commercial bookseller. Add the source with ISBN and anyone can use the ISBN to find further info. Vsmith 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see that you are used to bullying the high shcoolers in your class, but I know physics 100 times better than you do and I do not like being bullied.Comment left by?

Anon, whom are you addressing with this ad hom?•Jim62sch• 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It should prove interesting. •Jim62sch• 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that only one editor thinks that it should be included...Comments? Ardric47 06:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not going to be included. His primary souce, Peter Woit does not say that string theory is pseudoscience (and it wouldn't much matter if he did), instead Woit argues that there are better approaches than string theory which are not being taken seriously. One line of investigation he has suggested is that "spontaneous gauge symmetry breaking is somehow related to the other mysterious aspect of electroweak gauge symmetry: its chiral nature." This is hardly a supporting citation for the inclusion of string theory.•Jim62sch• 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for the second source, Lee Smolin. In fact, Smolin seems to cast quantum theory in a rather bad light, and yet I don't see quantum theory/mechanics included by our friend. From Smolin, "I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard about them, and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it stands." Interesting that the objection to quantum theory is based on an inability to understand it. I think our friend who continues to try to insert string theory needs to actually read the books he cites, rather than merely going by the title. •Jim62sch• 09:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is critical race theory pseudoscience?

As I understand it, critical race theory doesn't purport to be a science and therefore shouldn't be considered pseudoscience. It draws on philosophy, history and anthropology more than biology. Critical race theorists often map the ways that society's perceptions of race change (in many countries, for example, Middle Easterners are considered white, while in Australia they are popularly considered non-white), and they assert that the tendency to classify people by race can have damaging effects socially. You can disagree, but you'd be entering into a social argument, not a scientific one.

I'm just a university student, but I've actually read read several journal articles about Australian critical race theory, so please consider this. Critical race theorists don't, to my knowledge, make any assertion like "We have proved that there is no biological evidence for race." They're far more likely to talk about the social understanding of what race means. If there are some that claim that race differences don't biologically exist, they aren't representative of the whole field. Certainly there are more who emphasize race differences, based on my experience.

The book cited in the article asserts that race is a biological reality, not a "social construct". [6] Thus, it would seem to be attacking a narrow or imagined definition of critical race theory that isn't representative of the entire field. This is called a straw man argument. I think the reference to critical race theory should be removed from the article. --Grace 07:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grace. Thanks for highlighting a few problems. Sure, I see no particular source on this article or that calling CRT pseudoscientific. I have read in the past that CRT has pseudoscientific ideas such as old PS aspects of Eugenics and odd bell curve misconceptions, and there are still arguments over whether "race" actually exists in reality (genetics and stats) or not. But I am not sure of the sources. If anyone can supply them it may help explain why it is listed. Specificity would also be helpful, so perhaps list the actual concept that is PS, and then the example (CRT). It always helps to state why the field is considered pseudoscientific in some way. If none of these are forthcoming, I see no reason to keep CRT. Regarding claims to science, it doesn't really matter if a subject claims to be science or not. That is not really a prerequisite of PS. Its just one indicator. I know the PS article is misleading in this way, but I suspect editors will come round to making it look a bit less like criteria for inclusion one day. KrishnaVindaloo 07:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I noted this: "Orgone therapy is frequently advertised on alternative-medicine sites, along with other treatments such as Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, herbal therapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, pyramid therapy, shamanism, and high-colonic enemas." Thought I should check; the first and only site I accessed (it was first on Google) was[7] didn't see chiropractic advertised but there was one for dentistry. I have trimmed the reference rather than add dentistry.Gleng 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gleng. I'm not sure if anyone has ever explained this to you, but your own research WP:OR does not negate the research of reputable sources. KrishnaVindaloo 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I was gently pointing out that the "reputable source" was transparently casual and unreliable. I have no problem at all with reputable sources and WP defines them clearly. Find an authoratative secondary source in a major peer reviewed journal if you want to claim something as fact accepted by serious scientists, otherwise keep a check on your pov pushing. It's too easy to make casual insinuations, and you're slipping them in too readily. The source I quoted above is impeccable as evidence that dentistry is advertised on an alt med web site, the challenge is do you accept this as evidence that chiropractic is pseudoscience.Gleng 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All the therapies listed are used in fringe psychotherapy. The concepts are used to treat those with all kinds of psychological disorders, even though there is no evidence for chi or innate intelligence, and there is no support whatsoever for the intervention in the context of psychotherapy. Do you want me to look up more sources that state this? Its going to be very easy! KrishnaVindaloo 08:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the construct of the argument in the extract; the statement is "Orgone therapy is frequently advertised on alternative-medicine sites, along with other treatments such as Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, herbal therapy, chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, pyramid therapy, shamanism, and high-colonic enemas". So why is this statement worth including? As an example of evidence that orgone therapy is pseudoscience by association with other pseudosciences. Now put in this way, the argument itself is weak, it gets still weaker if the list isn't all accepted PS, and weaker again if the list is obviously selective, as I've demonstrated it is. So why include it - it seems to me that the only reason for inserting it at all is to insinuate a suggestion by association that chiro is PS. This seems to me to be pov pushing.Gleng 09:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No Gleng. Whats POV pushing is editors constantly seeking to remove chiropractic from the article, despite the pseudoscietific elements being identified in that and other subjects. It is extremely easy for the reader to see from this article that orgone is a vitalist concept that is also known as innate intelligence, qi etc. It is important as a pseudoscientific idea within the context of psychology also. The article is clearer with the line left in. KrishnaVindaloo 09:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is dark matter pseudoscience?

"NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter" (Aug 21, 2006). This seems to fail at least two important criteria as defined in the article:

• "Evasion of peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")". Sure, the material will be printed in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, but this does seem like science by press release.
• "Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict"; at best the observations is evidence that is consistent with the theory, which is FAR from being proof?

--Iantresman 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it was proto-science, but I wouldn't argue the point too vigourously. Personally, I dislike constructs that are invented to fill in a missing gap, which really is how dark matter got its start. Dark energy and MOND seem to me to be more likely, as they better explain reality -- i.e., they are more parsimonious than dark matter. •Jim62sch• 23:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder whether (a) the observations were predicted, (b) the conclusions are testable. --Iantresman 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be no and maybe. It could be a case of hoping to find something, or finding something and assuming it fits the theory. We'll have to see what comes out of it -- if it's bogus, it'll be challenged. •Jim62sch• 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just one indicator: its not listed in the EoP (Williams). KrishnaVindaloo 04:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The existence of dark matter is science. Specific speculations on what constitutes dark matter are proto-science. Insisting on seeing it with your own eyes (instead of brains) before believing is pseudo-science.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talk • contribs)

As I noted earlier, traditionalists dislike string theory and cling to dark matter, even though dark matter was merely adopted as a means of avoiding having to rework a whole shjitload of theories. •Jim62sch• 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, I read in the paper (not the Daily Sport) this morning that dark matter had just been validated, and we even now may be absolutely saturated with the stuff (amongst all the caffeine). If anyone has a reputable source (more reputable than The Times) that would help. BTW, I'm totally ignorant about dark matter, if anyone has a good link for me that'd be great also. For all I know, it could be the dark side of the force. KrishnaVindaloo 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Casual insinuations - Good Research WP

KV, I don't think you've got the point. Scientists do not bandy the term pseudoscience around casually because for us it has grave connotations; others have similar objections to wide use of terms like "Nazi" and "holocaust" or "evil" or "fraudulent". If the word has meaning, and pseudoscience is a good word and the meaning is important, then don't dilute it or the whole article sinks into disrepute because it's contaminated with opinion driven insinuation. You'll find sources willing to say that chiropractic and all sorts of other things are pseudoscience, just as you'll find people to say that X or Y is a Nazi or stupid; WP is not a vehicle for propogating casual prejudice, but for reporting facts and reporting authoratative opinion. A casual aside that something is classed along with other pseudoscientific subjects is not a reasoned, carefully argued case for something being pseudoscientific. What I'm asking is that you do not make casual insinuations like this. NPOV needs care, our opinions do not matter, but what goes in the article, if disputed, needs a proper V RS pedigree and still some careGleng 08:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I provide good research. I've a pile of papers on chiropractic on my desk, and access to proquest and other such databases. Now in order to make sure I avoid casual insinuation, I have to delve into my sources again. What do you think I am going to find this time? From a cursory view, it is already very clear that my additions to the article comply perfectly well with Wikipedia policy on verifiability and repute. Oh! I just found another such fact. I'll add it to the article. Whatever makes the article clearer for the reader! KrishnaVindaloo 08:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Take this statement "For example, the Church of Scientology and Chiropractic adherants reject some aspects of conventional medicine, especially the use of drugs for certain conditions (Williams 2000:51:312)." It might be an accurate summary of what is stated, the status of the source I don't know, I have no idea about the author or the status of the publication; it's not a peer reviewed source so I don't have ready access to it. However, the statement if correctly quoted leads me to doubt the credentials of the source because the statement is loose, as given is either false or meaningless, and the argument is misleading as most conventional medical practitioners would in some cases, reject the use of drugs for certain conditions even when they are conventionally accepted. This is called discretion in prescription. So to make the statement accurate it would be "some chiropractic practitioners (reference)" not "Chiropractic adherents", would be specific about which drugs and which circumstances, and would involve some explanation of in what way this is different to the varying opinions about drug use from within conventional medicine. As it is, you have left a casual insinuation about chiropractic, knowing the insinuation to be disputed, and in a form that diminishes the authority of your source.Gleng 09:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did a search on Google for "pseudoscience dentistry", it came up with 56,700 hits, so maybe it's worth a look hereGleng 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gleng. You seem to be over-reaching. It is considered by some, a characteristic of PS to dis conventional medicine in various ways. That fact needs clarifying. Dentistry uses conventional medicine. It promotes conventional medicine. Chiropractic and CoS dismiss conventional medicine especially as it relates to the use of drug treatments. Chiro and CoS are very clarifying for the article. Dentistry is not clarifying at all. Your judgment by google is completely unreliable. Lets stick with reliable authors. KrishnaVindaloo 09:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at some of the dentistry pseudoscience links to see that there is indeed a large and transparently pseudoscientific fringe here. The analogy seems good to me; chiropractic is a very broad term, covering a lot of time and a diversity of approaches, and there are some elements that are working wholly within conventional medicine, others are collaborating happily, and some practitioners are off the fringe; it doesn't help to lump them togetherr any more than it would help to lump conventional dentistry along with PS dentistry. That something rejects conventional medicine doesn't make it a PS by the way. Yes I wish you would stick with reliable sources, and they're not hard to find - (well, they're hard to find for chiropractic). I searched PubMed for V RS on pseudoscience and could find nothing on chiro, but the following do seem to be the sort of sources that I would regard as strong for other areas:

Ostrander GK, Cheng KC, Wolf JC, Wolfe MJ. Shark cartilage, cancer and the growing threat of pseudoscience. Cancer Res. 2004;64:8485-91. PMID: 15574750 Forstein M. The pseudoscience of sexual orientation change therapy.BMJ. 2004;328:E287-8. PMID: 15087366 Schwartz RS. Faith healers and physicians--teaching pseudoscience by mandate.N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1437-9. PMID: 16207844 de Grey AD, Gavrilov L, Olshansky SJ, Coles LS, Cutler RG, Fossel M, Harman SM. Antiaging technology and pseudoscience. Science. 2002 ;296:656. Makgoba MW. Politics, the media and science in HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience. Vaccine. 2002;20:1899-904. PMID: 11983241 Makgoba MW. HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience. Science. 2000 ;288:1171. PMID: 10841733 David AS Frontal lobology--psychiatry's new pseudoscience.Br J Psychiatry. 1992 Aug;161:244-8. PMID: 1521108. Worrall RS. Detecting health fraud in the field of learning disabilities.J Learn Disabil. 1990 Apr;23(4):207-12. PMID: 2094229 Hewitt GC. Misuses of biology in the context of the paranormal. Experientia. 1988 Apr 15;44(4):297-303. PMID: 3282905 Cone EJ. Ephemeral profiles of prescription drug and formulation tampering: evolving pseudoscience on the Internet. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006 Jun;83 Suppl 1:S31-9. Epub 2006 Feb 3. PMID: 16458455

