![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am not quite clear why this is in this article. It is not a scientific theory or concept, it is a purported relic of Jesus. The only science relates to that used to authenticate and date it, and I am not aware that any of that is pseudoscientific. If anything it is a hoax, but hoaxes are not the same thing as pseudoscience. This article states that it is almost certainly of medieval origin, but its own Wikipedia page is much less certain on this point. This page only claims it is a hoax, but if this page is to include hoaxes, things such as Piltdown man would be a much better fit. So there are two problems (a) that it is neither scientific nor purporting to be so, any more than say a fake signed Beatles LP sold on ebay would be somehow pseudo-science, and (b) Wikipedia's own article on the shroud is much more ambiguous on whether it is medieval or not (although this is in fact immaterial, given (a)).
Hence I have removed it, pending someone offering an explanation of why they think proponents of this purported relic think that it is a scientific topic. Sumbuddi ( talk) 20:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
As Yworo correctly noted, no topics should be listed on this page unless there is a good reference or two associated with the article, even if some of them seem like they trivially belong in the category. I am going through and looking at all entries for which there are no citations on this page and either adding them from the main article or moving them here until someone can dig up a reference for it. I appreciate any help people can provide with this since it's quite a few entries. Thanks A13ean ( talk) 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of topics characterized as pseudoscience's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "APA":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The Expanding Earth hypothesis is a largely dismissed but never disproved SCIENTIFIC hypothesis and it does not belong to this list even if it were wrong. I do not believe in Expanding Earth. However, I find outrageous the systematic suppression of the hypothesis and its supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.7.119 ( talk) 00:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It is currently in the Idiosyncratic ideas section: The following concepts have only a very small number of proponents, yet have become notable. This seems correct based on the Expanding Earth page. Please discuss substantial changes such as blanking here on the talk page before taking action. » SkyyTrain (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
What User:77.209.7.119 is missing here is that this is not a list of untrue hypotheses. It is a list of topics that are put forward by their proponents as "science" - but who do not follow "the scientific method" in exploring that topic. If the expanding earth believers were actively doing (or at the very least, seriously proposing) clear experiments to test whether what they claim is true - or to disprove the mainstream theory - then they would perhaps not be classified as a pseudo-science. However, it is very clear that they do not do that. So it doesn't matter whether their hypothesis is true or false, widely believed or not, disproved or not - what matters is whether they claim to have a scientific theory - yet do not follow the scientific method. The Expanding Eath hypothesis has never been tested experimentally (which, incidentally, is probably why it's never formally been disproved) - that's what makes it a pseudo-science. Until its proponents start actually doing experiments, publishing results in mainstream journals, etc - it is most definitely a pseudoscience. SteveBaker ( talk) 13:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Geology is not an experimental science but an observational one. There is no possible experiment to prove or disprove Plate Tectonics or Expanding Earth. There are many observations consistent with these theories (with both, indeed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.57.71 ( talk) 22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There was just an edit/revert cycle over the part of the lead section starting "Besides explicitly using the word pseudoscience, some may also have used synonyms that help to explain why they consider a topic to be pseudoscientific...".
Are there any synonyms for the word "pseudoscience"? I've checked a couple of paper dictionaries and four online dictionaries - and I don't see one listed anywhere. Thesaurus.com and Roget's don't even offer roughly similar phrases or other near alternatives. I think that what we're trying to say here is that it suffices for there to be a mere description of some topic's lack of scientific rigor in order for it to make it onto this list...which is a fine sentiment - but harder to be dogmatic about. We all agree (I hope!) that homeopathy is a pseudoscience - and would belong on this list even if we couldn't find someone out there who happens to use the word explicitly because there is ample evidence of the lack of scientific method in that field. But in borderline cases (such as the one in the thread just above this one), we might reasonably require a definite use of the word in a solid reference in order to avoid endless debate...there are no synonyms.
Anyway - this might explain why one editor wishes this to be removed while another thinks it should remain.
It's probably better to rewrite this sentence without reference to "synonyms" than to re-re-revert.
SteveBaker ( talk) 00:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It's time we include this pervasive pseudoscientific belief in our list. Here are some sources I've been sifting through:
I'd like to workshop the wording here on the talkpage.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Climate change denialism — in the discussions surrounding the politics of global warming, assertions by some commentators that global warming is either not occurring or is not associated with the anthropogenic rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have been made. Such arguments are criticized for being pseudoscientific as they deny certain facts contained in the scientific consensus on climate change. [CCD 1] [CCD 2] [CCD 3]
I removed "Climate Change Denial" from the list of pseudoscientific topics. While it certainly is controversial topic, it is not fake science the way the Bermuda Triangle is. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a neutral reference work, the editors won't let themselves be bullied by contributors with a political agenda.
70.26.89.182 ( talk) 04:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand that BullRangifer is concerned that this is going to open a can of worms, but the fact is that I believe this diff gets rid of really ridiculous sentences that are essentially content free. That point A doesn't necessarily imply point B is a fact that does not bear mentioning in the lead. Neither does the claim that "opposing points of view exist". There are "opposing points of view" for almost everything in this encyclopedia, but, worse than that, the wording implies that there are people who believe that the subjects listed actually haven't been characterized as pseudoscience. This is, as far as I can tell, simply false. Finally, the claim that some of the subjects may "be in question" is not worthy of inclusion as it is obvious and the claim that other subjects might "be subject to divided professional opinion" is also irrelevant to the page. We don't need this pandering. We can get rid of it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
lol - QG, that wasn't a tweak, that was a revert - please don't be disingenuous. the revert is fine (I'm not that interested in this silly page), except that I think my version was better. Just for anyone interested in comparing them side by side:
comparison of versions of lead | |
---|---|
L2's revision | QG's reversion |
This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience. The characterizations listed here have been made by notable persons or groups, and may reflect beliefs held broadly by the scientific community, or by skeptical organizations, or by individual academics and researchers. Some such claims are made to educate the public about questionable scientific claims or potentially fraudulent or dangerous practices, others derive from efforts in the philosophy of science to define the nature of science, still others are indirect claims associated with humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. In general, these characterizations involve critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question. Inclusion on this list does not necessarily indicate the topic is itself a pseudoscience. Topics listed here may have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them, or may be included because certain claims derived from them are characterized as pseudoscientific, may be historically valid but refuted science that has been resurrected in pseudoscientific fashion. They may even be entirely non-scientific topics that have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each section details the particular sense and use of the term pseudoscience for that topic. |
This is a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience by the scientific community, skeptical organizations, or academics and researchers. Besides explicitly using the word pseudoscience, some entries have the characteristics of pseudoscience, and therefore inclusion may not necessarily indicate that a given entry is itself pseudoscience. Such characterizations range from specific denunciations to logical, methodological, or rhetorical critiques of claims made by proponents of ideas not explicitly accepted by the mainstream community. Also included are important concepts associated with the main entries. Some such concepts are stated to educate the public about questionable scientific claims or potentially fraudulent or dangerous practices, other concepts derive from efforts in the philosophy of science to define the nature of science, still others are notable parodies of pseudoscientific concepts. Some subjects in this list may have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them. For instance, some proposed explanations for hypnosis have been criticized for being pseudoscientific, and there is still no general consensus as to whether hypnosis is a real phenomenon or only a form of suggestion and role-enacting. [1] Some subjects and methods are included because certain claims regarding them are pseudoscientific, even though the subjects themselves may be legitimate, or the methods themselves may have some efficacy, thus indicating it is the claims that are pseudoscientific, and not necessarily the subjects or methods. |
Quick straw poll - which do people think is better?-- Ludwigs2 12:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take a crack:
This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience. The characterizations are made by academics and researchers and may reflect beliefs either held broadly by the scientific community or by skeptical organizations. Determinations of pseudoscience are made in the context of educating the public about questionable scientific claims or potentially fraudulent or dangerous practices, or as the result of efforts to define the nature of science, or as humorous parody of poor scientific reasoning. I
Topics listed here may have been subjected to scientific research in the past and may continue to be investigated by scientific research programs. Some of the ideas may have been at one time considered to be valid but have been later refuted and been resurrected in pseudoscientific fashion. Some ideas included are entirely non-scientific topics that have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each example includes details of the particular sense of the pseudoscientific characterization of that topic.
Help!
jps ( talk) 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Continuing to converge:
This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable, potentially fraudulent, or dangerous claims and practices, efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. Criticism of pseudoscience by the scientific community or skeptical organizations generally involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question. [2]
Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others listed here were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted and resurrected in pseudoscientific fashions. Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific but have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each example includes details of the particular sense of the pseudoscientific characterization of that topic.
Let's keep going!
jps ( talk) 14:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices, efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. Criticism of pseudoscience, generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations, involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question. [3] Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted and resurrected in a pseudoscientific fashion. Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific but have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each example includes details of the particular sense of the pseudoscientific characterization of that topic.
I'm not sure ball lightning is "no longer doubted by modern science". We have no reliable direct evidence, such as photos or video, that is not otherwise explainable. There's no real agreement on the physical characteristics of it. (Some reports describe slowly "rolling" balls of light that may pass through other objects or vanish like a popped bubble upon being touched, while others describe violent dancing or ricocheting behavior the ends with an explosive bang; they have no generally agreed-upon color, shape, or duration; there are no consistent conditions under which it appears; and so on.) While it seems there is a general acceptance that there's some actual phenomenon at work, there is no one generally accepted theory (or even two or three competing theories) that can adequately explain and predict its behavior; and the possible explanations that we do have are all over the place, ranging from vaporized silicon to microscopic black holes to visual hallucinations caused by lightning's magnetic pulse.
There does seem to be widespread acceptance that some phenomenon is at work, but it seems strange to say that scientists "no longer doubt" its existence when we can't even adequately define what we're talking about!
This entry should either be removed (as it's neither clearly true, nor considered obvious pseudoscience), or moved to a different section to reflect the fact that it has not been significantly explained. Ball lightning certainly doesn't fall into the same category with continental drift and meteors, both of which have vast quantities of observable evidence and experimental data backing them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.192.236.140 ( talk) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned the sources provided do not really support the inclusion of climate change denial as a topic characterized as pseudoscience. The first reference is an editorial in the journal Science. It laments an early Bush administration environmental policy decision and talks about the growing scientific consensus. However, it never really addresses 'climate change denial', it only addresses legitimate skeptics and very briefly at that. Naturally it never uses the term 'pseudoscience'. The second source is a report put out by Democrats on a congressional committee that does not seem to be available online. In any case, I assume such a partisan account would not be a reliable source. The third source is a lengthy journal editorial, which again doesn't appear to address 'climate change denial' or label it as pseudoscientific. In fact, in the last paragraph the author actually states, "As shown by countless social studies of science, science is intimately and inextricably interlinked with politics, and no transcendent definitions exist by which to distinguish true science from 'pseudoscience.'" I am open to the idea that climate change denialism might be characterized by reliable sources as pseudoscience, but I don't see it yet. – CWenger ( talk) 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why it is listed here. The entry on the topic makes a poor description of it (which could even be described as misrepresentation) and does not clearly states why it should be consider pseudoscience (appart of using quotes to denote words being used with irony, I guess). Furthermore, anthroposophical medicine can only be practiced by physicians who have a conventional medical education, including a degree from an established and certified medical school. In fact, there is plenty of research published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic and it is recognized by governments in Central Europe (such as Germany and Switzerland) where there are several hospitals completely ran by anthroposophic doctors. For reference look for the Health Technology Assessment Report on Anthroposophic Medicine that was comissioned by the Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office, which was published in English as the book "Anthroposophic Medicine" by Kienle, Kiene and Albornico edited by Schattauer GmbH. In addition, several universities in Germany and Switzerland have departments in their medicine faculties which are devoted to Anthroposophical Medicine (for example at Witten/Herdecke University and the University of Bern). How can this be considered pseudoscience? I think this is a case of bias because most information is published in a language different from English. Please also note that in the wikipedia page for Anthroposophical medicine there is mention of the criticism to this branch of medicine but it's not stated that it should be considered pseudoscience. Asinthior ( talk) 21:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Talk:Vedic science contains some interesting discussions about Ayurveda and at the end even mentions astrology. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
BullRangifer suggests that this list only documents that aspects of a topic have been characterized as pseudoscience. If we do intend this to be true, we would have to eliminate the editorializing, such as:Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted but resurrected in a pseudoscientific fashion. Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific but have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. This clearly suggests that at least many of the topics here are actually pseudoscientific. This is surely true, of course, but if we include it here then the article is clearly claiming much more than mere incidents of characterization. Should we rewrite the intro to ensure that we are strictly keeping to a documentation of incidences of labeling? Or should we accept that there is a further implication both implied and directly stated and take the consequences? (This is really a continuation of the on-going discussion about the tenor and intent of this article, a discussion that will probably never be settled unequivocally.) hgilbert ( talk) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for science, physics, or medical concusions is happening here [2]. PPdd ( talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Vote here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This article lack any theory that have previously been considered pseudoscience but is now considered fact. I added Copernican heliocentrism as it is one of the most notorious example of when the scientific consensus have been proven in their classification of something as pseudoscience. Another well known example is evolution that was branded as pseudoscience. If it is wrong to add these theories then "at one point or another in their history" should be removed from the initial description off the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.91.246 ( talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how people would feel about a potential move to List of pseudoscientific topics or simply List of pseudosciences. I think the current title is overly cautious and redundant. Obviously anything in this article has been characterized as pseudoscientific by reliable sources or it wouldn't be listed here, so the "characterized as" phrase is unnecessary. And if something is characterized as pseudoscience by a reliable source, we should simply report that it is pseudoscience according to "verifiability, not truth". – CWenger ( ^ • @) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I too oppose a title change per Hans Adler's and Ludwigs2's arguments. They are correct. The current title avoids lots of conflict and allows us to document what's happening in the real world without taking sides. That's our job here anyway. -- Brangifer ( talk) 06:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
For instance, what is "pseudoscientific" about cattle mutilations? Either they happen or they don't, and if they do happen, they are naturally susceptible to the claims and rigors of scientific investigation. Ditto for 'parapsychology,' which has achieved a level of replicability that is almost impossible to dissent from if one invokes a dispassionate assessment of the evidence, which is really the essence of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.38.82 ( talk) 21:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Neuro-linguistic Programming should be on this list. It is considered to be pseudoscience by scientists (see Neuro-linguistic_programming). Any arguments against putting NLP in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.187.19.61 ( talk) 22:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Recognizing that statements by an organization of scientists (i.e. "xyz scientific academy", etc) does not make something pseudoscience, I propose that the following sections be deleted, considering there are numerous legitimate scientific books, based on the scientific method, published on topics in these areas, which seem to contradict the "reliable" source of a statement made by a group of scientists that appear to have an agenda:
All text for each section is direct from the Wikipedia page that was restored by Bogdangiusca. My comments are below each section, indented:
Creation Science - belief that the origin of everything in the universe is the result of a first cause, brought about by a creator deity, and that this thesis is supported by geological, biological, and other scientific evidence.
