![]() | This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
Moved from article for discussion.
- Koranic scientific foreknowledge (or Qur'anic science or Hadeeth science) asserts that foundational Islamic religious texts made accurate statements about the world that science verified hundreds of years later. This belief is a common theme in Bucailleism. [1] According to Turkish American physicist Taner Edis, many Muslims appreciate technology and respect the role that science plays in its creation. As a result, he says there is a great deal of Islamic pseudoscience attempting to reconcile this respect with other respected religious beliefs. Edis maintains that the motivation to read modern scientific truths into holy books is also stronger for Muslims than Christians. [2] This is because, according to Edis, true criticism of the Quran is almost non-existent in the Muslim world, causing Muslims to believe that scientific truths simply must appear in the Quran. [2]
My objections are that the first source never mentions pseudoscience, Islam, or the Koran. Maybe other words are used? That leaves one podcast, and only one source is not good enough sourcing for inclusion here. This is why we require an independent article, or inclusion in an article, that specifically mentions the topic and uses more than one RS to label it as pseudoscience. This prevents gaming the system, because anyone can find one or more sources that labels anything as pseudoscience. We can't allow that here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
References
The strict inclusion criteria were a condition. There was a lot of resistance when we tried to create and keep this list in existence, and only after these inclusion criteria were formulated and enforced did we finally find peace, and the list has now been here for a very long time. IIRC, we had the whole community against us, but they finally backed off.
The current attempts to circumvent or weaken those conditions will endanger the list again. Please don't go there. Learn from history. Those who forget history are doomed to have their work destroyed. Is this a joe job? (Bad joke. I don't believe that for a moment.) -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I still don't like the title of the article. It should just be list of pseudosciences. But whatever.... ....My opinion from years past was that the ideal framing for this list with an eye towards WP:LISTCRIT should be to find excellent sources that say "X is psuedoscience" or a directly equivalent argument and then just list the idea without much commentary.... but the problem comes in when you hit things like psychoanalysis or string theory where I can point to severe critics who are pretty reliable doing just that with some controversy. This isn't even counting the unreliable idiots saying things like modern synthesis is pseudoscience or whatnot. ....Long and the short of this is that I think that the current ugly compromise is about as functional we can get as long as Wikipedia lacks an editorial board (which, let's be honest, it always will). jps ( talk) 19:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
This list article does not have a "proper" edit note. It should.
Currently there is some disagreement regarding whether we should require that the entry be described as pseudoscience in the main article. There is a hidden editors note somewhere that states this requirement, but apparently it was added without discussion many years ago.
So, let's try to craft an edit note, and address whether the above requirement should be part of the inclusion criteria.
Thanks. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 14:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
It should be enough that we have sources here describing it as such.By that standard Climate change [4] and Evolution [5] belong on this list. Anyone could just start a POVFORK here. Hence the note added by Valjean is a pretty good idea. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 02:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
A random editor could cherry pick some random RS to say that a topic is pseudoscience and add it to this article, when there's consensus on the primary article against labeling it as suchOur existing policies of WP:RSUW, WP:FRINGE, and Wikipedia:Scientific consensus handle that situation pretty well already. This is also probably the most watched article on the site by subscribers of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard! Any addition of material like that to this page would be removed pretty quickly, citing the aforementioned policies. This is a solution looking for a problem, imo. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable .... As long as you have a few sources that mention the the idea of the items as a group, you can have a list of anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 23:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
group or setwould have to have appeared en masse in a few reliable sources... that exists? Per the Arbitration Ruling noted at the top of this talk page, this is not a list of anything, it has limits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 16:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
That would mean this entiregroup or setwould have to have appeared en masse in a few reliable sources
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. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Because if that were the bar, then we wouldn't need this sentence at all, as the source showing each member would also show notability for each individual. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
We wouldn't want to exclude topics just because they're not notable enough for their own WP article. A lot of pseudoscience is not notable, but people coming here after hearing about them deserve at least a little guidance. I'd say that if we have no article, we should have an RS (best an accessible RS) here describing it as pseudoscience for those who wish to follow up on it. — kwami ( talk) 23:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
For reference, the text of the current edit note is below. It resides inside an html comment near the top of the article.
NOTE ON SOURCES AND INCLUSION:
- WP:RS states that sources must be generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
- WP:V states that [t]he appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.
Please note that due to the controversial nature of the label "Pseudoscience", we must demand a reliable source from an appropriate source in order to include it. If something seems to be obviously pseudoscience, then either such a source likely exists somewhere or it isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion.
The inclusion criteria must necessarily be strict enough that notability should be established at the main article first, using RS. So ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here.
UNSOURCED entries WILL BE REMOVED in order to keep this list clear of original research and possible NPOV violations.
For more clarification, see the top of the talk page.
It is my strong preference that we should either:
a) Move it (with perhaps some revisions) to a "proper" edit note so that it is visible to anyone who edits the page before the do so.
OR
b) Remove it since it makes no sense to have inclusion criteria that nobody can see.