They are probably worth including, and they do show that there are RS out there if you look Gleng 10:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make my pov clear; I'm a skeptic about chiropractic, and extremely dubious about some of the ways in which it is described and promoted and about many of its claims. But that's my opinion, and I don't like double standards, and am similarly dubious about some areas of conventional medicine and science. But my opinions don't matter, but why should anyone else's? They should be noted if the source of the opinion is notable, if the opinion is carefully explained and justified (not just a passing aside) and the published source is undisputably reliable, serious and authoratative. It's a discipline that doesn't let us say everything we think is probably true, but ensures that what we do say is reliable, and if we let it go then we open the door to pov.Gleng 10:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lead to exclude the ludicrous criterion that something is pseudoscientific if it's not adequately supported by research. This is inconsistent with the later correct assertion that most scientific statements are falsified - as indeed is inevitable from the nature of the scientific method. It is not essential for a statement to be accepted as true for it to be scientific, only that it is not still believed when the evidence shows it to be falseGleng 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well sorry Gleng, but your trimmings are obviously an attempt at selective editing. Lets keep personal agendas out of this please. KrishnaVindaloo 05:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Identifying pseudoscience

This section really does science no service at all. It is too long, too fuzzy, seems like a recipe for guilt by association that implies that in the end psudoscience is just an arbitrary term used for something we don't like. There is one core requirement for pseudoscience; that it purports to be science, yet its propositions are consistently not falsifiable. From this, most else follows - dogma rather than evidence, dismissal of contradictory evidence, obscuranticism etc. I think (hope) that if you fall back on the V RS in peer-reviewed major journals you'll see this as the rigorous core behind a case for calling anything a pseudoscience.Gleng 16:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It has gotten kinda all-over-the-place, hasn't it? Speculation on underlying psychological motives, strategies and such... find another college prof or two who've published some of their own speculative slants and I'm sure we can make it even longer yet. ... Kenosis 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC) I'd be very cautious about trying to reduce scientific method to the one criterion of falsifiability though. It's simply not sustainable in that simplified form. ... Kenosis 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd favour tightening it considerably and restructuring it though. I think it needs a clear consensus core definition, and then maybe better to illustrate that with specific examples taken from V RS - maybe the examples of V RS above can provide cases that can be solidly defended?Gleng 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently that section begins by patiently explaining to the unfamiliar reader the basic issues. If that is replaced with a list of criteria asserted to be the core of scientific method, history has shown that criteria will be added and removed to suit various individual POV's and preferred inclusions or exclusions from the classification of pseudoscience. It already explains the importance of verifiability, statistical method, thorough documentation and openness to scrutiny, and falsifiability, thereby covering the most important basics. Neither these basics nor any set of basics will allow the reader to sort through bad statistics or fudging of research. But it can allow the reader to understand that when, for example, someone says there has not been a statistical analysis of data, or that there are no published data that are statistically meaningful, or that a theory is not verifiable, or that the stated confidence intervals are wild stretches based on the available data, etc., that there are valid, agreed-upon sets of principles upon which such a statement is based (as opposed to mere blind skepticism).

As to that list of characteristics, the text already says that no one of them settles the issue. I personally would rather have the reader parse the list and see how many of those characteristics fit the putative science being assessed, than have a list that is oversimplified and erroneously applicable to such valid theories as the big bang, evolution, clinical psychology, etc. It is in fact a balancing test, and we should present it accordingly. That said, I'm still uncomfortable with the attributions to various psychological motives and manipulative mental strategies that are on that list. ... Kenosis 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I share Kenosis' concerns. The scientific method (the scientific eight-fold path ;) needs to be retained, albeit rewritten to a more normative form, but the ascription of motives and the focus on various fallacies is not necessary. •Jim62sch• 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is a list of criteria for demarcation, which still need citations. This list would be fairly consistent with the overall content of Gauch's Scientific Method in Practice, as well as many experimental psychology textbooks, which tend to be in touch with the leading edges of the demarcation problem due to the historical doubts about psychology as a valid science and the quest to bring the overall discipline of psychology into line with scientific method within the past 40 years or so. ... Kenosis 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• From the demarcation problem article, with an added sentence at the beginning which is drawn from the article on intelligent design, the editors of which did a great deal of research on this subject prior to collectively writing the section on scientific method now included in that article:

==Demarcation in contemporary scientific method==

The scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. The criteria for a system of assumptions, methods, and theories to qualify as science today vary in their details from application to application, and vary significantly among the natural sciences, social sciences and formal science. The criteria typically include (1) the formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability and the closely related empirical and practical criterion of testability, (2) a grounding in empirical evidence, and (3) the use of scientific method. The procedures of science typically include a number of heuristic guidelines, such as the principles of conceptual economy or theoretical parsimony that fall under the rubric of Ockham's razor. A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered non-scientific.

The following is a list of additional features that are highly desirable in a scientific theory.

• Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.
• Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.
• Valid/Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.
• Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.
• Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.
• Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.
• Integrative, robust and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. (Robust = "stable" in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.) See Correspondence principle
• Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory. ... 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the form of the list in the intelligent design article. Citations are given for specific applications of these criteria to the subject of intelligent design, but not for the criteria themselves, so we have some further research to do here before including it, because in this article we do not have the benefit of citations related to a single field-specific application. The article on demarcation problem could of course benefit from any reliable work we do here. ... Kenosis 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
• Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
• Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
• Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
• Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) ... 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kenosis. Thats a useful pointer. I'm just trying to work out how best to utilize it for this article. Any ideas? KrishnaVindaloo 05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section was fuzzy. Well, too abstract for the reader is actually a better description. Its not accusatory at all though. PS is so confusing as a subject and clearer description there in that section is required. I have noticed that there has been a lot of good clarification there recently though, so I wouldn't be pessimistic about it at all. From what I can see about the best articles on Wikipedia, they tend to be far more accessible to the reader. Concreteness is so important. So illustrations, diagrams, examples, cases etc are going to help a lot. KrishnaVindaloo 05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Concerning inclusiveness. Well, WP is about gaining the sum knowledge of what we know in the world about subjects. There is actually a great deal of new information on the subject that will make the article even more interesting that it already is, and will help to explain why PS subjects are flourishing nowadays. I'm working on a section/or part of a section that explains this in psychological terms. This isn't speculative. Its based upon accepted theory, and is well supported. Its also easy to keep concise and add clarifying examples. KrishnaVindaloo 05:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Kenosis. Your edit summary stated:

• "Remove marginally sourced crap per WP:RS, WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Who's Lillienfeld anyway?)"

As mentioned by more than one editor here, that section is in need of more clarity and accessibility. If you are going to rant about WP:RS, I suggest you seek the facts first. Lilienfeld is among a group of scientists who have been researching pseudoscience for many years. They produce a peer-reviewed journal on the subject. They are eminently quotable. The examples they use are supported by their own research and are corroborated by multiple others. They are entirely suitable for this article. Lets get on with clarifying issues of pseudoscience rather than demanding stuff that Wikipedia makes no demands for (the impossible). KrishnaVindaloo 05:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lilienfeld does indeed seem to be a clear authority on pseudoscience in areas of mental health (psychotherapy etc). He is editor of a journal in this field (The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice) that specifically evaluates claims in that area; the journal is not yet accepted for indexing on Medline so can't yet claim much in the way of acceptance, though personally I think it looks very well intentioned and conceived. I think it's important to pay attention to the specific limits of expertise of expert opinion.Gleng 12:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Kenosis, you made reversions just a couple of minutes after my edits, you ordered me to seek consensus, yet after hours, you have not answered any of my points on this discussion page. If you are trying to obtain a reputation for cooperative editing, I believe you have a long way to go. I will make appropriate edits on the article now, work on one section only, and will do it according to NPOV policy on WP:RS. If according to your opinion, any of those edits are "crap" then please discuss on this talk page. KrishnaVindaloo 08:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an article on psychological aspects of pseudoscience would be useful. The published material by Lilienfeld and Ruscio has not contributed anything new to the demarcation problem that hasn't already been done by others; indeed the core demarcation criteria can be found in one form or another in most contemporary experimental psychology textbooks. I'm not arguing Lilienfeld shouldn't be cited in this article, despite my derisive comment about the material in my earlier edit summary--if I'm not mistaken he's already cited in three other places in the current WP article. Psychological speculation put forward by Lilienfeld, however, is not appropriate for the article on pseudoscience, in significant part because it is falling into the same trap of which pseudoscience is often accused, specifically of making assertions that are not empirically verifiable. Moreover, Lilienfeld also seems to be attempting to debunk therapies and ideas that hold no pretense of being science. Lilienfeld makes repeated references, for instance, to the "guru" approach and the patterns he observes in such therapeutic approaches. This point is already made in the WP article, the entire content of which is devoted to the proposition that just 'cause one person or group calls it science doesn't make it so.

To the extent that unverifiable speculation about psychological motives and strategies, though, is "verifiable" for the purpose of inclusion somewhere in WP (by merit of having been published by Lilienfeld and Ruscio), an article explaining the psychological aspects argued by these commentators seems like it could be a useful topic fork. ... Kenosis 19:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kenosis. I can see that an incremental approach to improving the article is not productive. I will take another approach. Adding examples to explain pseudoscience was a trend started by Popper, and is commonly used today. They use the examples within context, and I see no reason why that should change. If you want to promote your self-imposed rule of not having examples in the text of the encyclopedia, try to suggest it as a WP rule to the administrators. In reply to your edit summary about "adding our favourite pseudosciences", well, I guess you could try to re-name the list of PS section: "Our favourite pseudosciences". Lilienfeld is reputable and verifiable, and he and his co-researchers have a lot to offer the article. The article is presently close to incomprehensible to the average reader. KrishnaVindaloo 04:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Scientific Community

In the section "Fields regarded as pseudoscience", I've removed the statement "and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community", as a back-handed way of suggesting "partly" or "mostly" dismissed. As I have highlighted before:

• While there are citations to individuals claiming certain subjects are pseudoscientific, there is NOTHING to suggest that (a) any portion of the scientific community (b) considers ANY of these fields to be pseudoscientifc
• The phase "scientific community" is considered a Wikipedia weasel word to avoid

--Iantresman 10:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Iantresman. I'm inclined to agree with you. KrishnaVindaloo 04:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarity and easy access

Hi all, further to the above comments on sections requiring change; there are a set of pretty well known suggestions for making writing more accessible and clear.

• Firstly, writing is easier to understand when it is concrete. Show, rather than just tell. Examples and cases are such an approach. As I mentioned above, Popper and others used this approach, and it should be used here. I've already presented a range of examples in order to show that I'm not picking on anyone's particular "favourite pseudoscience". Not only should they be present, but they should also be in context so the reader doesn't have to go crosseyed to find the links.

• A narrative and storylike approach also makes writing more readable. This is possible in the case of pseudoscience as the theories surrounding PS have evolved. This doesn't have to be strictly chronological, but some kind of evolution is necessary and should be made clear.

I'm sure other edits and plenty of discussion is necessary here, and it is welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 04:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I made some changes.

