Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 16 April 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pseudoscience article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 20 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pseudoscience. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pseudoscience at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Logic / Science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Philosophy of science

Archives

Antiquity – Jan 2003 Jan 2003 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – Apr 2006 Apr 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – Sept. 2006 Sept. 2006 – Oct. 2006 October 2006 November 2006 November 2006 — Dec 2007 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Special status of alt med in pseudoscience

A person may follow authority in medicine. A person may follow authority in the courts. If the authority claims a scientific basis, and uses pseudoscientific methods to do it, then this is pseudoscience in both cases. But if the authority does ‘’not’’ claim a scientific basis, the former is ‘’still’’ pseudoscience, and the latter is ‘’not’’, because medicine is a branch of science, and law is not. Alt meds have a special place in pseudoscience because there need not be a claim of scientific methodology, yet it is still pseudoscience, since it is medicine. PPdd (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct, and also because alt med makes falsifiable claims of efficacy which are not proven to be true. It is defined as unproven or disproven methods. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I.e., tautologically special, too. PPdd (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! -- Brangifer (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There is extensive philosophical literature on the nature and definition of pseudoscience, and while I can't claim to have read and understood all of it, it seems clear to me that your reasoning is at odds with the mainstream expert opinions and of a much lower intellectual quality. Defining pseudoscience is a tricky problem, and it's generally not helpful to promote ad hoc definitions on this talk page. If you are not familiar with the discussion, I suggest that you get an overview by reading Sven Ove Hansson's article Science and Pseudo-Science in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It appears to me that the definition of pseudoscience that you are using is even more general than what Hansson discusses under "3.4 A wider sense of pseudoscience".

One key problem in your argument is that you are begging the question when you assume that the standard for comparing and classifying CAM is "medicine", i.e. scientific medicine. Modern scientific medicine has grown out of the art of treating patients so that they hopefully get, or at least feel, better. Large parts of CAM have grown out of the same art, but without becoming scientific, and sometimes even without trying to become scientific. It's unfair to hold the narrow definition of "medicine" as a scientific discipline against fields that are part of medicine only in the original, wider sense.

Your argument would lead to absurd results. If we take it seriously, a number of practices of mainstream medicine would have to be classified as pseudoscientific merely because they have no scientific basis. Is charging money for treating a patient pseudoscientific? Maybe you can fix your definition to get rid of this particular artefact, but there are others that will make more work: How about palliative care for the terminally ill who cannot express their wishes? If we take your definition of pseudoscience seriously, that's a pseudoscientific practice, and the only rational way of dealing with them would be to dump them alive on some rubbish heap, or whatever is the cheapest way of disposing of them allowed by law. Hans Adler 09:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What "your definition" are you talking about? PPdd (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I now see that you used the words "pseudoscientific methods". For some reason I read this as "non-scientific methods". Sorry for the misunderstanding. I obviously need new glasses. (Seriously. I lost my glasses the day before yesterday.)

But I fail to understand what you mean by "special status of alt med". How is its status any different from pseudoscience in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, ...? Hans Adler 19:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As to your glasses, looking for glasses without glasses borders on being a logical paradox. I recently had to fix the little screw in my reading glasses, which takes reading glasses to see.

How it differs is that (1) those particular pseudosciences make false claims to scientific methodology, whereas an alt med does not need to make such a claim, but since medicine is science, it implicitly makes the claim, which is a "special status" of alt med. (2) Brangifer points to a second way in which it is special, in that since medicine is about efficacy, and efficacy is established scientifically, alt meds by deifinition make unestablished claims, so are by definition pseudoscience. PPdd (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he's using the standard skeptic-lite argument that medical science is somehow 'ontologically' true, and therefore anything which disagrees with medical science is explicitly false and consequently pseudoscientific. but frankly, I found this thread to be pointless and confused, and decided (as I think you're finding out now) that it would take too much effort to untangle the confusion (which would have to happen before we could even start having a meaningful discussion about the issues). but...

P.s.: skeptic-lite - that great skeptical taste without all that philosophical substance to weigh you down. Lifestyle choice of the modern skeptic-on-the-go. --Ludwigs2 22:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I'm not quite that naive. Modern medicine isn't all EBM. It's a blending of art, experiment, old inherited practices, serendipity, and solid, research-backed, practice. Where it fundamentally differs from alt med is that it is constantly seeking to become more and more evidence-based, well-knowing that such will never be completely possible or practical. Some of the "art" will always be necessary, but it should at least not be contrary to EBM.

This is a relatively modern movement in medicine, in keeping with the developing and pervasive practice of using the scientific method as a winnowing tool to separate all the inherited practices within modern medicine. Some of them are very old and never been tested very well. Some of it is chaff and must be discarded (that never happens in alt med), while other is worth keeping and improving, and still other is promising and deserves more research. It's a never ending process. So yes, there are likely some pseudoscientific aspects to certain old medical practices that haven't been discarded yet, but we can't be sure of that before it has been reassessed to determine if that's the case. If so, then we need to get rid of it.

The application of all this to alt med occasionally results in preventing some alt med practices which clamor for acceptance from being included in mainstream practice, since so much of it is blatently or fundamentally based in pseudoscientific ideas. The complementary and integrative medicine movements seek to counteract this use of the scientific method to make and then keep modern medicine as free from pseudoscience and quackery as possible. They use muddled thinking and confuse the picture, often to the detriment and even unnecessary death of patients.

Is that all clear as mud, or should I shake or stir it along with your favorite brand of skeptic-lite and drink it down? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You left out of what medicine is - "... external profit driven advice, succeptability to pharmaceutical advertisement, math and statistics phoia, laziness, intentionally veiled ignorance, and thirst for personal profit". :) PPdd (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry, BR, that was my assessment of PPdd, not you. he's been having a bit of an "energizer bunny" moment on TCM (and I assume other altmed articles); I've been waiting for him to settled down into a more conventional editing style before putting serious effort in to repairing his worst misconceptions.

Point of order, though: EBM is not really a movement or a practice - EBM is an anti-altmed idea that has been floated as though it were part of the philosophy of science, but in fact hasn't made much traction there or anywhere. It's by all measures a fringe concept (advocated primarily by its proposers and adherents, largely ignored by mainstream science and philosophy, presenting itself as true without actually measuring itself against other more established theories in the field). The central tenets of EBM do not really stand up to analytic scrutiny, and while it's a reasonable enough idea in its own way it is not applied in a self-consistent fashion (otherwise TCM and acupuncture would qualify as EBM - the primary critiques of those practices are theoretical objections, not evidentiary ones). I'm just sayin'... --Ludwigs2 16:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hans - I thought the "energizer bunny" ad was for an erectile dysfunction med, and the idea is that bunny never runs out of juice, so it may be a long wait for settling down. :)

There really should be two pseudoscience articles. One would be oriented to a general readership, the other oriented to the highly technical philosophical analysis of what science is or is not. (I just had the bad memory of plodding through some technical response to Lakatos as an undergrad and thinking, "do I really want to be doing this? If not, what else is there except superficiality?" PPdd (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are addressing me with that bit about the "energizer bunny ad", which I guess I have never seen or heard about and I have certainly not mentioned. My only mental association with this expression is an old Duracell ad that involves lots of pink toy bunnies.

And for all those who, like me, are puzzled by the letters "EBM" -- apparently that's an abbreviation for Electronic body music. But I can't say I understand what you guys are saying about it...

(First paragraph was serious, second paragraph was TIC.)Hans Adler 08:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'energizer bunny' thing was mine, a reference to PPdd's current rather over-enthusiastic approach to editing. As for EBM, it actually stands for the Excess Bile Metric: the theory that the degree of pseudoscience of any idea can be accurately measured by the amount of yellow bile produced when someone thinks about it. The problem, of course, is that the theory is only used by people with a predisposition for excess bile, which throws off statistical norms. --Ludwigs2 17:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing can "stand up to analytic scrutiny", but if a realist throws real rocks in a scuffle with an idealist, the idealist should "duck" (and quack out a complaint). Wouldn't it be more appropriate to cite an "integrative synthesis" example instead of a differential analysis to attack EBM? :) PPdd (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... your first line seems to have disposed of all of science and philosophy. skepticism that approaches the point of nihilism is not really useful.

with respect to your other... I don't mind EBM as a concept. but as it stands it's definitely fringe. There are too many people involved with it (both analytically and casually) who consistently redefine it just so that it continues to exclude altmed. Currently it's more the medical equivalent of the 'No Homers club', and doesn't command a lot of respect as a philosophical approach to medical science. maybe that will change over coming decades, but that's not a reason to give it undue weight as of now. --Ludwigs2 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Occam’s Razor vs. Alice in Wonderland

Violation of scientific principles such Occam’s Razor characterizes some pseudoscience publication conclusions (also misuse of statistics and logical invalidity). An “Integrative Medicine” article abstract goes like this, (paraphrasing slightly) - “Weight reduction and exercise are known to reduce the risk of heart disease. We did a study that added 'mindful meditation' to weight loss and exercise, and the total intervention reduced risk. This shows Integrative Medicine methods can be used to reduce risk of heart disease, possibly by incorporating weight reduction and exercise.” How should this kind of publication style, typical of pseudoscience pubs, be dealt with in the article? (This particular example is a primary source study, but the same reasoning is typical of such secondary reviews of such primary studies.) PPdd (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article or just at the abstract? A lot of non-mathematicians have serious problems with expressing simple connections, often while intuitively getting some of the most important things right anyway.

I suggest that you find a reliable source of high quality that discusses "this kind of publication style", and then propose including it in the article. Hans Adler 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article, but the abstract makes it pretty clear that "integrating" in integrative medicine can be to take a known medical effect, throw a confounding factor alt med treatment on top and do more studies, then declare victory for the integration. PPdd (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd - in fact, if a study could demonstrate statistically that weight reduction and exercise + meditation significantly reduced the risk of heart disease over weight reduction and exercise alone, that would be both scientifically meaningful and interesting. Occam's razor is a principle of selection - it says that we should select the simplest explanation that accommodates all the available evidence. if available evidence were to show that meditation had a measurable impact on incidence of heart disease, then Occam's Razor would suggest that the standard medical model would have to be rejected or revised, since it would no longer adequately accommodate the evidence.

In other words, one needs to show that the study itself is flawed; one can't simply assume that that the study is flawed because the study's presumptions conflict with conventional models. doing so would be unscientific. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A study comparing an adjunct to a known effective treatment with the treatment alone is reasonable (although maybe a waste of money for some alt meds). This study did not do that. Adding an adjunct to what is already known to be an effective treatment alone, then making claims about the efficacy of adding an adjunct, without comparing it to the treatment alone is pure pseudoscience. A child whould be able to understand why it is bogus. It was also "edited" and "peer reviewed" in a major CAM/IM journal, indicating how pervasive pseudoscience is in CAM and IM. PPdd (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I went and looked at the abstract, and I don't see what you're talking about. The study appears to be comparing what they call an 'integrative approach' (which seems client-centered health coaching using non-conventional techniques) to well-established statistical averages for conventional medical care, for a population of individuals with a particular kind of health problem. There's nothing wrong with that from a research perspective that I can see. Of course, the problem they ought to address is the 'attention' factor - there are numerous studies which show that extra attention (as would be the necessary case with a client-centered approach) can by itself have a significant impact on outcomes. But overall this seems like a standard medical preliminary research model: take a group of people with a condition, give them a treatment, and compare the results to established standards of treatment. of course, normal medical research would then go on to a double-blind paradigm for further testing; that would be impossible to structure for this kind of approach, since it requires patient participation in the treatment. That being said, their conclusion is not exaggerated with respect to the research (they are not making any extraordinary claims, but simply noting that their 'integrative' approach reduces risks, including the possibility that the personalized attention merely got patients to follow the health and exercise routine more diligently). Unless there's some deeper flaw in their methodology that I can't see from the abstract, this seems fine. Not too earth-shattering, maybe, but fine. what precisely are you objecting to in it?--Ludwigs2 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a good paper to be arguing about. To me, the methodology doesn't look as bad as PPdd seems to have concluded. And quoting from the paper: "CONCLUSIONS: A multi-dimensional intervention based on integrative medicine principles reduced risk of CHD, possibly by increasing exercise and improving weight loss" or to paraphrase "nagging people about their weight may encourage them to lose weight and so cut down on heart disease". This seems a remarkably modest conclusion. They dress some things up in polysyllabic words, but that is the stated conclusion. I am quite suspicious of the statistics in the paper and the the claims of statistical significance seem surprising given the sample size and the small differences they are talking about. But I couldn't make any definite statements about that without a week's research and probably access to the raw data. I was peripherally involved in medical statistics at one time and I'm suspicious of a lot of mainstream medical statistics too. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I like Dingo's paraphrase better than mine. But I still don't think its about IM. For example, my ex was a psychoimmunologist and very much of an evidence based orientation, so her nagging would not be considered "alternative". The point is the wording and inference to conclusions. Dingo's wording would have been much better for being in the article, and would still not justifiy a conclusion about IM, only possibly about environmental medicine, where types of reminders like nagging are added to the environment. Personally, I keep a scale in the bathroom next to the sink so I see it each morning. (Maybe I should move it to in front of the refrigerator.) PPdd (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just nagging. There was a marvelous piece of research from the old 'efficiency studies' period, where some researchers were trying to determine the physical environment in a factory for maximal productivity. they tried manipulating all sorts of variables - ambient light, room temperature, noise level, length and frequency of breaks - but found that no matter what they did (short of making the room freezing cold or leaving the workers in near total darkness) productivity kept increasing. They finally had to conclude that the workers were enjoying the attention of being in the study, and that was what was increasing productivity. people are weird.