Creation Biology - subset of creation science that tries to explain biology without macroevolution
Creationist cosmologies – cosmologies which, among other things, allow for a universe that is only thousands of years old.
Flood geology – creationist form of geology that advocates most of the geologic features on Earth are explainable by a global flood
Intelligent design – maintains that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
I rarely edit on wikipedia, I just don't have time, so I'm not sure the entire process for making these changes on the main article itself. Personally, I think the case I've made is clear and concise, and now I believe it is on Bogdangiusca to rebut my points if he believes that these should still in fact be declared pseudoscience.
Barwick (
talk)
18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Now we're talking about Pangea? This isn't a science debate here, there's plenty of forums we can do that on, so I've refrained. But if I may simply make a point, the 4.5 billion year age is based on a number of presuppositions, namely, Pangea's existence, the timeframe for its existence, etc. Besides, the 1.2 billion year upper maximum limit is one small part of his problem with the age (and existence) of the moon as we know it today, with its orbit as exists.
On top of that, his entire theory is based on the existence of a massive continent similar to Pangea, just his theory is that it didn't exist billions of years ago, but rather thousands, and his claims are backed by scientific study.
Now, if you'd like to debate the points Dr. Brown brings forth in a debate, by all means, let's do so (eMail works fine for that), though I'll likely have time to spend doing so in about ten years from now at this rate.
The entire point is, these guys are doing *science*. They are just as much doing science as any other scientist out there. I mean, for heaven sake, we have an entire 83kb page here on Wikipedia about *string theory* of all things. You want something that's freaking wacked out and seemingly pseudoscience, look no further than string theory. Science? Try falsifying that one, let me know how you do. But I don't see it on this list, nor do I think it should be put on this list. Barwick ( talk) 00:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Barwick has instituted: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/23 September 2011/List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. SteveBaker ( talk) 17:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Neuro-linguistic_programming#Scientific_criticism has enough sources to add it here. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned elsewhere, I'd like to recommend that this article be moved to List of pseudosciences (which currently redirects to this article). "Characterized" is unnecessarily ambiguous and misleading to some Wikipedians. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI: This is the previous discussion on renaming from early 2009 where several other possible renamings were considered. There were some interesting arguments made on both sides of the debate. All were ultimately rejected in favor of retaining the current title. SteveBaker ( talk) 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The description here needs to be fundamentally rewritten. That the event actually occurred isn't psuedoscience (and the current listing implies that). At issue is what caused said event, which has been subject to considerable debate.
Analogously: That President Kennedy was assassinated isn't up for debate. Whether or not the mafia, Fidel Castro, et al. were responsible is debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 ( talk) 00:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I expected to see the Time Cube under "Idiosyncratic ideas", but I see that the Cube is apparently off limits as its crankiness is so humungous that no reliable source can be bothered to state the obvious, or rather the whole logic (?) of the idea is so idiosyncratic and amusing that characterising it as pseudoscience would be equivalent to an entirely undeserved accolade and suggests that it deserves more than a quick laugh. But how about Hollow Earth, and its offshoot, the Hollow Moon? Is there any particular reason (other than a giant conspiracy consisting of Wikipedia rouge admins suppressing The Truth, of course) that this idea is missing from the list? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is that actually a word? or how the group identifies itself? When I try to type it in it gets the red squiggly line. It just seems like someone stuck a few too many suffixes on. If I'm wrong, my apologies. It just looks like the sort of vandalism that can go unnoticed due to subtleties. 74.132.249.206 ( talk) 19:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a ref named "scientificamerican" that is currently a dead link. The ref was to this bare URL: Scientific American. It is a link to a search engine. Searching google for ED460829 (part of the URL) yielded this web page which is apparently in regards to this document: Scientific American Frontiers Teaching Guides for Shows 801-805. One supposes the original intent was to reference this show. The ref is used several time in the article for the following topics: "Dowsing" "Ufology" "Therapeutic touch" "Perpetual motion" "Free energy".
Scientific American Frontiers does have episodes addressing fringe science and the transcripts are on line. If I find time I'll replace these links to the shows. Here's one for "Free energy" and on the same page "Therapeutic touch".
I would suppose this show as a citation is reliable enough for this article to show that these subjects are pseudoscience. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 07:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel that "characterized" is a poor choice of words. Perhaps "labeled" would be better. The naive reader would likely miss the nuances discussed in the lede.
Also, some of the " pseudoscience" does not quite fit the generally accepted definition. I'd rather not see any modern controversial topic listed here, if its proponents have indicated a significant willingness to subject their findings or claims to independent review.
Therefore, I recommend a page move, e.g., to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. This would clarify that someone who? has labeled each of the various ideas as pseudoscience.
Another thing that would help is to separate the ones that are generally regarded as pseudoscience, from the ones which are mere controversial, such as:
Perhaps, like the section on parodies, there can be a section on modern controversies. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/creation_timeline_chart_color_201107.pdf)
John Lloyd Scharf 01:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the tag based upon the information provided by John Lloyd Scharf. Wikipedia is not a forum for ideological battles. If someone wants to come up with better information, perhaps addressing Johnuniq's concerns, demonstrating problems with that or other sections of the article, then the tags can be easily restored. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it relevant that Zecharia Sitchin has no degree in Semitic Languages? Strictly speaking, Sumerian is not related to any known language. However, I'm not familiar with the academic subject of "Semetic Languages", which may include the study of Sumerian as well, because the latter was very important to the first ones. Could anyone verify this? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The file size of this page is HUGE! I suggest cutting it way down by doing the following. Since all the topics have WP pages that already explain why they are pseudoscience I recommend that all of the topics on this page be reduced to just one line with no references. They are already linked to where the topic is discussed in full. It is duplication to have the same references here and on the topic pages. A note can be made at the top of the page explaining where to go to find the details for the different topics. And a comment can be added at the top warn editors not to add details to this page but to go to the topic pages. SmittysmithIII ( talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
SmittysmithIII ( talk · contribs), who has made 357 edits to this article, and Sacramentosam ( talk · contribs) are blocked as sockpuppets. As they were evading a block, their edits may be reverted. I'd be in favor of reverting all the way back [5] and then making any useful fixes. This is a prolific puppetmaster and success only encourages him. Dougweller ( talk) 16:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The ideas of Masaru Emoto need mention. -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT) needs mentioning. -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This list should have Applied Kinesiology as its own category under Health and Medicine rather than a subset of Chiropractics. BDORT would be a good example of a topic which could be a subset of Applied Kinesiology. Another example would be NAET which uses Applied Kinesiology for allergy diagnoses. 68.120.89.89 ( talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
68.120.89.89 ( talk) 21:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The view of memetics as a pseudoscience seems to be a minority view. First, "memetics pseudoscience" gives 24,000 hits in Google, vs 20 times that many hits for "memetics." Also try examining the first couple of pages for "memetics pseudoscience." No more than ten percent of the links under these search terms supports that view. The statements are either supportive of memetics as a useful model or mixed with pro and con voices. "Protoscience is mentioned frequently.
The number of books many by PhD's supporting memetics is certainly larger than those denouncing it.
One of the arguments against memetics is that we can't observe one. That's not a good argument or electronics would be a pseudoscience since you can't see electrons either.
There was 11 years of discussion on such subjects on the Memetics discussion list. One of mine:
At 12:49 PM 14/05/03 -0400, Scott wrote:
(re Richard Brodie's comments)
>Is there sufficient reason to assume that ideas are isomorphic between >individuals? If so, provide some here:
I would say so, where I take "isomorphic" to mean similar.
In a short form, one definition of memes (that does not conflict with the definition of a meme as pure information) is "an element of culture" where culture is the sum total of information available to humans.
Does anyone have serious disagreement with this so far?
Baseball (or cricket for the limies) is an element of culture.
Are there objections to this?
Now consider this variation in a thought experiment I have used here before where a person can be tested for having the information in their brain about baseball by teaching an isolated group of children (who have never played ball and stick games) a recognizable game of baseball. You dump kids, teacher and equipment on an island and come back in two months.
The variation is that the teacher on this assignment doesn't know a thing about baseball, but is given books on baseball rules and how to play the game before being dumped on the island.
If the kids are playing a recognizable game of baseball when the experimenter returns, then the only information source for what they are doing is the books. I.e., the books contain the baseball meme (information).
I don't think you could get funding for this experiment because the outcome is too obvious.
Now information has to be "contained" in matter of some kind (photons included). I am not picky about what form it takes, human minds, ink on paper, magnetic tape or chipped into stone. Memes can sometimes be loaded into minds from what a person can get out of made objects, a shoe, a pot, a chipped rock. (I have spent a lot of my professional life "reverse engineering.")
Memes are often learned from watching others (though not exclusively as a certain person claims). Chimps learn to collect termites with sticks by watching adult chimps. You could almost certainly transfer this meme by showing video tape of collecting termites to naive chimps. You *might* be able to convey the "termiting meme" to a chimp that knew sign language without demonstrating what to do. (You could certainly do it with humans.)
On the subject of how accurately information replicates from mind to mind, that depends largely on how much effort is put into transmitting it. In the days before pocket calculators, most children learned multiplication tables with a very high degree of fidelity. The process is much like communication between computers. Computers test the data they get from other computers and will retry if the data is corrupted (which it frequently is).
Human children are likewise taught, tested, and corrected on spelling and math till most of them "get it right." Game rules (three strikes, four balls) tend to be very accurately replicated. This is not true of all memes, look up "Play it Sam" and "Play it again Sam" in Google.
But some amount of mutation/sloppy copying/random recombination/outright invention is as essential to memetics as it is to genetics. Without variation, there is nothing to be selected. The differential survival of memes (and why) is what memetics is about.
Keith Henson
PS. The meme that fruits, particularly citrus, prevent scurvy was a significant element in the power of the British Navy at one time.
http://cfpm.org/~majordom/memetics/2000/14883.html
Since I am a knowledgeable person about this topic, I am reluctant to just delete this section. I suppose I could add to it because there are plenty of cites from books and articles stating that memetics is a good scientific model or considered the study a protoscience. Keith Henson ( talk) 22:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Not mentioned is that in the same book is Susan Blackmore's "Memes as Good Science."
