This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pseudoscience template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Skepticism Template‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
All Psychological testing has a limited reliability. That one is not an exception. The science may be weak, but hardly a pseudoscience. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The articles on precognition, parapsychology and dowsing, presumably among others, all transclude this template but are not themselves listed in it. This breaches WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Is this acceptable, or should either the articles or the template be changed accordingly? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
To put this on the same level as astrology, phrenology and 2012 Maya prophecies seems a little bit mean.
From the article: "Academic response to the theory has been mixed—some applauding Strauss and Howe for their "bold and imaginative thesis" and others criticizing the theory as being overly-deterministic, unfalsifiable, and unsupported by rigorous evidence"
You won't get any "mixed response" from academics to astrology, etc. Captain Genet ( talk) 07:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chiropractic is not "pseudoscience," any more or less than medicine. I state this as a career neuroscientist in the field. Indeed, I am one of the most qualified people alive to make this statement. The word "pseudoscience" needs to be removed. Geoffreybove ( talk) 09:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pseudoscience template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Skepticism Template‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
All Psychological testing has a limited reliability. That one is not an exception. The science may be weak, but hardly a pseudoscience. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The articles on precognition, parapsychology and dowsing, presumably among others, all transclude this template but are not themselves listed in it. This breaches WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Is this acceptable, or should either the articles or the template be changed accordingly? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
To put this on the same level as astrology, phrenology and 2012 Maya prophecies seems a little bit mean.
From the article: "Academic response to the theory has been mixed—some applauding Strauss and Howe for their "bold and imaginative thesis" and others criticizing the theory as being overly-deterministic, unfalsifiable, and unsupported by rigorous evidence"
You won't get any "mixed response" from academics to astrology, etc. Captain Genet ( talk) 07:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chiropractic is not "pseudoscience," any more or less than medicine. I state this as a career neuroscientist in the field. Indeed, I am one of the most qualified people alive to make this statement. The word "pseudoscience" needs to be removed. Geoffreybove ( talk) 09:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)