I do not have a strong opinion on which is preferable. But we need to do one or the other. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion is being centralized to the appropriate talk page. Please discuss further there instead of adding further comments here. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried adding holocaust denial to the list, and the edit was reverted. If Holocause is not a pseudoscience, then many topics here would need to be removed as well. DTMGO ( talk) 15:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
In the 1970s, Holocaust denial took up more sophisticated pseudoscientific methods[16].
Holocaust deniers, and the media they use, are changing as a consequence of international political developments. [...] New forms of this propaganda encompassed pseudoscientific books and papers [...] Many of the pseudoscientific publications available internationally were published under cover of fictitious academic publishing houses. [...] The very public destruction of David Irving's already tarnished reputation, as a result of his libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, effectively undermined the position of the pseudoscientific deniers, as did the more recent conviction of Germar Rudolf. Some years ago Fred Leuchter attempted to prove technically that Zyklon B was not used in the gas chambers. His lack of any engineering qualification was the subject of a successful criminal action in the American courts and his capacity to comment was curtailed.[17] It is possible that the terms "pseudoscience" and "pseudohistory" have been used in overlapping ways, to an extent, which would then raise the question of whether it is our job to disentangle them. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the entry again with the following edit summary: "You need to do more than mention the source on the talk page. You need to add multiple RS to the main Holocaust denial article, and if they are accepted there, then return here and restore the entry here." We have strict standards here to prevent this page from becoming a massive hit piece backed by very limited sourcing. List articles require that each listing is notable, and that is proven to us by the creation of an article. Then, to be listed at THIS list, that article must document, using multiple RS, that the subject is considered pseudoscientific. There may be certain aspects of HD that are pseudoscientific, so document that at the article. Otherwise, the whole subject is not considered pseudoscientific. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I see that this topic has been forumshopped by DTMGO on several articles. We need to limit it to one place. Right now I have commented at Talk:Pseudoscience#Holocaust_denial_is_a_pseudoscience. Can we keep all discussion there? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
...ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here. UNSOURCED entries WILL BE REMOVED in order to keep this list clear of original research and possible NPOV violations.Some1 ( talk) 17:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The eugenics entry mentions that eugenics was a pseudoscience, with journals publishing articles in USA and many other countries, for example.
I will prepare an edit draft for your consideration. DTMGO ( talk) 09:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sociology section of the article i want to add Mises' praxeology as a pseudocience. Numerous arguments show it's incapacity to make predictions for the invalidity of it's axioms. An example of it's invalidity is it's view around macro-economics, which ignores how complex systems work, like society itself.
I'm going to put some sources... which are NOT all that i'm going to use in the article....
Philophical point of view:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-019-02150-8
Here is talked about Bunge's work around the philosophy of science and it's view around praxeology : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-021-09553-7 Rodrigo IB ( talk) 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
i have prepared the phantom time hypothesis in the history section any problem are there then you can edit it Ppppphgtygd ( talk) 14:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Is it required to create a page for political science in social science section since they are more pseudoscience theories like 2020 us election fraud theory conducted by Donald Trump Ppppphgtygd ( talk) 11:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Whether is it necessary to add Shakespeare authorship question in pseudoscience or its is better to create a new article on the list of pseudohistory Ppppphgtygd ( talk) 19:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that the entire "History" section should be removed, and any non-repetitive content should be added to the "Categories and examples" section of Pseudohistory. We could then include a link to that article in the "See also" here.
My argument for this is rather pragmatic and straightforward: There is simply so much pseudohistory out there that I imagine the scope could creep on and on and on. If this proposal is rejected, I strongly encourage a pruning of the section to include only those pseudohistorical narratives that RS have described as involving pseudoscientific arguments, e.g. Holocaust denial (as discussed here). Generalrelative ( talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The top Image of the Big Bang according to WMAP/Planck does not belong in this article. It could cause casual readers to misunderstand that it is part of pseudoscience instead of the well-confirmed cosmological model that it is. Unfortunately, I have not yet found a way in the mobile app to remove it, so someone else please do it (and replace it with a more fitting image if possible). PointedEars ( talk) 19:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The technology subsection has this phrase describing 5G conspiracy theories:
"theory proposing that 5G causes health issues and also causes COVID-19."
This wording seems quite clunky and poor-written. I propose it should be changed to:
"a theory proposing that 5G causes health issues, including COVID-19."
I would change it myself, but article is semi-protected (and for good reason).
Wikisincerely, 2601:600:9080:A4B0:C5F6:3A3F:38B1:6B3 ( talk) 00:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Collins dictionary defines pseudoscience as "a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science". . EMDR practioners do not claim a scientific base for it. Thus EMDR is not a pseudoscience. . (It just empirically works for some people (and is thus recommended by WHO, NICE, etc).) 5.66.63.86 ( talk) 11:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hypnosis and hypnotherapy are not pseudoscience. There are many solid studies showing strong evidence, especially in the areas of pain and depression. The American Psychological Association (APA), specifically division 30, recognizes hypnosis as a science and provides definitions for each term involving hypnosis.
Here is an article showing evidence of how hypnosis is as effective as cognitive-behavioral therapy for mild to moderate depression in a randomized controlled rater-blind clinical trial (strong evidence):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032721002032
Here are some additional articles that provide evidence of the effects of hypnosis:
Pain: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465776/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10801169/
Hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7751482/
If you need more information, please contact me.