Given that Polichak is the only one cited, I think this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undue#Due_and_undue_weight
Though if you can find a substantial number of people to offset the likes of EO Willson, Dawkins, Hofstadter and Dennet, I will agree that memetics is properly classed as pseudoscience. Keith Henson (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
(The above pulled in from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller to give context.)
I was surprised to see it's not listed here, given some of the sourced statements near the bottom of that article. I'll put together a typical 1-liner here in a bit and add it to the page later if there's no objections. a13ean ( talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Naturopathy, or Naturopathic Medicine, is a type of alternative medicine based on a belief in vitalism, which posits that a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as metabolism, reproduction, growth, and adaptation. [4] Naturopathy has been characterized a pseudoscientific [5] [6] It has particularly been criticized for its unproven, disproven, or dangerous treatments. [7] [8] [9] [10] Natural methods and chemicals are not necessarily safer or more effective than artificial or synthetic ones; any treatment capable of eliciting an effect may also have deleterious side effects. [11] [6] [12] [13]
Thoughts? a13ean ( talk) 15:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that makes a lot of sense a13ean if you want to add it. Lukekfreeman ( talk) 02:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to mention it here the first time, but there is a thread at ANI which refers to this page. a13ean ( talk) 15:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Should that be here? It's a new term to me, but after reading this I was sort of expecting to find it here already ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hypnosis is based on science. Research into hypnosis is carried out in recognized laboratories and published in peer reviewed journals. That fact that it can be misused does not detract from its core basis in observable fact.
List of research which is irrelevant for this list |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here is a brief review of some of the peer reviewed research evidence on the effectiveness of hypnosis: 90.6% Success Rate for Smoking Cessation Using Hypnosis Of 43 consecutive patients undergoing this treatment protocol, 39 reported remaining abstinent from tobacco use at follow-up (6 months to 3 years post-treatment). This represents a 90.6% success rate using hypnosis. University of Washington School of Medicine, Depts. of Anesthesiology and Rehabilitation Medicine, Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2001 Jul;49(3):257-66. Barber J. 87% Reported Abstinence From Tobacco Use With Hypnosis A field study of 93 male and 93 female CMHC outpatients examined the facilitation of smoking cessation by using hypnosis. At 3-month follow-up, 86% of the men and 87% of the women reported continued abstinence from the use of tobacco using hypnosis. Performance by gender in a stop-smoking program combining hypnosis and aversion. Johnson DL, Karkut RT. Adkar Associates, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana. Psychol Rep. 1994 Oct;75(2):851-7. PMID 7862796 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 81% Reported They Had Stopped Smoking After Hypnosis Thirty smokers enrolled in an HMO were referred by their primary physician for treatment. Twenty-one patients returned after an initial consultation and received hypnosis for smoking cessation. At the end of treatment, 81% of those patients reported that they had stopped smoking, and 48% reported abstinence at 12 months post-treatment. Texas A&M University, System Health Science Center, College of Medicine, College Station, TX USA. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2004 Jan;52(1):73-81. Clinical hypnosis for smoking cessation: preliminary results of a three-session intervention. Elkins GR, Rajab MH. Hypnosis Patients Twice As Likely To Remain Smoke-Free After Two Years Study of 71 smokers showed that after a two-year follow up, patients that quit with hypnosis were twice as likely to remain smoke-free than those who quit on their own. Guided health imagery for smoking cessation and long-term abstinence. Wynd, CA. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2005; 37:3, pages 245-250. Hypnosis More Effective Than Drug Interventions For Smoking Cessation Group hypnosis sessions, evaluated at a less effective success rate (22% success) than individualized hypnosis sessions. However, group hypnosis sessions were still demonstrated here as being more effective than drug interventions. Ohio State University, College of Nursing, Columbus, OH 43210, USA Descriptive outcomes of the American Lung Association of Ohio hypnotherapy smoking cessation program. Ahijevych K, Yerardi R, Nedilsky N. Hypnosis Most Effective Says Largest Study Ever: 3 Times as Effective as Patch and 15 Times as Effective as Willpower. Hypnosis is the most effective way of giving up smoking, according to the largest ever scientific comparison of ways of breaking the habit. A meta-analysis, statistically combining results of more than 600 studies of 72,000 people from America and Europe to compare various methods of quitting. On average, hypnosis was over three times as effective as nicotine replacement methods and 15 times as effective as trying to quit alone. University of Iowa, Journal of Applied Psychology, How One in Five Give Up Smoking. October 1992. (Also New Scientist, October 10, 1992.) Hypnosis Over 30 Times as Effective for Weight Loss Investigated the effects of hypnosis in weight loss for 60 females, at least 20% overweight. Treatment included group hypnosis with metaphors for ego-strengthening, decision making and motivation, ideomotor exploration in individual hypnosis, and group hypnosis with maintenance suggestions. Hypnosis was more effective than a control group: an average of 17 lbs lost by the hypnosis group vs. an average of 0.5 lbs lost by the control group, on follow-up. Cochrane, Gordon; Friesen, J. (1986). Hypnotherapy in weight loss treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 489-492. Two Years Later: Hypnosis Subjects Continued To Lose Significant Weight 109 people completed a behavioral treatment for weight management either with or without the addition of hypnosis. At the end of the 9-week program, both interventions resulted in significant weight reduction. At 8-month and 2-year follow-ups, the hypnosis subjects were found to have continued to lose significant weight, while those in the behavioral-treatment-only group showed little further change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1985) Hypnosis Subjects Lost More Weight Than 90% of Others and Kept it Off Researchers analyzed 18 studies comparing a cognitive behavioral therapy such as relaxation training, guided imagery, self monitoring, or goal setting with the same therapy supplemented by hypnosis. Those who received the hypnosis lost more weight than 90 percent of those not receiving hypnosis and maintained the weight loss two years after treatment ended. University of Connecticut, Storrs Allison DB, Faith MS. Hypnosis as an adjunct to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy for obesity: a meta-analytic reappraisal. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64(3):513-516. Hypnosis More Than Doubled Average Weight Loss Study of the effect of adding hypnosis to cognitive-behavioral treatments for weight reduction, additional data were obtained from authors of two studies. Analyses indicated that the benefits of hypnosis increased substantially over time. Kirsch, Irving (1996). Hypnotic enhancement of cognitive-behavioral weight loss treatments–Another meta-reanalysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64 (3), 517-519. Hypnosis Showed Significantly Lower Post-Treatment Weights Two studies compared overweight smoking and non-smoking adult women in an hypnosis-based, weight-loss program. Both achieved significant weight losses and decreases in Body Mass Index. Follow-up study replicated significant weight losses and declines in Body Mass Index. The overt aversion and hypnosis program yielded significantly lower post-treatment weights and a greater average number of pounds lost. Weight loss for women: studies of smokers and nonsmokers using hypnosis and multi-component treatments with and without overt aversion. Johnson DL, Psychology Reprints. 1997 Jun;80(3 Pt 1):931-3. Hypnotherapy group with stress reduction achieved significantly more weight loss than the other two treatments. Randomised, controlled, parallel study of two forms of hypnotherapy (directed at stress reduction or energy intake reduction), vsdietary advice alone in 60 obese patients with obstructive sleep apnoea on nasal continuous positive airway pressure treatment. J Stradling, D Roberts, A Wilson and F Lovelock, Chest Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK Hypnosis can more than double the effects of traditional weight loss approaches An analysis of five weight loss studies reported in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in 1996 showed that the “… weight loss reported in the five studies indicates that hypnosis can more than double the effects” of traditional weight loss approaches. University of Connecticut, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in 1996 (Vol. 64, No. 3, pgs 517-519). Weight loss is greater where hypnosis is utilized Research into cognitive-behavioral weight loss treatments established that weight loss is greater where hypnosis is utilized. It was also established that the benefits of hypnosis increase over time. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1996) Showed Hypnosis As “An Effective Way To Lose Weight” A study of 60 females who were at least 20% overweight and not involved in other treatment showed hypnosis is an effective way to lose weight. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1986) Reference Hypnosis Reduces Frequency and Intensity of Migraines Compared the treatment of migraine by hypnosis and autohypnosis with the treatment of migraine by the drug prochlorperazine (Stemetil). Results show that the number of attacks and the number of people who suffered blinding attacks were significantly lower for the group receiving hypnotherapy than for the group receiving prochlorperazine. For the group on hypnotherapy, these two measures were significantly lower when on hypnotherapy than when on the previous treatment. It is concluded that further trials of hypnotherapy are justified against some other treatment not solely associated with the ingestion of tablets. Anderson JA, Basker MA, Dalton R, Migraine and hypnotherapy, International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis 1975; 23(1): 48-58. Hypnosis Reduces Pain and Speeds up Recovery from Surgery Since 1992, we have used hypnosis routinely in more than 1400 patients undergoing surgery. We found that hypnosis used with patients as an adjunct to conscious sedation and local anesthesia was associated with improved intraoperative patient comfort, and with reduced anxiety, pain, intraoperative requirements for anxiolytic and analgesic drugs, optimal surgical conditions and a faster recovery of the patient. We reported our clinical experience and our fundamental research. [Hypnosis and its application in surgery] Faymonville ME, Defechereux T, Joris J, Adant JP, Hamoir E, Meurisse M, Service d’Anesthesie-Reanimation, Universite de Liege, Rev Med Liege. 1998 Jul;53(7):414-8. Hypnosis Reduces Pain Intensity Analysis of the simple-simple main effects, holding both group and condition constant, revealed that application of hypnotic analgesia reduced report of pain intensity significantly more than report of pain unpleasantness. Dahlgren LA, Kurtz RM, Strube MJ, Malone MD, Differential effects of hypnotic suggestion on multiple dimensions of pain.Journal of Pain & Symptom Management. 1995; 10(6): 464-70. Hypnosis Reduces Pain of Headaches and Anxiety The improvement was confirmed by the subjective evaluation data gathered with the use of a questionnaire and by a significant reduction in anxiety scores. Melis PM, Rooimans W, Spierings EL, Hoogduin CA, Treatment of chronic tension-type headache with hypnotherapy: a single-blind time controlled study. Headache 1991; 31(10): 686-9. Hypnosis Lowered Post-treatment Pain in Burn Injuries Patients in the hypnosis group reported less post treatment pain than did patients in the control group. The findings are used to replicate earlier studies of burn pain hypnoanalgesia, explain discrepancies in the literature, and highlight the potential importance of motivation with this population. Patterson DR, Ptacek JT, Baseline pain as a moderator of hypnotic analgesia for burn injury treatment. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 1997; 65(1): 60-7. Hypnosis Lowered Phantom Limb Pain Hypnotic procedures appear to be a useful adjunct to established strategies for the treatment of phantom limb pain and would repay further, more systematic, investigation. Suggestions are provided as to the factors which should be considered for a more systematic research program. Treatment of phantom limb pain using hypnotic imagery. Oakley DA, Whitman LG, Halligan PW, Department of Psychology, University College, London, UK. Hypnosis Has a Reliable and Significant Impact on Acute and Chronic Pain Hypnosis has been demonstrated to reduce analogue pain, and studies on the mechanisms of laboratory pain reduction have provided useful applications to clinical populations. Studies showing central nervous system activity during hypnotic procedures offer preliminary information concerning possible physiological mechanisms of hypnotic analgesia. Randomized controlled studies with clinical populations indicate that hypnosis has a reliable and significant impact on acute procedural pain and chronic pain conditions. Methodological issues of this body of research are discussed, as are methods to better integrate hypnosis into comprehensive pain treatment. Hypnosis and clinical pain. Patterson DR, Jensen MP, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA USA 98104 Psychol Bull. 2003 Jul;129(4):495-521. Hypnosis is a Powerful Tool in Pain Therapy and is Biological in Addiction to Psychological Attempting to elucidate cerebral mechanisms behind hypnotic analgesia, we measured regional cerebral blood flow with positron emission tomography in patients with fibromyalgia, during hypnotically-induced analgesia and resting wakefulness. The patients experienced less pain during hypnosis than at rest. The cerebral blood-flow was bilaterally increased in the orbitofrontal and subcallosial cingulate cortices, the right thalamus, and the left inferior parietal cortex, and was decreased bilaterally in the cingulate cortex. The observed blood-flow pattern supports notions of a multifactorial nature of hypnotic analgesia, with an interplay between cortical and subcortical brain dynamics. Copyright 1999 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Functional anatomy of hypnotic analgesia: a PET study of patients with fibromyalgia. Wik G, Fischer H, Bragee B, Finer B, Fredrikson M, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Karolinska Institute and Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden Eur J Pain. 1999 Mar;3(1):7-12. Hypnosis Useful in Hospital Emergency Rooms Hypnosis can be a useful adjunct in the emergency department setting. Its efficacy in various clinical applications has been replicated in controlled studies. Application to burns, pain, pediatric procedures, surgery, psychiatric presentations (e.g., coma, somatoform disorder, anxiety, and post traumatic stress), and obstetric situations (e.g., hyperemesis, labor, and delivery) are described. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2000 May;18(2):327-38, x. The use of hypnosis in emergency medicine. Peebles-Kleiger MJ, Menninger School of Psychiatry and Mental Health Sciences, Menninger Clinic, Topeka, KS, USA. peeblemj@menninger.edu Significantly More Methadone Addicts Quit with Hypnosis. 94% Remained Narcotic Free Significant differences were found on all measures. The experimental group had significantly less discomfort and illicit drug use, and a significantly greater amount of cessation. At six month follow up, 94% of the subjects in the experimental group who had achieved cessation remained narcotic free. A comparative study of hypnotherapy and psychotherapy in the treatment of methadone addicts. Manganiello AJ, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1984; 26(4): 273-9. Hypnosis Shows 77 Percent Success Rate for Drug Addiction Treatment has been used with 18 clients over the last 7 years and has shown a 77 percent success rate for at least a 1-year follow-up. 15 were being seen for alcoholism or alcohol abuse, 2 clients were being seen for cocaine addiction, and 1 client had a marijuana addiction Intensive Therapy: Utilizing Hypnosis in the Treatment of Substance Abuse Disorders. Potter, Greg, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, Jul 2004. Raised Self-esteem & Serenity. Lowered Impulsivity and Anger In a research study on self-hypnosis for relapse prevention training with chronic drug/alcohol users. Participants were 261 veterans admitted to Substance Abuse Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (SARRTPs). individuals who used repeated self-hypnosis “at least 3 to 5 times a week,” at 7-week follow-up, reported the highest levels of self-esteem and serenity, and the least anger/impulsivity, in comparison to the minimal-practice and control groups. American Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy (a publication of the American Psychological Association) 2004 Apr;46(4):281-97) Hypnosis For Cocaine Addiction Documented Case Study Hypnosis was successfully used to overcome a $500 (five grams) per day cocaine addiction. The subject was a female in her twenties. After approximately 8 months of addiction, she decided to use hypnosis in an attempt to overcome the addiction itself. Over the next 4 months, she used hypnosis three times a day and at the end of this period, her addiction was broken, and she has been drug free for the past 9 years. Hypnosis was the only intervention, and no support network of any kind was available. The use of hypnosis in cocaine addiction. Page RA, Handley GW, Ohio State University, Lima, OH USA 45804. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1993 Oct;36(2):120-3. Healed 41% faster from fracture Healed significantly faster from surgery Two studies from Harvard Medical School show hypnosis significantly reduces the time it takes to heal. Study One: Six weeks after an ankle fracture, those in the hypnosis group showed the equivalent of eight and a half weeks of healing. Study Two: Three groups of people studied after breast reduction surgery. Hypnosis group healed “significantly faster” than supportive attention group and control group. Harvard Medical School, Carol Ginandes and Union Institute in Cincinnati, Patricia Brooks, Harvard University Gazette |
NRGized ( talk) 02:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine cleary shows hypnosis is evidence based for a wide range of conditions and behaviors http://nccam.nih.gov/health/hypnosis
Please remove hypnosis from the list of "Pseudoscience" as quickly as you can!