Plus - psychoimmunologist? from the word roots that would be someone who prevents mind infections (e.g. stops the spread of unhealthy memes or keeps people from joining religious cults). that can't be what you mean. --Ludwigs2 00:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's what psychoimmunologists do. She sucked the blood out of people, then gave them pain, then sucked the blood again and took it to Linus Pauling's personal massive facility to look at the T-cells. Since he had a crush on her, he gave her free reign. Since he used the place for Vitamin-C studies, and since I am me, he banned me from the building. Her experiments are still going on over a decade later at UCSF dental school, where you can use her "cognitive coping" pain management methods instead of anasthetics as part of a study subject, and get free dental work for participating. I think I would rather have to resort to acupunture. :) PPdd (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hawthorne effect ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT 18:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One would expect Duke University research MDs to know how to control for the Hawthorne effect. PPdd (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling alt med pseudoscience with RS (previously objected to for no RS)

There has been objection to calling alt meds "pseudoscience". But here is a quote from a very prominent TCM historian and practitioner as a secondary source on it, calling TCM "science", and describing why -

"It is further said in the oral traditions of the Fire Spirit School that the seedlings of aconite (“Traditional Chinese medicine#Aconite root|The King of TCM Herbs]]” and the “Queen of Poisons”) need to be harvested high in the mountains where they endure great cold—maybe this is why this herb is so powerful in driving out damp cold—-and then should be planted at the winter solstice in the Jiangyou area among other crops. The aconite plant then grows in the time of year when the yang is in its ascendancy and is harvested at the summer solstice before the yang starts its decline. This herb thus very literally absorbs only the energy of the yang part of the year. This attention to timing is important, but most growers now disregard this key feature. I believe very strongly that it is these types of detailed practical instructions that make Chinese medicine a science in its own right, and that it is important that they be heeded, whether modern laboratory verification has been able to perceive any benefits or not. The principle that involves herb cultivation in the right place and harvesting at the proper time of year is called didao yaocai. This term means “genuine,” and expresses the proper yin and yang properties of the herbs due to correct attention to planting in the right place (di: yin) at the right time (dao: yang). Only then can this herb considered to be genuine. It is not just a matter of correct species identification."}}

It should be that when you describe your methids as science, it is fair to describe it as pseudoscience at WP. Comments? PPdd (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The phrase whether modern laboratory verification has been able to perceive any benefits or not is what categorizes it as pseudo-science. If results cannot be replicated then it is not science. TFD (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, clearly pseudoscience. It's interesting that an apparently sane person believes that "detailed instructions" are the hallmark of a science. Perhaps the logic is "Science is precise therefore anything precise is Science". Dingo1729 (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not clear on the first sentence in this section. Is there a need for RS calling at least one altmed a pseudoscience or for calling all altmeds pseudoscience? This source addresses the first interpretation but not the second. However, it also requires OR to interpret the quote as saying anything other than that TCM is a true science, nothing about pseudoscience.Jojalozzo 11:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

@Joja - There was a complaint at this talk page (or talk:alt med, I don't remember which) about calling a TCM practice "pseudoscience", because it did not claim to be a science. Here is where it does claim to be a science, and an explanation why. The person quoted is a famous TCM historian/practitioner/scholar, and specializes on oral tradition in TCM, and is quoted in an oral interview as a secondary source on what he calls "science", but with wording straight out of the defining lead sentence of pseudoscience. PPdd (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. From what you say, I don't understand what all this is about. Just because someone calls it a science doesn't mean we can call it a pseudoscience. That would be synthesis and OR. All we need is a source that says it's pseudoscience. This discussion seems like a lot of fuss about the subject and not the article. Jojalozzo 03:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cooking is a lot more notable than traditional Chinese medicine, and I am pretty sure a lot more people call it a science. Presumably we all agree that the article should not say that cooking is pseudoscience. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) What's different about TCM? Hans Adler 22:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hans - "Culinary science" is a science, not pseudoscience. E.g., McDonalds uses sophisticated operations research methods to optimize cooking output. Immediately dropping hot hard boiled eggs in cold water to better shell them later is a science fact, and is not pseudoscience. Punching a hole in a bagel or doghnut flaying a slab of meat, etc., to increase surface area exposed to heat for more even cooking, are scientific methods. Methods of causing bread to rise are science. Pasteurizing or cooking time to kill harmful bacteria is science, and as the Odwalla salmonella in tastier unpasteruized apple juice problem about 15 years ago showed, science and art mix. "Culinary arts" uses culinary science to appeal to taste. Some areas of indian cuisine might be called "pseudoscience", since they are neither art nor science, such as relating food ingredients to the tin tal structure of some tabla music, or relating them to the strutcture of a work of indian art. Other aspects, like making ghee, are scientific, to be used in gustatory arts. PPdd (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I had noticed this pattern before but this has confirmed it: You are always locating pseudoscience in areas you are not familiar with, while what you know to some extent apparently is always clean. How about the following very widespread misconceptions that are actually being taught as part of this "science":

• Salt should be added to pasta water only after it started boiling. Otherwise the pasta may not turn out well.
• Alcohol used in cooking evaporates completely, or at least overwhelmingly, so that food prepared in this way can safely be given to children and alcoholics.
• Mushrooms must not be heated a second time, so if you cooked too much and want to eat the rest on the next day, you must it them cold.

You seem to be influenced very strongly by a cognitive bias that makes things that you know well appear interesting, large, diverse, multi-faceted and generally positive except perhaps for a few black sheep, while things you don't know much about appear usually not worth examining, small, uniform, homogeneous and dominated by their negative aspects. I am sure we all have this cognitive bias to some extent, and some related biases have Misplaced Pages articles (see outgroup homogeneity bias, trait ascription bias (yes, I am aware of the irony), well travelled road effect). If you want to contribute to an encyclopedia, you must either learn to control this bias or stay out of topics that you are not actually interested in. Hans Adler 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. the problem here is that people keep trying to dichotomize what's really a continuum. Science in its simplest sense just means the systematic observation of actions and their results, and the attempt to create theoretical constructs that describe that relationship. In that sense, science has been an ongoing project for many thousands of years in many different contexts. the tools of observation used in traditional chinese medicine (or in cooking, for that matter) are not on a par with modern tools, and the theories they use are not what a modern scientist would view as parsimonious, but that doesn't mean they are not scientific (that's as wrong as saying that early 20th century race car drivers are not actually race car drivers because their cars only went 60mph).

Pseudoscience, by contrast, is really something that tries to claim the authority of science without actually doing the systematic observation that science requires. I don't really consider most forms of AltMed to be pseudoscientific because (1) most never try to usurp to authoritative position of modern scientific methods, and (2) most have some system of observation and analysis, even if what they observe and how they analyze is a bit odd from western perspectives. of course there are AltMed pseudosciences (e.g. magnetic healing bracelets or modern Rife devices, that pretend to scientific rigor because it sells product), but most of altmed is just extrapolations of traditional (outdated) methodologies for a modern clientele, mixed with a form of one-on-one personal care that makes them more friendly than the detached, impersonal, aseptic atmosphere of a clinic or hospital. --Ludwigs2 00:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages is a secondary source accoring to WP:RS,(that was a bad joke about the highly nonWP:V and WP:OR) definition of pseudoscience from its article. "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology". Pretty much exactly worded as the bold face in the quote above, but generalized. PPdd (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, being a secondary source implies avoiding synthesis in both direction. The definition you give (which is a reasonably good definition) should be used judiciously, neither overextending nor minimizing the language. I don't think the source above 'presents the topic as scientific' in the way this definition implies - The archetype of pseudoscience (obviously) is creationism, which explicitly claimed to be in competition with (even superior to) modern scientific theory and methodology. This TCM author only seems to be claiming that there is form of scientific reasoning in play, and is not comparing TCM to modern medicine or making any claims of equivalence. --Ludwigs2 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, WP:SPS states the following:

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I have added in the emphasis. And furthermore, WP:CIRCULAR states:

Articles on Misplaced Pages or on websites that mirror its content should not be used as sources, because this would amount to self-reference. Similarly, editors should not use sources that present material originating from Misplaced Pages to support that same material in Misplaced Pages, as this would create circular sourcing—Misplaced Pages citing a source that derives its material from Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.

Sorry, but you can't cite a wiki on a wiki. N419BH 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a bad joke on my part. Most editors here know me and expect dumb jokes to be peppered with content. I struck the joke "WP is RS" part. The point of the joke was that the definition in the pseudoscience article is not WP:V, and is pure WP:OR (but still a good definition that I am not suggesting changing). It just turned out that the language of the definition (OR nonV) has wording almost identical to what the quoted famous TCM scholar/practitioner used to self describe his field. That second point is a fact, but is also actually funny. LOL PPdd (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The subject is confusing for me because I keep looking for a reasonable distinction between honest but inadequate attempt at science and honest (pseudoscience?) and successful attempt at science (real science?). There is a parallel between medicine and engineering. As an engineer, I am not a scientist. I practice according to theory and some of those are based on physics and chemistry. In fundamental terms, medicine is a practice based on a theory. The theory is usually based on the sciences of biology and physics, but in some cases, the theories are based on educated guesses derived from experience. Alternative practices are the same. In some cases mainstream medicine has or had it wrong, but there the science is discussed by the mainstream community from the perspective of what was learned. In alternative practices, the science is just vilified by the mainstream.

From my perspective, I would end the article with the statement that "The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative." I have said it before. The term is being used to discount science when the quality of science should be addressed just like one would for any effort to conduct research. It is also being used to discount good science that is based on assumptions that are not acceptable to the mainstream editors. That is intellectually lazy and simple prejudice ... not encyclopedic at all, just a tool for the skeptics, and as such, the article will never be stable as it is now. Tom Butler (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not surprising that you find it confusing, because it still confuses people who study science for a living. see the demarcation problem. In fact, what happened (if you'll pardon a momentary exegesis) is that back in the first half of the last century there was a push to 'define' science - this was part of the modernism movement, which was trying to export modern western culture to other places in the world in the belief that modern western culture was inherently better than those 'exotic, primitive' societies. 'Modern western culture' boiled down to capitalism, democracy, and science/technology, and a lot of people had a vested interest in demonstrating that all of those were intrinsically better. This led to people like Popper trying to construct rationales that explained why modernist science was actually superior: pseudoscience was his brainchild in a lot of ways, as his way of distinguishing 'true science' from other activities that looked like science. However, modernism is basically dead (most people subscribe to various forms of multiculturalism now), no one in the philosophy of science subscribes to Popper's theories any more, but the pseudoscience idea has hung around as a kind of cultural prejudice. I mean, most scholars recognize that there is a difference between proper research paradigms and flawed methodologies, but the idea that there is a singular 'scientific method' that sets western science apart has been mostly discarded in favor of utilitarian models of science.

Unfortunately, wikipedia is far more sensitive to cultural prejudices than most arenas of life, so pseudoscience is a far bigger deal here than it is practically anywhere else in the world. interesting (but annoying) phenomena. --Ludwigs2 05:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom Butler, your confusion might be lessened by reading the bad faith article, which has a section on "honesty" as you use it in pseudoscience. Sartre introduced the idea, which then developed into where a person deceives themselves (like in the pseudosciences of creation science or nazi eugentics, they may be superficially "honest", but are actually dishonest because they are dishonest with themselves. Ludwigs2's confusion is about technicalities of a different kind. PPdd (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I think in some cases (many cases) politics has entered into the fray, and when that happens controversy usually increases proportionately (possibly exponentially). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT 14:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience may seem like a bad faith issue to some, but since the term has been defined, it has become a name used to identify any idea that does not conform to some people's worldview. That is simply promoting prejudice and "official Wiki" opposition to new ideas. People may believe that it is necessary to identify fraudulent use of science but the distinction between bad faith and honest but uninformed attempts at good research is not being made here.

This discussion is pertinent to the article's development because I know it has been a battle ground for years now. It is possible to make the article more specifically about failed attempts at good science rather than about fraud and deception for profit. All of my areas of study are classified as pseudoscience, and I take the implication in this article that, therefore, I am fraudulently deceiving the public or putting the public in danger as a direct insult of the popular use of this term in Misplaced Pages and by the skeptical community. Even more damaging is that the vilification can and has resulted in the kind of danger that makes me think I should go underground with my work. (When I talk about my work, I should be talking about the work of a pretty large community around the world.)

You may be educated, but the many of the people who read this article are more Luddite than scholar. I am confident that most people editing here are not sufficiently informed about progress in understanding subtle energy phenomena to make a blanket claim about bad science or fraud. If that is the case, then the only remaining reason for this article's tone is to discourage people from studying subjects which are not currently supported in modern science. That is tantamount to the mainstream becoming a "Flat Earth Society." Tom Butler (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom: the pseudoscience problem on wikipedia is that the project has a vocal contingent of dedicated skeptics who have gotten it into their heads that they need to defend the project from fringe advocacy. That's not such a bad thing except that (a) skeptics aren't really scientists, and tend to act on ideological grounds rather than reasoned analysis, and (b) the 'defend the project' mentality means that they will often support other people they perceive as skeptics, regardless of the actual context of the matter. What happened here is typical of my experience on fringe articles: make some minorish change, offer a reasonable explanation, then be met with a flurry of kneejerk reverts (usually without explanation or discussion) and be forced to repeat the same reasoning over and over and over again as different skeptical editors show up to repeat the same defunct arguments that the last dozen skeptical editors made. It's like one of those zombie movies where no matter how many you escape, another always appears with the same stumbling, mind-devouring intent.

Misplaced Pages IV: Night of the Living Skeptics. yeah, this is probably going to get me in trouble... --Ludwigs2 22:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, my fellow zombie just phoned me, and has to work late as a Whac-A-Mole, so here I am instead. Scientists are usually skeptics (e.g., definition of "normal science" and why it sticks), and most skeptics come from their ranks, so skeptics are usually scientists, especially prominent skeptics like at Science Based Medicine. PPdd (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, that makes zero sense. Scientists have no ownership of skepticism, so it's silly to say that most skeptics are scientists. Anyone with a reasonable level of common sense and awareness can be skeptical. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT 03:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, do you really want to include the likes of James Randi adherents as the scientists you respect? You may want to stop canvassing amongst the various talk pages to drum up support for yoour personal crusades. I know admins get a little concerned that such activity is intended to gang up on opposition. Of course, I know you would not dream of doing that. Tom Butler (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd - actually, science and skepticism are entirely different projects; they share the word skepticism, but it has different meanings for each group. for a scientist, skepticism means (roughly) "I choose not to have any beliefs about a subject in the absence of evidence." It's a philosophically conservative position designed to keep people from making a priori assertions about the world (except those dictated by logic or math). For skeptics, by contrast, skepticism means (roughly) "I choose to believe that non-conventional ideas are wrong until they have met some burden of evidence." This is an ideological position designed to advocate against certain kinds of viewpoints. See how these differ on (for example) acupuncture:

• Looking at something like acupuncture scientifically one would be forced to admit that there really isn't much evidence either way - there is no scientific reason to recommend its use, but no obvious reason to say that it's wrong, either.
  • i.e. acupuncture is morally neutral, like drinking tea with honey and lemon when you have a cold.
• Looking at something like acupuncture as a skeptic one would find oneself saying that acupuncture hasn't met the needed burden of evidence, and so acupuncture is wrong - and this will lead to ideological claims that people who take acupuncture are stupid, that people who do acupuncture are charlatans, and etc.
  • i.e. acupuncture is morally bereft, like selling sugar pills as cure for cancer.