Here is the suggested format: [8]

To my knowledge, the only paras I removed were those saying : the above are only indicators of PS, etc. I did add some from Thagard, and made the paras fit with a few connection sentences. I hope you all assume good faith on this effort. My main purpose, stated above, is to help the reader by placing all the related concepts together, and by illustrating them to some extent. I did notice some redundancy as a result, so that may help reduce the file size in some areas also. The section on ubiquity needs a little more work, and the psychological aspects can be better explained there also. Again, discussion is welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 05:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Baring in mind there will be parts that editors will legitimately want to adjust: Just looking for points to agree upon here: Question: Do we agree that a consistently evolutionary presentation of theory, facts and characteristics of pseudoscience will be more understandable to the reader? KrishnaVindaloo 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I note some areas of redundancy to help reduce file size: The demarcation problem section is largely redundant. It has been added already to the Falsification etc sections, but could be better highlighted there also, even within its own section. On an evolutionary/historical level, it would be appropriate somewhere between sci method and falsification. I suggest somewhere within or between the sci-method and the falsification section. Disussion is welcome again. The demographics section is also redundant, as it has been added to the ubiquity section. KrishnaVindaloo 06:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the above, good faith is always assumed, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. What was implemented a while ago was a complete rewrite of the article, so I've reverted it pending a weigh-in of participating editors about the organization of the entire article. Among the many problems with the complete rewrite are that there is already a place in the article to discuss the demarcation problem from the perspectives of Kuhn, Thagard, Lacatos and others. The reader does not need to have these perspectives in order to understand basics like verifiability and the expectation that evidence be empirical, testable, replicable, and measurable for the purpose of statistical analysis of the data. ... Kenosis 08:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, your edit summary stated: "This was not clarity, but obfuscation in the guise of philosophy of science.". Would you care to explain to me how the present version is any better? I have listed reasons why presenting the reader with collections of related concepts and examples will help them. Can you explain to me how seperating and muddling such concepts both chronologically and logically is going to help anyone at all? KrishnaVindaloo 09:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, your reversion was completely expected, hence the link placed above to the "evolution" version rather than my own reversion followed by yours ad nausium. Yes other input is desired and expected. Lets hear views on whether it is best to keep the demarcation problem as a seperate piece of confusion, or to place it sensibly in the historical philosophy context to make it easier for the reader to see how it relates to verifiability and falsification. KrishnaVindaloo 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not attempt to respond to the hyperbole just above, filled as it is with conclusory judgments. The mass rewrite ([9]) reads like a draft of an academic paper built on the WP article. The observations about progressivity by Kuhn and Thagard (the latter described in a footnote at present) appear useful in the section about the demarcation problem. Personally I would support splitting up criticisms of the concept of pseudoscience from the section on the demarcation problem, which is the way it originally was until Mccready combined them some time ago ([10]). The material on ubiquity of pseudoscience is interesting too, and I would not object to a brief, well written section in the article. I do object to splitting up the "characteristics" into separate sections without broad consensus, because the original objective was to present a list of characteristics for the reader to look at and see if it fits whatever field(s) they happen to be interested in judging. ... Kenosis 23:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. It would be helpful to have more input from others also.

Kenosis, your observation on "essay style" are partly justified I believe. Statements such as "thus, characterisitics of pseudoscience are:". Those could perhaps be altered to something more encyclopedic.

Yes, Kenosis, spliting criticisms from demarcation would be far better I believe. If you could do something with it, I think that will work out fine.

Kenosis, could you give me more detail on your thoughts about progressivness. Scientific progress is something that really needs highlighting in the article. It is a major distinguishing feature of science vs pseudoscience nowadays (in the lit).

I'll get working more thoroughly on a consice ubiquity section. Input is welcome.

I also think splitting characteristics requires a lot more input from others. My reason for doing so was to place those characteristics right next to the reasoning behind those characteristics (easy to access and understand). Also, the list as it is (and a few other lines in that section) look far too much like a disorganized checklist of characteristics for adding intelligent design, homeopathy, or whatever, to the "our favorite pseudos" section. Indeed, it looks like a list for the benefit of editors who want to call something pseudoscientific, rather than a well reasoned set of organized characteristics. You say the reader may want to judge what is PS. Well, I don't think Wikipedia is set up to help them do that. Rather, WP is to show what is known about the subject. Certainly work needs to be done on the list. I suggest 1. Get it organized and perhaps annotated. or 2, seperate the characteristics as I did in order to enhance the clarity of the article.

There are some other aspects you may consider from the "evolutionary" version. The intro is organized there from the point of view of origins, and motivation surrounding PS. I believe that is a good way to start. I would like more feedback on that point.

More feedback, and plenty of suggestions please. There is a lot more we could do to help clarify this article. KrishnaVindaloo 02:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

HI again, I organized the list of characteristics. I placed them more or less in some kind of logical grouping. I am not totally wed to its current arrangement, and I'm sure it could be adjusted. I'm sure there are many possible logical arrangements, but the main point is; we need to keep it in some kind of understandable grouping. I left breaks between the various groups, I believe some kind of annotation or subheading could be presented. My particular grouping is: 1.Falsification/verification and being clear about theory(eg Popper), 2. Progress or avoiding progress, 3. The guise of science. Lets discuss this. KrishnaVindaloo 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC) PS, second thoughts, I reduced to 2 subheadings. As you can see, I am open to other arrangements. Comments are welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 04:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I presented another version (what a flipflopper!:). The present version (Untestability, unfalsifiability, lack of progress) seems to be a fairly logical grouping. It also adheres to the various arguments of scientists and philosophers (before Popper (verifiability) after Popper (falsifiability), and more recently (lack of progress in comparison with sciences). Again, I'm sure problems could be found with it, so I'm pretty much open as usual. KrishnaVindaloo 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version ([11]) is a well-thought, sensible subgrouping in my opinion, one which respects previous consensus in this article. ... Kenosis 16:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure Kenosis, looks fine. Personalization issues could be pseudoscientific argument, but the main thing is to have reasonable groupings to help the reader. There may also be some grouping by Bunge or someone that could be used as a citable grouping. But organization and clarity is the main point. KrishnaVindaloo 03:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Kenosis. Further to your "personalization of issues", I added a condensed version of the Devilly/Pratkanis social psychology characteristic. I did it this way to add richness to the explanations. Again, very much open to adjustment. KrishnaVindaloo 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I also added some important nuance into the characteristics section. Thagard and Popper differed on which characteristics were more important. This can also be discussed here if necessary. KrishnaVindaloo 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Open conclusions/summary

Hi all, I have been looking at the article as a whole, and I believe (as its quite a heated subject sometimes) it would be a good idea to conclude by not concluding. Basically, have a summary at the end that states there are still open questions on the subject of PS. It can mention that there is still open debate in the philosophy of science, it can state that subjects are considered PS for various reasons, it can state that there is still debate on the motivation for calling things PS, and it can state that the issue is becoming more important in some folks mind. Right now, it seems to conclude that the list of subjects considered PS, are actually pseudoscience, and I reckon thats the wrong way to end this article. I also notice the opening is not quite representitive of the article as a whole, and that can also conclude with questions rather than answers. I believe this would be a more intelligent and NPOV way to handle the article. Any thoughts, concerns, and ideas are welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis' edit sum: Umm, no. this is the place for presenting characteristics, not one's favorite peeve.

Hello Kenosis. I double checked the section on theories once considered PS. It was incorrectly entered into the article. I moved the entries to the correct place where they made the rather abstract sentence far clearer for the reader. You deleted them.

Firstly, if you think all of these examples are my peeves (Scientology, Naturopathy, Chiropractic, Christian science) then you have not assumed good faith and you consider me to be editing this article because I find every subject considered PS to be a "peeve".

Secondly, you have not shown any evidence of there being a rule in Wikipedia for dismissing examples and concrete language from a particular section. Indeed, if you revert again, and do not show me any evidence for this, I consider your action vandalism in that you are reducing the quality and readability of the article.

Thirdly, you are removing examples selectively, in which case one may consider your actions to be selective and biased towards particular subjects.

I will now reinstate those and other concrete language into the article. Wikipedia policy states that a fact can be included if it fullfills the verifiability requirement. That is the standard I am using, and the standard you are dismissing. KrishnaVindaloo 05:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There are such things as "undue weight" and "presenting arguments fairly" and "POV forking", too. Cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jim Butler. Its so clear why this article ends up with so much conflict. People simply refuse to discuss sufficiently. I kind of know what you mean, and your line here is far better than other's restriction of discussion to edit summaries. It'd be grand if you could explain what you mean in more detail. In the meantime, I suggest if editors here are sick and tired of discussing points, then go and edit somewhere else. KrishnaVindaloo 02:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some more useful examples to help the reader understand what the hell the article was on about. If anyone has any more useful examples it will help. Also, if anyone has any reason why examples should not be used in this one particular section in the whole of Wikipedia, then please try to explain your objection outside of an edit summary. KrishnaVindaloo 02:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What Jim means, I think, is that you seem to not be paying attention to undue weight, POV forking and presenting arguments fairly. Seems to me that your are hell-bent on including certain things that you find pseudoscientific in whatever manner it takes to get them included.

I don't see the examples added of being of any value, as this is an encyclopedia not a textbook.

Something about the way you are handling this is seriously rubbing me the wrong way. It seems that you believe you can steamroller the other editors on this page, crushing them until your ideas prevail. You seem not willing to admit that you just might be wrrrrr, wrrrrro, wwwrrrrrrooo, wrong. It seems that Krishna knows all and the rest of us are the untouchables. •Jim62sch• 09:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch, please assume good faith. I am hell bent on making this article readable and accessible to the average reader. Your attitude - we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to be clear - is completely ridiculous. You have not provided me with any evidence there can be particular POV forking. Books on pseudoscience always include examples in context. They have to or otherwise their writing will end up looking as obscure as it is in this article. KrishnaVindaloo 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Try being a little less hell-bent as a general approach.  :-) More below... cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Right now we seem to be getting some useful discussion. I believe thats productive. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to including examples providing the examples themselves are adequately referenced by a V RS. Examples can help to clarify an abstract point. I do object to introducing insinuations that are not necessarily sustainable by V RS. Thus, the one example beginning The term "pseudoscience" may by used by adherents of fields considered pseudoscientific.... introduces a set of factual claims (that proponents of the fields mentioned make these claims, and these need V RS) and a complexity of insinuations - that these fields are "considered pseudoscientific", which also need V RS, and that these are disuted fields are accepted by mainstream science All of these implicit insinuations also need V RS. This example as phrased is actually far too sweeping a generalisation, and so even for aparently uncontroversial elements there is likely to be reasonable dispute: for example there are certainly areas of psychiatry that are regarded as pseudoscientific by some in the conventional mainstream (e.g. ECT) - and many areas of psychology (see the IQ/race debate). Equally while chiropractic (as the recurrent most contentious example) has aspects that certainly reflect a pseudoscientific history, it also has aspects that place it well out of this class, notably its development of peer reviewed journals such as the Journal of Manipulative and Physical Therapy, its acceptance of regulation, and the formal acceptance of evidence based medicine principles by its professional bodies. I'm not arguing here that chiropractic is not pseudoscience, only that the case is highly arguable on reasonable objective criteria, and so using it as an example is unsound. So I would restore your first two examples as discreet, clear and capable of V RS (though that is still needed) but reconsider your third to give a discreet, unarguable referenced instance. Shouldn't be hard to find - see an ID proponent on Darwinism[12]. Gleng 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hello Gleng. I have no particular problem with chiropractic, but chiropractic proponents keep making the most obvious attempts at censorship of even the merest mention of their following in this article. If you don't want chiropractic mentioned throughout the article then stop urging me towards the literature. It is perfectly within Wikipedia rules to have chiropractic mentioned as an example throughout, in every single characteristic on the list. As it is though, a range of examples can be used simply in order to avoid chiropractic proponents tearing the article up because they are not being allowed to censor facts. KrishnaVindaloo 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have no objection to including examples either, the problem being primarily a practical one. It's turned out we've been able to find sourcing for virtually everything as pseudoscience, and it is eminently possible, based on a source or two here and there, to throw in such things as the "big bang" and evolution (not falsifiable in the strictest sense, and likely not reproducible in this lifetime). It is, or ought to be, clear that only when scientific method is viewed as a cluster of considerations and criteria can a reasonable assessment be made (taking the sources as a whole into account, and in keeping with WP policy) of whether something is legitimately called "science" or legitimately called "pseudoscience". This is why I believe the editors should, in general, continue to follow the already longstanding practice of avoiding "examples" of specific fields in the section on "Identifying pseudoscience" — one can't determine what is pseudoscience by attaching it to just one or two of the "characteristics of pseudoscience" presented in the article.

A consensus was already reached in earlier discussion by many editors that the place to present examples of pseudoscience was in that previously very long and highly unstable list of fields that is currently titled "Fields regarded as pseudoscience". Then, two or three months ago, I and others began to demand sourcing. A significant number of us including Hgilbert, Bubba73, Jeffire, Iantresman, Duncharris, myself and others, spent many, many hours providing many sources for at least the basics in this article, complex and arguable as they can be on a subject such as pseudoscience. With the wealth of sourcing that has begun to come into play in the current versions of the article, the policy of WP:NPOV#undue_weight has increasingly come into play as well. (This is of course in addition to the "big three", WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR, as well as WP:CON and a number of more specific guidelines such as NPOV: Pseudoscience.) In general, on balance, I think the article has improved because of the many efforts.