Thank You Michael Ellner Diplomat - International Medical and Dental Hypnotherapy Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ellner ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears that these two requests come from false allegations made here:
Rather than saying that these are lies, it is more likely that they are based on a misunderstanding and are thus relatively innocent misrepresentations of fact. Both comments use the similar phrases "pseudoscience list" and "list of pseudoscience". They mean the same thing, but that's not what this list is about, as explained above. If anyone wants to comment on that forum to prevent others from being confused/deceived, please do so. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Please add Pyramid power. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm horrified. This article is pure sceptics-organisation-POV an not approximately a enzycolpedic article. The sources are sceptic websites and typical publications. -- WSC ® 16:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Widescreen is generally correct. List articles like this often rest solidly on the foundations of WP:OR. Unless there are reliably sourced lists which support item inclusion, adding it to the list is pure sysnthesis. Unfortunately, lists (and categories) are one of the edge cases that wikipedia does not handle well, so there is little hope in reigning in this general style of article. Other good examples of this include List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and List of scandals with "-gate" suffix aprock ( talk) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"When available" is a key phrase. There are many subjects which Wikipedia is required to cover (nearly all subjects in existence) which are not mentioned in "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks," and yet they are covered in many other reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, websites, skeptical publications, etc.. Each type of source is reliable for certain purposes and not for other purposes. Some are RS for scientific fact, and others are RS for opinions. You seem to fail to realize the difference and want to exclude skeptical sources for any purpose at all. Why? They document the opinions of skeptics. Those opinions are notable and part of the "sum total of human knowledge."
Does the German Wikipedia exclude the documentation of any opinions at all? I have a hard time imagining that would be the case, for that would make it a very boring encyclopedia, with huge gaps in the information it is supposed to provide. For example, the lives of celebrities get NO mention in "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks," and yet the German Wikipedia probably covers them. Isn't that true? One could even imagine an article about a celebrity in which the RS policy is applied very differently to different parts of the article, depending on the subject: For their birth information, some sources are allowed and others are not; for their filming schedule, scientific sources are irrelevant and not RS for that purpose; and for some medical/scientific information in the same article, only WP:MEDRS will do the job.
This is why a good understanding of the wide variety of applications for the RS policy is important. My watchlist right now says this at the top: "You have 7,616 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I have edited more articles, but that's the current status of my watchlist, and those articles cover every conceivable subject. I have to know the RS policy pretty well to deal with such a variety of subjects.
You can't just cite "RS" as if it's a single-word policy that can only be applied in one manner. It has a huge variety of applications. If you ever expect to be a good editor and taken seriously, you will have to learn to try to imagine EVERY type of human knowledge, whether it be proven fact, history, event, belief, imagination, hallucination, rumor, lie, conspiracy theory, ..... literally imagine EVERY possible type. THEN, no matter how ridiculous you feel it is, you will defend its inclusion here, provided that inclusion and documentation is done properly. That's why we have articles on chiropractic, homeopathy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God, and the Higgs boson. (We have more evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson, the "God particle," than we do for the existence of God, yet we have an article about God! Imagine that!) We are supposed to document ALL of those bits of knowledge IF they are notable enough to be mentioned in RS, and then we use those sources.
Sometimes that means using sources from deluded true believers that are ONLY reliable for documenting the existence of false ideas, and are good for NOTHING else. They are actually lies, yet we use them. Those are fringe ideas and fringe sources, and no scientific source will ever touch them, but scientific skeptics will deal with them because they are debunking nonsense and defending the public from deception.
The WP:FRINGE guideline covers such uses of fringe sources, and the skeptical sources which cover fringe subjects. We are REQUIRED to use them, not ignore the subject. Ignoring the subject would violate the main goal of Wikipedia, which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge." We don't want knowledge gaps here. We don't want anyone coming here to find information about something they have heard or read elsewhere, and leaving empty handed. Wikipedia is often the only place they will discover "the other side of the story" because they never read skeptical sources. That's a good thing. -- Brangifer ( talk) 18:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
@Enric Naval: You say this list is reliable because of WP Policy Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. You cited that Lists are "considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" There are independent reliable sources. But this sources doesn't prove such a list. Seems like we have different opinons of what a "independent and reliable" source is. For example: The source at the topic "moon conspiracy" [28] is a govermental source. Not a scientific source. That's far away of being independent. At the hole source you couldn't find the term "pseudoscience". The NASA-page calles the conspiracy theory a hoax. A hoax! Not a pseudoscience. That's no source! It's not indipendent, it's not scientific and it doesn't prove the entry as pseudoscience at all. Even the NASA calles that theory a hoax. They call it nonsense! And skepical souces like skeptical inquirer are the opposite of a "independent and reliable" source. Skeptical organisations are ideological associations just as some topics in this list. Just because you are more familiar whith the skeptical ideology you can't decide which ideology is more relevant for such a list. Futher you say that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." As I said before, there are too much oppinions in philosophy of science to esthablish such a list. Or you have to call the list List of topics who would characterized as pseudoscience in the philosophy of Karl Popper or List of topics who would characterized as pseudoscience in the philosophy of Imre Lakatos (I hope that is right english). As I said before: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PSEUDOSCIENCE! There are many different oppionons of what pseudoscience is! Such a list is misleading and a overgeneralization. You claim there's one definition of pseudoscience which means the same thing. But that's a great mistake. -- WSC ® 07:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears this section is Flogging a dead horse. http://i.imgur.com/XxFzM.jpg • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, now we're finally getting to the crux of Widescreen's motivations:
1. There definitely IS "such a thing as pseudoscience." You may doubt that, but try taking up the issue at the pseudoscience article, not here. You're wasting our time and indeed are kicking a dead horse.
2. No one has claimed there is only "one definition of pseudoscience." There are several variations, so we follow what RS say and use their definitions. Again, that's an issue for the pseudoscience article, not here.
3. You still fail to understand Wikipedia. Articles cover the subject from EVERY angle. Even scientific subjects are covered from all angles. That includes popular controversies, media coverage, erroneous views and misunderstandings, etc.. The basic scientific facts of the matter are still presented using scientific sources, but the other angles often use other sources, some of them far from scientific. As long as they are RS "for the purpose" we use them.
4. Since pseudoscience is in the borderland between science and nonsense, and scientific skeptics are active in that area because of their interest in defending the public from deception and "unscientific ideas masquerading as science" (a simple definition of pseudoscience), the skeptics are the de facto experts in the area of pseudoscience, so you're not gong to have any success in excluding their views from these articles. Their views are RS for this subject.
5. Your continual IDHT attitude is really tiresome. You have been told many times that you're wasting our time, and you are still doing it. Please find something else to do, or at least take up the issues at the appropriate places. This is not the place. Until the policies of the English Wikipedia are changed to be in line with the German Wikipedia, you're not going to make any progress here, and you're causing disruption here, just like you've done at the German Wikipedia. There you have one of the longest block logs I've seen in a long time. There you've been banned/blocked for wasting time and disruption, and you're about to have that happen here if you don't stop.
6. You seem to have an issue with the Moon landing conspiracy theories matter. Take it up at that article, not here. If they use sources we don't use, or we use sources they don't use, then the matter can be harmonized. There are sources regarding the pseudoscientific arguments used to keep the hoaxes and theories alive. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion based upon generalities is pretty obviously getting nowhere. Instead of claiming the entire article has pov problems, I suggest identifying the very worst case within the article and working from there. If others agree there is one problem, then we can look if similar problems exist across the entire article. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no polite way of saying this; if you want to rant about WP:FRINGE this is not the place. Policy and guidelines support the existence of the article, and it easily survived AfD for that reason. The article exists, ranting about it's existence here does not help you. You aren't convincing anyone, so please stop. If you continue to flog a dead horse on the talk page I will request at Arbitration enforcement that you be given a warning about discretionary sanctions in this topic area, because you are wasting everyone's time and you aren't particularly civil about it. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Note, I have made a request at WP:AE about Widescreen, due to the continual IDHT attitude. IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute over whether psychoanalysis can be considered a pseudoscience or not. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 21:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Rather than edit-war, let's discuss.
The first sentence of the lede currently reads, "This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by some academics or researchers." I have issues with the word "some." Nearly every item on the list is recognized by most, if not all, academics and researchers as pseudoscience. The very few items that are not are sufficiently covered by the "at one point or another in their history."
I would assert that giving the impression that astrology, moon landing conspiracy theories, the Bermuda Triangle, channeling, psychic surgeries, graphology, phrenology, biorhythms, colon cleansing, faith healing, magnet therapy, naturopathy, Holocaust denialism, creation science, feng shui, quantum mysticism, perpetual motion or scientific racism -- just to name a few that caught my eye as I went down the list -- have ever been considered to be actual science by academics and researchers makes is far less neutral than simply leaving out the word "some." TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
But the inclusion criteria in this list is not fields generally or widely considered pseudoscience, but fields that have been characterized as such by anyone at all in a reliable source. In fact we should change "some" for "any". ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |work=
and |journal=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
dead link
{{
cite web}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |chapter_title=
ignored (|chapter=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |section_title=
ignored (
help)
ACS
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am not quite clear why this is in this article. It is not a scientific theory or concept, it is a purported relic of Jesus. The only science relates to that used to authenticate and date it, and I am not aware that any of that is pseudoscientific. If anything it is a hoax, but hoaxes are not the same thing as pseudoscience. This article states that it is almost certainly of medieval origin, but its own Wikipedia page is much less certain on this point. This page only claims it is a hoax, but if this page is to include hoaxes, things such as Piltdown man would be a much better fit. So there are two problems (a) that it is neither scientific nor purporting to be so, any more than say a fake signed Beatles LP sold on ebay would be somehow pseudo-science, and (b) Wikipedia's own article on the shroud is much more ambiguous on whether it is medieval or not (although this is in fact immaterial, given (a)).
