Below are answers to
frequently asked questions about the corresponding page
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion.
Q1: Why has my edit been reverted? What did I do wrong?
A1: Check
the edit history for the article. Hopefully, the editor who reverted you left a useful
edit summary explaining why they feel the previous version of the article to be better; occasionally, links to various
policies and guidelines are included. The most common reasons for reversion are that the article should not contain
editorial bias and every statement should be cited to
sources reliable to the topic at hand. If you disagree with the reasoning provided or otherwise wish a fuller discussion, please check the archives of this discussion page for a similar proposal or
open a new section below.
Q2: One entry to this list is better described as an emerging or untested area of research, not pseudoscience.
A2: A few topics have several facets, only some of which are described by
reliable sources as pseudoscience; multiple notable descriptions or points of view may be appropriately included as described in
Wikipedia:Fringe theories. On the other hand, proponents of a particular topic characterized as pseudoscience almost always self-report as engaging in science. The several points of view should be weighted according to the reliability of the sources making each claim. Advocacy sources are reliable only for their own opinions - it is okay to state that Dr. X claims to have built a creature under the usual caveats for
self-published sources, but the creature's exploits should be described as reported in independent sources. If the majority of scientists would be surprised by a claim,
it is probably not mainstream science.
Q3: Real scientists are investigating this topic, how can it be pseudoscience?
Q4: Why is the description so negative? Why not just describe the views covered and let the reader decide?
A4: The Wikipedia policy
Neutral point of view requires that the prominence of various views be reflected in the articles. We strive to summarize the tone and content of all available
sources, weighted by their reliability. Reliable in this context means particulary that sources should be generally trusted to report honestly on and make the distinction between science and pseudoscience.
Q5: Why does this article rely on such biased sources?
A5 Scientists generally ignore pseudoscience, and only occasionally bother to rebut ideas before they have received a great deal of attention.
Non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience can only be had from
second- and third-party sources. The following sources are almost always
reliable sources for descriptions of pseudoscience:
Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.)
Statements from scientific societies
Q6: Isn't pseudoscience a philosophically meaningless term?
A6 The term describes a notable concept in common use.
Q7: Why is a particular topic omitted?
A7 Some ideas are not
notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article; other topics have been explicitly rejected by the
consensus of editors here at the talkpage. Please search the archives for relevant discussions before beginning a new one. Still, this list is far from complete, so feel free to
suggest a topic or
be bold and add it yourself.
A8 Many fail to understand the nature of this list. It is not exclusively about "Obvious pseudoscience", but, as the list's title indicates, about "topics characterized as pseudoscience" (emphasis added). That wording parallels the
Arbcom description from group three: "but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" (emphasis added). Therefore we include items covered in the first three groups below, but not the fourth. In this list, we refuse to decide whether an item is or is not an "obvious" pseudoscience (although most of them are
).
Four groups
1.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and
categorized as such without more justification.
3.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as
psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
4.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Below are answers to
frequently asked questions about the corresponding page
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion.
Q1: Why has my edit been reverted? What did I do wrong?
A1: Check
the edit history for the article. Hopefully, the editor who reverted you left a useful
edit summary explaining why they feel the previous version of the article to be better; occasionally, links to various
policies and guidelines are included. The most common reasons for reversion are that the article should not contain
editorial bias and every statement should be cited to
sources reliable to the topic at hand. If you disagree with the reasoning provided or otherwise wish a fuller discussion, please check the archives of this discussion page for a similar proposal or
open a new section below.
Q2: One entry to this list is better described as an emerging or untested area of research, not pseudoscience.
A2: A few topics have several facets, only some of which are described by
reliable sources as pseudoscience; multiple notable descriptions or points of view may be appropriately included as described in
Wikipedia:Fringe theories. On the other hand, proponents of a particular topic characterized as pseudoscience almost always self-report as engaging in science. The several points of view should be weighted according to the reliability of the sources making each claim. Advocacy sources are reliable only for their own opinions - it is okay to state that Dr. X claims to have built a creature under the usual caveats for
self-published sources, but the creature's exploits should be described as reported in independent sources. If the majority of scientists would be surprised by a claim,
it is probably not mainstream science.
Q3: Real scientists are investigating this topic, how can it be pseudoscience?
Q4: Why is the description so negative? Why not just describe the views covered and let the reader decide?
A4: The Wikipedia policy
Neutral point of view requires that the prominence of various views be reflected in the articles. We strive to summarize the tone and content of all available
sources, weighted by their reliability. Reliable in this context means particulary that sources should be generally trusted to report honestly on and make the distinction between science and pseudoscience.
Q5: Why does this article rely on such biased sources?
A5 Scientists generally ignore pseudoscience, and only occasionally bother to rebut ideas before they have received a great deal of attention.
Non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience can only be had from
second- and third-party sources. The following sources are almost always
reliable sources for descriptions of pseudoscience:
Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.)
Statements from scientific societies
Q6: Isn't pseudoscience a philosophically meaningless term?
A6 The term describes a notable concept in common use.
Q7: Why is a particular topic omitted?
A7 Some ideas are not
notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article; other topics have been explicitly rejected by the
consensus of editors here at the talkpage. Please search the archives for relevant discussions before beginning a new one. Still, this list is far from complete, so feel free to
suggest a topic or
be bold and add it yourself.
A8 Many fail to understand the nature of this list. It is not exclusively about "Obvious pseudoscience", but, as the list's title indicates, about "topics characterized as pseudoscience" (emphasis added). That wording parallels the
Arbcom description from group three: "but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" (emphasis added). Therefore we include items covered in the first three groups below, but not the fourth. In this list, we refuse to decide whether an item is or is not an "obvious" pseudoscience (although most of them are
).
Four groups
1.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and
categorized as such without more justification.
3.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as
psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
4.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.