If there is going to be a new consensus to use the section on "identifying pseudoscience" as a place to include "real-life" examples, then discussion of this approach should of course be conducted accordingly. But I think experience has already taught us that applying what we each see as "real-life" or "concrete" examples to the process of describing to readers the characteristics of pseudoscience opens up a hornets nest of POV's where everyone wants to throw in their favorite illustrations of how such-and-such a principle or characteristic applies to whatever fields they privately (or publicly) most despise. I think the only exception we should make, frankly, is to astrology, and in this case the exception should be justified on the grounds that both Popper and Thagard, two of the 4-5 major theorists on the subject of pseudoscience, used this example to make their point about the demarcation problem (and if the issue becomes one of strict principle for the WP article, perhaps astrology should be removed there as well). In my estimation, the longstanding approach of a list of characteristics in "identigying pseudoscience" should continue to be the article's approach in the future. At a minimum, if this basic approach is going to change, it should be thoroughly discussed and re-consensused. .. Kenosis 17:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All you say makes good sense to me.Gleng 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Very well stated, Kenosis. •Jim62sch• 23:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kenosis. Your main objection: people mentioning Big Bang theory, astrophysics or whatever. I believe it is unhelpful to all to maintain your view. This article is not about identifying pseudosciences. If a part of a subject is useful for explaining pseudoscience, then it should be included within reason. If Big Bang theory has a pseudoscientific aspect then that can indeed be mentioned within reason (as long as there are good cites for it). Your concern is quite unfounded. I know there are editors here who are bent on censorship or inclusion of germ theory as part of their agenda, but we know who those editors are, and we are allowed to point out their biases. Their presence here will always be unhelpful, but there are plenty of other reasonable editors around to keep things straight.

Concerning which examples to include, well there are reasonable ways of determining which should be included or excluded; There are whole books and articles written on sci vs pseudosci or the aspects of pseudoscientific subjects eg, Lilienfeld, Shermer, Bunge, and many others. They use examples in context (within the explanatory sentence), and so should we.

POV forking will not occur. If an example is included but someone writes: "Yeh, but its promoted by such and such body as science" that can be excluded because they are not being specific, and they are not talking about PS aspects. The article should be usefully specific, rather than make useless broad sweeping generalities.

So back to making good discussion. I'm grateful that some of you have discussed something here. Its better than the snide and unspecific objections in edit summaries. But I have heard no alternatives from anyone here. Digging in the heels and making unconvincing and unspecific rules just does not wash. You've shown no Wikipedia rule for excluding examples. Exclusion on the basis that chiropractors will tantrum or add germ theory is unreasonable. POV forking is easily avoidable. Including some non-mainstream examples may be helpful (they should be mentioned as examples in books or papers on PS though).

We have made some improvements to the article, and I am working on adding more citations to various facts. But this article needs to be at least as clear as those articles and books on PS, and as such, concrete language and examples are required. Solutions and alternatives? The characteristics are in useful sections now, so I suggest placing the examples in paragraphs at the bottom of each subsection. At least that will solve the containment objection. Any other alternatives or suggestions are welcome. KrishnaVindaloo 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps you could read the comments on the Talk page again; nobody is suggesting excluding chiropractic because chiropractic will tantrum, but because you will not get consensus from reasonable editors that this is a good example, and because you won't find good V RS support. You need to assume good faith in these comments on the Talk pages, that they are honest and reasoned advice from editors striving to build an encyclopedia according to NPOV, V RS and No OR, and editors willing to discount their own pov in those interests. I'm not anonymous; check me out if you think I've any hidden agendaGleng 08:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Gleng, you really are shooting yourself in the foot here. I had no particular feeling about this from the start. Every time you insist on a non-existant consensus, or RS, I go to the web or the library and find another reliable and verifiable source that says chiro is pseudo. There have already been many reliable sources saying it is PS in various ways. Even Beyerstein, who says there is some (weak) support for it that makes it a grey area in medicine, states that the theory is totally PS. Outside of medicine? Of course, the majority of chiros still worship subluxation voodoo, and they apply their qi-powered bonesetting to everything from autism to downs syndrome. Every pseudoscience has some science in it. Keating mentions this also. If there were one subject that shows the most stubbornly persistent PS nature, its chiropractic. I had absolutely no idea chiropractic was so PS, until editors such as yourself kept urging me to go to the library to look up W:RS evidence for its PS nature. Consensus? No, just a reluctance to understand pseudoscience, a dismissal of the literature, a group of chiro supporters trying to pull a fast one, and some (only some) editors just giving it to them to avoid the harrassment. This article is going to improve whether you like it or not. Its just one of those things. KrishnaVindaloo 08:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to check out Good Faith. You might do better to start from the possibility that I would like this article to be as good and strong as possible, and that means stable and authoritative and well referenced and cogent. You might also want to consider the possibility that I have no vested interest in chiropractic, and that you know nothing about my personal opinion about it, but that I refer to it rather than anything else because it simply reflects an area I happen to know something about. You might also like to consider the possibility that you and I have rather different standards of acceptance for V RS, and that I expect that statements reflecting establishment or science opinion to be referenced with appropriate authority, by for instance policy statements from major bodies such as the AMA or GMC, or Government?research Council report conclusions, or reviews in major peer reviewed publications, and suspect that if they're not stated then they're not there. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that one reason why I am persistent in demanding high quality sources for scientific statements is that I don't see how we can expect high standards of V RS on the other side if we don't abide by them ourselves. Finally, perhaps you might consider the possibility that my comment on consensus was by the way of gentle advice that I do not believe that you have much support from other editors here in this, and that I assume their good faith as well as yours.Gleng 14:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well-made points above, Gleng and Kenosis. KV, this ongoing conflict could be resolved very easily: the sources you cite are fine as sig POV's (because they are notable), but not as sci consensus (because they fail WP:RS for scientific articles). That's because "pseudoscience" is a sociological definition, not a scientific term (with objectively agreed-upon "diagnostic" criteria, etc.). The stuff you want to add is fine if you use NPOV wording, i.e. facts about opinions. Instead of including declarative statements about PS as you've been doing in recent edits[13], you could say "Shermer says such-and-such about pseudoscience". Does this seem like a reasonable resolution? regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The section on "Identifying pseudoscience" already accounts for this by introducing the characteristics with the statement "The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful in identifying pseudoscience." This is yet another reason that that section should stay away from using "examples" of particular fields. I think if we let this one slide (the introduction of particular fields into that section as examples), the arguments will never end about what reasonably belongs there. ... Kenosis 22:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And, in a moment of verbal reflux, may I once again offer that this is an encyclopedia, not a text book. so examples don't belong in the section in which KV wants to add them.

KV, you really need to learn to work with other editors. You are not omniscient and your views carry no more weight than anyone else's. •Jim62sch• 00:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch and Kenosis - I understand the slippery slope problem with examples, but if they serve an illustrative purpose, why not confine ourselves to use of uncontroversial ones (i.e., just those that are already mentioned in the short list in the article)? Truly representative examples of PS will inherently be fairly obvious, yes?

Yes, examples are very easy to find, eg, subluxation theory (chiropractic) is considered pseudoscientific because it fails to adhere to measurable, falsifiable, standards etc and the adherents continue to apply the theory to alternative medicine practice despite negative findings of reliable studies, etc. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

KV, I don't think editors are inherently allergic to mentioning pseudoscience and chiropractic in the same sentence. Chiropractic does so. (IMO, the article List of pseudoscientific theories -- how long is that thing gonna stay locked? -- also ought to include whatever aspect(s) of chiro have been said to be PS by notable sources.) But surely you can make your point by using less "grey" examples. If you can't find more clear-cut examples, how generalizable is the principle you're trying to illustrate? cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Butler, every example is grey when applied to the area for which it receives some support. Dianetics is quite valid for testing galvanic skin response. On the whole though, it is as pseudoscientific as chiropractic. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch. Do you think I should spend more time writing vague and provocative edit summaries and less time explaining my proposed changes point by point on the discussion page? This article is in need of improvement, and I've encouraged discussion throughout, and made changes in accordance with reasonable suggestions. For example, Kenosis has made some very useful suggestions for organizing and clarifying the article. I do wish that people would discuss more clearly though rather than making cutting remarks and unsupportable assertions in edit summaries. Claiming consensus really doesn't cut it, especially as it is so hard to say what the editor's consensus is. Also, people seem to be claiming consensus before adequate sourcing has been presented. It is pretty clear what some editor's biases are, and there is definitely a strong pressure from some to make sure the article isn't "too clear". I know there are high standards here, but some seem to be trying to make the standards impossibly high. This subject is about pseudoscience, and debate is always ongoing. Pseudosciences involve some science, and one can help explain the other. There are plenty of good editors here to help out though. Thankfully we do seem to be moving further away from presenting "our favourite pseudos" though. The more specific and clear we get (aspects of PS within fields), the better for the article and the reader. KrishnaVindaloo 03:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

KV, there is no universal agreement on the idea that "once a field has been said to have PS aspects, the whole topic becomes PS". That's a sig POV perhaps (Williams? who argues this?), and per NPOV it can be presented (w/ sourcing), but not asserted. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Butler, some editors are doing their best to present subjects reasonably. Others are attempting censorship. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

KV, I'm not sure what this means, "...especially as it is so hard to say what the editor's consensus is." The editor himself has a consensus? The consensus is formed on the talk page, and it needn't be unanimous. For example, if I remember correctly, we all (save yourself) agreed not to tag chiro as pseudo, and yet you have violated consensus by sneaking chiro into a number of areas.

I saw no agreement. Some claimed agreement, yet there was a constant stream of new literature coming in at the time. In fact there was an attempt to dismiss that newly presented literature. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re "Also, people seem to be claiming consensus before adequate sourcing has been presented" -- first, consensus and sourcing are not inextricably interwoven. If the preponderance of the editors are satisfied with the item with the sourcing as it is, or even when no sourcing is provided as it is not required (as in "the sun is a star"), then they have reached a consensus. True, another editor may come along and ask for further citations, but if the group of editors feels the sourcing is sufficient, the consensus remains.

Re "It is pretty clear what some editor's biases are..." -- this is truer than you intended it to be. •Jim62sch• 13:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch. Right now it looks as if legitimately editing editors are willing to look at the literature again. KrishnaVindaloo 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent). KV, first, do not add comments in the middle of mine. Second, I sincerely hope this comment is not an ad hom, "legitimately editing editors". Third, where do you see anything to support your claim that as editors are "willing to look at the literature again", chiro might be included as pseudo (your implication). As Jim Butler told you earlier, try being a little less hell-bent. There is much more to life than engaging in some relentless crusade to include chiro. •Jim62sch• 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Credible sources, continued

I'm moving an exchange with FeloniousMonk here, because it's quite germaine to the preceding discussion. This is continued from the section above titled Credible Sources.

Above, FM wrote:

...So the only criteria for a topic to be included here is whether a notable source per WP:V in the scientific community is available per WP:RS that says a topic is pseudoscience. Period. And the more the merrier. FeloniousMonk 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I replied:

FeloniousMonk is way off the charts in assuming who speaks for "the scientific community". Remember, under NPOV we report who says what, and why. Carroll et. al. do not meet WP:RS for scientific consensus. WP:RS says:

Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but fortunately there is an easier way. The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs.

There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.)

Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.

So, let's go ahead and state scientific consensus about evidence (or lack thereof) for a field, but refrain from assuming that the scientific community's would necessarily use the term "pseudoscience" whenever the skeptics do. Instead, we just say who calls a field pseudoscientfic. No overreaching, please, per NPOV and WP:V. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To which FM replied:

Sorry, but you've missed a crucial distinction: WP:NPOV is official policy, WP:RS is merely a guideline. Policy always trumps guideline here. Furthermore, WP:NPOV clearly says "These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." The policy says "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." So who is it who is "way off the charts"? FeloniousMonk 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My belated response:

Sorry for the late reply; I missed your response. Still a hot topic though. FM, I think your selective quoting of certain parts of NPOV misses the forest for the trees. NPOV is much more than the portions specifically mentioning pseudoscience. For instance, there's WP:NPOVT#Categorisation, which says specifically to be careful of overpopulating "sensitive" categories. Then there's the first paragraph of the body of the article on NPOV, which says "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."