Hence I have removed it, pending someone offering an explanation of why they think proponents of this purported relic think that it is a scientific topic. Sumbuddi ( talk) 20:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
As Yworo correctly noted, no topics should be listed on this page unless there is a good reference or two associated with the article, even if some of them seem like they trivially belong in the category. I am going through and looking at all entries for which there are no citations on this page and either adding them from the main article or moving them here until someone can dig up a reference for it. I appreciate any help people can provide with this since it's quite a few entries. Thanks A13ean ( talk) 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of topics characterized as pseudoscience's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "APA":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The Expanding Earth hypothesis is a largely dismissed but never disproved SCIENTIFIC hypothesis and it does not belong to this list even if it were wrong. I do not believe in Expanding Earth. However, I find outrageous the systematic suppression of the hypothesis and its supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.7.119 ( talk) 00:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It is currently in the Idiosyncratic ideas section: The following concepts have only a very small number of proponents, yet have become notable. This seems correct based on the Expanding Earth page. Please discuss substantial changes such as blanking here on the talk page before taking action. » SkyyTrain (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
What User:77.209.7.119 is missing here is that this is not a list of untrue hypotheses. It is a list of topics that are put forward by their proponents as "science" - but who do not follow "the scientific method" in exploring that topic. If the expanding earth believers were actively doing (or at the very least, seriously proposing) clear experiments to test whether what they claim is true - or to disprove the mainstream theory - then they would perhaps not be classified as a pseudo-science. However, it is very clear that they do not do that. So it doesn't matter whether their hypothesis is true or false, widely believed or not, disproved or not - what matters is whether they claim to have a scientific theory - yet do not follow the scientific method. The Expanding Eath hypothesis has never been tested experimentally (which, incidentally, is probably why it's never formally been disproved) - that's what makes it a pseudo-science. Until its proponents start actually doing experiments, publishing results in mainstream journals, etc - it is most definitely a pseudoscience. SteveBaker ( talk) 13:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Geology is not an experimental science but an observational one. There is no possible experiment to prove or disprove Plate Tectonics or Expanding Earth. There are many observations consistent with these theories (with both, indeed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.57.71 ( talk) 22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There was just an edit/revert cycle over the part of the lead section starting "Besides explicitly using the word pseudoscience, some may also have used synonyms that help to explain why they consider a topic to be pseudoscientific...".
Are there any synonyms for the word "pseudoscience"? I've checked a couple of paper dictionaries and four online dictionaries - and I don't see one listed anywhere. Thesaurus.com and Roget's don't even offer roughly similar phrases or other near alternatives. I think that what we're trying to say here is that it suffices for there to be a mere description of some topic's lack of scientific rigor in order for it to make it onto this list...which is a fine sentiment - but harder to be dogmatic about. We all agree (I hope!) that homeopathy is a pseudoscience - and would belong on this list even if we couldn't find someone out there who happens to use the word explicitly because there is ample evidence of the lack of scientific method in that field. But in borderline cases (such as the one in the thread just above this one), we might reasonably require a definite use of the word in a solid reference in order to avoid endless debate...there are no synonyms.
Anyway - this might explain why one editor wishes this to be removed while another thinks it should remain.
It's probably better to rewrite this sentence without reference to "synonyms" than to re-re-revert.
SteveBaker ( talk) 00:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It's time we include this pervasive pseudoscientific belief in our list. Here are some sources I've been sifting through:
I'd like to workshop the wording here on the talkpage.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Climate change denialism — in the discussions surrounding the politics of global warming, assertions by some commentators that global warming is either not occurring or is not associated with the anthropogenic rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have been made. Such arguments are criticized for being pseudoscientific as they deny certain facts contained in the scientific consensus on climate change. [CCD 1] [CCD 2] [CCD 3]
I removed "Climate Change Denial" from the list of pseudoscientific topics. While it certainly is controversial topic, it is not fake science the way the Bermuda Triangle is. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a neutral reference work, the editors won't let themselves be bullied by contributors with a political agenda.
70.26.89.182 ( talk) 04:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand that BullRangifer is concerned that this is going to open a can of worms, but the fact is that I believe this diff gets rid of really ridiculous sentences that are essentially content free. That point A doesn't necessarily imply point B is a fact that does not bear mentioning in the lead. Neither does the claim that "opposing points of view exist". There are "opposing points of view" for almost everything in this encyclopedia, but, worse than that, the wording implies that there are people who believe that the subjects listed actually haven't been characterized as pseudoscience. This is, as far as I can tell, simply false. Finally, the claim that some of the subjects may "be in question" is not worthy of inclusion as it is obvious and the claim that other subjects might "be subject to divided professional opinion" is also irrelevant to the page. We don't need this pandering. We can get rid of it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
lol - QG, that wasn't a tweak, that was a revert - please don't be disingenuous. the revert is fine (I'm not that interested in this silly page), except that I think my version was better. Just for anyone interested in comparing them side by side:
comparison of versions of lead | |
---|---|
L2's revision | QG's reversion |
This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience. The characterizations listed here have been made by notable persons or groups, and may reflect beliefs held broadly by the scientific community, or by skeptical organizations, or by individual academics and researchers. Some such claims are made to educate the public about questionable scientific claims or potentially fraudulent or dangerous practices, others derive from efforts in the philosophy of science to define the nature of science, still others are indirect claims associated with humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. In general, these characterizations involve critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question. Inclusion on this list does not necessarily indicate the topic is itself a pseudoscience. Topics listed here may have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them, or may be included because certain claims derived from them are characterized as pseudoscientific, may be historically valid but refuted science that has been resurrected in pseudoscientific fashion. They may even be entirely non-scientific topics that have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each section details the particular sense and use of the term pseudoscience for that topic. |
This is a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience by the scientific community, skeptical organizations, or academics and researchers. Besides explicitly using the word pseudoscience, some entries have the characteristics of pseudoscience, and therefore inclusion may not necessarily indicate that a given entry is itself pseudoscience. Such characterizations range from specific denunciations to logical, methodological, or rhetorical critiques of claims made by proponents of ideas not explicitly accepted by the mainstream community. Also included are important concepts associated with the main entries. Some such concepts are stated to educate the public about questionable scientific claims or potentially fraudulent or dangerous practices, other concepts derive from efforts in the philosophy of science to define the nature of science, still others are notable parodies of pseudoscientific concepts. Some subjects in this list may have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them. For instance, some proposed explanations for hypnosis have been criticized for being pseudoscientific, and there is still no general consensus as to whether hypnosis is a real phenomenon or only a form of suggestion and role-enacting. [1] Some subjects and methods are included because certain claims regarding them are pseudoscientific, even though the subjects themselves may be legitimate, or the methods themselves may have some efficacy, thus indicating it is the claims that are pseudoscientific, and not necessarily the subjects or methods. |
Quick straw poll - which do people think is better?-- Ludwigs2 12:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take a crack:
This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience. The characterizations are made by academics and researchers and may reflect beliefs either held broadly by the scientific community or by skeptical organizations. Determinations of pseudoscience are made in the context of educating the public about questionable scientific claims or potentially fraudulent or dangerous practices, or as the result of efforts to define the nature of science, or as humorous parody of poor scientific reasoning. I
Topics listed here may have been subjected to scientific research in the past and may continue to be investigated by scientific research programs. Some of the ideas may have been at one time considered to be valid but have been later refuted and been resurrected in pseudoscientific fashion. Some ideas included are entirely non-scientific topics that have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each example includes details of the particular sense of the pseudoscientific characterization of that topic.
Help!
jps ( talk) 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Continuing to converge:
This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable, potentially fraudulent, or dangerous claims and practices, efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. Criticism of pseudoscience by the scientific community or skeptical organizations generally involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question. [2]
Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others listed here were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted and resurrected in pseudoscientific fashions. Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific but have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each example includes details of the particular sense of the pseudoscientific characterization of that topic.
Let's keep going!
jps ( talk) 14:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices, efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. Criticism of pseudoscience, generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations, involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question. [3] Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted and resurrected in a pseudoscientific fashion. Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific but have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. Each example includes details of the particular sense of the pseudoscientific characterization of that topic.
I'm not sure ball lightning is "no longer doubted by modern science". We have no reliable direct evidence, such as photos or video, that is not otherwise explainable. There's no real agreement on the physical characteristics of it. (Some reports describe slowly "rolling" balls of light that may pass through other objects or vanish like a popped bubble upon being touched, while others describe violent dancing or ricocheting behavior the ends with an explosive bang; they have no generally agreed-upon color, shape, or duration; there are no consistent conditions under which it appears; and so on.) While it seems there is a general acceptance that there's some actual phenomenon at work, there is no one generally accepted theory (or even two or three competing theories) that can adequately explain and predict its behavior; and the possible explanations that we do have are all over the place, ranging from vaporized silicon to microscopic black holes to visual hallucinations caused by lightning's magnetic pulse.
There does seem to be widespread acceptance that some phenomenon is at work, but it seems strange to say that scientists "no longer doubt" its existence when we can't even adequately define what we're talking about!
This entry should either be removed (as it's neither clearly true, nor considered obvious pseudoscience), or moved to a different section to reflect the fact that it has not been significantly explained. Ball lightning certainly doesn't fall into the same category with continental drift and meteors, both of which have vast quantities of observable evidence and experimental data backing them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.192.236.140 ( talk) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned the sources provided do not really support the inclusion of climate change denial as a topic characterized as pseudoscience. The first reference is an editorial in the journal Science. It laments an early Bush administration environmental policy decision and talks about the growing scientific consensus. However, it never really addresses 'climate change denial', it only addresses legitimate skeptics and very briefly at that. Naturally it never uses the term 'pseudoscience'. The second source is a report put out by Democrats on a congressional committee that does not seem to be available online. In any case, I assume such a partisan account would not be a reliable source. The third source is a lengthy journal editorial, which again doesn't appear to address 'climate change denial' or label it as pseudoscientific. In fact, in the last paragraph the author actually states, "As shown by countless social studies of science, science is intimately and inextricably interlinked with politics, and no transcendent definitions exist by which to distinguish true science from 'pseudoscience.'" I am open to the idea that climate change denialism might be characterized by reliable sources as pseudoscience, but I don't see it yet. – CWenger ( talk) 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why it is listed here. The entry on the topic makes a poor description of it (which could even be described as misrepresentation) and does not clearly states why it should be consider pseudoscience (appart of using quotes to denote words being used with irony, I guess). Furthermore, anthroposophical medicine can only be practiced by physicians who have a conventional medical education, including a degree from an established and certified medical school. In fact, there is plenty of research published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic and it is recognized by governments in Central Europe (such as Germany and Switzerland) where there are several hospitals completely ran by anthroposophic doctors. For reference look for the Health Technology Assessment Report on Anthroposophic Medicine that was comissioned by the Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office, which was published in English as the book "Anthroposophic Medicine" by Kienle, Kiene and Albornico edited by Schattauer GmbH. In addition, several universities in Germany and Switzerland have departments in their medicine faculties which are devoted to Anthroposophical Medicine (for example at Witten/Herdecke University and the University of Bern). How can this be considered pseudoscience? I think this is a case of bias because most information is published in a language different from English. Please also note that in the wikipedia page for Anthroposophical medicine there is mention of the criticism to this branch of medicine but it's not stated that it should be considered pseudoscience. Asinthior ( talk) 21:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Talk:Vedic science contains some interesting discussions about Ayurveda and at the end even mentions astrology. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
BullRangifer suggests that this list only documents that aspects of a topic have been characterized as pseudoscience. If we do intend this to be true, we would have to eliminate the editorializing, such as:Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted but resurrected in a pseudoscientific fashion. Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific but have in one way or another infringed on scientific domains or practices. This clearly suggests that at least many of the topics here are actually pseudoscientific. This is surely true, of course, but if we include it here then the article is clearly claiming much more than mere incidents of characterization. Should we rewrite the intro to ensure that we are strictly keeping to a documentation of incidences of labeling? Or should we accept that there is a further implication both implied and directly stated and take the consequences? (This is really a continuation of the on-going discussion about the tenor and intent of this article, a discussion that will probably never be settled unequivocally.) hgilbert ( talk) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for science, physics, or medical concusions is happening here [2]. PPdd ( talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Vote here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This article lack any theory that have previously been considered pseudoscience but is now considered fact. I added Copernican heliocentrism as it is one of the most notorious example of when the scientific consensus have been proven in their classification of something as pseudoscience. Another well known example is evolution that was branded as pseudoscience. If it is wrong to add these theories then "at one point or another in their history" should be removed from the initial description off the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.91.246 ( talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how people would feel about a potential move to List of pseudoscientific topics or simply List of pseudosciences. I think the current title is overly cautious and redundant. Obviously anything in this article has been characterized as pseudoscientific by reliable sources or it wouldn't be listed here, so the "characterized as" phrase is unnecessary. And if something is characterized as pseudoscience by a reliable source, we should simply report that it is pseudoscience according to "verifiability, not truth". – CWenger ( ^ • @) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I too oppose a title change per Hans Adler's and Ludwigs2's arguments. They are correct. The current title avoids lots of conflict and allows us to document what's happening in the real world without taking sides. That's our job here anyway. -- Brangifer ( talk) 06:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
For instance, what is "pseudoscientific" about cattle mutilations? Either they happen or they don't, and if they do happen, they are naturally susceptible to the claims and rigors of scientific investigation. Ditto for 'parapsychology,' which has achieved a level of replicability that is almost impossible to dissent from if one invokes a dispassionate assessment of the evidence, which is really the essence of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.38.82 ( talk) 21:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Neuro-linguistic Programming should be on this list. It is considered to be pseudoscience by scientists (see Neuro-linguistic_programming). Any arguments against putting NLP in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.187.19.61 ( talk) 22:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Recognizing that statements by an organization of scientists (i.e. "xyz scientific academy", etc) does not make something pseudoscience, I propose that the following sections be deleted, considering there are numerous legitimate scientific books, based on the scientific method, published on topics in these areas, which seem to contradict the "reliable" source of a statement made by a group of scientists that appear to have an agenda:
All text for each section is direct from the Wikipedia page that was restored by Bogdangiusca. My comments are below each section, indented:
Creation Science - belief that the origin of everything in the universe is the result of a first cause, brought about by a creator deity, and that this thesis is supported by geological, biological, and other scientific evidence.