Thanks. Meltbreak ( talk) 18:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. Note that the top of the page says: This is a list of topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers(emphasis added). So, regardless if you want to litigate whether it's actually pseudoscience or not (I don't!), I feel like it's a good fit for this page, because the in-line reliable sources do classify it as such. Bestagon ⬡ 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Please list any you find right here so we can examine them. If they are notable enough for their own article, or are mentioned in an article, they may qualify for this list. Otherwise not. Individual entries in lists must be notable, in contrast to content in other articles. When they qualify for mention as a subtopic in an existing article, that article is often enough to justify their mention here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Individual entries in lists must be notable, in contrast to content in other articlesThis entire comment appears to be exercising your subjective opinion as a requirement for this article. It is certainly not the consensus in the section above or at WP:LISTN or WP:FTN, not by my reading. WP:LISTN says:
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. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
All seem to be linked articles. Found one MOS:EASTEREGG but fixed it, topic seems to be extensive. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 02:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Here's a list of topics that do not include any variations of the word "pseudoscience" in the body of their respective articles, but are listed in this article. So far I've gotten to Hexagonal water, so the list below isn't complete yet.
Some1 ( talk) 02:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Some1 ( talk) 02:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
alternative medicine", "
discounted science", "
dismissed science", "
using flawed methodology", o
r some version of "(very/extremely/highly) implausible", i
f not outright "pseudoscientific", "
falsely using the trappings of science" or "
not employing the scientific method". I would say WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY tells us that such sources, in the absence of reliable sources saying the contrary, that we should include them on this list. I am willing to post a boilerplate message about such sources on each talk page. If we could demonstrate that, and yet there develops a local consensus on the page against inclusion, then I would want to take it to WP:FTN to be a more final consensus arbiter. Because my guess is that these each very likely had "pseudoscience" in their text at some point, and then removed with an imperfect or narrow consensus. And overall, We need some time to evaluate them before removing en masse. I mean really, consider Vaccines and autism, 5G conspiracies, 5G causes coronavirus, Time Cube, Geocentric model. These are extremely well-known pseudoscience.I'd like to add sources to your list for consideration @ Some1. Would that be alright? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 05:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Each of the following is an item from the above list, with sources following which describe it as one of: "alternative medicine
", "discounted science
", "dismissed science
", "using flawed methodology
", (very/extremely/highly) implausible
", "pseudoscientific
", "falsely using the trappings of science
" or "not employing the scientific method
". Most just say "pseudoscience" and I'll put in the source a quote when it does not.
I could definitely use help with this, so anyone who wants to add sources, quotations, or challenge one of these sources, should feel free to do so!— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
They say that various authors have made pseudoscientific claims about fasting; but they don't say that fasting itself is pseudoscience.
Various forms/types of fasting have been characterized as pseudoscience.If that's the case, shouldn't this article be more specific and list these various forms of fasting, instead of fasting itself? Similar to how colloidal silver and aromatherapy are both listed on this article, but medical uses of silver and essential oils are not. Some1 ( talk) 11:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
If that's the case, shouldn't this article be more specific and list these various forms of fasting
Edit times
|
---|
|
Sources
|
---|
|
Not my field of expertise, but a quick skim of the topic articles and the cited sources don't seem to establish that this is pseudoscience. The first cited source reads more like an opinion piece, and the other two are far more nuanced to the point where I don't see either as supporting the claim that genetic ancestry testing is pseudoscience.
I'm going to remove the entry pending review here. Granted, the commercial enterprises providing this service may overstate it's reliability or applicability, but that doesn't seem like enough, or if it is we should probably be more specific about which claims are non-scientific rather than describing the entire field as bogus.
Happy to hear other opinions. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 22:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit-warAccording to WP:BRD, User:Helioz9 is the one who is misbehaving here. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Reverting per WP:BRD and edit note/general consensus, if this is a notability pseudo scientific claim it should be all over Genealogical DNA testing. We can't just name-call here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 17:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The sources seem to point to a misconception, not pseudo-scientific research, fanned by claims made by an industry re:genetic connection is far more complicated than the industry lets on. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 19:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
This whole thing started over reverting User:Helioz9 edits on Drake's DNA test results, the edit war has been going since October 24 2023. The user's comments have included:
" WP:PROFRINGE there is no scientific consensus that someone's ethnicity can be determined by a DNA test", "That doesn't resolve the problems with the WP:FRINGE source that claims DNA tests can pinpoint the ancestral lineage of an individual person" "while the tests may not inherently be pseudoscience, they are typically falsely misinterpreted as being able to determine ancestry or ethnicity, making them unreliable sources for making statements about ancestry or ethnicity."
and because there was "no talk page consensus" the user feels it is ok to repeatedly remove the information again on said page. The only source the user cited originally was a journal from 2007, but the technology for DNA testing has advanced greatly in 17 years. Would prefer to see journal sources from the last 2-3 years making similar claims and less dated view points. The user went on to add a 'Ancestry and ethnicity' section in Common misunderstandings of genetics. There should be quality recent sources and a general consensus instead of adding/removing information at will.