Science and skepticism overlap in the assertion that one should use practices that have been born out by systematic experience. But that's where the similarity ends: skepticism goes on to make moral judgements about practices that science can never make, and to engage in advocacy with respect to those moral claims. I mean, look at the vast range of skeptical literature, almost none of which contains any actual research (aside from literature reviews of other people's published work), and which is almost entirely dedicated to critical declamations against one or another questionable activity. Skepticism is (frankly) scientific punditry, and while I won't deny its value in that 'consumer advocate' sort of way, one needs to be cautious with it as an intellectual enterprise. --Ludwigs2 03:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, in the following statement I suspect you have unintentionally created a straw man argument, or are confusing pseudoskepticism for skepticism. I say "unintentionally" because I know you know better, when you just think it over:

• Looking at something like acupuncture as a skeptic one would find oneself saying that acupuncture hasn't met the needed burden of evidence, and so acupuncture is wrong - and this will lead to ideological claims that people who take acupuncture are stupid, that people who do acupuncture are charlatans, and etc.

Human nature being what it is, that might happen, but skepticism is directed at the undocumented claims made for acupuncture, not at acupuncture itself. It's just a method. Since it actually affects the body, it has the potential for both good and bad effects. The claims commonly made are the problem. If the claims were neutral, there would be no problem. Marcello Truzzi understood the matter quite well. Skepticism is agnostic. That most modern skeptics think he had a problem with never saying "enough is enough", and that they think there is a time to call a spade a spade is another matter. They don't hesitate to declare obviously nonsensical claims for nonsensical and insist that the burden of evidence is on the one making the nonsensical claims. In that sense one might say that the very definition of modern skepticism has moved a bit further from his definition. By contrast, those who are enthused with pseudoscientific ideas would like to keep their minds open to even the most ridiculous speculations (no amount of evidence to the contrary can dissuade them), while skeptics require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. They don't keep their minds open to such claims for all eternity. They move on to other more constructive endeavors and wait for proponents to provide proof. If they do so, then the skeptics will drop their skepticism and accept this new evidence. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't speak clearly. The main distinction I was trying to make is that scientists (as you/truzzi point out) are agnostic, but skeptics have a distinct belief structure. Having the belief structure is not bad in-and-of-itself, and there is a distinct difference between skeptics (who will believe something is false until they see a clear demonstration of its truth) and pseudoskeptics (who believe something is false as a matter of ideology, and cannot accept it as true, regardless of evidence, without something akin to a crisis of faith). For instance, if the rapture were actually to happen tomorrow, scientists would go "hunh, look at that" skeptics would go "well, shit! who'da thought?", and pseudoskeptics would go on denying it until Jesus himself smacked them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Don't know if that's of any use, but it sure was a fun example. --Ludwigs2 05:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Finding a second opinion

I have been searching the Internet for a second opinion about pseudoscience. In fact, the only people who seem to be using the term are skeptics, scientists complaining about opposing views and people who parrot scientists and other opinion setters. This is very strange in that there seems to always be opposing views for other subjects or viewpoints. It is the nature of some people to be a little contrarian. Do you suppose it is professional suicide to question the concept? It certainly is here if you look at how some editors think.

I did find one interesting article which I think is much more balanced and reasonable than the one here. The main difference is that it is more balanced. At least I did not feel that the editors were attacking, only explaining. The pseudoscience article is here. Tom Butler (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What in the current article do you think is attacking? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You have a point Tom Butler. Before I read your link, I was thinking exactly what that article says - "The term is pejorative, and its use is inevitably controversial..." It is what real scientists think of stuff that claims to be science but isn't. However, I cannot see how such a negative perspective can be avoided. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Tom, please point it out. As to the pejorative nature of the term, certainly it's pejorative. So what? What relevance does that have here? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal for inherently negative concepts such as pseudoscience, stupidity, murder, child abuse etc. not to have public proponents or apologists. Sometimes there are proponents, but they try to cheat by changing the definitions (as the previous US government did with torture, for example). Even for totally negative concepts one sometimes finds proponents or at least pretended proponents. Some such people (Satanists) choose what they consider sufficiently evil and therefore cool. They are not interested in defending pseudoscience or other forms of incompetence or dishonesty.

The philosophical troubles with demarcation between science and pseudoscience do of course make the concept of pseudoscience somewhat questionable, but no more so than the concept of science. If you are interested in scholarship (in a wide sense) that strives to defend stupidity by claiming essentially that there is no real difference between science and pseudoscience, then I suggest you look at what some postmodern authors say about science. Hans Adler 21:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience... One must clearly distinguish the following:

1. Simply not science (religious beliefs, astrology, etc.)
2. Fringe/unproven theories. They may be wrong or occasionally right, but they do not contradict basics of mainstream science.
3. Bad science (articles retracted from "Nature")
4. Defunct historical theories (e.g. Lamarkism) - no one currently claims them to be correct scientific theories
5. Legitimate scientific disputes, e.g. about Global warming, no matter who was right or wrong
6. Real pseudoscience, e.g. Lysenkoism. This is something which satisfy two conditions: (a) it was claimed to be real science, but (b) it contradicted well established basics of science (e.g. Genetics) at the time when the pseudoscientific theory was proposed. Pseudoscience is usually promoted by people who pretend to be scientists, like Trofim Lysenko or Olga Lepeshinskaya (biologist). Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology "simply not science" -- is that supposed to be a joke? Astrology is the standard example of pseudoscience. It's the one thing that basically everybody (and certainly all philosophers of science whose opinions on pseudoscience I have read) agrees is a pseudoscience. Also, calling the dispute about global warming a legitimate scientific dispute is a severe over-simplification. To the extent that there is an actual legitimate scientific dispute, it is overshadowed by a denial campaign that has no legitimacy whatsoever and which employs deliberate pseudoscience, character assassinations against scientists and similar dirty tricks. Hans Adler 21:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not think it through. Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies can explain or predict fate, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters. The influence of solar cycles on "earthly matters" is actually mainstream science.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I am not sure if I read your comment correctly. Did you just compare pseudoscience with stupidity, murder and child abuse?

The first thing I have noticed about pseudoscience is that virtually all of the people using the term are either skeptics on clearly skeptical websites, people who need a term that will prejudice the reader or people quoting skeptics and those scientists. Government agencies are basing their claims on statements from skeptical publications. In turn, Misplaced Pages editors are basing statements here on those references and probably millions of less discerning people are assuming all of this is a proper scientific perspective. That is circular referencing.

The first sentence in the article makes an absolute statement that pseudoscience does not follow "valid scientific methodology" and that there is a "general absence of systematic process." The part I think is the most clever is the implication that, while yes it is a derogatory term, it is only so because it is the awful truth and those practicing pseudoscience naturally complain about being so labeled. Most of the opening is like that.

Of course there are cases of bad science, but most often it is because of a poorly considered hypothesis or because the person simply does not have the training in proper science and logical thinking. Telling someone like a ghost hunter that they are stupid for believing in ghosts when they have a really convincing picture of one in their camera is naturally going to get a "Yes there are" response. The intellectually responsible thing to do is to examine the photo and figure out what it really is. This article helps to assure that anyone who does thids will be vilified.

(This is a well-known dilemma for people seeking help understanding how mundane artifacts might be mistaken as paranormal phenomena. Someone says "pseudoscience" and people who might know run for the door.)

As for the proper scientific method, it is easily demonstrated that a lot of what you call pseudoscience is good science often applied by academically trained good scientists. What the article is really saying is contained in that one word of the opening sentence: "plausibility." Right now, the official position of editors who want to make studying anything they deem to be pseudoscience an actionable offense that would result in a permanent block, and probably jail if they were lawmakers is that "It is impossible and therefore cannot be." That automatically makes all things they disagree with, pseudoscience. Tom Butler (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at why astrology is a pseudoscience. I study the major arcana of the Tarot to better understand the concepts in the hermetic teachings. There is a strong correlation between tarot and astrology when it comes to major personality types. There is also good agreement with the four temperaments described by David Merrill and Roger Reid. These are all observational categories.

Relating astrology to the position of the planets does use astronomy, but it appears that astronomy was more related to agriculture and astrologers adopted astronomy as a possible causative influence for observed personality. I am not a scholar on astrology and lost interest in astronomy in elementary school, but it has always been my understanding that astrology is based on a theory and uses astronomy as a tool. It is the theory you all are objecting to and calling astrology a pseudoscience is clearly a way of vilifying that which you do not agree.

There are excellent reasons to think personality is related to planetary cycles, but probably not for the same reasons held by astrological theory. For instance, people born in the winter are apparently more prone to schizophrenia. The culprit is thought to be virus in "junk DNA" which is sometimes "turned on" if the mother or child has a cold or flue near the time of birth. This is actually being considered as the cause of other degenerative diseases of the brain. This is way out of my field, but the correlation between season of birth and behavior--in some cases--is clear. See , , and

All of your indignation aside, astrology is a theory put to practice based on information gathered via astronomy. As seen in our day, it is based on science, but the theory is based on observation and science is just handy. It may be a silly idea, but it is only pseudoscience because you say it is. Tom Butler (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If it were a science then it would be possible to predict outcomes that could not be explained by other factors, such as climate at time of birth. And rather than merely using astronomy for gathering information, it makes specific claims about planets, stars and moons that supposedly affect people and events in ways that cannot be explained by physics. TFD (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For Misplaced Pages, astrology is a pseudoscience because all relevant reliable sources agree that it is a pseudoscience and most regard it as the paradigm of pseudoscience. This is not the place for continuing this absurd discussion. See my second comment in the thread Talk:Astrology#'pseudoscience' in first line. Hans Adler 19:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I couldn't get past Brangifer comment that "we use pejoratives here all the time because RS use them." That gives me a new definition for "stupid is as stupid does."

But I agree that nothing more is going to be gained here. I do want to thank everyone for helping me understand some of the social dynamics of this issue. What I have learned is to recommend that people ask those who discount their work as pseudoscience if they have examined the tenets of the subject, and if so, exactly what in it is pseudoscience. If that does not produce a response that can be addressed then the person must assume the pseudoscience claim is based on either just the desire to discount the subject or there is a genuine belief that the subject is impossible because mainstream science (or its apologists) say so. There is no way that accusations based on scientism can be addressed with rational discussion.

Of course, there are issues with science education but they will not be addressed with this sort of name calling. I don't care where the idiot saying so was published. Tom Butler (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom, we don't use pejoratives as pejoratives, we use words as words. Whether they are pejorative is secondary. There is simply no non-pejorative word for pseudoscience (non-normal science really doesn't cut it), and yet this phenomenon is well covered in thousands of RS. We reflect their 'bias' and also note the status of the word as it is perceived by those it is applied to. I know you'd prefer there be no such thing as pseudoscience, but somewhere along the way you'll run into a subject that just seems hokey (Raelians? Young Earth Creationism? ShamWow?) and find the claims made to represent the validity of these subjects couched in a pseudo-scientific language which is wholly unwarranted. Ocaasi (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad picture.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Phrenologychart.png picture appears on this article. After noticing that it does not link to Phrenology, I checked. Phrenology contains a much clearer version of the same file: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:PhrenologyPix.jpg it solves the readability problems of the picture in this article. I have replaced the hard to read version with the clear one from the Phrenology page. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Suitable to include in the main text

According to this edit summary the text is not suitable for the lead. So, I put it in the main text with this change. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Did this change replace sourced text with WP:OR? Does the source say "may in some cases". Did the change fail WP:V? I do, however, I agree with the placement. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've removed this text, as it is an obvious misrepresentation of the source. Looking at the abstract in the link, three things are eminently clear:

1. This is a brand new article that has in no way stood the test of time
2. That the author is not discussing the dangers of pseudoscience, but is using that phrase as a casual introduction to his real topic, the psychological factors that lead people to accept pseudoscience
3. That at best this line would point to medical pseudoscience (it's published in PubMed), and at worst it would apply to a restricted subset of medical pseudoscience which the author describes in detail in the first sections of the article.

since I don't have access to PubMed at the moment I can't read the article to be sure what he's talking about, but I can say that as a research psychologist the author may not be qualified to render an opinion on the medical dangers of pseudoscience to the public, and if he is offering a new theorty on the psychological dangers to the public it's most likely not significant enough to use here.

In short, the statement may not satisfy wp:UNDUE and the source may not be reliable for the use it's being put to here. can someone post the entire article for me to read? thanks. --Ludwigs2 06:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff we're talking about:

• Pseudoscience, superstitions and quackery threaten public health.<ref></ref>

Here's the abstract, where we are obviously drawing from the lead sentence:

• Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality of so many people that needs to be understood. The proposal we put forward is that these illusions arise from the normal functioning of the cognitive system when trying to associate causes and effects. Thus, we propose to apply basic research and theories on causal learning to reduce the impact of pseudoscience. We review the literature on the illusion of control and the causal learning traditions, and then present an experiment as an illustration of how this approach can provide fruitful ideas to reduce pseudoscientific thinking. The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better. Two different predictions arising from the integration of the causal learning and illusion of control domains are then proven effective in reducing this illusion. One is showing the testimony of people who feel better without having followed the treatment. The other is asking participants to think in causal terms rather than in terms of effectiveness.

Ludwigs2, how do you interpret this? You're welcome to improve on our use of the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the above criticisms is that regarding the key sentence, "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved," it is not indicated by the abstract alone whether it is a passing observation or a key result of the study. If we're using this source for that claim, the relevant piece would come from the conclusion and not the background section. It's hard to tell how it the study approaches that statement without access to the full study, though... Ocaasi (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What is significant about this study is the casual learning approach to get patients active in identifying causes, over just describing the modality effectiveness. The intro is sensationalism, for demonstrating relevance and getting attention. The study does not appear to be designed to validate the "serious problem". To say it does and include in this article is a pseudoscience illusion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, brangifer, if you could post a public link to something more than the abstract? I recognize the style of abstract here; I've done it myself. when you compress a 12-15 page article down to 250 words you have to toss out a recognizable context quickly and briefly and then get to your main result, and this often means that you do not do justice to the context. as I (and others) have said, that first line is over-brief framing, not study conclusions, which leads me to worry that (a) we are taking the phrase out of the author's context and misusing it, and (b) that the author might not be qualified to make the claim that we are asserting s/he made. an examination fo the full article would clarify that. --Ludwigs2 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Users could download the original article here, assuming they had access rights. (Easy to find, given the title of the journal.)