Creation Biology - subset of creation science that tries to explain biology without macroevolution
Creationist cosmologies – cosmologies which, among other things, allow for a universe that is only thousands of years old.
Flood geology – creationist form of geology that advocates most of the geologic features on Earth are explainable by a global flood
Intelligent design – maintains that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
I rarely edit on wikipedia, I just don't have time, so I'm not sure the entire process for making these changes on the main article itself. Personally, I think the case I've made is clear and concise, and now I believe it is on Bogdangiusca to rebut my points if he believes that these should still in fact be declared pseudoscience.
Barwick (
talk)
18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Now we're talking about Pangea? This isn't a science debate here, there's plenty of forums we can do that on, so I've refrained. But if I may simply make a point, the 4.5 billion year age is based on a number of presuppositions, namely, Pangea's existence, the timeframe for its existence, etc. Besides, the 1.2 billion year upper maximum limit is one small part of his problem with the age (and existence) of the moon as we know it today, with its orbit as exists.
On top of that, his entire theory is based on the existence of a massive continent similar to Pangea, just his theory is that it didn't exist billions of years ago, but rather thousands, and his claims are backed by scientific study.
Now, if you'd like to debate the points Dr. Brown brings forth in a debate, by all means, let's do so (eMail works fine for that), though I'll likely have time to spend doing so in about ten years from now at this rate.
The entire point is, these guys are doing *science*. They are just as much doing science as any other scientist out there. I mean, for heaven sake, we have an entire 83kb page here on Wikipedia about *string theory* of all things. You want something that's freaking wacked out and seemingly pseudoscience, look no further than string theory. Science? Try falsifying that one, let me know how you do. But I don't see it on this list, nor do I think it should be put on this list. Barwick ( talk) 00:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Barwick has instituted: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/23 September 2011/List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. SteveBaker ( talk) 17:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Neuro-linguistic_programming#Scientific_criticism has enough sources to add it here. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned elsewhere, I'd like to recommend that this article be moved to List of pseudosciences (which currently redirects to this article). "Characterized" is unnecessarily ambiguous and misleading to some Wikipedians. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI: This is the previous discussion on renaming from early 2009 where several other possible renamings were considered. There were some interesting arguments made on both sides of the debate. All were ultimately rejected in favor of retaining the current title. SteveBaker ( talk) 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The description here needs to be fundamentally rewritten. That the event actually occurred isn't psuedoscience (and the current listing implies that). At issue is what caused said event, which has been subject to considerable debate.
Analogously: That President Kennedy was assassinated isn't up for debate. Whether or not the mafia, Fidel Castro, et al. were responsible is debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 ( talk) 00:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I expected to see the Time Cube under "Idiosyncratic ideas", but I see that the Cube is apparently off limits as its crankiness is so humungous that no reliable source can be bothered to state the obvious, or rather the whole logic (?) of the idea is so idiosyncratic and amusing that characterising it as pseudoscience would be equivalent to an entirely undeserved accolade and suggests that it deserves more than a quick laugh. But how about Hollow Earth, and its offshoot, the Hollow Moon? Is there any particular reason (other than a giant conspiracy consisting of Wikipedia rouge admins suppressing The Truth, of course) that this idea is missing from the list? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is that actually a word? or how the group identifies itself? When I try to type it in it gets the red squiggly line. It just seems like someone stuck a few too many suffixes on. If I'm wrong, my apologies. It just looks like the sort of vandalism that can go unnoticed due to subtleties. 74.132.249.206 ( talk) 19:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a ref named "scientificamerican" that is currently a dead link. The ref was to this bare URL: Scientific American. It is a link to a search engine. Searching google for ED460829 (part of the URL) yielded this web page which is apparently in regards to this document: Scientific American Frontiers Teaching Guides for Shows 801-805. One supposes the original intent was to reference this show. The ref is used several time in the article for the following topics: "Dowsing" "Ufology" "Therapeutic touch" "Perpetual motion" "Free energy".
Scientific American Frontiers does have episodes addressing fringe science and the transcripts are on line. If I find time I'll replace these links to the shows. Here's one for "Free energy" and on the same page "Therapeutic touch".
I would suppose this show as a citation is reliable enough for this article to show that these subjects are pseudoscience. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 07:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel that "characterized" is a poor choice of words. Perhaps "labeled" would be better. The naive reader would likely miss the nuances discussed in the lede.
Also, some of the " pseudoscience" does not quite fit the generally accepted definition. I'd rather not see any modern controversial topic listed here, if its proponents have indicated a significant willingness to subject their findings or claims to independent review.
Therefore, I recommend a page move, e.g., to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. This would clarify that someone who? has labeled each of the various ideas as pseudoscience.
Another thing that would help is to separate the ones that are generally regarded as pseudoscience, from the ones which are mere controversial, such as:
Perhaps, like the section on parodies, there can be a section on modern controversies. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/creation_timeline_chart_color_201107.pdf)
John Lloyd Scharf 01:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the tag based upon the information provided by John Lloyd Scharf. Wikipedia is not a forum for ideological battles. If someone wants to come up with better information, perhaps addressing Johnuniq's concerns, demonstrating problems with that or other sections of the article, then the tags can be easily restored. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it relevant that Zecharia Sitchin has no degree in Semitic Languages? Strictly speaking, Sumerian is not related to any known language. However, I'm not familiar with the academic subject of "Semetic Languages", which may include the study of Sumerian as well, because the latter was very important to the first ones. Could anyone verify this? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The file size of this page is HUGE! I suggest cutting it way down by doing the following. Since all the topics have WP pages that already explain why they are pseudoscience I recommend that all of the topics on this page be reduced to just one line with no references. They are already linked to where the topic is discussed in full. It is duplication to have the same references here and on the topic pages. A note can be made at the top of the page explaining where to go to find the details for the different topics. And a comment can be added at the top warn editors not to add details to this page but to go to the topic pages. SmittysmithIII ( talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
SmittysmithIII ( talk · contribs), who has made 357 edits to this article, and Sacramentosam ( talk · contribs) are blocked as sockpuppets. As they were evading a block, their edits may be reverted. I'd be in favor of reverting all the way back [5] and then making any useful fixes. This is a prolific puppetmaster and success only encourages him. Dougweller ( talk) 16:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The ideas of Masaru Emoto need mention. -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT) needs mentioning. -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This list should have Applied Kinesiology as its own category under Health and Medicine rather than a subset of Chiropractics. BDORT would be a good example of a topic which could be a subset of Applied Kinesiology. Another example would be NAET which uses Applied Kinesiology for allergy diagnoses. 68.120.89.89 ( talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
68.120.89.89 ( talk) 21:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The view of memetics as a pseudoscience seems to be a minority view. First, "memetics pseudoscience" gives 24,000 hits in Google, vs 20 times that many hits for "memetics." Also try examining the first couple of pages for "memetics pseudoscience." No more than ten percent of the links under these search terms supports that view. The statements are either supportive of memetics as a useful model or mixed with pro and con voices. "Protoscience is mentioned frequently.
The number of books many by PhD's supporting memetics is certainly larger than those denouncing it.
One of the arguments against memetics is that we can't observe one. That's not a good argument or electronics would be a pseudoscience since you can't see electrons either.
There was 11 years of discussion on such subjects on the Memetics discussion list. One of mine:
At 12:49 PM 14/05/03 -0400, Scott wrote:
(re Richard Brodie's comments)
>Is there sufficient reason to assume that ideas are isomorphic between >individuals? If so, provide some here:
I would say so, where I take "isomorphic" to mean similar.
In a short form, one definition of memes (that does not conflict with the definition of a meme as pure information) is "an element of culture" where culture is the sum total of information available to humans.
Does anyone have serious disagreement with this so far?
Baseball (or cricket for the limies) is an element of culture.
Are there objections to this?
Now consider this variation in a thought experiment I have used here before where a person can be tested for having the information in their brain about baseball by teaching an isolated group of children (who have never played ball and stick games) a recognizable game of baseball. You dump kids, teacher and equipment on an island and come back in two months.
The variation is that the teacher on this assignment doesn't know a thing about baseball, but is given books on baseball rules and how to play the game before being dumped on the island.
If the kids are playing a recognizable game of baseball when the experimenter returns, then the only information source for what they are doing is the books. I.e., the books contain the baseball meme (information).
I don't think you could get funding for this experiment because the outcome is too obvious.
Now information has to be "contained" in matter of some kind (photons included). I am not picky about what form it takes, human minds, ink on paper, magnetic tape or chipped into stone. Memes can sometimes be loaded into minds from what a person can get out of made objects, a shoe, a pot, a chipped rock. (I have spent a lot of my professional life "reverse engineering.")
Memes are often learned from watching others (though not exclusively as a certain person claims). Chimps learn to collect termites with sticks by watching adult chimps. You could almost certainly transfer this meme by showing video tape of collecting termites to naive chimps. You *might* be able to convey the "termiting meme" to a chimp that knew sign language without demonstrating what to do. (You could certainly do it with humans.)
On the subject of how accurately information replicates from mind to mind, that depends largely on how much effort is put into transmitting it. In the days before pocket calculators, most children learned multiplication tables with a very high degree of fidelity. The process is much like communication between computers. Computers test the data they get from other computers and will retry if the data is corrupted (which it frequently is).
Human children are likewise taught, tested, and corrected on spelling and math till most of them "get it right." Game rules (three strikes, four balls) tend to be very accurately replicated. This is not true of all memes, look up "Play it Sam" and "Play it again Sam" in Google.
But some amount of mutation/sloppy copying/random recombination/outright invention is as essential to memetics as it is to genetics. Without variation, there is nothing to be selected. The differential survival of memes (and why) is what memetics is about.
Keith Henson
PS. The meme that fruits, particularly citrus, prevent scurvy was a significant element in the power of the British Navy at one time.
http://cfpm.org/~majordom/memetics/2000/14883.html
Since I am a knowledgeable person about this topic, I am reluctant to just delete this section. I suppose I could add to it because there are plenty of cites from books and articles stating that memetics is a good scientific model or considered the study a protoscience. Keith Henson ( talk) 22:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Not mentioned is that in the same book is Susan Blackmore's "Memes as Good Science."