The overarching umbrella of genetics and genetic genealogy are not pseudosciences. From what it seems there are two topics of contention to focus on, the one being genealogical DNA tests and the other being race and genetics. Important to have distinction between debating on both, or which one of the two to focus on. Are there merely limitations and nuances in these fields? Or do they actually have no basis with the scientific method? I think the main issue here are misconceptions and laypeople who over-interpret commercial DNA testing services they buy. [1] [2] I also think part of the confusion here is how datasets from DNA tests change as reference databases grow and improve, [3] but are initially based more on probability, may have inaccuracies and give ancestral trivia. [4]
References
Hello,
I recently added an entry to this page, but it was reverted as "not meeting the criteria". Unlike many list pages, I do not see any list of criteria for inclusion. Please elaborate on what the criteria is for inclusion and what specific criteria would be violated by including the proposed entry. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 15:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
My opinion is that Wikipedia should be internally consistentYour opinion is not consistent with WP:RS. If an RS says that something is pseudoscience, but uses a different definition from Wikipedia's, and Wikipedia's definition does not fit, then WP:RS demands that we should include it while your internally consistency criterion demands that we should exclude it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@ JeffSpaceman and Hob Gadling:
Discussed at User talk:Hob Gadling#"Unwarranted". Should be held here. - DVdm ( talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The climate change denial thing feels subjective, yes, the climate has changed over the billions of years, but when the earth cooled down rapidly 3.8 billion years ago, why can't it warm up again? 82.168.190.109 ( talk) 07:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Please remove 'GMO skepticism' from the list. Skepticism of a theory does not qualify as a science, so it cannot possibly pose as one.
Thanks in advance! 2A01:C22:AC2F:F900:2805:68CE:2EB3:10CA ( talk) 18:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Visitors to this page have devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to arguing whether individual entries on this enormous list belong there, and sometimes to whether or not a single word should stay or go. But since the basic premise of the whole article is so flawed as to render it both useless and embarrassing, does it really matter what is or isn't included?
Most dictionaries (including Wikipedia) define pseudoscience as that which wrongly claims to be science. Therefore concepts such as exorcism or faith healing are not pseudoscience because they aren't any kind of science and never claimed to be. Whether or not they work is beside the point. If it wasn't, every religious, magical, or superstitious belief ever held to be true by anyone would belong on this list, and it would be a very, very long list indeed!
Except that this isn't a list of things which are pseudoscience according to any definition other than the one at the beginning of this article, which appears to be "anything described using the word 'pseudoscience' in any context by the authors of any books we choose to define as our source material". Using similar logic, I could write an equally useful article proving just as conclusively that almost everything listed here is real science because I can cite a published (or at least self-published) source chosen by me which says so.
Of course, most if not all of my sources would be cranks or outright nutters, but so what? It states quite clearly at the start of this article that whether or not the authors of the designated source material have any relevant qualifications, or indeed any qualifications at all, is unimportant, as are all other considerations, so long as they've used the word 'pseudoscience' in connection with a topic on the list.
Consider a simiarly compiled list of Nazis. I think most historians would define a Nazi as a member of a German political and ideological movement called the National Socialist Party which ceased to exist in 1945. Therefore if my list included Volodymyr Zelenskyy they'd raise a few objections, such as the fact that he wasn't even born until 1978. Ah, but this is a list of people characterised as Nazis! And Vladimir Putin has repeatedly characterised Zelenskyy as a Nazi, so he belongs on the list, even if he isn't a Nazi in any meaningful sense.
Putting it another way, what the authors of this dismal listicle appear to be saying is that whether or not something is pseudoscience is simply a matter of opinion. In fact, not even that. It's all down to name-calling. Claiming that something is pseudoscience because somebody who in their own opinion and yours, though not necessarily anybody else's, wrote a book in which they used that word to describe it is the reasoning behind religious dogma, and indeed a great deal of pseudoscience. And as I've already pointed out, the same argument can be turned on its head to prove its own exact opposite.
Seriously, this reads like something written by little boys who would be better suited to compiling one of those articles you have listing every appearance ever of obscure comic-book characters, including that time they popped up in the background of one panel of somebody else's comic by mistake after they were supposed to be dead. What you really need to do is flush the whole mess and start again, ideally with a title such as "List of major pseudoscientific topics" rather than a clumsily worded get-out clause allowing people too thick to write the article you ought to have here to cobble together a lazy, ramshackle approximation of it then pat themselves on the back and self-identify as clever.
Before you ask, no, I'm not going to write it. I've got better things to do than spend the next few years arguing with the kind of people who can write gibberish like this without a trace of irony, let alone self-awareness. All things considered, I'm pretty sure I'd get sick of edit-warring long before they did.
Oh, by the way, since many of you appear to enjoy having long discussions about whether or not individual words should stay or go, perhaps you should apply your mighty intellects to paragraph 1, line 4, because I strongly suspect "practices-efforts" isn't a proper word at all. Have fun! 86.130.66.52 ( talk) 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
Moved from article for discussion.