I have placed a copy on my wikipedia website http://mathsci.free.fr/ludwigs2.pdf. Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed the copy. Ocaasi (talk · contribs) disclosed on my talk page that he had downloaded his copy from my website. Please ask Ocaasi if you need to view the whole article and do not have access rights yourself. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually just copied the text and pasted it from the first 4 paragraphs. I don't have my own copy. Ocaasi (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant excerpt

http://bpsoc.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/pre-prints/bjp898

The extract of the Psychology paper that MathSci has been kind enough to put up here suggests that the paper is polemic in tone. In addition to its recent publication not giving it enough time to be peer assessed, this suggests that the paper may not yet have achieved the status of a source reliable enough for this article. I don't think that the article will be diminished by its omission. I have much sympathy with people like Quack-Guru who conceive it to be their mission to save the world from the ravages of quackery, but I feel that this would be done best by keeping this article as neutral as possible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, it seems it was Ocaasi who posted the extract. It helps to sign posts at bottom. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

I pasted text copied from MathSci's link, and didn't want to implicate anyone in a possibly excessive instance of fair use reproduction. The only purpose of posting was so we could all read it, and discuss the source. Towards that end, MathSci's version was very useful. Ocaasi (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Another reference for causal learning ... about time to start this article. The pseudoscience label doesn't seem to help address the causation issues. Seems like it's mainly a stone to cast in a warrior's battlefield. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

'Cause and effect' subthread

This article neglects the causality attribution issues when distinguishing between pseudoscience and science claims. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your addition, which has the article state: "The basic notion is that all experimental results on cause and effect should be reproducible...", does not make sense. Please clarify. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your concern about cause and effect making sense; however, where are you mixed up? How would you suggest to improve? I was trying to keep it simple under the principle that empirical science aims to identify cause and effect relationships. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the sentence appears not to make syntactical sense. Probably the key problem is at "experimental results on cause and effect". Oh, and discussion of the atrticle belongs on article talk, not user talk. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, what syntax rule is being violated? Can you suggest an improvement? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(i) Not being a grammaticist, I have no idea -- all I know is that it does not parse into anything meaningful. (ii) As I've no idea what it is supposed to mean, no. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Having no idea, I guess we will all remain baffled by the tag's meaning too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then you should attempt to explain here what you were trying to say in the sentence in question. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, based upon the premise that science is the process to determine or describe causes and effect relationships with empirical observation. Causality is at the origin of scientific thought. However, the Pseudoscience issues tends to place science at the boundary between Aristotle's four causes. The simple addition was an attempt to bring causality references into the article, from the existing sources, as prompted by the studies which applied "causal learning" Thanks for rearranging this talk. I suspect creating a "causal learning" article and then appropriately cross referencing between this article, without a POV fork, would help expand Misplaced Pages's goals and give adequate weight to causality as related to pseudoscience. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what you were attempting to say was that "The basic notion is that the cause and effect of all experimental results should be reproducible..." -- however, the "cause and effect" part of that would appear to be redundant -- as "The basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible..." is no less true, and would be the more general case -- as some scientific experiments don't seek to demonstrate causality, but merely correlation. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Except when scientists can't keep up with tracking or measuring changes in causes to an effect, then there is a reproducibility issue. Some events have such an unusual confluence of causes, which experiments may find irrelevant or trivial; however, may unexpectedly, in unique conditions, affect the outcome. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, there are two separate issues here, which ought to be kept separate unless you're trying to develop a mental hernia. Replicability (the ability to reproduce a particular effect) is always pragmatic and evidentiary - we see (measure) an effect being reproduced, regularly and consistently. Causality is always theoretical - it's an assertion about the underlying unseen causation of that observable regularity. That's why the theory of gravity is just (and always will be just) a theory: despite the fact that the effects are massively reproducible (pun intended), we cannot see the causation; all we can do is create theories which describe what we observe as best as possible. What I think you're trying to get at is that there is a difference between a theory which describes observations poorly (which is science, if weak science) and a theory which tries to prescribe observations that do not exist (which is pseudoscience). or am I missing your point? --Ludwigs2 15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point, thanks ... I guess that is why causality can be theoretical expanded to absurdity, where as Replicability would assume a measurement standard. Can't wait to transform this discussion into content Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable peer reviewed journal

The British Journal of Psychology is reliable and the text is relevant to this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

QG - reliability is not a magic wand. Sure, BJoP is an well-established and credible journal, and I see no reason to challenge the credentials of the author. However, neither of those points matter because - as the entire discussion above shows - you are quoting the source out of context. Trying to use a quote to make a claim that the source itself is not actually making is a wikipedia nono, and you don't make things better by saying "...but the source I'm misquoting is a good source." Do I really need to explain this to you? --Ludwigs2 10:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I edited the addition, since some of it was redundant, and the 'serious threat' claim is not well supported by the source. I think it reads reasonably well, but check it out. Ocaasi (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't really care, except that entire paragraph is just plain wrong, in multiple ways. Don't get suckered by QG's one-man pogrom against AltMed into making compromises with silliness. rewriting it now. --Ludwigs2 11:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Much better, and clearly where the bigger picture is. Writing with a focus on 'the source in your hand' is great for WP:V, but not for WP:NPOV. One quibble, can we edit out 'ontological claim', as I think the average encyclopedia reader won't know what to make of it? Ocaasi (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - I just removed the polysyllab. I was tempted to rewrite it "... ontic/deontic validity assertions..." just to mess with your head, but I refrained (in deed, if not in thought...). --Ludwigs2 12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you show how the source was taken out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, can you show how the text was poorly sourced. Do you think the journal is a reliable source when you stated a source may not have to be MEDRS. So far no good reason has been given to delete the reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."

The 'serious threat' claim is well supported by the source. The correct term is 'public health' because it is supported by the source. The text passed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, no. first, "Public Health" is almost invariably used to apply to things like sanitation problems, toxic spills, or epidemics, which affect large numbers of people indirectly and without their knowledge or volition. Pseudoscience would not be considered a public health issue in that sense since it can only affect individuals who seek it out. second, only a small subset of medical pseudoscience constitutes any threat to the health of individuals, so therefore the phrase does not fit when we are discussing pseudoscience more generally.

Finally (and for the last time), verifiability is an exclusion principle, not an inclusion principle. we can remove statements that cannot be verified, but the fact that a statement can be verifiable does not guarantee its inclusion. statements which are taken out of context, that are off-topic, or that are otherwise being used in a way inconsistent with the author's intent or the article topic should never be included. --Ludwigs2 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The term public health is sourced per V. Your own orginal research review of the source is not verifiable. Diluting the text is taking the source out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is being used out of context to begin with, so that hardly matters. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you show how the source is being used out of context rather than asserting it when the text is supported by the peer reviewed reference. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already shown that, repeatedly. As I've said, the article in question is specific to medical issues, and the claim you are using is not the focus of the article but merely a framing point in the abstract. Those two things mean that the claim cannot be used in an article about general pseudoscience, both because pseudoscience is a much broader topic than medical issues and because there's no reason to believe the author would make that claim even about all medical pseudoscience.

This is the last time I'm making this point. if you ignore it (again) and make the same comment (again), I'm gathering up diffs of the six or seven times I've said it to you and opening an RfC/U. either address the point or give it up; the discussion moves on productively or it ends. understood? --Ludwigs2 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your personal disagreement with the peer reviewed source is not a reason to delete the source from the article. The source is specific to the topic of pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a 'personal disagreement' with the source, QG, it's an assessment of the weight the source should be given on this article - which in my view is close to zero. this is not a wp:V issue, it's wp:NPOV. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When your edit summary claims 'public health' is the wrong term and the text you deleted is supported by the reference this suggests you do have a personal disagreement with the relevant source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what you think is 'suggested' by my edit summary; Please comment on the edit, not the editor. The NPOV issue I raised is a valid concern. Either discuss it, or drop the matter. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary did not match your edit. You claimed the text is not supported by the reference but the source does support the claim. The NPOV issue you raised is because you think the source is bias becuase you think the term 'public health' is wrong when it is supported by the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the NPOV issue is that the source (1) is not talking about pseudoscience in general, but only about medical pseudoscience, and (2) the source is not arguing that pseudoscience is a danger to the public, but merely asserting that in the abstract to frame the issue (making it a point-of-view opinion rather than an analytic conclusion). Thus we have a primary source making a POV-assertion about a small subset of cases of the topic at hand - that carries no scholarly weight at all. --Ludwigs2 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The text that was added to the article from a journal was sourced. The source does discuss pseudoscience. If you think the source did not discuss pseudoscience then I suggest you read the source again. The source is not arguing that pseudoscience is a danger to the public. The source is stating it is a serious threat to public health. I previously explained the term 'public heatlh' is sourced. You are engaging in OR analysis of the source which is not appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You just basically sidestepped what I said, and you are straying further and further from reason and common sense. If you keep pushing this point, I'm going to give up trying to talk to you and simply IAR your misuse of policy here as an inane detriment to the encyclopedia. If you like, let's get a wp:3O and lay out our arguments for a stranger to read - I can't imagine anyone who would find your logic convincing. --Ludwigs2 23:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that this discussion is veering into the area of silliness. It would be best to put an end to it before accusations of trollery start flying. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Ludwigs2, your arguments are not based on V. You seem to want to justify your inclusion oif unsourced text despite you claiming the text is sourced. It does not matter you think the source is asserting the statement. What matters is that the statement is sourced in accordance with V.

Xxanthippe, it would be best if you explain why sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal was deleted in favor of text that seems to be unsourced. The NSF website is not peer reiviewed and did not verify the text after I tried to verify the text. I am still waiting for verification and no reasonable explanation was given to delete sourced text. Xxanthippe, you seem to support Ludwigs 2 continuing to ignore V. QuackGuru (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

QG:

1. did you seriously just say that a primary source article is more reliable than an NSF-derived secondary publications?
2. did you seriously just imply that wp:V trumps wp:NPOV?

If I didn't think you were serious I'd be laughing my ass off. well, I'm am laughing my ass off anyway, but it's tinged with a certain sympathetic sadness.

I'm done talking to you, because it's not going anywhere. if you want to do the wp:3O I suggested above, I'm game; if you don't, you're SOL, sorry. Your argument just doesn't have a leg to stand on, and you're the only person here who doesn't see it. --Ludwigs2 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are not based on Misplaced Pages policy. Your edits are also based on Misplaced Pages. This content dispute shows you are not able to provide verification for your edit and refuse to comply with both V and NPOV. You have repeatedly ignored the concerns that you replaced sourced text with unsourced text. You seem to think you can delete sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal and replace it with with whatever unsourced text you want. Please restore the sourced text and try to summarise the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary: I am making a perfectly valid argument per wp:NPOV - you simply refuse to acknowledge it. I've heard your argument, and I've responded to that as well - you simply refuse to acknowledge my response. so be it. We aren't discussing this anymore, QG. You can either choose to accept my offer of wp:3O (or some other wp:DR process, if you prefer), or you can choose to go away. Or I suppose you can choose to keep blathering on here, but I'll simply dismiss any future posts you make (I'll simply respond with a 'piffle'), unless it looks like you're really giving proper consideration to my NPOV issues.

choose. --Ludwigs2 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the reality of the debate. Please try to choose to respect Misplaced Pages policies. You seem to be ignoring the real NPOV issues. Your edit summary claimed editing paragraph; 'public health' is wrong term; source removed as it does not support claim being made; refocusing on the NSF, which is really where this paragraph wants to go. You claim the source does not support the claim. The text is supported by the reliable peer reviewed journal. For example, Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. You claim 'public health' is the wrong term when the source does specifically use the term 'public health'. Your personal disagreement with the source is not a good reason to delete the source. Do you agree in the future you will not replace sourced text with unsourced text. You claimed the NSF website verified the text you added to the article. When I looked closer at your edit it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and it seems you replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed and I could not verify the text with any of the articles from the NSF website. Is there some reason you are not going to try to verify the text or delete the unsourced text you added to the article after the text was challenged. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. Do you agree is was a mistake you deleted sourced relevant text from a reliable journal. I don't think you have provided any good reason a peer reviewed journal should be deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS. When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources there would be no reason in the future to add attribution in the text because you claim the source is asserting the claim. A personal disagreement is not a serious dispute among reliable sources. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you agree to follow V and NPOV policies better in the future. Do you think the text you added is inaccurate and unsourced. Do you think unsourced claims it is appropriate to replace sourced information with unsourced text when there is already an reliable journal available. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is taking the source out of context. It looks like you diluted the meaning of the text because you disagree with the claims the source makes. Do you agree with WP:NPOV that it says do not remove sourced information because you think it seems biased. See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." See WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." See WP:IRS: "Many Misplaced Pages articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." See WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." You seem to not understand that the reference is from a reliable peer reviewed journal that similar to other references found in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

piffle. --Ludwigs2 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You have ignored my request that you provide verifiaction for the unsourced claims not found on the NSF website. Do you agree the text you added should be deleted or replaced with sourced text such as from a reliable peer reviewed source. Do you agree with WP:V when it says "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Do you agree with WP:NPOV when it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I've come to the conclusion that discussing the matter with you is a waste of time - you seem immune to discussion, and there is no hope of resolving the issue through normal methods. Do you agree to use Dispute resolution processes such as wp:3O for this issue, or do you refuse? If you refuse DR, then kindly stop filling the talk page with the Same-Old-Crud-You've-Already-Written-A-Double-Dozen-Times. thanks. --Ludwigs2 15:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Uninvited third opinion: I think we all agree that pseudoscience can be harmful but we need a reliable source to make the claim. The brief mention of public health in the journal article is unsupported and not intended to be authoritative. If that is the only available source for the claim, then we should not make the claim. Rather than argue this, everyone's time would be better spent seeking an authoritative and notable source. Jojalozzo 06:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The text added by Ludwigs2 is unsupported by the NSF website. It is obvious to me the journal does use the term 'public health'. Jojalozzo, does the source say "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved." A peer reviewed journal is reliable according to WP:V. Jojalozzo, do you really support the unsourced text added by Ludwigs2 rather than sourced information from the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my 2 cents here: both versions are wrong. The journal was not an adequate source for that text, but Ludwigs2 compounded the situation by making an unsourced edit made from his memory. He claims that it is the NSF position, but he refuses to source the text himself. Also, what Jojalozzo says.

Proposed drama-less solution: someone reads chapter 7 of NSF report (49 pages) and rewrites the text according to the actual source. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that myself if no one else gets around to it first - I've just been a bit busy lately. maybe over the weekend? I'm not certain that will resolve the problem, however. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You claimed the text you added was sourced but what you added was original research. Is there a reason why we should not include the peer reviewed journal. If there is no real reason why the journal was deleted then it should be restored. Ludwigs2, do you agree that the text that failed verfication can be deleted from the article now. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, and as Jojalozzo suggested above, the journal article you want to use is not all that reliable for this topic. It really can't be used in a general discussion of pseudoscience. As fr the other... you can wait a couple of days for me to provide proper referencing. If I haven't done so by monday we can reopen the discussion. --Ludwigs2 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As WP:V explains "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." You have not given a good reason why the original research you added to the article can continue to stay in the article. You previously claimed the text you added to the article is sourced but now you think it should be rewritten. I previously told you that the text failed verification but you ignored me. You wrote "If I haven't done so by monday we can reopen the discussion." No, there is no reason why editors should wait for you to remove the OR you added to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

QC: Please locate a proper source and add it to the article. Spending time arguing here instead of adding a proper citation is unconstructive. Jojalozzo 22:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I did locate a propoer source that is peer reviewed. Would you like me to add it to the article. I have a copy of the PDF file. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DNFT Jojalozzo 02:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DNFT is not an appropriate response to the proposal to using a peer-reviewed source. The original research was replaced with relevant sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourced text was replaced with unsourced text

Ludwigs2 thinks his opinion is more reliable than the journal according to this edit against WP:V and WP:OR. We should write with a focus on the source at hand per WP:V. Relevant text from the source was also deleted in a previous edit. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 now says he will have to look up the source. So, indeed the text is unsourced. We had sourced text from a reliable journal in accordance with V. There is still no good reason to delete reliable sourced text from a journal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Failed verification?