So maybe you could clarify your view here, FM. Are you saying NPOV trumps itself? :-)

Your persistent argument that policies trump guidelines is legalistic, and in any case falls apart when policy pages themselves argue against your approach. The guidelines are there to help apply the policies. We're supposed to use some common sense here. Designating entire fields as pseudoscience because Carroll or Shermer said so is NOT representing "all significant views fairly and without bias". Here, we need to differentiate adequately between what scientists say about evidence and what some scientists and non-scientists say about psuedoscience. That's NPOV 101, not to mention WP:VER: saying who says what, and why. Cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

IOW, when it comes to scientific evidence, we can present facts that are V RS. When it comes to facts about opinions, we use NPOV wording ("so and so says....") and let the quality of the sources that hold those opinions speak for themselves. This isn't to say we don't make necessary assumptions. Sure we do. ID is about as PS as it gets, and that's a rare area where scientists have said so en masse. We just balance the "equal validity" and "making necessary assumptions" aspects of NPOV with presenting arguments fairly, e.g. as Gleng advocates above for chiro, and as I've advocated with the use of cat:PS for chiro and acu. Again, NPOV is much more than just the parts FM cites that specifically mention pseudoscience. thanks ... Jim Butler^(talk) 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicely said Jim. Your comments probably explains the double standards applied to the editing of mainstream scientific articles, and "fringe" scientific articles. --Iantresman 22:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jim Butler. You say ID is about as PS as you can get, and scientists have said so in great numbers. Well, chiropractic has been excluded from universities and scientists have said it is ps en masse also. But I believe that is all beside the point. Remember there are scientific aspects to both. Those can be valid, and I've even heard biologists say that there has been some progress in the field of ID. The point is not to say ID or chiro is PS, but to use the PS aspects of ID to clarify elements of PS in the article. That way we move away from shouting "ID is PS" and closer to specifying exactly why scientists say ID is pseudoscientific. KrishnaVindaloo 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you just blew any chance of me ever taking you seriously (not that you care), " Remember there are scientific aspects to both. Those can be valid, and I've even heard biologists say that there has been some progress in the field of ID." ID has scientific aspects? It's never done one piece of science. "I've even heard biologists say that there has been some progress in the field of ID" -- and what biologists would they be? Too funny.

In any case, you really need to get over your obsession with chiro. •Jim62sch• 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. "ID and Chiro are rich with PS ideas (chiro just more so)"?[14]. Come on.... cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jim62sch. I don't have any particular belief that you will ever come around to including the term chiropractic in the article in any reasonable way. What I see is an article that needs sorting out long term. There will always be people who come to this article to remove their religion from the article no matter how fairly it is presented. We are problem solving here. We seriously do need to include PS concepts and activities, and we do necessarily need to say where those concepts and activities originate and are used. If the term chiropractic is censored from the article, then all other subjects or fields considered PS can be removed. Otherwise its not fair, and there will be big problems forever. We can minimise the problems by avoiding stating that any subject (including astrology) is considered pseudoscience. IF we focus on specifics, (such as vitalism, or divination) and say which fields include those specifics then we are not saying that those fields are pseudoscience. We are being specific and fair and nobody has an excuse to censor. This also applies to well accepted fields such as physics. IF someone ever identified a subject such as mumbojumbology within physics and listed it in the article with citations, they can still write (within the field of physics). They are not saying physics is a pseudoscience. They will be saying that mumbojumbology is pseudoscientific and can be found in areas of physics. That is the solution for the article. It is a long term solution. So lets just accept the literature and be specific. Now we can get on with making the article more specific, and you can stop throwing politically motivated accusations at me. KrishnaVindaloo 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"..you can stop throwing politically motivated accusations at me"? Politically motivated? Uh, no. •Jim62sch• 12:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Very much agree about focusing on aspects. Yet... surely ... you wouldn't disagree that ID has far more PS aspects than chiro does? ID is practically the freaking poster child for pseudoscience. Chiro ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league.... cut to Pulp Fiction dialog about foot massages. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jim Butler. ID has some very PS elements and those elements are very useful for clarifying this article. Chiropractic has many more, especially as regards the social aspects of PS. The theory has always been pure PS (according to reliable sources), and continues as such. Chiropractic incorporates many old psychic ideas (vitalism, innate intelligence), and many newer New Age therapies and notions (all generally rejected as PS by scientists who know about them). Chiropractic is still applied to an exceedingly wide range of problems. The only possible (shaky support) intervention tends to make it a severely restricted practice (financially). There are large fee gathering teaching organizations who still teach the PS as if its gospel and who publish pseudoscientific journals that advertise its alleged applications and other new age products integrally. PS beliefs and attitudes are abound among teachers, students and practitioners of chiropractic according to the research. There is a constant stream of news stories and legal cases concerning those straight chiropractors (the majority) who dissuade clients from using conventional medicine for such as cancer treatment, in favour of their version of the laying on of hands. There are many more elements of PS in chiropractic that can help the article. So yes, Chiropractic is in a slightly different area of PS, but it covers a much wider area than ID. I am not really interested in saying chiro is PS. It will be helpful if those PS aspects are used as examples of the elements of PS though. As you can see, chiropractic has such a rich and clarifying array of PS concepts and activities. KrishnaVindaloo 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your views here, KC. Taking your statements at face value, I conclude you're advocating an extreme minority view, which you of course have every right to hold, but editing according to it is another matter entirely. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Butler, my views have no significance to this discussion whatsoever. I came here with no particular view on chiropractic and that situation remains. I am not interested in calling any field pseudoscience or a pseudoscience. On the urging of editors such as yourself, I looked up the PS issues surrounding chiropractic and reported them here and on the chiropractic article, whereupon you and others tried to feed me the most extreme arguments to keep those perfectly verifiable facts out of both articles. You have even fought tooth and nail to keep chiropractic out of the PS cat, which includes such subjects as confirmation bias, hemispheric specialization, and Michael Shermer. Its very clear to all what your particular bias is. I will ask though; do you believe that it is extreme minority POV that applying chiropractic to cure mental trauma or dyslexia is pseudoscientific? Is is extreme minority POV that chiropractic involves vitalistic theories? Do you feel that it is majority POV that all M.D.s should recommend chiropractic to prevent homosexuality? To keep our backs "straight"? KrishnaVindaloo 08:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

KV, your views are significant insofar as they influence the POVishness of your edits and indicate your tin ear for collaboration. You still don't seem to get it: you didn't "look up the PS issues surrounding chiropractic" and discover "facts". You looked up some people's opinions and found facts about those opinions. This is NPOV 101. You're tending to treat this subject as if it were a taxonomic category as opposed to a social label. Please remember what NPOV says about presenting arguments, not asserting them. On categorization, please see the NPOV tutorial and categorization guidelines. Please see below regarding the (ir)relevance of anecdotal reports from the ex-gay movement. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Butler, I have consistently portrayed opinions as opinions using verifiable sources. I have consistently encouraged discussion, even when editors were repeat reverting my verifiable edits for days without even attempting to engage in discussion. Again, I have no interest at all in labeling any particular field a pseudoscience. It doesn't help anyone. This article can be far more specific. After discovering you and other chiropractic proponents will refuse to accept the pseudoscience cat, I have not even tried to edit there. Its a waste of my time. I have researched many subjects considered to be pseudoscientific and discovered that we can be specific and brief about their PS aspects, rather than just labeling the field as PS. I have been working on many subjects, from ID to EMDR, to chiropractic, to astrology, to naturopathy. I have no particular bias towards any of them. However, if you keep pointing me towards the chiropractic literature, I will keep finding excellent examples therein. Recently, this article has been becoming far more specific and clarifying. And I've discovered there are plenty of legitimate editors here to work with in order to reduce censorship and conflict, and to increase clarity and readability. KrishnaVindaloo 09:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that your view of your involvement here is significantly at odds with the views of many others. And this, "legitimate editors" is becoming rather tiresome. What you really mean is the one or two transient editors who have agreed with you at some point. •Jim62sch• 12:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Butler throws the "legalist" barb (popular on wikipedia unfortunately) but then involves himself in the minutia of NPOV in attempting to boltser his POV. The chiro/ID argument is specious also and a bit pointless (what is the yardstick?). Third, as has been pointed out ad naseum here, scientists have got better things to do with their time than knock each new PS on the head at birth. The comment about ID en masse wrong from this standpoint and wrong in fact. Scientists have spent too much time, unfortunately, arguing against illogical beliefs. It is legitimate for wiki editors to draw inferences, to point out that a PS has characteristics belonging to PS and thus, I would say, to represent a scientific viewpoint. I have no idea (apologies) what Tresman was trying to say about double standards. Mccready 13:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin.

• (1) We all love FM for his excellent work on wedge strategy etc., but in this case I think his argument is weak. He's emphasizing the PS-specific trees at the expense of the NPOV forest. All we're talking about is the need of a V RS and NPOV language to present, rather than baldly assert, the argument that something is PS, for crying out loud. I argue for that, and somehow I'm anti-NPOV? Come on. No one can coherently argue that the section of WP:RS I quoted above is so far out, so POVish, that it needs to be trumped by NPOV. On the contrary, it explains how to apply WP:VER and NPOV together.
• (2) Sure there's no quantitative yardstick for the PS-ness of ID vs. chiro, but one can make some general qualitative comments about the how each of them violates the scientific method. It doesn't take ESP or a 300 IQ to see which of the two is more egregious.
• (3) When scientists get sufficiently worked up about something, they speak out. Global warming is one example. ID is another. See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design and then find me anything remotely like that for chiro. Not everyone shares the view that pseudoscience is as clear-cut a phenomenon as you and KV believe (sic). Presenting arguments for a topic being PS requires a V RS (whew -- all that jargon sounds awfully scientific ;-).
• (4) I think Ianstresman is speaking of the failure to differentiate between (a) significant minority sci views and (b) extreme minority sci a/o PS views. But I'll let him clarify.

regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big argument, but let me just make a couple of points...

• Wikipedia does not aim to "represent a scientific viewpoint", it represents all viewpoints fairly. If a viewpoint is marginal but still notable, say so, but present its arguments in a reasonable way. Question: how many practitioners of chiro are there? How many people use it? It the viewpoint that chiro is effective a marginal viewpoint? (just an example)
• Science reaches a consensus far less often than outsiders may assume. Even when a certain view/theory/etc is held by a majority - even a huge majority - there are often significant dissenting voices (by significant I mean, for example, one or more people who are in the top 5-10-20 in that field. random examples from different fields: Linus Pauling, Hannes Alfven, Brian Johsephson, Julian Schwinger). Regardless of how passionately everyone is willing to argue for their viewpoint, most reasonable scientists will admit that the opposite view have at least some evidence in its favor - as evidenced by the fact that those articles pass peer review. This is not a consensus in favor of one side over the other.
• Science is a process, it is not a show of hands. If a majority of scientists believe something, that does not mean that any conflicting position is outside science, or that it is pseudoscience.
• Science has formed consensus opinions in the past that we now believe to be wrong, or even ridiculous (phlogiston, anti-tectonic plates, global cooling, phrenology...). ObsidianOrder 14:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On sources; it is not difficult to find authoritative V RS sources to support the assertion that mainstream scientists consider ID pseudoscience, see [15] and embedded in that the quote from the New England Journal of Medicine, which is the highest impact, most authoritative Journal of Medicine; a clearly notable source of this opinion is [Steven Jay Gould], who is notable as a scientist and as a historian of science as well as a populariser of science, and whose career garnered wide accolades. Gleng 14:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

definition redux

I changed the definition to be almost word-for-word what my copy of the OED says (that's the OED, not the Oxford American Dictionary). The OED says: "a body of beliefs, practices or theories mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method". The old version said: "... is portrayed as scientific but diverges from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by adequate scientific research to justify its claims." Rationale:

• the new version is actually sourced (except for minor syntax and word choice changes)
• the old version's use of "portrayed" raises the question of who is doing the portraying. "claims" is clearer - it only applies if those who propose said theories etc make the claim.
• the old version's use of "required standards for scientific work" is unclear and subject to interpretation - what standards? required by whom?
• the old version's use of "unsupported by adequate scientific research" is utterly wrong - science can and does advance inadequately supported hypotheses all the time, that's how it moves forward. unless and until those are misrepresented as supported when there isn't enough evidence, they are not pseudoscientific, of course.
• finally, the new version is much more concise and clear.

ObsidianOrder

OED Second Edition 1989 says

A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have.