- Koranic scientific foreknowledge (or Qur'anic science or Hadeeth science) asserts that foundational Islamic religious texts made accurate statements about the world that science verified hundreds of years later. This belief is a common theme in Bucailleism. [1] According to Turkish American physicist Taner Edis, many Muslims appreciate technology and respect the role that science plays in its creation. As a result, he says there is a great deal of Islamic pseudoscience attempting to reconcile this respect with other respected religious beliefs. Edis maintains that the motivation to read modern scientific truths into holy books is also stronger for Muslims than Christians. [2] This is because, according to Edis, true criticism of the Quran is almost non-existent in the Muslim world, causing Muslims to believe that scientific truths simply must appear in the Quran. [2]
My objections are that the first source never mentions pseudoscience, Islam, or the Koran. Maybe other words are used? That leaves one podcast, and only one source is not good enough sourcing for inclusion here. This is why we require an independent article, or inclusion in an article, that specifically mentions the topic and uses more than one RS to label it as pseudoscience. This prevents gaming the system, because anyone can find one or more sources that labels anything as pseudoscience. We can't allow that here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
References
The strict inclusion criteria were a condition. There was a lot of resistance when we tried to create and keep this list in existence, and only after these inclusion criteria were formulated and enforced did we finally find peace, and the list has now been here for a very long time. IIRC, we had the whole community against us, but they finally backed off.
The current attempts to circumvent or weaken those conditions will endanger the list again. Please don't go there. Learn from history. Those who forget history are doomed to have their work destroyed. Is this a joe job? (Bad joke. I don't believe that for a moment.) -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I still don't like the title of the article. It should just be list of pseudosciences. But whatever.... ....My opinion from years past was that the ideal framing for this list with an eye towards WP:LISTCRIT should be to find excellent sources that say "X is psuedoscience" or a directly equivalent argument and then just list the idea without much commentary.... but the problem comes in when you hit things like psychoanalysis or string theory where I can point to severe critics who are pretty reliable doing just that with some controversy. This isn't even counting the unreliable idiots saying things like modern synthesis is pseudoscience or whatnot. ....Long and the short of this is that I think that the current ugly compromise is about as functional we can get as long as Wikipedia lacks an editorial board (which, let's be honest, it always will). jps ( talk) 19:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
This list article does not have a "proper" edit note. It should.
Currently there is some disagreement regarding whether we should require that the entry be described as pseudoscience in the main article. There is a hidden editors note somewhere that states this requirement, but apparently it was added without discussion many years ago.
So, let's try to craft an edit note, and address whether the above requirement should be part of the inclusion criteria.
Thanks. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 14:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
It should be enough that we have sources here describing it as such.By that standard Climate change [4] and Evolution [5] belong on this list. Anyone could just start a POVFORK here. Hence the note added by Valjean is a pretty good idea. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 02:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
A random editor could cherry pick some random RS to say that a topic is pseudoscience and add it to this article, when there's consensus on the primary article against labeling it as suchOur existing policies of WP:RSUW, WP:FRINGE, and Wikipedia:Scientific consensus handle that situation pretty well already. This is also probably the most watched article on the site by subscribers of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard! Any addition of material like that to this page would be removed pretty quickly, citing the aforementioned policies. This is a solution looking for a problem, imo. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable .... As long as you have a few sources that mention the the idea of the items as a group, you can have a list of anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 23:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
group or setwould have to have appeared en masse in a few reliable sources... that exists? Per the Arbitration Ruling noted at the top of this talk page, this is not a list of anything, it has limits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 16:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
That would mean this entiregroup or setwould have to have appeared en masse in a few reliable sources
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. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Because if that were the bar, then we wouldn't need this sentence at all, as the source showing each member would also show notability for each individual. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
We wouldn't want to exclude topics just because they're not notable enough for their own WP article. A lot of pseudoscience is not notable, but people coming here after hearing about them deserve at least a little guidance. I'd say that if we have no article, we should have an RS (best an accessible RS) here describing it as pseudoscience for those who wish to follow up on it. — kwami ( talk) 23:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
For reference, the text of the current edit note is below. It resides inside an html comment near the top of the article.
NOTE ON SOURCES AND INCLUSION:
- WP:RS states that sources must be generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
- WP:V states that [t]he appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.
Please note that due to the controversial nature of the label "Pseudoscience", we must demand a reliable source from an appropriate source in order to include it. If something seems to be obviously pseudoscience, then either such a source likely exists somewhere or it isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion.
The inclusion criteria must necessarily be strict enough that notability should be established at the main article first, using RS. So ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here.
UNSOURCED entries WILL BE REMOVED in order to keep this list clear of original research and possible NPOV violations.
For more clarification, see the top of the talk page.
It is my strong preference that we should either:
a) Move it (with perhaps some revisions) to a "proper" edit note so that it is visible to anyone who edits the page before the do so.
OR
b) Remove it since it makes no sense to have inclusion criteria that nobody can see.