Given that Polichak is the only one cited, I think this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undue#Due_and_undue_weight
Though if you can find a substantial number of people to offset the likes of EO Willson, Dawkins, Hofstadter and Dennet, I will agree that memetics is properly classed as pseudoscience. Keith Henson (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
(The above pulled in from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller to give context.)
I was surprised to see it's not listed here, given some of the sourced statements near the bottom of that article. I'll put together a typical 1-liner here in a bit and add it to the page later if there's no objections. a13ean ( talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Naturopathy, or Naturopathic Medicine, is a type of alternative medicine based on a belief in vitalism, which posits that a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as metabolism, reproduction, growth, and adaptation. [4] Naturopathy has been characterized a pseudoscientific [5] [6] It has particularly been criticized for its unproven, disproven, or dangerous treatments. [7] [8] [9] [10] Natural methods and chemicals are not necessarily safer or more effective than artificial or synthetic ones; any treatment capable of eliciting an effect may also have deleterious side effects. [11] [6] [12] [13]
Thoughts? a13ean ( talk) 15:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that makes a lot of sense a13ean if you want to add it. Lukekfreeman ( talk) 02:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to mention it here the first time, but there is a thread at ANI which refers to this page. a13ean ( talk) 15:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Should that be here? It's a new term to me, but after reading this I was sort of expecting to find it here already ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hypnosis is based on science. Research into hypnosis is carried out in recognized laboratories and published in peer reviewed journals. That fact that it can be misused does not detract from its core basis in observable fact.
List of research which is irrelevant for this list |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here is a brief review of some of the peer reviewed research evidence on the effectiveness of hypnosis: 90.6% Success Rate for Smoking Cessation Using Hypnosis Of 43 consecutive patients undergoing this treatment protocol, 39 reported remaining abstinent from tobacco use at follow-up (6 months to 3 years post-treatment). This represents a 90.6% success rate using hypnosis. University of Washington School of Medicine, Depts. of Anesthesiology and Rehabilitation Medicine, Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2001 Jul;49(3):257-66. Barber J. 87% Reported Abstinence From Tobacco Use With Hypnosis A field study of 93 male and 93 female CMHC outpatients examined the facilitation of smoking cessation by using hypnosis. At 3-month follow-up, 86% of the men and 87% of the women reported continued abstinence from the use of tobacco using hypnosis. Performance by gender in a stop-smoking program combining hypnosis and aversion. Johnson DL, Karkut RT. Adkar Associates, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana. Psychol Rep. 1994 Oct;75(2):851-7. PMID 7862796 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 81% Reported They Had Stopped Smoking After Hypnosis Thirty smokers enrolled in an HMO were referred by their primary physician for treatment. Twenty-one patients returned after an initial consultation and received hypnosis for smoking cessation. At the end of treatment, 81% of those patients reported that they had stopped smoking, and 48% reported abstinence at 12 months post-treatment. Texas A&M University, System Health Science Center, College of Medicine, College Station, TX USA. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2004 Jan;52(1):73-81. Clinical hypnosis for smoking cessation: preliminary results of a three-session intervention. Elkins GR, Rajab MH. Hypnosis Patients Twice As Likely To Remain Smoke-Free After Two Years Study of 71 smokers showed that after a two-year follow up, patients that quit with hypnosis were twice as likely to remain smoke-free than those who quit on their own. Guided health imagery for smoking cessation and long-term abstinence. Wynd, CA. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2005; 37:3, pages 245-250. Hypnosis More Effective Than Drug Interventions For Smoking Cessation Group hypnosis sessions, evaluated at a less effective success rate (22% success) than individualized hypnosis sessions. However, group hypnosis sessions were still demonstrated here as being more effective than drug interventions. Ohio State University, College of Nursing, Columbus, OH 43210, USA Descriptive outcomes of the American Lung Association of Ohio hypnotherapy smoking cessation program. Ahijevych K, Yerardi R, Nedilsky N. Hypnosis Most Effective Says Largest Study Ever: 3 Times as Effective as Patch and 15 Times as Effective as Willpower. Hypnosis is the most effective way of giving up smoking, according to the largest ever scientific comparison of ways of breaking the habit. A meta-analysis, statistically combining results of more than 600 studies of 72,000 people from America and Europe to compare various methods of quitting. On average, hypnosis was over three times as effective as nicotine replacement methods and 15 times as effective as trying to quit alone. University of Iowa, Journal of Applied Psychology, How One in Five Give Up Smoking. October 1992. (Also New Scientist, October 10, 1992.) Hypnosis Over 30 Times as Effective for Weight Loss Investigated the effects of hypnosis in weight loss for 60 females, at least 20% overweight. Treatment included group hypnosis with metaphors for ego-strengthening, decision making and motivation, ideomotor exploration in individual hypnosis, and group hypnosis with maintenance suggestions. Hypnosis was more effective than a control group: an average of 17 lbs lost by the hypnosis group vs. an average of 0.5 lbs lost by the control group, on follow-up. Cochrane, Gordon; Friesen, J. (1986). Hypnotherapy in weight loss treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 489-492. Two Years Later: Hypnosis Subjects Continued To Lose Significant Weight 109 people completed a behavioral treatment for weight management either with or without the addition of hypnosis. At the end of the 9-week program, both interventions resulted in significant weight reduction. At 8-month and 2-year follow-ups, the hypnosis subjects were found to have continued to lose significant weight, while those in the behavioral-treatment-only group showed little further change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1985) Hypnosis Subjects Lost More Weight Than 90% of Others and Kept it Off Researchers analyzed 18 studies comparing a cognitive behavioral therapy such as relaxation training, guided imagery, self monitoring, or goal setting with the same therapy supplemented by hypnosis. Those who received the hypnosis lost more weight than 90 percent of those not receiving hypnosis and maintained the weight loss two years after treatment ended. University of Connecticut, Storrs Allison DB, Faith MS. Hypnosis as an adjunct to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy for obesity: a meta-analytic reappraisal. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64(3):513-516. Hypnosis More Than Doubled Average Weight Loss Study of the effect of adding hypnosis to cognitive-behavioral treatments for weight reduction, additional data were obtained from authors of two studies. Analyses indicated that the benefits of hypnosis increased substantially over time. Kirsch, Irving (1996). Hypnotic enhancement of cognitive-behavioral weight loss treatments–Another meta-reanalysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64 (3), 517-519. Hypnosis Showed Significantly Lower Post-Treatment Weights Two studies compared overweight smoking and non-smoking adult women in an hypnosis-based, weight-loss program. Both achieved significant weight losses and decreases in Body Mass Index. Follow-up study replicated significant weight losses and declines in Body Mass Index. The overt aversion and hypnosis program yielded significantly lower post-treatment weights and a greater average number of pounds lost. Weight loss for women: studies of smokers and nonsmokers using hypnosis and multi-component treatments with and without overt aversion. Johnson DL, Psychology Reprints. 1997 Jun;80(3 Pt 1):931-3. Hypnotherapy group with stress reduction achieved significantly more weight loss than the other two treatments. Randomised, controlled, parallel study of two forms of hypnotherapy (directed at stress reduction or energy intake reduction), vsdietary advice alone in 60 obese patients with obstructive sleep apnoea on nasal continuous positive airway pressure treatment. J Stradling, D Roberts, A Wilson and F Lovelock, Chest Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK Hypnosis can more than double the effects of traditional weight loss approaches An analysis of five weight loss studies reported in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in 1996 showed that the “… weight loss reported in the five studies indicates that hypnosis can more than double the effects” of traditional weight loss approaches. University of Connecticut, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in 1996 (Vol. 64, No. 3, pgs 517-519). Weight loss is greater where hypnosis is utilized Research into cognitive-behavioral weight loss treatments established that weight loss is greater where hypnosis is utilized. It was also established that the benefits of hypnosis increase over time. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1996) Showed Hypnosis As “An Effective Way To Lose Weight” A study of 60 females who were at least 20% overweight and not involved in other treatment showed hypnosis is an effective way to lose weight. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1986) Reference Hypnosis Reduces Frequency and Intensity of Migraines Compared the treatment of migraine by hypnosis and autohypnosis with the treatment of migraine by the drug prochlorperazine (Stemetil). Results show that the number of attacks and the number of people who suffered blinding attacks were significantly lower for the group receiving hypnotherapy than for the group receiving prochlorperazine. For the group on hypnotherapy, these two measures were significantly lower when on hypnotherapy than when on the previous treatment. It is concluded that further trials of hypnotherapy are justified against some other treatment not solely associated with the ingestion of tablets. Anderson JA, Basker MA, Dalton R, Migraine and hypnotherapy, International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis 1975; 23(1): 48-58. Hypnosis Reduces Pain and Speeds up Recovery from Surgery Since 1992, we have used hypnosis routinely in more than 1400 patients undergoing surgery. We found that hypnosis used with patients as an adjunct to conscious sedation and local anesthesia was associated with improved intraoperative patient comfort, and with reduced anxiety, pain, intraoperative requirements for anxiolytic and analgesic drugs, optimal surgical conditions and a faster recovery of the patient. We reported our clinical experience and our fundamental research. [Hypnosis and its application in surgery] Faymonville ME, Defechereux T, Joris J, Adant JP, Hamoir E, Meurisse M, Service d’Anesthesie-Reanimation, Universite de Liege, Rev Med Liege. 1998 Jul;53(7):414-8. Hypnosis Reduces Pain Intensity Analysis of the simple-simple main effects, holding both group and condition constant, revealed that application of hypnotic analgesia reduced report of pain intensity significantly more than report of pain unpleasantness. Dahlgren LA, Kurtz RM, Strube MJ, Malone MD, Differential effects of hypnotic suggestion on multiple dimensions of pain.Journal of Pain & Symptom Management. 1995; 10(6): 464-70. Hypnosis Reduces Pain of Headaches and Anxiety The improvement was confirmed by the subjective evaluation data gathered with the use of a questionnaire and by a significant reduction in anxiety scores. Melis PM, Rooimans W, Spierings EL, Hoogduin CA, Treatment of chronic tension-type headache with hypnotherapy: a single-blind time controlled study. Headache 1991; 31(10): 686-9. Hypnosis Lowered Post-treatment Pain in Burn Injuries Patients in the hypnosis group reported less post treatment pain than did patients in the control group. The findings are used to replicate earlier studies of burn pain hypnoanalgesia, explain discrepancies in the literature, and highlight the potential importance of motivation with this population. Patterson DR, Ptacek JT, Baseline pain as a moderator of hypnotic analgesia for burn injury treatment. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 1997; 65(1): 60-7. Hypnosis Lowered Phantom Limb Pain Hypnotic procedures appear to be a useful adjunct to established strategies for the treatment of phantom limb pain and would repay further, more systematic, investigation. Suggestions are provided as to the factors which should be considered for a more systematic research program. Treatment of phantom limb pain using hypnotic imagery. Oakley DA, Whitman LG, Halligan PW, Department of Psychology, University College, London, UK. Hypnosis Has a Reliable and Significant Impact on Acute and Chronic Pain Hypnosis has been demonstrated to reduce analogue pain, and studies on the mechanisms of laboratory pain reduction have provided useful applications to clinical populations. Studies showing central nervous system activity during hypnotic procedures offer preliminary information concerning possible physiological mechanisms of hypnotic analgesia. Randomized controlled studies with clinical populations indicate that hypnosis has a reliable and significant impact on acute procedural pain and chronic pain conditions. Methodological issues of this body of research are discussed, as are methods to better integrate hypnosis into comprehensive pain treatment. Hypnosis and clinical pain. Patterson DR, Jensen MP, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA USA 98104 Psychol Bull. 2003 Jul;129(4):495-521. Hypnosis is a Powerful Tool in Pain Therapy and is Biological in Addiction to Psychological Attempting to elucidate cerebral mechanisms behind hypnotic analgesia, we measured regional cerebral blood flow with positron emission tomography in patients with fibromyalgia, during hypnotically-induced analgesia and resting wakefulness. The patients experienced less pain during hypnosis than at rest. The cerebral blood-flow was bilaterally increased in the orbitofrontal and subcallosial cingulate cortices, the right thalamus, and the left inferior parietal cortex, and was decreased bilaterally in the cingulate cortex. The observed blood-flow pattern supports notions of a multifactorial nature of hypnotic analgesia, with an interplay between cortical and subcortical brain dynamics. Copyright 1999 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Functional anatomy of hypnotic analgesia: a PET study of patients with fibromyalgia. Wik G, Fischer H, Bragee B, Finer B, Fredrikson M, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Karolinska Institute and Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden Eur J Pain. 1999 Mar;3(1):7-12. Hypnosis Useful in Hospital Emergency Rooms Hypnosis can be a useful adjunct in the emergency department setting. Its efficacy in various clinical applications has been replicated in controlled studies. Application to burns, pain, pediatric procedures, surgery, psychiatric presentations (e.g., coma, somatoform disorder, anxiety, and post traumatic stress), and obstetric situations (e.g., hyperemesis, labor, and delivery) are described. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2000 May;18(2):327-38, x. The use of hypnosis in emergency medicine. Peebles-Kleiger MJ, Menninger School of Psychiatry and Mental Health Sciences, Menninger Clinic, Topeka, KS, USA. peeblemj@menninger.edu Significantly More Methadone Addicts Quit with Hypnosis. 94% Remained Narcotic Free Significant differences were found on all measures. The experimental group had significantly less discomfort and illicit drug use, and a significantly greater amount of cessation. At six month follow up, 94% of the subjects in the experimental group who had achieved cessation remained narcotic free. A comparative study of hypnotherapy and psychotherapy in the treatment of methadone addicts. Manganiello AJ, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1984; 26(4): 273-9. Hypnosis Shows 77 Percent Success Rate for Drug Addiction Treatment has been used with 18 clients over the last 7 years and has shown a 77 percent success rate for at least a 1-year follow-up. 15 were being seen for alcoholism or alcohol abuse, 2 clients were being seen for cocaine addiction, and 1 client had a marijuana addiction Intensive Therapy: Utilizing Hypnosis in the Treatment of Substance Abuse Disorders. Potter, Greg, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, Jul 2004. Raised Self-esteem & Serenity. Lowered Impulsivity and Anger In a research study on self-hypnosis for relapse prevention training with chronic drug/alcohol users. Participants were 261 veterans admitted to Substance Abuse Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (SARRTPs). individuals who used repeated self-hypnosis “at least 3 to 5 times a week,” at 7-week follow-up, reported the highest levels of self-esteem and serenity, and the least anger/impulsivity, in comparison to the minimal-practice and control groups. American Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy (a publication of the American Psychological Association) 2004 Apr;46(4):281-97) Hypnosis For Cocaine Addiction Documented Case Study Hypnosis was successfully used to overcome a $500 (five grams) per day cocaine addiction. The subject was a female in her twenties. After approximately 8 months of addiction, she decided to use hypnosis in an attempt to overcome the addiction itself. Over the next 4 months, she used hypnosis three times a day and at the end of this period, her addiction was broken, and she has been drug free for the past 9 years. Hypnosis was the only intervention, and no support network of any kind was available. The use of hypnosis in cocaine addiction. Page RA, Handley GW, Ohio State University, Lima, OH USA 45804. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1993 Oct;36(2):120-3. Healed 41% faster from fracture Healed significantly faster from surgery Two studies from Harvard Medical School show hypnosis significantly reduces the time it takes to heal. Study One: Six weeks after an ankle fracture, those in the hypnosis group showed the equivalent of eight and a half weeks of healing. Study Two: Three groups of people studied after breast reduction surgery. Hypnosis group healed “significantly faster” than supportive attention group and control group. Harvard Medical School, Carol Ginandes and Union Institute in Cincinnati, Patricia Brooks, Harvard University Gazette |
NRGized ( talk) 02:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine cleary shows hypnosis is evidence based for a wide range of conditions and behaviors http://nccam.nih.gov/health/hypnosis
Please remove hypnosis from the list of "Pseudoscience" as quickly as you can!