Pseudoscience generally requires some unjustified and unsupportable claim to scientific standing or experimental rigor. Superstitions, traditional beliefs, religious ideology or similar claims are not generally considered to be pseudoscience, even where they involve magical thinking or questionable cause-and-effect relationships, unless they actively claim to be scientific or supersede science. Medical pseudoscience (sometimes called quackery) can in some cases pose a threat to health. Many different scientists and scientific organizations, including the National Science Foundation, have called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud.

I tried to verify the text with articles from the NSF website. I was unable to verify the text. If we look closer at this edit it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed. To be fair, another editor previously diluted the meaning of the text from the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources are great QG, but just because you find one doesn't mean we should take any sentence from it and represent it as the whole truth of the entire subject. With Ernst as well it results in articles that can seem pointy and unbalanced. I think it helps to look for all relevant sources which describe an issue rather than just the ones that support one perspective. Not all unquoted writing is OR, some is just summary, and it's a part of the encyclopedic process. So, you might be overly focused on Verification, to the exclusion of NPOV. If the NSF website is not the only relevant source for the recent changes, but there's general agreement that the recent text is a better reflection of the majority of sources out there (which many of us have encountered but may not have on hand to cite), then it's worth tracking down those sources rather than clinging to a verifiable but biased version. Ocaasi (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You think the previous version was verifiable but biased. According to V, editors are simply to present what the reliable sources say. I see you were not able to provide verification for the text. You think requesting V or pointing out that the text failed V might be overly focused on Verification. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say."

See WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

See WP:IRS: "Many Misplaced Pages articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

I don't think there is any good reason a peer reviewed journal was deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS.

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my analysis. I wasn't commenting on the source's bias, I was commenting on the bias in the resulting Misplaced Pages text from only relying on one source to make a broad claim about the subject. When we use sources which have bias, we attribute the views so that readers know where the bias is coming from. That's NPOV. So, if you'd like to use attribution, that's one way to incorporate the view proportionately. I think you are misreading V: it does not tell us what to do with sources we find, it only tells us that material must be verifiable. I think Ludwigs' exclusion/inclusion framework is accurate and useful. NPOV tells us what to do with the sources we find, assuming they are RS, and we are supposed to present their views with attribution if they have a bias and in the context of all significant views. Academic sources are usually reliable, but thus is not a gold standard academic source by any means, and editors must useddiscretion to evaluate where sources fit on the spectrum of reliability. That's at the heart of MEDRS and RS. As for V, context matters. You try to string V and RS/MEDRS and Weight together so that we are "forced" to include the sources you present. But that won't result in an encyclopedia which reflects all reliable sources in proportion to their relevance, reliability, and significance. There's a difference and it involves trying to craft a balanced article rather than just making a legal case for inclusion. Ocaasi (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources you do not add attribution in the text. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you think Ludwigs' inaccurate WP:OR and unsourced claims is approporaite and useful. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is not adding context. The text was diluting becuase you disagree with the claims the source makes. It is not right for an editor to delete the text or source because you don't like it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, this is looking like crap, can't we just have QG blocked for WP:SOAPBOX? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think deleting sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal and replacing it with original research soapboxing. Ludwigs2 claimed the text is sourced but never was able to provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors were given enough time to provide verification for the unsourced text. Since no verification was provided for the original research and there is a peer-reviewed source that meets V I replaced the unsourced text with sourced text in accordance with V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a PDF copy of the source if anyone wants to read it. Please e-mail me for a copy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a better source that gives a definition of pseudoscience? Some Elsevier dictionary of science, or stuff like that? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked since there has been confusion what type of sources are reliable in accordance with WP:V. We are currently using a peer-reviewed source that gives an overview of pseudoscience. "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." See WP:SOURCES. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A dictionary by Elsevier would be an academic publication..... --Enric Naval (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please DNFT... Jojalozzo 03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, I'm confused by what you mean by DNFT. Is that an abbreveation for a source or a policy page? I could not find what is meant by DNFT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A dictionary would give a definition but not an overview of the topic. This reference did not verify the claim. A lot of sourced text was deleted without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health." This recently added text seems to fail WP:V.

Ladimer, Irving (1965). "The Health Advertising Program of the National Better Business Bureau". Am J Public Health. 55: 1217–1227. Retrieved February 25, 2011. page 1219.

I was unable to verify this claim using this reference. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The letters dnft is not an explanation to deleting relevant sourced text and replacing it with a source that did not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(bashes head on keyboard) ornirtdfrtifgtthuirti9thju9rbtj9prbgt9p8 Damm it all, there is not a single source apart from this one that can qualify to source that statement?????? Agggggh, I'll try to check if I can find something in some book. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Enric, I recently edited that section and provided a couple of good references but they were removed. Please feel free to put them back. Jojalozzo 22:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean Ladimer, Irving (1965). "The Health Advertising Program of the National Better Business Bureau". Am J Public Health. 55: 1217–1227. Retrieved February 25, 2011. page 1219. It was restored when Ludwigs reverted back to his version --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I previously explained the text added by Jojalozzo failed verification and verifiable content was deleted without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Replacing source text with original research continues

• Ludwigs2 replaced peer-reviewed sourced text with original research against WP:V and WP:OR.

• The 1965 reference did not verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health."

• The 1965 source does not verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health."

• The source did not verify the claim "may in some cases".

• No source can verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery can be a serious threat to public health." The part "can be" failed verification.

• The IP 68.122.154.94 deleted sourced text and replaced it with a source that failed to verify the text.

• The text "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions, and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." failed verification.

• The text restored by Hans Adler "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health". using a 1965 reference failed verification.

Editors continues to ignore V and OR policies. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I added another recent OR diff. QuackGuru (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I added another recent OR diff. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I added another recent OR diff. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud." After requesting V, editors were not able to provide V. So far the text failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler, you seemed to have blindly restored OR after it was discussed on the talk page and in my edit summary. Your possible controversial edit is being discussed on the talk page here. If you are unable to provide V for the text that has been challenged per V do you agree that text should be rewritten or removed form the article. Is there a reason you are deleting a relevant source despite you claiming the text is only tangentially relevant material? Your previous reasons for deleting the source does not make any sense. How could a source covering pseudoscience not be relevant to an article about pseudoscience? I want to understand your reason you think deleting sourced text from a peer-reviewed journal that discusses the causes and different forms of pseudoscience is appropriate. Do you agree the source is reliable and relevant to this article? QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I made this change to tag the WP:OR. This edit by User:Jojalozzo added an unsourced summary of a section. The sentence "Pseudoscience can negatively impact health, politics and education." seems like OR. Even if a source was provided a summary is better for the WP:LEAD, anyhow. To be fair, User:Jojalozzo is not the only editor who continues to add/restore OR to the page. For example, see the policy violations by User:Ludwigs2and User:Hans Adler The changes contain text that do not meet WP:V. Can you guys stop violating core Misplaced Pages policy. QuackGuru (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

QG: Your need to personalize this is transparent. I would prefer to see you find some really good sources for this section rather than making this a personal issue. This project isn't about you or me. Our egos don't matter. Please work to improve what we have rather than hindering our progress. Jojalozzo 14:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not making it a personal issue. You are adding original research to this article against Misplaced Pages policy. The sentence "Pseudoscience can negatively impact health, politics and education." is not sourced. You claim "Please work to improve what we have rather than hindering our progress." We do have a reliable source you don't like to see summarised in this article. Any editor that is against including the reliable reference is harming the project. Why did you add a reference about quackery that did not verify the claim. You seem to continue to add OR to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider that introductory section sentence to be OR and so far you are the only one here who seems to think it is. In my view the rest of the section explains the summary without OR. I don't think it is necessary or even desirable to provide a source for every statement when support is provided nearby. If there is a valid concern about that then we can repeat the citations that follow as support that statement. Similarly the BBB source seems to me to be a good one for claims about public health and pseudoscience and likewise I don't see that you have any developed any consensus here that use of that source is OR.

Here is some of what I consider detailed explanation in the BBB source for how the use of pseudoscience in advertising threatens public health (from page 1219 as specified in the citation):

The widespread publicity concerning the drug industry and public health problems of a serious nature, as well as government's emphasis on consumer protection, physical fitness, and health of the elderly have all contributed to an ever-growing popular interest in health products, both remedies and preventives. The average consumer, however, lacks scientific knowledge and a basis for discriminating in most matters pertaining to health. Add to this a general inability to accept the fact that there are certain diseases for which no cure is yet known to medical science; the perpetual search for the "fountain of youth" which seems to permeate our society; the eagerness of the afflicted to believe in promises of the quick, easy, "miracle" remedy; and the naive trust that if something is printed "it must be true" or the government would prohibit it.

The fact is that some media assume little responsibility for protecting their audiences from fraud by questioning copy claims. Furthermore, it seems that the American public expects that almost anything can be done. Our achievements in space, in electronics, in medicine, all tend to assure that tomorrow will bring a new cure. Almost any advertisement that builds on phrases such as "new discovery" or "miracle development" will apparently receive a receptive eye or ear. The mere fact that a drug or preparation is advertised at all appears to many consumers to constitute some warrant or justification for its safety and adequacy, if not efficacy.

These create the climate in which false, deceptive, or fraudulent promotions flourish, and this is the climate to be dissipated by health education and antiquackery programs. The problem today lies not so much in the advertising and sale of completely worthless products, but in the extravagant and colorful claims which suggest that a product can do much more than is scientifically justified. We are therefore not dealing with the old "devil-quack" who knowingly falsified and deliberately sold pseudoscience, but with the often equally pernicious puffer and promoter.

I'm not insisting on using any sources or any phrasing or any specific text. I want us to find the best references we can and I'll happily go along with the sense of the community about any of these issues but objections coming solely from you, whose participation here I find nonconstructive and uncooperative, carry little weight. Jojalozzo 18:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health." The source did not verify the claim. But the ref citation you deleted verified the claim.

Ladimer, Irving (1965). "The Health Advertising Program of the National Better Business Bureau". Am J Public Health. 55: 1217–1227. Retrieved February 25, 2011. page 1219.

Do you think the source you added about medical quackery is relevant to this article.

I do consider that introductory section sentence to be OR and it is irrelevant if I am the only one here who seems to think it is when especially no verification was provided. A sourced introductory sentence belongs in the lead but not usually at the intro of a section. See WP:LEAD. Please work with Misplaced Pages polices on these issues. See WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR.

Do you agree the sourced text about "illusions of causality are at the heart of pseudoscience" should be restored using the reliable reference.

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Why are you asking me whether I consider the BBB reference to be relevant right after I quoted it at length to offer detailed explanation that I thought was helpful for our purposes?? I have seen a lot of not hearing on these talk pages but this is extraordinary.
2. I'll wait to see what others here say about the uncited introductory section sentence. I am not invested in allowing a sentence to exist without providing a citation to go with it but I have no reason to do anything on your say-so.
3. Repeatedly asking what I think about the Matute et al. paper when I already have stated my position several times at length is another example of your not hearing. Since you have nothing new to say (and have had little of a substantive nature to contribute to the discussion in the two months we've been discussing this), nothing has changed to convince me that this paper on cognitive distortion is a reliable reference for pseudoscience threats to public health. Now that we have located a preprint of the (unpublished) paper everyone can see that it contains a single unsupported sentence used by the authors as motivation for their otherwise unrelated work. That just does not do it for me and no one has yet explained why that sentence is so great and important. I am against the use of the Matute et al. paper as reference for pseudoscience threats to public health. Please find better sources for your contributions. Please hear that.

Jojalozzo 21:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources

OK, so, how about:

• Matt Young, Paul K. Strode (2009), "Chapter 5. How pseudoscience works", Why evolution works (and creationism fails) (illustrated ed.), Rutgers University Press, pp. 49–53, ISBN 0813545501, 9780813545509 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

• Raimo Toumela (1987), "Science, Protoscience and Pseudoscience", in Joseph C. Pitt, Marcello Pera (ed.), Rational changes in science: essays on scientific reasoning, Volume 98 de Boston studies in the philosophy of science, Volume 98 de Boston studies in the history of philosophy (illustrated ed.), Springer, pp. 83–101, ISBN 9027724172, 9789027724175 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

• Michael Martin (1985), Concepts of science education: a philosophical analysis, University Press of America, pp. 40–43, ISBN 0819144797, 9780819144799 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

All academic publishers, the last one gives a definition of "pseudoscience". Are these sources useful to solve this problem? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not explained what is the problem with the current source giving an overview rather than just a definition like a dictionary. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think sources about the causes of pseudoscience and the public heath issues would help improve this page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

Reference 18, Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience, looks like original research to me. The abstract is full of "We propose" references. Tom Butler (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The text is sourced and in one of the above threads you can read a cut and paste of part of the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You can read this part of the ref too. QuackGuru (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

First, the talk page is on a scheduled archive and I want this subject to be as new as it is. So QuackGuru, please do not move my comments without asking.

It seems that you are highjacking this article for your own campaign against Chiropractic.

I do not care about the previous discussion. It appears to have been pretty much you outlasting those who did not agree with you. The fact is that reading the available parts of the article, it is clearly original research. If I see that, someone else is going to come along and start this again.

The phrase, "We suggest a different route." is clearly an expression of opinion leading to a new point. If the article has good sources, then use those good sources for your reference. Otherwise it just looks like you are trying to preserve an article that has the maximum amount of hate to support your subject.

How long should I wait before posting tags? Tom Butler (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep things civil, Tom. We're all operating under good faith. WP:OR doesn't apply to sources, only Misplaced Pages editors. Are you suggesting the source is primary, and shouldn't be used on that basis? We do use primary sources for some things. Do you, perhaps, have better sourcing to replace it with?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, WP:OR doesn't apply to sources - it only applies to Misplaced Pages editors doing their own original research (but we always welcome better sources if you have them). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OR may not apply to sources, but it does apply to the way that editors use sources, and if in fact this source is just speculative maunderings then it is probably disqualified under wp:UNDUE or wp:FRINGE. I'll have to take a closer look at it, however. --Ludwigs2 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We expect many sources to do OR. This is an article about pseudoscience, right? Some of the best sources of all, on matters of science as on so many other subjects, are those which have done extensive research of their own and then analysed, summarised, and drawn conclusions or comparisons. WP:OR applies to editors on wikipedia, not to the external sources that they use.