I do not have a strong opinion on which is preferable. But we need to do one or the other. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion is being centralized to the appropriate talk page. Please discuss further there instead of adding further comments here. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried adding holocaust denial to the list, and the edit was reverted. If Holocause is not a pseudoscience, then many topics here would need to be removed as well. DTMGO ( talk) 15:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
In the 1970s, Holocaust denial took up more sophisticated pseudoscientific methods[16].
Holocaust deniers, and the media they use, are changing as a consequence of international political developments. [...] New forms of this propaganda encompassed pseudoscientific books and papers [...] Many of the pseudoscientific publications available internationally were published under cover of fictitious academic publishing houses. [...] The very public destruction of David Irving's already tarnished reputation, as a result of his libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, effectively undermined the position of the pseudoscientific deniers, as did the more recent conviction of Germar Rudolf. Some years ago Fred Leuchter attempted to prove technically that Zyklon B was not used in the gas chambers. His lack of any engineering qualification was the subject of a successful criminal action in the American courts and his capacity to comment was curtailed.[17] It is possible that the terms "pseudoscience" and "pseudohistory" have been used in overlapping ways, to an extent, which would then raise the question of whether it is our job to disentangle them. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the entry again with the following edit summary: "You need to do more than mention the source on the talk page. You need to add multiple RS to the main Holocaust denial article, and if they are accepted there, then return here and restore the entry here." We have strict standards here to prevent this page from becoming a massive hit piece backed by very limited sourcing. List articles require that each listing is notable, and that is proven to us by the creation of an article. Then, to be listed at THIS list, that article must document, using multiple RS, that the subject is considered pseudoscientific. There may be certain aspects of HD that are pseudoscientific, so document that at the article. Otherwise, the whole subject is not considered pseudoscientific. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I see that this topic has been forumshopped by DTMGO on several articles. We need to limit it to one place. Right now I have commented at Talk:Pseudoscience#Holocaust_denial_is_a_pseudoscience. Can we keep all discussion there? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
...ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here. UNSOURCED entries WILL BE REMOVED in order to keep this list clear of original research and possible NPOV violations.Some1 ( talk) 17:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The eugenics entry mentions that eugenics was a pseudoscience, with journals publishing articles in USA and many other countries, for example.
I will prepare an edit draft for your consideration. DTMGO ( talk) 09:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sociology section of the article i want to add Mises' praxeology as a pseudocience. Numerous arguments show it's incapacity to make predictions for the invalidity of it's axioms. An example of it's invalidity is it's view around macro-economics, which ignores how complex systems work, like society itself.
I'm going to put some sources... which are NOT all that i'm going to use in the article....
Philophical point of view:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-019-02150-8
Here is talked about Bunge's work around the philosophy of science and it's view around praxeology : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-021-09553-7 Rodrigo IB ( talk) 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
i have prepared the phantom time hypothesis in the history section any problem are there then you can edit it Ppppphgtygd ( talk) 14:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Is it required to create a page for political science in social science section since they are more pseudoscience theories like 2020 us election fraud theory conducted by Donald Trump Ppppphgtygd ( talk) 11:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Whether is it necessary to add Shakespeare authorship question in pseudoscience or its is better to create a new article on the list of pseudohistory Ppppphgtygd ( talk) 19:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that the entire "History" section should be removed, and any non-repetitive content should be added to the "Categories and examples" section of Pseudohistory. We could then include a link to that article in the "See also" here.
My argument for this is rather pragmatic and straightforward: There is simply so much pseudohistory out there that I imagine the scope could creep on and on and on. If this proposal is rejected, I strongly encourage a pruning of the section to include only those pseudohistorical narratives that RS have described as involving pseudoscientific arguments, e.g. Holocaust denial (as discussed here). Generalrelative ( talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The top Image of the Big Bang according to WMAP/Planck does not belong in this article. It could cause casual readers to misunderstand that it is part of pseudoscience instead of the well-confirmed cosmological model that it is. Unfortunately, I have not yet found a way in the mobile app to remove it, so someone else please do it (and replace it with a more fitting image if possible). PointedEars ( talk) 19:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The technology subsection has this phrase describing 5G conspiracy theories:
"theory proposing that 5G causes health issues and also causes COVID-19."
This wording seems quite clunky and poor-written. I propose it should be changed to:
"a theory proposing that 5G causes health issues, including COVID-19."
I would change it myself, but article is semi-protected (and for good reason).
Wikisincerely, 2601:600:9080:A4B0:C5F6:3A3F:38B1:6B3 ( talk) 00:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Collins dictionary defines pseudoscience as "a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science". . EMDR practioners do not claim a scientific base for it. Thus EMDR is not a pseudoscience. . (It just empirically works for some people (and is thus recommended by WHO, NICE, etc).) 5.66.63.86 ( talk) 11:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hypnosis and hypnotherapy are not pseudoscience. There are many solid studies showing strong evidence, especially in the areas of pain and depression. The American Psychological Association (APA), specifically division 30, recognizes hypnosis as a science and provides definitions for each term involving hypnosis.
Here is an article showing evidence of how hypnosis is as effective as cognitive-behavioral therapy for mild to moderate depression in a randomized controlled rater-blind clinical trial (strong evidence):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032721002032
Here are some additional articles that provide evidence of the effects of hypnosis:
Pain: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465776/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10801169/
Hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7751482/
If you need more information, please contact me.