Mccready 14:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

old edition, I guess. they kept the "mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method" part in later editions but condensed the rest. ObsidianOrder 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

dictionary.reference.com defines pseudoscience as:

• any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.
• A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation
• a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific
• an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

And google.com has these definitions:

• Scientifically testable ideas that are taken on faith, even if tested and shown to be false.
• A set of ideas based upon theories put forth as scientific whether they are or not; based upon an authorative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.
• Research that has the appearance of science but does not follow the scientific method, usually lacking peer review and repetition of observations by independent researchers.
• A set or system of beliefs claiming to be "scientific" without the benefit of the scientific method used to make further inquiries that might suggest that the belief system is wrong in any particular way.
• an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

--Iantresman 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, the definitions in your list come from, respectively

• any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis. - dictionary.com, "based on" Random House Unabridged Dictionary, whatever that means - not a serious dictionary ;) i don't think giving examples as part of the definition is a good idea.
• A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation - American Heritage Dictionary 2000. this is very close to the OED definition. main difference is it says "scientific foundation" not scientific method.
• a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific - Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary 2002. other M-W's have the exact same definition, I think. once again very close to OED.
• an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions - WordNet. not a dictionary.

The google definitions are not "real" dictionary sources either ;) Let me throw out one more which is somewhat below the quality of a real dictionary but perhaps still notable:

• A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific. - The Skeptic's Dictionary [16]. presumably this is the one that most proponents of the term would put forth.

All of the major dictionaries are very close, the all basically say in one way or another "claims to be scientific, but is not". That's what we should say as well, with no junk about "insufficiently supported" and "required standards" etc ;) However I like the OED best, because it specifically refers to the scientific method - which is good, because "science" has about 6 distinct meanings (look it up in the OED - ha!), but "scientific method" has only one (even if you disagree about the particulars of it). OED is also arguably the best regarded english dictionary. ObsidianOrder

Chiropractic and pseudoscience

For the record, I support the view that chiro is a pseudoscience (thus refuting the Butler position above) and should be listed as such. A listing, contrary to the Butler view, does not mean everything in the field must be PS. I've asked on the chiro page for one study, just one study that shows chiro (as opposed to massage or medical spinal manipuation) has a leg to stand on. Such a study hasn't been provided. This long discussion page took a few minutes to download on my dialup connection so I'd be grateful if someone could archive it. Mccready 14:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why merely label and categorize? Where a topic is argued to have some PS aspects, why not say specifically what they are, and source the argument? What's more useful to the reader: saying chiro is cat:PS, full stop, or presenting a well-sourced argument that the straight chiro view on vert sub isn't an adequate explanation for disease? thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have a reliable source stating that Chiropractic is considered a pseudoscience?
• I also note that both the American Medical Association, and the British Medical Association, do not consider that position. [17]

--Iantresman 16:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to review the evidence for the efficacy of alternative medicine, but it is relevant to note that there are divergent RS opinions; below the first quote is from a House of Lords Select Committeee on Science and Technology Report on CAM: it classes osteopathy and chiropractic together and apart from other CAMs on several grounds. The other quote references the extent of chiropractic use in the USA. It is not our job to make inferences where these are disputable, that is OR, and attempts of editors to make this inference are likely to be reverted by WP policy. What would be perfectly reasonable is to report as an opinion, not as a fact, the opinion of named notable authorities that a subject is PS; if the referenced source provides a carefully reasoned account of the opinion, and comes from an authority that is distinguished, then it deserves to be reported.

CHIROPRACTIC is regarded as the leading form of alternative medicine and the third leading healthcare profession in the US with approximately 50,000 practicing chiropractors in 1998, a number which is expected to double by 20106,16. In fact, many do not consider the 2,950 students who are expected to graduate this year with the degree of Doctor of Chiropractic (DC) from a total of 17 schools1 accredited by the Council of Chiropractic Education16 to be “alternative” practitioners at all. Chiropractic was the first alternative medicine specialty to gain mainstream recognition, with all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia having established licensure requirements for DCs by 197416. [18]

Of the therapies in Group 1 we were made aware of good evidence of the efficacy of osteopathy and chiropractic[31]. Indeed, they appear to be somewhat more effective than the manipulative techniques employed by conventional physiotherapists. There is also scientific evidence of the efficacy of acupuncture, notably for pain relief and the treatment of nausea[32]. [19]

The issue of efficacy is in any case not directly relevant to the issue of PS. There is massive debate about the efficacy of many conventional treatments, with no implication that the science behind is PS.

My opinion here is not relevant (I am not a notable authority), nor is Mccready's, nor is any other editor's; the article is for reporting V RS facts and opinions in a balanced way, to do so with NPOV and avoiding OR requires quite enough of our judgement. It is hard to maintain civility and NPOV, and Mccready, your edit headings and summaries appear to continue to be confrontational, and your comments on Talk pages suggest that you do not assume Good Faith, and repeatedly contain personal attacks on editors. Those who disagree with you are not by definition trolls, nor are those whose judgements on NPOV differ necessarily pro chiropractic or chiropractors, nor is it necessarily the case that editors who are chiropractors are any less committed to the principles of NPOV and V RS than the very best of editors; indeed you will find some outstanding examples of "writing for the enemy" from some of these. "Writing for the enemy" is imo a great principle, reflecting the very best of true scientific method. Gleng 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Gleng - disambiguation: chiropractic can mean either

• a theory of disease causation by subluxation, or
• a practice of treatment of various conditions by means of manipulation of joints.

The practice may or may not be based on the theory; I've seen practitioners who go either way. The theory is probably pseudoscience; I don't think there's much evidence for it, so any claim that it is definitely established as scientific is at least a misrepresentation and hence pseudoscientific. The practice often works, as recognized by any number of reputable doctors and a ton of clinical studies; therefore it cannot be pseudoscience to claim that it works in the cases that it provably does work. Because the term does refer to two different things, you can't say "chiro is pseudoscience" - what do you mean by "chiro"? This is exactly analogous to the situation with accupuncture. FWIW. ObsidianOrder 19:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. this exact question has come up about a million times before regarding chiro/acupuncture/other alt medicine, and it usually ends up in the same semi-non-consensus, because, dammit, the terms mean several different things and nobody bothers to definie which one they're talking about. can we please let it be? ObsidianOrder 20:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure ObsidianOrder. There has never really been much need for us to identify chiro as PS, as the literature does it for us. Eg Benedetti (Spin Doctors) is a published book that tells the whole story very well, including the report on the scientific findings, the dismissal by colleges and chiropractors of those findings in favour of PS, and the rejection of chiro from major universities by literally hundreds of professors and other academics on the basis of its PS nature and the charlatanry that abounds in its practice (Benedetti). Rees, Alternative medicine: Down the slippery slope., By: Rees, Michael K., Modern Medicine, 00268070, Jan97, Vol. 65, Issue 1, calls it flat out pseudoscience, no qualifiers. Prof Atwood MedGenMed. 2004 Jan–March; 6(1): 33. calls it pseudoscience. Dominic Larose, M.D. Les « chiros » sont-ils de vrais docteurs - calls chiropractic pseudoscience and chiro uses pseudoscientific dogma regardless of sci findings. Teresa Castelão-Lawless, Proceedings of the S2002 Informing Science + IT Education Conference, June 19-21, 2002 - She calls chiropractic pseudoscience. Of course it is best to keep the article more specific though. Rather than calling chiropractic flat out PS, it is always better to be specific, and highlight subluxation theory or chiropractic theory, or the fact that its applied to curing homosexuality, or the fact that it used vitalism and incorporates many other vitalism practices. Pretty straightforward editing in general. KrishnaVindaloo 03:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Having trouble tracing your references. Modern Medicine is an Irish general clinical journal, not peer reviewed, but the volume doesn't match, so haven't found it there. MK Rees on PubMed is reported as having published 3 items, apparently all correspondence, but this article not cited. Congference proceedings are not peer reviewed. Am chasing the Atwood refs still. Can't find any trace of chiropractic and homosexuality - plenty on psychoanalysis psychiatric/pharmacological treatments though.Certainly did use vitalism; check out the history of conventional medicine sometime. For the record, I agree I think probably 100% with ObsidianOrderGleng 15:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK found the Atwood article. Odd example as the article is about naturopathy and the only mention of chiro is as an aside, in full reading "Bongiorno and LoGiudice seem unaware that the core claims of osteopathy and chiropractic are not “bona fide medical breakthroughs” at all, but are implausible, unproven, and largely incoherent.[66,67] In practice, manual spinal therapy is accepted only for the treatment of back pain, and even for that it isn't particularly effective.[68] Osteopathy has, for the most part, repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings and joined the world of rational healthcare. That is why graduates of its schools, but not those of chiropractic or naturopathy, can train as residents and legitimately identify themselves as primary care physicians or specialists." Not exactly a direct statement that chiro is PS. The grounds given for the interpretation that this might indeed be his opinion are the references 66 and 67, both to skeptic websites. References are important. You have found a fine reference for an opinion that naturopathy is pseudoscientific, as this is the theme of the article, developed carefully and at length, and has on line accessibility. I'd be happy to see this used about the subject of the article; but for an oblique aside referenced to a skeptic website? I don't think so. Gleng 16:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gleng. Actually conference proceedings are usually peer reviewed. I have to spend half my week reviewing them as a peer myself. KrishnaVindaloo 08:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Needs qualification; many conference proceedings in e.g. mathematically related fields are peer reviewed (and yes I too am a peer reviewer for some of these). Virtually no conference proceedings in the biological/medical area are (excluding bio-mathematical areas). There may be some, but I've not come across any. Gleng 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, searching pseuodoscience on PubMed gives 71 references, a good starting point for V RS I would have thoughtGleng 16:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, it may be worth noting that the AMA is a business competitor and does not necessarily meet the highest standards of objectivity in assessing chiropractic. Although the AMA is under court injunction preventing its members from actively interfering with the conduct of business by chiropractors, and between physicians and chiropractors, those members are of course free to continue to publish studies more-or-less as they choose.

From Wilk, et al vs. the AMA, et al ND Ill., 1987, and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1990, certiorari denied "...data from Workmen's Compensation Bureau studies comparing chiropractic care to care by a medical physician were presented which showed that chiropractors were “twice as effective as medical physicians, for comparable injuries, in returning injured workers to work at every level of injury severity.” ... Kenosis 20:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised at you Kenosis. You seem to be attempting OR. There are a multitude of such articles that support the use of Dianetics, EMDR, NLP, Primal Scream Therapy, Buddha therapy, and other Energy therapies for specific tasks. Why are you supporting chiropractic in particular? What is required is literature that shows there is an opinion that a subject is pseudoscientific and preferably says which concepts/activities are PS. Lets stick with Wikipedia style editing. KrishnaVindaloo 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, PS, if you want to do more of a review of some of the literature, I remind you that Williams 2000, Homola 2001, Beyerstein 1991, Keating 1999, Devilly 2005, and others, all clearly show the PS elements of chiropractic, and they all explain things in an intelligent way using good old common or garden scientific skepticism. Any editor who sees that chiropractic uses vitalism theories and is applied to raising the IQ, treating downs syndrome, balancing the brain, treating dyslexia, curing cancer, and curing homosexuality, would be completely certain that:

• It is self evident that chiropractic is pseudoscientific. KrishnaVindaloo 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What's become self-evident is that your attitude toward pseudoscience is over the top: "ID and Chiro are rich with PS ideas (chiro just more so)"[20]. As the ever-perceptive Dude said: "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."  ;-) cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. •Jim62sch• 12:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RE "I'm surprised at you Kenosis. You seem to be attempting OR.": This is one of an increasingly long list of examples of User:KrishnaVindaloo personalizing the discussion and overlaying it with tendentious judgments of myself and other Wikipedia users. I would be remiss if I failed to warn KrishnaVindaloo that there are potential sanctions for habitual display of these kinds of behavior on Wikipedia. Please stick with the issues, avoid the hyperbole, avoid putting words and concepts in other people's mouths, and avoid imputing ideas to their minds that are not part of the explicit content of their words. ... Kenosis 22:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kenosis. The reason I am surprised at you is because your suggestion seemed out of character. I believe it is obvious that we could all spend years presenting confirming research for each and every pseudoscientific subject mentioned here, including astrology. Astrology theories are confirmed as regards studies into menstral cycles and the moon, and career paths and sun signs. ID theories are confirmed as regards aspects of animal and plant morphology. These are pieces of valid confirmatory research yet they are negated by others. You seemed to me to be beginning a pointless presentation of confirmatory studies into chiropractic. Is that what you intended? As regards putting words and concepts into people's mouths, I have been very open and quite civilly pointed out various editor's biases as per Wikipedia convention. If you have any particular charge against any one of my discussion points, then please be very specific in pointing those out. KrishnaVindaloo 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Out of character"? By what pseudopsychological methodology? "...pointless presentation of confirmatory studies"? By what predetermined POV? Are we all on the same talk page? Sorry, I'll have to get back to you some other time with a more in-depth and detailed analysis ... you should see the garbage I'm reading on my own computer screen. I'll need to hire a technician first to see if my computer is working right. ... Kenosis 05:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Kenosis, we seem to have wires crossed also. It would be out of character for you to attempt OR. I am certain you know what I mean, but for the benefit of others: I am simply discouraging it. There can be far too many confirmatory studies for even the most obscure pseudoscience concept. Its pretty pointless going through them. It is a ploy typically used by those desperate to negate the view that their following is pseudoscientific. Pseudoscientific followings are well known for selectively listing confirmatory studies. Its a characteristic of PS. Solution: If there is a concept that is pseudoscientific, it can be mentioned with appropriate citations, and the source field and application fields should also be mentioned just so that the reader knows where its from. That way Wikipedia doesn't even get close to stupidly saying that whole fields are absolutely PS, the reader gets to understand specifics, and NPOV on science and pseudoscience is followed. Censorship is reduced, conflict reduced and things are better long term. I feel pretty certain you are working generally in that direction. KrishnaVindaloo 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why people are trying to argue for absolutes here. Surely it's clear that there are aspects of the subject wich are pseudoscientific, but there is also legitimate research. Jefffire 14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure Jefffire. As above, there are no absolutes with PS. There are supported parts to each and every subject (including vitalism). There are some editors who are desperate to present some subjects as absolutely or really really PS in order to have their following removed from the article altogether. This can only lead to anyone else coming along, presenting a slant to show relatively less PS for their following, and removing it from the article. We could remove ID, astrology, vitalism, and all the others based upon this argument. Ther are no absolutes, and PS is best explained in terms of PS characteristics. Otherwise, we get endless of censorship arguments for ever, and the reader never gets to read about specifics. KrishnaVindaloo 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This quote, "It is self evident that chiropractic is pseudoscientific", is why I'm resisting placing chiro here. My opinion on chiro is the same as yours, Jeff, although I'm not so sure of chiro's efficacy. But that's just my opinion. •Jim62sch• 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree there are aspects that are considered PS by some (notably by some chiropractors who are powerful internal critics of aspects of the field), but because the issue is so nuanced and complex it doesn't make a good example for this article. Indeed the lack of good RS on this point probably reflects the fact that while at first sight and from its history chiro appears an obvious PS, when you get to know the current state of the profession it's just not so simple. Which is why we mustn't make inferences ourselves, but just report the inferences that other notable authorities have made in V RS Gleng 14:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's cute. Sources were asked for, provided, and now you say wikipedia is not allowed to be nuanced? Let me quote Gleng from the chiro page

Homola: It is hard I think to sustain the thesis that Homola is not a notable critic

It's time to put chiro in as an example and explain the nuances. Mccready 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of whether to use chiro as an example to discuss the nuances, I wouldn't oppose this on principle: my position is that unless a controversial topic is covered in a balanced way with V RS then it's just a cheap insinuation. For this article, it might be better to use clean examples (ID, astrology, phrenology, scientology). What I would suggest however is that a new article on Homola's views might be the better place to cover this issue (see suggestion on the Chiro page). There we can introduce the controversy as part of a report of Homola's opinions. Gleng 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that the current tenor of this page will allow for nuance. •Jim62sch• 20:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda up to the rest of us. A steady trickling stream will wear away a great rock. Or so says Taoist philosophy. Hey, that sounds like an empirical claim: ah think we got us another pseudoscience!  ;-) cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Being specific

Just reiterating the obvious solution to reducing censorship and conflict long term: An intelligent account of pseudoscience will always be specific. If you ask the general public if they think astrology for example, is pseudoscience, they will say, yeh, its a load of old PS. If you ask a Scientologist what they think of psychiatry drugs, they will say, its a bunch of mind crippling pseudoscience that destroys your chances of human development. If you ask a straight chiropractor what they think of germ theory, they may say, yeh its pseudoscience. Its all very general.

If you consult a good book or article, or ask an expert what they think of Dianetics, you will hear "Well,,, the concept of engrams is pseudoscientific, as is the theory that we can become "clear". If you ask whether acupuncture is PS, they may say, "well, qi theory is unsupported, as is the notion that we have a force field protecting us from disease". If you ask whether chiropractic is PS, they say, "well chiropractic rejects conventional theory about the nature of disease in favour of subluxation, and they apply it generally". It is always quite specific. Williams, Shermer, Devilly, and all the more intelligent and informative sources tend to use this way of explaining things. If we state specific PS concepts and say which field those specifics originate from or are being used, then we are not calling fields PS. We are being specific and fair. ID, for example, is more of a theory or set of concepts within the field of creation science. We are not saying creation science is PS, but we are saying ID is considered pseudoscientific for specific reasons. We can say vitalism is pseudoscientific and state which fields it is used. That is specific and fair. It also gives people no excuse whatsoever to remove the subject from the article. The article will not be overburdened. There are plenty of good editors and indicators such as notability, explicability, and recognizability that will allow us to keep the article manageable. Anyway, lets just get on with being specific to be fair, and let the reader understand what this article is on about. KrishnaVindaloo 06:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, people seem to be skirting around the issue of long term solutions. Discussion anyone? KrishnaVindaloo 04:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved paragraph: NPOV and OR issues

I'm moving this para to Talk for now from "Identifying Pseudoscience: Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims":

For example, Kaptchuk and Eisenberg (1998:1062) state that vitalism theories involving qi, prana, or innate intelligence are largely untestable as there is no way to measure the proposed energy fields or flows stated as the mechanism of action. According to Ford (2001), though chiropractic has some supported aspects, it is also applied in a pseudoscientific way to an exceedingly wide range of conditions from treating dyslexia to curing or preventing homosexuality. Also, according to Rosen (1999) proponents of eye movement desensitiza-tion and reprocessing (EMDR) have argued that negative findings con-cerning EMDR are attributable to low levels of fidelity to the treatment procedure.

Main problem: None of the sources cited are specifically arguing that the disciplines they mention are pseudoscientific. I'd suggest finding sources that actually do make the argument, and using those. Otherwise, it's a bit like assuming Professor Foo's criteria for being a cult leader or terrorist, pasting in a quote from Menachem Begin or Brigham Young that fits those criteria, and presto! By the magic of OR, we've created a source.

There may be merit in retaining Kaptchuk and Eisenberg somehow, since what they say about alt-med and science does echo the definition of PS, but still, we should take care not to misrepresent what they say, either explicitly or contextually. (Kaptchuk elsewhere specifically refers to the vitalistic ideas of Chinese medicine as "prescientific" and as "cultural and speculative constructs that provide orientation and direction for the practical patient situation", cf. Web That Has No Weaver. That's not quite the same as saying they're pseudoscience.)

However, Ford (see references) is completely inadequate as a source for chiro as PS. He's talking about the ex-gay movement, not chiro specifically. It's pure guilt-by-association to assume that the anecdotal use of chiro by some ex-gay crusader represents chiro as a whole. To echo Gleng's point above, we should stick close to substantive comments from good sources, not rely on incidental asides.

Finally, whatever the merits of EMDR, the argument Rosen makes regarding study design is generic. So-labelled pseudoscientists indeed often complain that controlled studies inadequately replicate real-world delivery of care, but legitimate scientists also raise this issue all the time, and for good reason. The argument isn't "diagnostic" for PS.

Again, please, let's find better examples and use sources that are really on point. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jim Butler. This is ridiculously easy to solve and requires no text move whatsoever. Firstly it is self evident that vitalism is pseudoscientific and it is self evident that chiropractic involves innate intelligence which is a vitalism theory. Its not an argument at all, its just a self evident fact. The only reason the citations are there are because editors such as yourself claim that it is not self evident. The adjustments to solve the problem are infinitely fussier and more particular than any requirement being demanded of chiropractors on the chiropractic article. I will make those adjustments nevertheless. Ford is a peer revewed article that specifically says chiropractic is pseudoscietifically applied to curing homosexuality etc. It is self evident that it is pseudoscientifically applied as such. The EMDR example is an example that is applied directly to explaining that characteristic of pseudoscience again in a peer reviewed journal. So now you have again displayed your strong motivation towards censorship of your particular interest, I will make sure to include the more definite and scathing literature to clarify the article. Sorry, but you seem to be "asking for it". Legitimate editors on this article have to learn to handle the "censors" somehow. To give in will only lead to other followers attempting censorship using the same ploys. KrishnaVindaloo 08:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Butler's argument is that to make logical deductions is original research (OR). I disagree and support KVMccready 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Logical deductions are fine, but presuming that your major premise (i.e., what the parameters of PS are) is universally accepted is POV. Also, putting topics in "sensitive" categories (WP's term) presents NPOV problems.

Scientists do sometimes speak en masse, e.g. List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design. Again, please show me anything like that for chiro or acu. Those fields have been around much longer than ID. So where's the chorus of outrage from the sci community? thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Butler. Your presentation of the list of scientific societies rejecting ID in order to remove chiro from the article is quite ridiculous. The list is an exception. If your argument is followed, then the only subject ever to get a mention on the article would be ID. All other subjects including Scientology, will be removed also. I'll not mention your particular bias, as some editors don't seem to like me doing so, but please assume editors have some faculty for reason. KrishnaVindaloo 02:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

KV, you're misunderstanding my argument with Kevin. He's saying editors DON'T need V RS's to say topics are PS. He's saying scientists won't come out and diss each PS, so we Wikipedians have to do it ourselves. Nonsense. (1) Scientists do rise to the occasion for egregious breaches. (2) For topics lacking such clear sci consensus, a V RS critic is needed, and proper facts-about-opinions wording.

KV, you and I actually agree about the need for V RS's; you're just choosing some sources that other editors don't agree with, and using overly "grey" e.g.'s that don't illustrate the point as well as more obvious topics could. Personally I have no objection to something like Homola here for chiro. But human nature being what it is, your persistence is tending to alienate editors who might agree with you otherwise. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to answer your point, Jim Butler: We have pretty much established that all PS subjects are grey areas, especially when you look at the ways they are applied. Scientology is fine for confessional psychotherapy and as a form of conversational command hypnosis and there is some fairly good research that supports it for that purpose (Perls 1951), especially from humanistic psychologists. Chiropractic does have some weak support when used for some sorts of back pain and which makes it a grey area in medicine only. Applied in outide of medicine in psychotherapy it is pseudoscience, as is the theory (Beyerstein). Keating states that there is some science in chiropractic yet the persistence of PS activities in journals and colleges and most definitely in practice (application to spirituality and additional pseudos), has blocked chiropractic's development as a science, and led to it being barred from universities due to its pseudoscientific following. ID is being taught in schools and some universities! I am not saying ID, Scientology, or Chiropractic should be called PS, but the specifics of those subjects are perfectly clarifying for the article. Homola can also add clarity to this article so I appreciate the suggestion. KrishnaVindaloo 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ford article is principally about the pseudoscientific use of therapy, and I have altered the citation to it appropriately. Innate Intelligence is a still used vestige of a pre-scientific past, now used as a metaphor in chiropractic. Scientifically it wouldn't be used, just as we'd not use "mind" related concepts; doesn't mean that the use of "mind" is PS. I'm tired of this, and will have to leave you to fight it out with the chiropractors; you seem to be determined to draw your own inferences, and appear happy to accept refernce standards in your support much lower than you would accept for the converse position. It does science absolutely no credit ever to be seen to be less than objective fair and rigorous; we cannot afford to be open to the accusation that our conclusions have been predetermined by our prejudices. In my opinion, Jim Butler, like Dematt, despite their declared interests, have been an object lesson in NPOVGleng 09:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Gleng, but I have to disagree. Your latest edit: [21] must be about the silliest I've seen in a while. Firstly its not what Ford was saying, but also the spelling is wrong, and psychology is actually used quite reasonably to treat dyslexia. I will make the adjustments in good time. Jim Butler and Dematt have been very hard working in their arguments, and have also done a very good job at dismissing perfectly verifiable lit. I know you have your own biases, and those can also be seen from your edits. The improvements I've made to this article (with the help of other editors) remain. We will continue to be more specific about aspects of pseudoscience. Remember that all the suggestions I have made are consistent with good editing and good research. I am encouraging the use of specific explanations. I am discouraging the labeling of fields as PS. This is the best compromise that can be made. It means Wikipedia moves away from looking like stating "such and such is PS". It means the specific areas of PS within fields are clarified. The reader benefits, Wikipedia policy is followed more closely, censorship will be discouraged, consistency will be followed (eg acupunct, vitalims, and chiro) and conflict and endless debate will be reduced. There are some editors who don't want to see the issues becoming more specific. The only reason for that is because they don't like compromise or they want to keep their following out of the picture. Books and literature on PS shows the nuances and specifics of fields. This article can do the same, Wikipedia and the reader will benefit long term. KrishnaVindaloo 09:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article, like other publications of Ford, focusses on pseudoscientific use of psychology and psychotherapy; quoting from publicity for his book that covers these in more detail "In their fervor to "fix" homosexuals, practitioners of sexual conversion therapies have often overlooked or completely dismissed the possible psychological and social side effects of such treatments. Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical, and Research Perspectives works to counterbalance the clinical and ethical omissions of overzealous therapists who have focused on efficacy and outcome at the expense of their patients'self-esteem. Sexual Conversion Therapy features first-person accounts of patients and clinicians, including psychotherapists who themselves have undergone treatments ranging from psychoanalysis to religious faith healing to aversion behavior conditioning and even electroshock therapy. In addition to examining the history and ethics of conversion therapy, the book presents empirical data on current practice and recovery processes for survivors of failed conversion attempts." I'm not in fact arguing that this issue is worth covering, but that this source Ford, if it is used as a source should be used as a source for what it is the source of - the thesis that psychotherapy has pseudoscoientific elements. Certainly I have my biases; I have declared them openly at length on chiropractic and other pages; however my biases are not what you think they are, and I try to keep them out of edits [22];[23] apparently I am succeeding.Gleng 12:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, KV, but your edit[24] and your comments above don't address my concerns. Kaptchuk and Eisenberg are not saying vitalism is PS. Nor is vitalism defined as PS except to the degree it's represented as being scientific. However, it's a good reference if not overstated, and I've adjusted the wording accordingly. Ford and Rosen are still inadequate (Ford = incidental mention of chiro, but seems OK for psychotherapy; Rosen = objection to study design not unique to PS) and I'm moving that part back here. Be a good sport and please leave it here for a couple of days to give other editors the chance to comment.