Crick and Watson did OR, and they did a fine job. However, somebody writing a wikipedia article on DNA should not do OR. That's where the boundary lies. bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, three points:

1. It was not me who moved the post. Reference 18 has been cited 10 times and I will wage every citation was by Quack The reference was contested above at length and apparently only settled by other editors giving up. I had not read the above discussion and am not obligated to do so because the article must stand on its current merits. The first example Quack used was about quackery. He is famous for his single-minded and often overly aggressive campaigns against alternative medicine, especially chiropractic ]. I think my comments were in balance with the situation.

2. Is the contention here that OR applies to editors and not to content is symptomatic of the condition of this article? From WP:OR:

:This page in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought: all material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. I did not notice that this only applies to editors. Since you think it does, it would seem fair to request an audit of all of the references here. Obviously you all have been building this article on questionable references.

3. Quack defended the reference by arguing that the authors used (presumably good) sources. If that is true, and there is obvious grounds to discard the article as OR, and if Quack is editing in good faith, then he should move the support for his venom to those other sources ... that is if they actually stand up to review. Jess, it is not my obligation to do the research for him or to defend his words.

There are serious issues with how science is done and how people perceive science. If this article addressed specific kinds of problems--people thinking they are doing science and why they are not, people doing science but the results not being vetted--then you would serve your readers. But that is not done here. All I can see is a well developed article about branding people you do not agree with. Try a little self-editing. Tom Butler (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom, wikipedia is collaborative by nature. If you spent as much time and energy focusing on specific instances of misuse of sources, rather than characterizing the behavior of other editors, I assure you that more people would be willing to work with you, and more would be done to advance your position. As it is, there other other areas of the site which better compel me to devote my time than sorting through personal attacks here. Please try reading over WP:AGF again. If you can cite specifics in the sources which are inappropriate, as opposed to calling for a broad "audit of all sources", and can do that without calling into question the intentions of other editors, you might get more done. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you are assuming bad faith on my part by accusing me of only being interested in "specific instances of misuse." I understand the collaborative concept. I also understand that collaboration is regulated by basic rules. It is individual editors who disregard or selectively interpret those rules. I would not be nearly as strident if the majority of editors here were not so happy with the edits I complain about. Tom Butler (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of any such thing. I said, pursuant to WP:PA: Comment on content, not contributers. If you have issues with editor conduct, then take it to an appropriate noticeboard. Here, you should be discussing specific instances where the article could be improved. Requests such as "an audit of all references" are unhelpful, particularly combined with WP:ABF.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a soapbox

In my view and, I believe, in that of many others, the paragraph in the overview on pseudoscience and public health is poorly written and poorly sourced. I thought I had improved that section with a rewrite and some good sources but my edits were reverted. I would not presume to suggest anyone replace what I had done without consensus among those who do not have personal agendas. It seems we risk being worn down by persistent advocacy for wording and sources that are not Misplaced Pages quality. I propose that while we ignore the soapbox we do what we can to fix that paragraph. If the soapboxing gets too persistent perhaps administrative action is in order. Jojalozzo 22:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. I have given up attempts to edit this article because of the persistent and obsessive inclusion of the irrelevant material referred to above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

I agree with you both, and that the revised version is far superior. I think this qualifies as a budding consensus, so I will go ahead and revert now. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

P.s. - the last paragraph of that section (beginning "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health"): I could have sworn we had consensus to delete that before. It's a complete misrepresentation - most pseudoscience and superstitions are of no threat to public health whatsoever (the belief in UFO or the abominable snowman pose no health threats, nor do superstitions about walking under ladders or avoiding black cats), and medical quackery is only a threat to public health where it explicitly tries to denigrate conventional medicine. Sourced or not, it's an embarrassingly ridiculous passage presented in this context in this particular way. does anyone object if I remove it? --Ludwigs2 23:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Go ahead and do that. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

I think the "danger to the public" concept is addressed pretty well in the Belief in Pseudoscience section of Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. Specifically, "...The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks (NIST 2002). (See sidebar, "Sense About Science.")" The "Losh et al" can be read here Tom Butler (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Source may be sound but is peripheral for this article. I suggest you turn your attentions to Quackery. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

It's hardly peripheral since medical quackery is often rooted in pseudoscience. There is definitely no consensus to remove that. Maybe tweak it, but not completely remove it. It used to be sourced properly, but because of all the tugging back and forth that's been going on the same words have ended up changing sources several times, often meaning that the remaining ref didn't justify the wording, when the original source did. You've all got to be more careful how you make large wholesale guttings of this article (especially considering the COI of one editor who would like to get rid of the word pseudoscience altogether). The problem could have been solved by minor tweaks of wording, keeping the sources, and thus everything would have been fine. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no portion of Tom's quoted text which indicates that the "danger" is only from Quackery. On the contrary, it appears to be explicitly referring to Pseudoscience. Furthermore, quakery is explicitly identified as containing pseudoscientific ideas within our lead. This section appears to be perfectly justified for inclusion in the article, and is properly sourced to address WP:Weight concerns. So I can get a better idea of how this section could be cleaned up to address any concerns -- What specific sections of the removed text are most contentious for editors here?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The main problem I had with that paragraph is that it was extremely over-stated. only a very small proportion of pseudoscience is a risk to public health, directly or indirectly; the rest has no relation to public health at all (unless you count driving skeptics crazy as a public health threat). therefore 'threat to public health' is not really one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience, and so doesn't belong in the overview. If you wanted to include a much more understated and constrained section dealing with the threat that certain forms of medical pseudoscience may pose that might be workable, but it's both hyperbolic and incorrect to stand up and claim that all pseudoscience constitutes a serious public health problem. it just aint true.

Jess, the quote is from a PubMed article, is which context it is fairly clear that the author is only talking about medical pseudoscience. besides, mere common sense will tell you that public health issues are medical issues by definition, and the claim could not refer to anything except quackery. --Ludwigs2 01:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to discuss the costs and impacts of pseudoscience in this article. Since quackery often (not always) takes the form of pseudoscience, we should include the harms caused by this form of pseudoscience as well as its other forms. Perhaps it would be useful to create a new section on the topic of impacts to help us and readers focus on this aspect. Jojalozzo 03:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• What belongs (or not) in this article - Xxanthippie et al’s point about quackery and alt med not being appropriate in a pseudoscience article has some merit. But this is only insofar as public perception is shaped by veneration of the authority of the quack, or through veneration of the “time honored” practices of traditional alt meds. Insofar as the "public susceptability" is shaped by veneration of science, and pseudoscience is used to shape that "public susceptability", it does belong here, and as a health risk. (“Serious” health risk might be WP:peacock.)
• Second kind of health cost of doing pseudoscience - Alt med research (not practice) is often pseudoscience, and has a high dollar cost. This is often doing pseudoscience, and is different from practicing alt med. It takes away from researching more promising treatments, only to try to shore up the feelings of alt med believers. This cost of doing pseudoscience is over and above the costs of "the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks". I read somewhere that US taxpayers alone have thrown away billions on such pseudoscientfic research. This cost to health is over and above the cost of alt med industry self funded pseudosceintific research like this, to try find something, anything, no matter how small the "significant" effect may be, only to justify its own continued existence as a practice with the veneer of scientific respectablity through the massive dollars spent on useless and often biased studies. PPdd (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience occurs in or near many fields, and only one of them is medicine. On one hand it is perfectly proper to discuss medical pseudoscience as a notable example of pseudoscience. On the other hand it's totally inappropriate to hijack the present article and write it as if all pseudoscience were medical quackery. It's certainly not OK to abuse sources that are specifically about medical pseudoscience by taking them out of context and presenting them as if they were about pseudoscience in general, even when they indicate the restriction to pseudoscience only implicitly, e.g. in the context in which they appear. Hans Adler 07:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to avoid "hijacking" better placement might be in its own section below, and not in the "overview" section. Pseudocience based alt med and quackery (as different from just tradition and authority based alt med and quackery) is more than just one example of pseudoscience, it is an entire category of examples, and a big category; i.e., a "pseudoscience in medicine" section. "Pseudoscidence in the courts" (Junk science) is a category of examples that should also have its own section. So should the category "lying with statistics", which is very much lacking in the article. Perhaps also "pseudoscience in social science" ("hoodoo science"), although this may require much more development than the first three suggested category sections. Similarly for any other very broad category of pseudoscience that has enough well developed material as to merit its own article, which could be considered a WP:Daughter article of the pseudosceince article.

As to the stretching of the source, Hans is correct. But there should be plenty more sources to use for the given language, or better language that is more in line with the source. PPdd (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Following up on Hans here, let's not get hoodwinked by vague terrors. the only cases where pseudoscience becomes a public health risk are (1) when a form of quackery prescribes a 'treatment' which is directly harmful to the patient (e.g. should some quack prescribe taking oral mercury to cure the boubons), and (2) when a quack tries to convince patients to use an ineffective or unproven treatment in preference to a proven, standard medical treatment. And even the second one is not actually a public health hazard, but is actually closer to a criminal activity. These account for a very small portion of medical fringe science, and a vanishingly small portion of fringe science as a whole. Yes, people spend money on fringe treatments; yes, people are sometimes dumb when it comes to considering fringe treatments. But spending your money on stupid crap is not a health hazard, otherwise the surgeon general would have to ban video games and Adam Sandler movies.

Writing a blog about space aliens does not create a health hazard. Trying to prove that Sasquatch exists does not create a health hazard. Even things like acupuncture, TCM, chiropractic, and (heaven forbid) homeopathy are not health hazards. They may not work, they may be a waste of money, but... they are licensed and regulated (in the US and Europe), people use them regularly without suffering any ill effects, and they do not normally detract from, supersede, or interfere with normal medical procedures. If none of these things that are frequently cited as examples of pseudoscience are public health hazards, how can we say that all pseudoscience is?

Of course, the other argument you're making is that people are too stupid to make informed choices, so we need to force them to turn to western medicine by making unjustified and exaggerated claims about the badness of even innocuous forms of fringe science. I don't think people are that dumb, personally, but if you follow that line you'll be forced to leave encyclopedic writing behind and start writing authoritative scripture (Misplaced Pages as The Bible of Science, if you will). However, that is antithetical to the core principles of the project. And honestly, if people are really that stupid, I'd just as soon we let Darwin have his way; otherwise we really will evolve into eloi, and who wants that? --Ludwigs2 07:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that alt med does not increase health risk except in the instances Ludqigs2 cites.

But it is not up to editors to determine if alt med is a health hazard or not. It is either in a reliable source, or it is not, and that is all we should be considering. However, talk pages can be useful for expressing these soapbox thoughts in that they may lead to paths for finding RS.

Examples Ludwigs2 does not mention are a "succeptable public" member considering dollar cost, which might induce health risks, such as seeing an acupuncturist for extreme pain when one cannot afford an MRI, or seeing a much less expensive TCM related doctor to have one's tongue examined for almost anything TCM related alt meds like acpuncture claim, or taking a toxic TCM based "TCM powder pill" that is some "scientifically" altered mix of ore of mercury, ore of asbestos, pinch of cyanide, and strychnine tree nut exctract, all really being done. Also wasting billions of health research dollars on studies like electrically stimulating astrologically derived acupuncture points and waving a magnetic wand over them, then diluting mugwort 10 to 1 and shaking 60 times then burning it on the skin or an acupuncture needle, etc., all real stuf being done with scarce health research funds. Alt med research is a category of pseudoscience, not just an example. PPdd (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

that's a naive assessment of sourcing policy, that neglects UNDUE and FRINGE. If you will not use common sense on this issue, then I'll make a very proper argument that your source's viewpoint is either (a) unrepresentative of standard scientific opinion, or (b) being taken drastically out of context to to support a claim that the author never intended to make. I would hope that you would be more reasonable in the face of such an extreme distortion of obvious facts, but I can duke it out on a point-by-point refutation of your position if you make me. are you going to make me?

to your other points:

• someone who cannot afford an MRI, cannot afford an MRI: their choice is between seeking treatment they can afford, or not seeking treatment at all. that has nothing to do with altmed
• In the US and Europe, a patient who went to an acupuncturist for extreme pain would suffer no harm from the acupuncture and would be directed to a medical doctor after a couple of treatments if the treatments were unsuccessful. any other behavior would cost the acupuncturist his license
• TCM herbalists never to my knowledge use raw minerals in preparations or medicinals.

As I have noted elsewhere, your understanding of TCM is very distorted, along the lines of someone trying to evaluate western medicine by analyzing spam emails and late-night infomercials. I cannot make you assume good faith with respect to it, but I will not allow you to cynically reduce the entire centuries-old practice to tiger-penis viagra and silly eternal life elixirs. If you cannot take a more balanced view than that, you should not be editing these articles at all. --Ludwigs2 08:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, undue and FRINGE should be addressed in considering RS on this if applicable. You should try your argument out on the critically endangered siberian tigers themselves, and try out what you call a "fringe" and "undue" on National Geographic publishing on TCM, not me. ( If I might help you to help me better to understand the benifits of TCM medicines, point to the Salix spp. to aspirin history; never point at someone's penis, as you might find yourself in the maw of a tiger, or as Chef said in Apocalypse now, "F-ing tiger. Never get off of the f-ing boat, man". :) ) Also, you called it a "budding consensus" with only two comments within a single hour after starting this section; L2, your comments are typically much better reasoned than that (comments by some others have not been so well reasoned). PPdd (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia is not the place to save the siberian tiger, and attacking TCM would not be an effective means of doing that anyway, since most TCM practitioners are just as much against those kinds of bogus medicinals as you are (and the idiots who buy them would buy them even if you managed to stamp out mainstream TCM practices completely). and yes, three editors can represent a budding consensus, particularly where common sense and basic logic support their perspective. And none of that matters here anyway. please keep focused on the content discussion at hand. --Ludwigs2 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The thread is waffling. Ludwigs2, referring to the paragraph in the overview, you say above "but it's both hyperbolic and incorrect to stand up and claim that all pseudoscience constitutes a serious public health problem. it just aint true." That's a smokescreen if ever I saw one because the paragraph makes no such claim. It says "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery can be a serious threat to public health......(and).....the book Trick or Treatment records several occasions where patient's faith in medical pseudoscience has led to complications, further injury and death." That doesn't say anything near what you wrote, but what it does say is verifiable. Moriori (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Focussed summary so far -

• 1 Soapboxing is bad. Accuracy of citing and RS is needed for assertions about health risks.
• 2 Sources so far given are not accurately summed in the overview section.
• 3 Editors are tired of soapboxing here, and of constant tweaking which leads by WP:article creep to refs no longer applying to the line as ultimately worded, when they started off being applicable.
• 4 There is RS for, from "nsf.gov Belief in Pseudoscience" - "The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks", which from the context, appears to be only about medical pseudoscience to some editors.
• 5 Quackery and alt that relies on authority other than scientific appearing authority is less of a pseudoscience than that which does.
• 6 Quackery and alt med have a special status as pseudoscience. (See next section)
• 7 Quackery and alt med are entire categories of examples of pseudoscience, not just a single example.
• 8 All pseudoscience is not alt med or quackery, only a significant portion.
• 9 "'threat to public health' is not really one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience"it is an effect of a significan part of pseudoscience, so it "doesn't belong in the overview", and the best placement might be in an idependent section.
• 10 "Serious health risk" may be WP:Peacock for "health risk".
• 11 There are multiple kinds of health risk, getting harmful treatment, not getting helpful treatment, using up pocketbooks on the useless, spending scarce research funds on pseudoscientific studies, etc.
• 12 There are "costs and impacts of pseudoscience" in addition to those of alt med and quackery that should be stated in this article.
• 13 RS is needed to make any of these points in the article, not just editors' opinions.
• 14 One editor will not admit to secretly drinking tiger's penis tea like the rest of us do. PPdd (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current status of the subject paragraph. Jojalozzo 23:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Moriori: The 'can be' was added after I deleted the paragraph and it was reinserted. regardless, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how UFOlogy or cryptozoology "can be" considered health risk in any way, shape or form. If that cannot be done, then we cannot blandly assert that pseudoscience is inherently a health hazard.

with respect to "Trick or Treatment": there are numerous cases in the literature where standard medical practices have produced ugly complications - in small percentages of cases, a simple prescription of aspirin has lead to death from liver failure. One can always find "Oh Shit!" examples from every kind of medical practice; such examples do not add up to a condemnation of the practice unless they are more like the rule than the exception. Literally hundreds of millions of people have received TCM care with some positive results and no adverse effects, so enough of that silliness.