Thanks. Meltbreak ( talk) 18:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. Note that the top of the page says: This is a list of topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers(emphasis added). So, regardless if you want to litigate whether it's actually pseudoscience or not (I don't!), I feel like it's a good fit for this page, because the in-line reliable sources do classify it as such. Bestagon ⬡ 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Please list any you find right here so we can examine them. If they are notable enough for their own article, or are mentioned in an article, they may qualify for this list. Otherwise not. Individual entries in lists must be notable, in contrast to content in other articles. When they qualify for mention as a subtopic in an existing article, that article is often enough to justify their mention here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Individual entries in lists must be notable, in contrast to content in other articlesThis entire comment appears to be exercising your subjective opinion as a requirement for this article. It is certainly not the consensus in the section above or at WP:LISTN or WP:FTN, not by my reading. WP:LISTN says:
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. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
All seem to be linked articles. Found one MOS:EASTEREGG but fixed it, topic seems to be extensive. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 02:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Here's a list of topics that do not include any variations of the word "pseudoscience" in the body of their respective articles, but are listed in this article. So far I've gotten to Hexagonal water, so the list below isn't complete yet.
Some1 ( talk) 02:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Some1 ( talk) 02:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
alternative medicine", "
discounted science", "
dismissed science", "
using flawed methodology", o
r some version of "(very/extremely/highly) implausible", i
f not outright "pseudoscientific", "
falsely using the trappings of science" or "
not employing the scientific method". I would say WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY tells us that such sources, in the absence of reliable sources saying the contrary, that we should include them on this list. I am willing to post a boilerplate message about such sources on each talk page. If we could demonstrate that, and yet there develops a local consensus on the page against inclusion, then I would want to take it to WP:FTN to be a more final consensus arbiter. Because my guess is that these each very likely had "pseudoscience" in their text at some point, and then removed with an imperfect or narrow consensus. And overall, We need some time to evaluate them before removing en masse. I mean really, consider Vaccines and autism, 5G conspiracies, 5G causes coronavirus, Time Cube, Geocentric model. These are extremely well-known pseudoscience.I'd like to add sources to your list for consideration @ Some1. Would that be alright? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 05:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Each of the following is an item from the above list, with sources following which describe it as one of: "alternative medicine
", "discounted science
", "dismissed science
", "using flawed methodology
", (very/extremely/highly) implausible
", "pseudoscientific
", "falsely using the trappings of science
" or "not employing the scientific method
". Most just say "pseudoscience" and I'll put in the source a quote when it does not.
I could definitely use help with this, so anyone who wants to add sources, quotations, or challenge one of these sources, should feel free to do so!— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
They say that various authors have made pseudoscientific claims about fasting; but they don't say that fasting itself is pseudoscience.
Various forms/types of fasting have been characterized as pseudoscience.If that's the case, shouldn't this article be more specific and list these various forms of fasting, instead of fasting itself? Similar to how colloidal silver and aromatherapy are both listed on this article, but medical uses of silver and essential oils are not. Some1 ( talk) 11:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
If that's the case, shouldn't this article be more specific and list these various forms of fasting
Edit times
|
---|
|
Sources
|
---|
|
Not my field of expertise, but a quick skim of the topic articles and the cited sources don't seem to establish that this is pseudoscience. The first cited source reads more like an opinion piece, and the other two are far more nuanced to the point where I don't see either as supporting the claim that genetic ancestry testing is pseudoscience.
I'm going to remove the entry pending review here. Granted, the commercial enterprises providing this service may overstate it's reliability or applicability, but that doesn't seem like enough, or if it is we should probably be more specific about which claims are non-scientific rather than describing the entire field as bogus.
Happy to hear other opinions. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 22:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit-warAccording to WP:BRD, User:Helioz9 is the one who is misbehaving here. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Reverting per WP:BRD and edit note/general consensus, if this is a notability pseudo scientific claim it should be all over Genealogical DNA testing. We can't just name-call here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 17:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The sources seem to point to a misconception, not pseudo-scientific research, fanned by claims made by an industry re:genetic connection is far more complicated than the industry lets on. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 19:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
This whole thing started over reverting User:Helioz9 edits on Drake's DNA test results, the edit war has been going since October 24 2023. The user's comments have included:
" WP:PROFRINGE there is no scientific consensus that someone's ethnicity can be determined by a DNA test", "That doesn't resolve the problems with the WP:FRINGE source that claims DNA tests can pinpoint the ancestral lineage of an individual person" "while the tests may not inherently be pseudoscience, they are typically falsely misinterpreted as being able to determine ancestry or ethnicity, making them unreliable sources for making statements about ancestry or ethnicity."
and because there was "no talk page consensus" the user feels it is ok to repeatedly remove the information again on said page. The only source the user cited originally was a journal from 2007, but the technology for DNA testing has advanced greatly in 17 years. Would prefer to see journal sources from the last 2-3 years making similar claims and less dated view points. The user went on to add a 'Ancestry and ethnicity' section in Common misunderstandings of genetics. There should be quality recent sources and a general consensus instead of adding/removing information at will.