Thank You Michael Ellner Diplomat - International Medical and Dental Hypnotherapy Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ellner ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears that these two requests come from false allegations made here:
Rather than saying that these are lies, it is more likely that they are based on a misunderstanding and are thus relatively innocent misrepresentations of fact. Both comments use the similar phrases "pseudoscience list" and "list of pseudoscience". They mean the same thing, but that's not what this list is about, as explained above. If anyone wants to comment on that forum to prevent others from being confused/deceived, please do so. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Please add Pyramid power. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm horrified. This article is pure sceptics-organisation-POV an not approximately a enzycolpedic article. The sources are sceptic websites and typical publications. -- WSC ® 16:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Widescreen is generally correct. List articles like this often rest solidly on the foundations of WP:OR. Unless there are reliably sourced lists which support item inclusion, adding it to the list is pure sysnthesis. Unfortunately, lists (and categories) are one of the edge cases that wikipedia does not handle well, so there is little hope in reigning in this general style of article. Other good examples of this include List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and List of scandals with "-gate" suffix aprock ( talk) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"When available" is a key phrase. There are many subjects which Wikipedia is required to cover (nearly all subjects in existence) which are not mentioned in "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks," and yet they are covered in many other reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, websites, skeptical publications, etc.. Each type of source is reliable for certain purposes and not for other purposes. Some are RS for scientific fact, and others are RS for opinions. You seem to fail to realize the difference and want to exclude skeptical sources for any purpose at all. Why? They document the opinions of skeptics. Those opinions are notable and part of the "sum total of human knowledge."
Does the German Wikipedia exclude the documentation of any opinions at all? I have a hard time imagining that would be the case, for that would make it a very boring encyclopedia, with huge gaps in the information it is supposed to provide. For example, the lives of celebrities get NO mention in "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks," and yet the German Wikipedia probably covers them. Isn't that true? One could even imagine an article about a celebrity in which the RS policy is applied very differently to different parts of the article, depending on the subject: For their birth information, some sources are allowed and others are not; for their filming schedule, scientific sources are irrelevant and not RS for that purpose; and for some medical/scientific information in the same article, only WP:MEDRS will do the job.
This is why a good understanding of the wide variety of applications for the RS policy is important. My watchlist right now says this at the top: "You have 7,616 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I have edited more articles, but that's the current status of my watchlist, and those articles cover every conceivable subject. I have to know the RS policy pretty well to deal with such a variety of subjects.
You can't just cite "RS" as if it's a single-word policy that can only be applied in one manner. It has a huge variety of applications. If you ever expect to be a good editor and taken seriously, you will have to learn to try to imagine EVERY type of human knowledge, whether it be proven fact, history, event, belief, imagination, hallucination, rumor, lie, conspiracy theory, ..... literally imagine EVERY possible type. THEN, no matter how ridiculous you feel it is, you will defend its inclusion here, provided that inclusion and documentation is done properly. That's why we have articles on chiropractic, homeopathy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God, and the Higgs boson. (We have more evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson, the "God particle," than we do for the existence of God, yet we have an article about God! Imagine that!) We are supposed to document ALL of those bits of knowledge IF they are notable enough to be mentioned in RS, and then we use those sources.
Sometimes that means using sources from deluded true believers that are ONLY reliable for documenting the existence of false ideas, and are good for NOTHING else. They are actually lies, yet we use them. Those are fringe ideas and fringe sources, and no scientific source will ever touch them, but scientific skeptics will deal with them because they are debunking nonsense and defending the public from deception.
The WP:FRINGE guideline covers such uses of fringe sources, and the skeptical sources which cover fringe subjects. We are REQUIRED to use them, not ignore the subject. Ignoring the subject would violate the main goal of Wikipedia, which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge." We don't want knowledge gaps here. We don't want anyone coming here to find information about something they have heard or read elsewhere, and leaving empty handed. Wikipedia is often the only place they will discover "the other side of the story" because they never read skeptical sources. That's a good thing. -- Brangifer ( talk) 18:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
@Enric Naval: You say this list is reliable because of WP Policy Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. You cited that Lists are "considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" There are independent reliable sources. But this sources doesn't prove such a list. Seems like we have different opinons of what a "independent and reliable" source is. For example: The source at the topic "moon conspiracy" [28] is a govermental source. Not a scientific source. That's far away of being independent. At the hole source you couldn't find the term "pseudoscience". The NASA-page calles the conspiracy theory a hoax. A hoax! Not a pseudoscience. That's no source! It's not indipendent, it's not scientific and it doesn't prove the entry as pseudoscience at all. Even the NASA calles that theory a hoax. They call it nonsense! And skepical souces like skeptical inquirer are the opposite of a "independent and reliable" source. Skeptical organisations are ideological associations just as some topics in this list. Just because you are more familiar whith the skeptical ideology you can't decide which ideology is more relevant for such a list. Futher you say that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." As I said before, there are too much oppinions in philosophy of science to esthablish such a list. Or you have to call the list List of topics who would characterized as pseudoscience in the philosophy of Karl Popper or List of topics who would characterized as pseudoscience in the philosophy of Imre Lakatos (I hope that is right english). As I said before: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PSEUDOSCIENCE! There are many different oppionons of what pseudoscience is! Such a list is misleading and a overgeneralization. You claim there's one definition of pseudoscience which means the same thing. But that's a great mistake. -- WSC ® 07:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears this section is Flogging a dead horse. http://i.imgur.com/XxFzM.jpg • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, now we're finally getting to the crux of Widescreen's motivations:
1. There definitely IS "such a thing as pseudoscience." You may doubt that, but try taking up the issue at the pseudoscience article, not here. You're wasting our time and indeed are kicking a dead horse.
2. No one has claimed there is only "one definition of pseudoscience." There are several variations, so we follow what RS say and use their definitions. Again, that's an issue for the pseudoscience article, not here.
3. You still fail to understand Wikipedia. Articles cover the subject from EVERY angle. Even scientific subjects are covered from all angles. That includes popular controversies, media coverage, erroneous views and misunderstandings, etc.. The basic scientific facts of the matter are still presented using scientific sources, but the other angles often use other sources, some of them far from scientific. As long as they are RS "for the purpose" we use them.
4. Since pseudoscience is in the borderland between science and nonsense, and scientific skeptics are active in that area because of their interest in defending the public from deception and "unscientific ideas masquerading as science" (a simple definition of pseudoscience), the skeptics are the de facto experts in the area of pseudoscience, so you're not gong to have any success in excluding their views from these articles. Their views are RS for this subject.
5. Your continual IDHT attitude is really tiresome. You have been told many times that you're wasting our time, and you are still doing it. Please find something else to do, or at least take up the issues at the appropriate places. This is not the place. Until the policies of the English Wikipedia are changed to be in line with the German Wikipedia, you're not going to make any progress here, and you're causing disruption here, just like you've done at the German Wikipedia. There you have one of the longest block logs I've seen in a long time. There you've been banned/blocked for wasting time and disruption, and you're about to have that happen here if you don't stop.
6. You seem to have an issue with the Moon landing conspiracy theories matter. Take it up at that article, not here. If they use sources we don't use, or we use sources they don't use, then the matter can be harmonized. There are sources regarding the pseudoscientific arguments used to keep the hoaxes and theories alive. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion based upon generalities is pretty obviously getting nowhere. Instead of claiming the entire article has pov problems, I suggest identifying the very worst case within the article and working from there. If others agree there is one problem, then we can look if similar problems exist across the entire article. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no polite way of saying this; if you want to rant about WP:FRINGE this is not the place. Policy and guidelines support the existence of the article, and it easily survived AfD for that reason. The article exists, ranting about it's existence here does not help you. You aren't convincing anyone, so please stop. If you continue to flog a dead horse on the talk page I will request at Arbitration enforcement that you be given a warning about discretionary sanctions in this topic area, because you are wasting everyone's time and you aren't particularly civil about it. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Note, I have made a request at WP:AE about Widescreen, due to the continual IDHT attitude. IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute over whether psychoanalysis can be considered a pseudoscience or not. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 21:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Rather than edit-war, let's discuss.
The first sentence of the lede currently reads, "This is a list of topics that have, at one point or another in their history, been characterized as pseudoscience by some academics or researchers." I have issues with the word "some." Nearly every item on the list is recognized by most, if not all, academics and researchers as pseudoscience. The very few items that are not are sufficiently covered by the "at one point or another in their history."
I would assert that giving the impression that astrology, moon landing conspiracy theories, the Bermuda Triangle, channeling, psychic surgeries, graphology, phrenology, biorhythms, colon cleansing, faith healing, magnet therapy, naturopathy, Holocaust denialism, creation science, feng shui, quantum mysticism, perpetual motion or scientific racism -- just to name a few that caught my eye as I went down the list -- have ever been considered to be actual science by academics and researchers makes is far less neutral than simply leaving out the word "some." TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
But the inclusion criteria in this list is not fields generally or widely considered pseudoscience, but fields that have been characterized as such by anyone at all in a reliable source. In fact we should change "some" for "any". ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |work=
and |journal=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
dead link
{{
cite web}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |chapter_title=
ignored (|chapter=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |section_title=
ignored (
help)
ACS
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).