@PPdd: again, bolded, because you refused to acknowledge these points when I raised them above: extra cost is not a health risk; poor science education is not a health risk. These may be issues that can be addressed in the article, but we do not address them by claiming they are health risk when they clearly are not.

and incidentally, quackery is pseudoscience by definition, but not all altmed is quackery and not all altmed is pseudoscience (some of it is non-scientific, some of it semi-scientific).

@Joja: I am not satisfied with the current status of the paragraph. More to the point, the paragraph is a misrepresentation of the subject matter, and so it doesn't matter whether you or I are 'satisfied', does it?

seriously people, this is not a vote - I've given you a very clear and reasonable explanation of why this paragraph has to go (recap: it misrepresents both the subject matter and the author of the source being cited - that violates sourcing policy and abuses the central purpose of the encyclopedia). unless one of you gives a better explanation of why the paragraph has to stay, I will remove it again. And yes, I will keep removing it until I get such an explanation, so... --Ludwigs2 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Ludwig, I don't always read as carefully as I should. Often I stop reading when the verbiage gets too thick or arguments too heated. I think you are making the point that superstition and quackery may be threats to public health but pseudoscience is not except when it supports quackery. If I have that right, I see your point. Jojalozzo 05:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The source stated Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. The sourced text decided quackey is a type of pseudoscience. So, it is indeed relevant to this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@ jojo - yes, hat's precisely what I meant. though I'd qualify that not even all quackery is a threat to public health - no one is likely to suffer any effects (ill or good) from magnetic healing bracelets, for instance. Apoogies, I am sometimes both long-winded and hot-tempered.

@ QuackGuru - no one is objecting to that point. the problem is that those forms of quackery which constitute public health hazards make up only a tiny portion of pseudoscience as a whole, so we cannot call all of pseudoscience a public health hazard. That would be like saying all cars are bad because some people drive drunk. --Ludwigs2 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are objecting to that point when you continue to have a persoanl disagreement with the source because you claim "those forms of quackery which constitute public health hazards make up only a tiny portion of pseudoscience as a whole, so we cannot call all of pseudoscience a public health hazard". The article does not say a tiny portion of pseudoscience is quackery. What the article does say is sourced in accordance with WP:V. That would be like saying all cars are bad because some people drive drunk? No, drinking and driving is all bad. QuackGuru (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru: that's such a mindless argument, it doesn't even call for a critique. no one is questioning the validity of the source - I am questioning the relevance of the source to the article. This quote has been taken out of context and used to defend an claim on wikipedia that the source itself does not make. THAT is pure, unadulterated, obvious, and reprehensible ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I've heard you use this argument on multiple articles, and I'm sick of it: if you cannot understand basic sourcing and content policy (much less tha basic principles of scholarly reasoning), then you should not be editing wikipedia. Keep pushing this POV-ridden line and I will take you back to AN with a new community ban proposal. understood? --Ludwigs2 16:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The source covers pseudoscience and its many forms. The quote was not taken out of context. The current text is well sourced and relevant despite your vague objections. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote is taken out of context, as I have demonstrated several times. your failure to understand is irrelevant. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated at any time what was taken out of context. I provided verification for the text. You deleted relevant content and claim a source about pseudoscience and its different forms is irrelevant. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No Warring

For the a third time today good faith attempts to improve the last paragraph in the Overview section have been overwritten with material that has been rejected by the consensus. I believe the concerns of the disruptive editor have been heard and addressed repeatedly and extensively. I would ask that the paragraph be returned to it's last good state and that we continue to improve it from there without further war or soapbox. Thanks, Jojalozzo 02:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is so much toing and froing that I have lost track. Can you say which version you want restored? Who is the disruptive editor? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you are suggesting but we should not restore original research or text that failed verification. See #Replacing source text with original research continues. QuackGuru (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jojo - it's time for an RfC. Not that that will solve the dispute, but it's the necessary step to move this discussion up the ladder so that punitive actions can be taken against the more tendentious participants here. I'll begin the RfC below. --Ludwigs2 19:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC - problematic paragraph

A long-running dispute involving the application of wp:V to a particular source (Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol). Granting that the source is clearly from a good journal, its use on the article is disputed because it is being used to promote a perspective not consistent with the author's intent and outside of the scope of the published article. opponents note the following:

• The article is a psychological piece about the the mistaken perceptions of causality, and does not concern itself with the the health risks of pseudoscience outside of the first line of the abstract
• The article explicitly only deals with medical quackery - "The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better..." - and yet is being used to advance the position that all pseudoscience is a public health risk (pseudoscience covers a broad range of topics - e.g. UFOlogy, crypotozoology, cold fusion - which have absolutely not relation to health issues)
• The source is new (2010), and no other sources make similarly strong claims, so the source fails wp:UNDUE
• The source and its associated paragraph are being used primarily as an extension of conflicts over alternative medicine that have little or nothing to do with the topic of pseudoscience.

proponents largely argue that it is it is a valid, reliable source, and so cannot be excluded from the article.

There is a larger policy issue here about the proper use of sources. Does the mere fact that a source said something in a decent-quality journal mean that that quote can be used with this kind of liberal disregard for context? It seems obvious to me that Matute et al simply included this line as toss-off line to begin their abstract, and that it is not an analytical claim that they defend as a matter of scholarship. That point is apparently not obvious to others in the dispute.

link to article abstract link to first removal of paragraph in this incarnation of the dispute, though note this has been going back and forth for months. --Ludwigs2 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Referendum

The section below has gotten a bit congested with cross-talk, so I thought it would be useful to have a simple RfC input section. Please limit yourself to simple comments here, and use the section below for extended discussions

• Remove paragraph: As nom for reasons listed above. --Ludwigs2 17:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Remove paragraph. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC).
• Remove disputed citation. Revise and move paragraph to new section. Be explicit about impacts of pseudoscience. Jojalozzo 15:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Remove This is a general article on pseudoscience. The source seems relevant to an article or section on Quackery, but is not a source for general statements on pseudoscience. Also, we do not use patently false generalizations even when published in a reliable source which most likely depended on the common sense of readers to make valid meaning out of the statement. It is not a threat to public health for people to believe in the Loch Ness monster. Nor is it true that a superstition that does not threaten public health is not pseudoscience. We need sources dealing with the subject in general, not throw-away rhetoric in the introductions to articles on specific subjects. I could point out other problems such as the lousy writing, for example the statement that irrational beliefs are pseudoscience (they might or might not be). That example is just a start. It's a terrible paragraph. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Remove paragraph:Tom Butler (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Instead of deleting, why not just reword it per WP:V as to its context as pseudoscience used in medicine, and put it in its own section so it would not be WP:UNDUE, as suggested in the above talk page discussion? The view that pseudoscience used in medicine is a health risk is certainly not fringe in any way. PPdd (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(PS, Ludwigs2, why did you notice "religion" for comment on science and medicine, and not notice the relevant boards? That's like intentionally calling out the kooks.) PPdd (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have said several times, I'm not against having a separate section that deals with the public health risks of medical quackery, but this paragraph does not belong as part of the overview for pseudoscience, where it suggests (incorrectly and unfairly) that this is a significant consideration for all pseudoscience. That's just irrational.

I added religion because that's also where philosophy RfC's go, and this question would have meaning to people in the philosophy of science. And please don't suggest that your fellow wikipedia editors are "kooks" unless you want some of them to give equally frank analyses of your personality. That would be fun, mind you, but it would not be conducive to civil discourse. --Ludwigs2 20:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re kooks. Question:What's the difference between a weirdo and a kook?... Answer: ...I am not a weirdo. :) PPdd (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If the issue is placement in the article, rather than inclusion, then why not try moving it to a new section and see if that gains consensus. Clearly, removing it entirely has not.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you try putting it elsewhere rather than reverting it? I don't want this in the article at all, but I'd be willing to compromise if anyone tried to work with me

it's not a good idea to expect me to to do all the work here, Jess - I am not your wife or your mother. compromise and common sense cut both ways, so if you see an opening to solve the dispute, take it and do it. otherwise I'll happy to lower myself to the 'revert monkey' level of communication that seems to be the norm for this page. --Ludwigs2 00:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Sounds like a good Signpost headline - "Ludwigs2 Admits He Is Not Jess' Mother". PPdd (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

P.s. See Jess? you needn't have worried. Predictably, some random idiot came by and reverted again without discussion . I swear, mindless skepticism drives some of the worst frigging revert-monkies on wikipedia. damned science trolls - lol - Karl Popper is spinning in his grave... --Ludwigs2 01:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the dispute is not just about placement but an insistence on some editors part to attribute health risks to pseudoscience in general rather than just quackery. I agree that the article would be improved by a separate section on the impacts and risks of pseudoscience (including quackery but only in those cases when it is based on pseudoscience). Jojalozzo 00:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Every attempt to reword that I am aware of has been reverted with repetitive insistence on the validity of the existing construction with little if any acknowledgment of the validity of alternative views.
2. In my view any rewording that includes the disputed reference would be inappropriate.

Jojalozzo 00:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I support deletion or replacement. The present version is just inappropriate here. It might be suitable for another article. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

Ludwigs, I feel I have to point to WP:Civil again. Additionally, regarding your edit summary, I referenced WP:EW not 3rr. This very much is an edit war, and it's unconstructive and combative to continually remove it while discussion is ongoing. Personally, I remain unconvinced that there is any legitimate issue with it remaining in the Overview section, but considering your comment above that placing it elsewhere would be acceptable to you, I think my suggestion to try moving it is a reasonable one. If you'd rather pick fights than work with a compromise which you've admitted would be acceptable, then I don't know what else to tell you. To everyone else, is the main problem the sourcing or the content itself? In other words, if all the claimed sourcing issues were to be addressed, would there still be objections to the content? I'm trying to get a better handle on what sorts of avenues we have for solving this dispute, if indeed one is necessary.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

point to whatever you like. I have logic, reason, and policy on my side, and because of that I will keep pushing this point until something snaps. You'd best find some reason that convinces me I'm wrong (I'm open to that), or come over to my side of this argument if you dispute this issue to end. --Ludwigs2 01:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility is not optional, even if you have "logic on your side", and it's not a good way to win over editors. If you do wish to work collaboratively, you could try answering my question above regarding sourcing, or try your hand at the proposed compromise. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My last comment for the day, in/re sourcing: I don't have any problem with the source itself (except, as noted, that the article is only from 2010, and one would be hard-pressed to make a case that this is a broadly-held viewpoint). The problem is that the quote is being taken drastically out of the context of its source to serve a very different purpose than it serves in the source. I mean drastically - on a level with taking Marx' famous "Workers of the world unite!" and adding it to the homosexuality article as evidence that Marx supported gay marriage. You can make any source look like it supports anything if you quote selectively enough, with enough blatant disregard for context. --Ludwigs2 02:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is comment is tangentially related to the discussion: I welcome help from editors who until now have not been involved in this dispute but I would like to know why they are only reverting to the current construction rather than reverting back to any of the good faith attempts to reword it and avoid the disputed citation. In my view reverting with the comment that there is no consensus is unhelpful. I'd prefer editors take the time to look back in the history and revert to a version that they think works and say so. If they like the current construction then argue for it. Likewise, I hope we can agree that consensus is not served by one editor or some small minority holding out for their position without consideration for alternative views - i.e. that consensus is not the same as unanimity. Jojalozzo 01:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to reword it per the source and start a "pseudocience in medicine" section for it (and start a pseudoscience in courts section, and a "pseudoscience misusing statistics" section, and a "pathological science" section), but I thought it best if Ludwigs2 did this, as this might avoid future disputes. PPdd (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors who reverted, I have no problem with the section being reworded. However, I don't know which specific revision you find acceptable. My only reason for reverting was that the content was entirely removed, primarily by one editor, all while discussion was still ongoing. For the most part, I simply undid the removal and left the section in its previous form. Could you point to the "last good" revision, so I could take a look at the differences between it and our current wording?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

After the last deletion I added an Impacts and concerns section with the most recent rewording (just by chance one of mine). That new section is now existing in parallel with the reverted disputed version at the end of the Overview section. Jojalozzo 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How many times are you and other editors are going to continue to add OR to this article. The source you used failed verification. See #Replacing source text with original research continues. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't follow all the links to links, etc. Since we have number of new participants and I wasn't able to follow everything in previous discussions, please restate your position here for me with referencing past discussions, especially 1) identify the OR and 2) identify which source failed verification. Jojalozzo 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor who removes a passage that misrepresents a source by taking it out of context is not obliged to otherwise fix the passage and add it elsewhere. This is particularly true when it's not even clear how relevant the thought in question is to the article, as is the case here. (Remember, this is the article about stuff like astrology, supernatural bicycles and homeopathy, not the just the article about medical pseudoscience.) Any editor who knowingly restores a paragraph that misrepresents a source assumes responsibility for the policy violation. Hans Adler 06:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Vague objections show there may not be any policy violation The text is sourced in accordance with V and no reasonable effort was made to improve the paragraph. For now, I trimmed the paragraph based on the concerns of other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which part of "The source isn't reliable for the claim being made" and "the source doesn't make the claim being made" are you finding vague? I see no reason to try to 'improve' a paragraph that should simply be deleted under policy. --Ludwigs2 21:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I previously provided verification for the text in question and you have been previously told that you are editing against policy but you decided to continue to add more WP:OR against policy using a 1965 source that does not verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health". See #Replacing source text with original research continues. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The diff you provided is - again - from a psychology journal, and from an article dealing with the psychological underpinnings of pseudoscientific beliefs. it is not a reliable source for factual claims about the dangers of pseudoscience. Moreover, it says "These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved", and is quite specific in singling out medical quackery as the public health risks and other forms of pseudoscience as educational problems. so - again - this claim fails verification.