The overarching umbrella of genetics and genetic genealogy are not pseudosciences. From what it seems there are two topics of contention to focus on, the one being genealogical DNA tests and the other being race and genetics. Important to have distinction between debating on both, or which one of the two to focus on. Are there merely limitations and nuances in these fields? Or do they actually have no basis with the scientific method? I think the main issue here are misconceptions and laypeople who over-interpret commercial DNA testing services they buy. [1] [2] I also think part of the confusion here is how datasets from DNA tests change as reference databases grow and improve, [3] but are initially based more on probability, may have inaccuracies and give ancestral trivia. [4]
References
Hello,
I recently added an entry to this page, but it was reverted as "not meeting the criteria". Unlike many list pages, I do not see any list of criteria for inclusion. Please elaborate on what the criteria is for inclusion and what specific criteria would be violated by including the proposed entry. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 15:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
My opinion is that Wikipedia should be internally consistentYour opinion is not consistent with WP:RS. If an RS says that something is pseudoscience, but uses a different definition from Wikipedia's, and Wikipedia's definition does not fit, then WP:RS demands that we should include it while your internally consistency criterion demands that we should exclude it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@ JeffSpaceman and Hob Gadling:
Discussed at User talk:Hob Gadling#"Unwarranted". Should be held here. - DVdm ( talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The climate change denial thing feels subjective, yes, the climate has changed over the billions of years, but when the earth cooled down rapidly 3.8 billion years ago, why can't it warm up again? 82.168.190.109 ( talk) 07:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Please remove 'GMO skepticism' from the list. Skepticism of a theory does not qualify as a science, so it cannot possibly pose as one.
Thanks in advance! 2A01:C22:AC2F:F900:2805:68CE:2EB3:10CA ( talk) 18:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Visitors to this page have devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to arguing whether individual entries on this enormous list belong there, and sometimes to whether or not a single word should stay or go. But since the basic premise of the whole article is so flawed as to render it both useless and embarrassing, does it really matter what is or isn't included?
Most dictionaries (including Wikipedia) define pseudoscience as that which wrongly claims to be science. Therefore concepts such as exorcism or faith healing are not pseudoscience because they aren't any kind of science and never claimed to be. Whether or not they work is beside the point. If it wasn't, every religious, magical, or superstitious belief ever held to be true by anyone would belong on this list, and it would be a very, very long list indeed!
Except that this isn't a list of things which are pseudoscience according to any definition other than the one at the beginning of this article, which appears to be "anything described using the word 'pseudoscience' in any context by the authors of any books we choose to define as our source material". Using similar logic, I could write an equally useful article proving just as conclusively that almost everything listed here is real science because I can cite a published (or at least self-published) source chosen by me which says so.
Of course, most if not all of my sources would be cranks or outright nutters, but so what? It states quite clearly at the start of this article that whether or not the authors of the designated source material have any relevant qualifications, or indeed any qualifications at all, is unimportant, as are all other considerations, so long as they've used the word 'pseudoscience' in connection with a topic on the list.
Consider a simiarly compiled list of Nazis. I think most historians would define a Nazi as a member of a German political and ideological movement called the National Socialist Party which ceased to exist in 1945. Therefore if my list included Volodymyr Zelenskyy they'd raise a few objections, such as the fact that he wasn't even born until 1978. Ah, but this is a list of people characterised as Nazis! And Vladimir Putin has repeatedly characterised Zelenskyy as a Nazi, so he belongs on the list, even if he isn't a Nazi in any meaningful sense.
Putting it another way, what the authors of this dismal listicle appear to be saying is that whether or not something is pseudoscience is simply a matter of opinion. In fact, not even that. It's all down to name-calling. Claiming that something is pseudoscience because somebody who in their own opinion and yours, though not necessarily anybody else's, wrote a book in which they used that word to describe it is the reasoning behind religious dogma, and indeed a great deal of pseudoscience. And as I've already pointed out, the same argument can be turned on its head to prove its own exact opposite.
Seriously, this reads like something written by little boys who would be better suited to compiling one of those articles you have listing every appearance ever of obscure comic-book characters, including that time they popped up in the background of one panel of somebody else's comic by mistake after they were supposed to be dead. What you really need to do is flush the whole mess and start again, ideally with a title such as "List of major pseudoscientific topics" rather than a clumsily worded get-out clause allowing people too thick to write the article you ought to have here to cobble together a lazy, ramshackle approximation of it then pat themselves on the back and self-identify as clever.
Before you ask, no, I'm not going to write it. I've got better things to do than spend the next few years arguing with the kind of people who can write gibberish like this without a trace of irony, let alone self-awareness. All things considered, I'm pretty sure I'd get sick of edit-warring long before they did.
Oh, by the way, since many of you appear to enjoy having long discussions about whether or not individual words should stay or go, perhaps you should apply your mighty intellects to paragraph 1, line 4, because I strongly suspect "practices-efforts" isn't a proper word at all. Have fun! 86.130.66.52 ( talk) 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)