According to Ford (2001), though chiropractic and psychotherapy have some scientific aspects, they are also applied in a pseudoscientific way to an exceedingly wide range of conditions from treating dyslexia to curing or preventing homosexuality. Also, according to Rosen (1999) proponents of eye movement desensitiza-tion and reprocessing (EMDR) have argued that negative findings concerning EMDR are attributable to low levels of fidelity to the treatment procedure.

thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jim Butler. Again, this is incredibly easy to solve. Vitalism is most definitely known to be pseudoscientific.

• Williams 2000 p367 for example, states that it is used in pseudoscientific health systems.

• Kaptchuk and Eisenberg state that chiropractic uses vitalism

It is abundantly clear already that vitalism is considered pseudoscientific. It is also abundantly clear that chiropractic (specifically elements of subluxation theory and innate intelligence) is vitalistic. We hardly even need citations for this. They have been presented nevertheless. KrishnaVindaloo 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Vitalism is PS when it's represented as conforming to the sci method. Because "health" has multiple aspects and isn't wholly tangible, restoration of health is not necessarily an empirical claim. Vitalism isn't self-evidently a slam-dunk as PS. A sig # of chiro's and acu'ists use the stuff as metaphor and don't take it literally (e.g., see Kaptchuk quote at acupuncture). Need a V RS to claim PS, or otherwise NPOV wording, which is what I changed it to[25]. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ford explains a set of pseudoscientific subjects that includes chiropractic. Chiropractic stands out in that list because psychotherapy is actually a fairly resonable (yet erroneous) way to "treat" homosexuality. It is a far better example to show chiropractic (back manipulations) to treat homosexuality. The point here is to clearly show to the reader that some subjects, though they gain some wead support for a specific intervention, are applied completely erroneously to other completely inappropriate tasks because they use vitalistic, quasi-religious, or holistic theories. Apparently its nothing to do with straightening a "camp" spine. The quasi-spiritual vitalistic elements of chiropractic make it a common and recognizable pseudoscientific subject. Again, citations are hardly even necessary. Again, they can easily be presented. KrishnaVindaloo 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So what if the ex-gay movement has used chiro and psychotherapy to "cure" gayness? That doesn't make chiro inherently PS anymore than it makes psychotherapy PS. The fact that some fringe nutcakes use chiro for this doesn't reflect on general usage of chiro. All Ford's good for is an anecdotal account of a tiny minority use of chiro, which doesn't even belong in the article per WP policy. Try using Homola or someone who is chiro-specific. KV, I assume your silence on Rosen means you agree it doesn't belong? thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jim Butler. You keep arguing for scientific consensus on everything. It is both impossible (in your terms) and unnecessary. Subjects are pseudoscientific for a reason, and we are here to show the reasons. The article will not suffer much if a general and broad sweeping section on subjects considered PS is removed. It will suffer if there are no examples at all to illustrate PS characteristics though. The reader needs a set of examples, preferably specific, that show how science views pseudoscience. Science views pseudoscience by specifying which parts of fields are pseudoscientific. It is absolutely majority view that applying chiropractic to curing homosexuality is pseudoscientific, and the example is absolutely perfect for illustrating the abstract point. It is very obvious, self evident, and the inclusion helps the reader. KrishnaVindaloo 04:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again: Per NPOV, sci consensus is needed to assert the idea that "foo is PS". A V RS is needed to present the argument that "Joe Bloggs argues that foo is PS". You haven't shown Ford's e.g. of ex-gay crusaders represents a sig POV within chiro, and guess what, you can't, because it ain't so. Your argument for citing Ford, like your assertion that chiro is a "richer source" of PS ideas than ID, is on its face absurd. If you're trolling, shame. If you're serious, please have a look at WP:DBF. -- Jim Butler^(talk) 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Jim Butler. I have already made very clear adjustments to improve things even further. I noticed your deletion of that improvement. Just to re-state the obvious; there is a specific group of editors here who generally only arrive here when chiropractic is mentioned on the article. They argue quite heatedly around chiropractic and related subjects. They keep stating that some fields are definitely PS, so others are definitely not. They do lots of reverting as a group. I, on the other hand, am focused on improving the article, and on including all in discussion. I work on all aspects of PS and a broad variety of examples from psychotherapy to physics and treat them all equally. I've been working to make it so that Wikipedia doesn't stupidly state that any field (including chiro) is absolutely PS. I discuss and include according to NPOV policy, I keep reversions to a minimum, and work with other editors to satisfy the requirement on what science says about pseudoscience. So perhaps you (and other members of a certain group) shouldn't mention the "fanaticism" recommendation of Wikipedia. In this case it doesn't reflect too well on the accuser. KrishnaVindaloo 05:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just some chiro clarity

Hey All, just as a matter of clarity for chiropractic from a chiropractor (take that for what it's worth). It is not a chiropractic idiom that the germ theory is pseudoscience. The simple explanation for what chiropractors contend is that the human body's natural defenses keep the body healthy. When the body's defenses fall, germs are able to take over. With the advent of HIV, this is (now) a pretty widely held view by all healthcare fields. There are even germs that are more virile than the human body and require medications to prevent illness and death. Even the field of immunology has felt the boost to its claims in the last 2 decades. That does not suggest that there are not people that think the germ theory is PS, and some of these might even be chiropractors (and probably even some psychotherapists;).

Chiropractic does not make statements concerning the cure of anything, much less homosexuality. They suggest that only the body heals itself. This does not preclude the possibility that chiropractors may also treat homosexuals. In fact, all that chiropractic theory would suggest is that the patient would become a healthier homosexual. It also doesn't preclude the possibility that a chiropractor talks to his patient concerning issues about his sexual orientation, particularly of it is perceived to be affecting his health. Reparative therapy would be a psychological approach that only those with proper certification in that field would be expected to perform.

Use it for what it's worth. --Dematt 15:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dematt. To reply to your assertion on health and chiropractic. You are suggesting the chiropractic notion of holistic health. Of course this is pseudoscientific. Conventional medicine would not say that a homosexual needs any kind of healing unless there is something wrong with them diagnostically. Thus, paying a chiropractor to manipulate a homosexual (or any other healthy individual) will not make them any healthier according to conventional medicine. It will not increase their chi, innate intelligence, or mojo, or allow them to utilize the force more effectively. It will have no effect on mental health. Homosexuality is not recognized as an illness, except by religious dogma and reparative therapists who propose the use of chi machines, chiropractic manipulations, spirit therapy, and so on. These holistic notions are pseudoscientific. KrishnaVindaloo 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mccready; I don't think I have any problem with your edit, and if you've read the full reference and this is correct then it's correct. I think Ford is writing mainly about psychotherapy; I think that it is true that some chiropractors claim to be able to treat some conditions which I think are quite inappropriate; that's my opinion. If any chiropractor thought that homosexuality was a symptom of a vertebral subluxation I might think him or her demented, and the word pseudoscientific would not spring to mind in that context as rather stronger words would. My edit was to attach the reference to a point which the reference is clearly appropriate for; unfortunately I don't have access to the full text, only the abstract, but from the abstract and other writings by Ford (and from the title) it was clear to me that the allusion to psychotherapy is central to Ford's writings but it was not clear to me where chiro comes in, as I have not found any evidence at all that chiro claims to cure homosexuality, so my modification was conservative on what I could verify. Gleng 15:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Question for Krishna Vindaloo

KV, have you actually read the article written by Ford about homosexuality and chiropractic? Is chiropractic actually mentioned in the article? Thanks Steth 02:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Steth. Yes I have read it. As above. There are other refs on the way though. KrishnaVindaloo 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it (the Ford article) specifically use the word chiropractic, or reference chiropractic as a treatment for homosexuality? Steth 03:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A more clarifying and specific reference is: A Re-emergence of Reparative Therapy. By: Christianson, Alice. Contemporary Sexuality, Oct2005, Vol. 39 Issue 10, p8-17, 10p; (AN 18639497). Ford's ref is better as an overview of the state of reparative therapy and all its pseudoscientific psychospiritual aspects. I know this ends up with more scathing reviews for the reader to peruse (the chiro can of worms can only get bigger), but I'll do my best to keep the example fairly "straight talking" in the article. The article benefits nevertheless. KrishnaVindaloo 04:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If claims to treat homosexuality by chiropractic were a prominent feaure then i would be pressing to include this on the chiropractic page. I honestly see no evidence that this is anything more than the bizarre activity of an unrepresentative rogue, and implying that this is a representative feature of chiropractic is dishonest. What is common is the use of therapy to treat homosexuality; personally I think that this is just straight pseudoscience, along with cures for dyslexia etc. Frankly, scientists like myself get angry about pseudoscience in areas like ID, creation science, psychotherapy, some areas of psychology and psychiatry, IQ science etc because we see arguments masquerading as serious science when they are nothing of the sort; these provide a real threat to the credibility of science. It's hard to get upset about a concept like "innate intelligence" which can't plausibly be confused with a scientific concept but is obviously a metaphor, and can be translated into pretty unobjectionable terms. I think that the discussion of pseudoscientific aspects of chiropractic has a place in WP, but the issues are just too complex for this article, and the case is not clear (unless you are talking of historical chiropractic). I suggest that the right place will be an article on Homola that reports his views; see the Chiropractic Talk page. Clearly there are some in chiropractic whose views are PS in my opinion, but for a very large segment this is not clearly true, and there is a reform wing for whom this tag is just ridiculous by any standards. So what might be true of particular stated views of a particular named chiropractor is not necessarily representative of chiropractic.Gleng 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Vindalucy, you have some 'splainin' to do

"Ford is a peer revewed article that specifically says chiropractic is pseudoscietifically applied to curing homosexuality etc."

Well, it looks like Krisnha Vindaloo has everyone chasing their tails. The problem is that chiropractic is never even mentioned in the Ford article. I don't want to think that he would deliberately lie to us just to force his personal POV on the article. You know, assume good faith and all. So maybe KV can clear up this mystery as to why he did lie to us. KV? Steth 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Steth. No, I've already explained that more clearly. Ford says reparative therapy is PS. Christianson specified chiropractic as part of reparative therapy. As above. Clarifications were made in the article before they were censored out again. KrishnaVindaloo 11:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)