As to the rest of your post: I am making it a policy on this page (for the time being) to ignore personal commentary. You don't really have any valid policy claims, so there's no point in responding. I am keeping an offline list of diffs, however, to be used in a future RFC/U, so be warned. --Ludwigs2 18:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Other editors agree the source is reliable and can be used for this article. You have not shown which claim being used in the article fails verification but I have repeatedly provided verification for the text and you have refused to provide verification for the text you added against WP:OR. The 1965 source you used does not verify the claim using a 1965 source. Please provide verification using the 1965 source for the claim ""Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health". Why did you replace sourced text with OR again. WP:V and WP:OR are valid policy claims for unsourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Other editors are wrong, as are you. beyond that I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. Are you seriously trying to argue that UFOlogy should be considered a serious health risk? how about cryptozoology? how about astrology? I understand that one could cut oneself on a tarot card and bleed to death, but that's not really a health risk specifically inherent to the tarot.

As far as I can see, you are trying to make some vague bureaucratic argument that this source must be included simply because it's verifiable, regardless of the fact that it has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand. pardon my for putting it this way, but that's just plain silly. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked for verification for specific text for the edit you made but you are unable to provide WP:V or explain why you restored text that failed verification. You claim and other editors I am wrong but you are unwilling to verify the text. A source that explains what causes pseudoscience is extrememly relevant. Your objection is that you don't think the researchers are not reliable for their statements. This conflicts with V. Your objection is that you think Misplaced Pages's policies are wrong and you are right? QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This thread seems to have deviated a bit from the question at hand. Regarding the source itself: the source appears to be reasonable and reliably published, and as such there is no reason to exclude it from the article. Regarding weight: I agree that it is a single source and as such doesn't belong in a prominent position such as the lede. It does, however, belong somewhere in the article. Regarding interpretation: I don't have the full source available, but the abstract does say 'Pseudoscience' and not 'Some pseudoscience'. The author's intention may well have been limited to medical context but making assumptions about the author's intention would be original research at best. Sources must be verifiable, and I just don't see the abstract verifying in any capacity that the author was referring to a subset of pseudosciences. If the full source makes it explicitly clear then great, but applying implicit interpretation on the source is only going to cause problems down the line.

An appropriate phrasing would indicate that it is the source that asserts that pseudoscience (along with the other elements it listed) are a health risk - this is a fact based on verifiable evidence and makes no assertions as to whether or not the source is correct. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The full source makes no mention of risks to public health. The comment in the abstract appears to be an expression of the authors' basic motivation for the work but is not addressed in the full source. Because of that the comment is poor support for the claim of health risks. Jojalozzo 02:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside view: Just a quick comment. The source is reliable, however, the paragraph as written is problematic. As a single source, the weight given by that long paragraph is undue. Phrasing can also be improved. Also mention that the source is talking about medical risks. LK (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The source may be reliable from a letter of the wikilaw perspective but it's not a useful source since the reader cannot use it to find out about the health risks of pseudoscience in general or even those of quackery. The source is not about health risks! Most editors here wish to replace this source with others but every attempt to do so has been reverted. Outside perspectives are helpful but I'd prefer they be as informed as possible. Please read the full source not just the abstract and then tell us whether you think it's useful in this article. Jojalozzo 14:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, back to calm discussion.

LK - reliability is not a magic wand that automatically confers unconsidered inclusion. Reliability means that a source is high-quality with respect to a given topic, as determined by a number of factors. The source in question is in a reputable psychology journal which increases its reliability for psychology-related issues. However, this article is not a psychology article, and the source is being used to make non-psychological claims, and so it cannot be considered a reliable source for the purposes in which it is being used on wikipedia. yes? --Ludwigs2 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The disputed source could easily be replaced with something that truly supports the claim of health risks with just a few minutes on Google (see Pseudoscience#Impacts and concerns for one attempt to do so). Does anyone who's read this source in full believe it's the best support we can find for a claim of health risks due to pseudoscientific quackery? If so, please explain - I missed something. Jojalozzo 04:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This comments misses the point. The point is that this paragraph is just not appropriate here. 05:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC).

The source cannot be used as support for a claim whose essence is "Pseudoscience threatens public health". This claim is clearly outside the scope of expertise of the authors of this article, and is not further substantiated in any way. They only state this to argue the relevance of their research. It is like an article by a mathematician who is a number theorist and has come up with a new cryptological method and written an article about it, and opens the article with "Computer security is increasingly important in modern society". After decoding, this turns out to mean: "I think that my research may have practical applications".  --Lambiam 19:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevanrt whether you personally think the claim is outside the scope of expertise of the authors of this article. The source is reliable per WP:V.

See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say."

See WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

See WP:IRS: "Many Misplaced Pages articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

See WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased."

There is no good reason to delete a peer-reviewed journal from this article that discusses the causes and different forms of pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you have tried to understand my argument, but in any case your reaction is a rather mechanical response. I'm not so much invoking the lack of expertise of the authors to say that if they make this claim it does not count, but rather that, also given the context, they clearly have no intention to present this statement as a claim. The opening sentence is based on a boilerplate template for the beginning of abstracts: "X is an important problem. We examined Y, and obtained the result Z, which can contribute to solving X." As in "Abstract. Juvenile delinquency is on the increase, and crimes against the person are committed by younger and younger people. We examined the effect of coating juvenile mice with honey, and found that mice thus treated exhibited reduced levels of anti-social behavior. This may offer perspectives for addressing the problem of juvenile delinquency." Authors who use this hackneyed pattern do so based on the presupposition that the audience agrees with X being an important problem, in the expectation that this will help to frame their research in a context in which said audience is favourably disposed to finding out about Y and Z. It is not meant to be a claim.

All our rules and policies require human interpretation, and ultimately what we do is based on consensus. So here I'm contributing my 2 cents in this RfC on how I think our policies do (or in this case rather don't) apply, not because I don't know them or think they should be ignored, but because I don't think the authors ever meant this to be a "claim" in the sense in which our verifiability policy and other policies and guidelines use that term.  --Lambiam 00:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

QG, you may have forgotten about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:Editorial discretion. Also, if you read WP:RS and WP:V closely, it's clear that sources are only reliable in context of the claim being made. Which means that it doesn't matter merely that "an academic source says something", but that the claim being made is backed up by the reputation of the author, the journal, and the method of analysis (e.g. a passing statement in an introduction versus a thorough conclusion in a paper. As long as your approach is that editors are not allowed to think and they have to blindly follow verbatim quotes without considering context or the full range or available material to determine how to incorporate, phrase, and summarize content, you probably won't make much headway. Ocaasi (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The source does say "These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." This sentence refers to the previous sentences that are about pseudoscience, quackery, and superstitions. So indeed the full text does give a detailed explanation and context that there is a threat to public health.

Does any editor support the original research blindly added Hans Adler that is not supported by the 1965 reference. Does anyone want the OR in the article removed or is OR editorial discretion. If you look at the discussion below no editor was able to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The original research continues

The claim "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." is not supported by the 1965 reference. There is no text from the source to support this sentence. The claim "The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud." could not be verified yet. Please provide verification or don't restore the text. See #Replacing source text with original research continues. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making this substantial contribution to the discussion. I believe that the section, "Impact of Recent Public Interest", from referenced page 1219 of the the 1965 reference supports the medical quackery part of "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." I agree that superstition is not so well covered by that reference and I propose we look for another source to support the claim of health risks of pseudoscientific superstition or we remove "superstition" from that sentence. I also agree that there is an error in using the The National Council Against Health Fraud as a source for NSF. I propose we change NSF to The National Council Against Health Fraud in that sentence. If that makes sense to you let's make those changes and move on. Jojalozzo 21:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why say "some forms of pseudoscience such as medical quackery can be..." when what you really mean is "Medical quackery can be...". If I wanted to be pointed, I would suggest "No forms of pseudoscience except medical quackery can be...". The problem here is that medical quackery is a potential health risk, but not all pseudoscience is medical quackery and not all medical quackery is pseudoscience. They are two different categories that are being conflated for no good reason.

Be aware that QG's argument is that we should use these statements without any reference to the context, meaning, or intent of the authors who wrote them. This is like finding a scholarly author who writes "Global warming could cause the deaths of a billion people over the next century" and using that quote to suggest that the author thinks global warming is an effective tool for population control. It is perhaps the most unscholarly, unencyclopedic, and anti-intellectual approach to wikipedia that I have seen, and the mindless tendentiousness of it offends me deeply. Please do not give this reasoning style any benefit of the doubt whatsoever, because it is completely and wholly without merit.

If you like, I can make that point more strongly. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Be confident that QG's argument is that we can use these relevant statements with reference to the context, meaning, and intent of the authors who wrote them.

Ludwigs2 was unable to provide V for the specific text in question on the talk page. I would not suggest "No forms of pseudoscience except medical quackery can be...". That is OR.

Jojalozzo, you were unable to provide V for the text in question. "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." is not verified yet. I could not verify the text using a dated 1965 source. However, there is a newer 2010 source available that makes a verified claim that we all know is well sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I believe that the 1965 reference is good support for a claim that quackery is a public health risk, especially on page 1219 as the citation states: "Ladimer, Irving (1965). "The Health Advertising Program of the National Better Business Bureau". Am J Public Health 55: 1217 - 1227. page 1219." No one has yet been able to show where in the full text of the 2010 source there is support for that claim. Please tell me where you think the claim of health risks of quackery is discussed in the 2010 source, other than one sentence in the abstract. Jojalozzo 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: I agree that if we removed "superstition" then we could condense the sentence to something like "Pseudoscience can be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery." I appreciate your frustration and insights into the process here but think it's important to get everyone's perspective written here in their own words. I hope you share my view that actual substantial discussion points are a great improvement over links to past discussions, diffs and policy pages and will be critical in resolving this dispute. Jojalozzo 22:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be agreeing with yourself. I did not agree to OR. You have not provided V. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@ jojo: I don't think anyone is questioning the idea that medical quackery is a potential risk to health. The thing under question here is what relation or relevance this has to the topic of pseudoscience. As I said, not all pseudoscience is quackery, and not all quackery is pseudoscience - therefore the fact that quackery may be a danger says almost nothing about pseudoscience as a whole.

I thought we were looking for support for the claim that pseudoscience can increase the dangers of quackery in modern society, that quackery based on superstition, religion and fantasy doesn't have the same impact in a materialist society. Jojalozzo 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting claim if you have a source for it (this source doesn't say anything like that at all). however, even if you did, that would really belong on the quackery article, not here, since it's obviously not the case that all (or even a significant portion) of pseudoscience is medical in nature. --Ludwigs2 07:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

@ QG: actually, you' are the one involved in original research. you are taking a sourced statement out of context and using it to promote a different idea entirely. and no, "Pseudoscience can be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery" is not correct, and not what the source implies. medical quackery is a health risk; whether or not it is pseudoscientific is secondary, and unrelated to any health risk that might exist. The only reason the source invokes the broader pseudoscience concept is because the authors are primarily concerned with why people reason badly. --Ludwigs2 00:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience can be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery" is not correct. It can't be a risk? Can you elaborate? Moriori (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see how "risk" is a vague enough word on it's own but I doubt we could find a source to support claims of health risk for all forms of quackery. Baldness nostrum based on olive oil? Jojalozzo 01:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you were not trying to answer my question. Neither the Ludwigs statement nor my question inferred or mentioned '"all forms of quackery". Anyway I was more curious about the statement (paraphrased) that it is not true that pseudoscience "can be" a risk to...........Moriori (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Moriori: let me spell it out as a logical fallacy. here's the logic being used (setting aside for the moment that neither premise is universally true):

• Quackery can have health risks
• Quackery is pseudoscience
• Therefore, pseudoscience can have health risks

This is a form of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, in which an inappropriate association is drawn between 'pseudoscience' and 'health risks' because of the intermediary concept 'quackery'. We can start throwing in weasel words to make it more palatable (e.g. some pseudoscience), but that just obscures the core fallacy. The problem with QG's statement "Pseudoscience can be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery", is that the main concept being presented is Pseudoscience is a risk to public health (the incorrect conclusion drawn above), weasled out by tossing in a 'can be' and adding a subsidiary clause about quackery. The no logical reason to prefer this formulation over the more direct 'quackery can have health risks', except that if you use that formulation it clearly does not belong on this article. (why there is such an insistence on having this bit in this article is a different issue we needn't go into - suffice it to say that there's no rational reason for it). --Ludwigs2 03:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you answered my question. Is it not true that pseudoscience can be a risk to........X? Yes? No? Moriori (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer it if Ludwigs2 did not answer your question again. I would prefer it if you read the answer he gave at 3:30 and made sure you understand it. The point is not if this (rather obvious but also rather irrelevant) fact is true or not; the point is whether it is pertinent to this article. The statement is very much akin to "mammals can be rapists", which, while obviously true in a technical sense, certainly would not belong in the article mammals even if someone managed to find a reliable source. Hans Adler 07:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer it if Ludwigs actually answered my question with a yes or no. I am querying Ludwigs statement which did not specify relevance to inclusion in the article which your astonishing non sequitur mentions. He made a categorical statement (paraphrased) that it is not true that pseudoscience "can be" a risk to......X. I think he should answer the question, so we can maybe see what motivates him here. I think that Misplaced Pages should be worried that someone can say QG's "can be a risk" means "is a risk" . Moriori (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

He did ask me to elaborate, so I'm not sure what's up with that. I would prefer if he told us what he found unclear about that response. It seems very straightforward to me. --Ludwigs2 08:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it not true that pseudoscience can be a risk to........X? Yes? Or No? Moriori (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see Ludwig's answer to that question. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) One of the sources used for the article is

• Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lynn, Steven Jay; Lohr, Jeffrey M., eds. (2004), Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Guilford Press, ISBN 1593850700

The book explicitly discusses the problems or dangers of unproved clinical methods in psychology that are based on "potentially pseudoscientific techniques". The book is a collection of articles by experts. In the introduction there is a carefully argued section entitled, "Why potentially pseudoscientific techniques can be harmful." The word "quackery" is not used in the book; however, the risk in using clinical methods where there is scant empirical evidence is discussed in detail. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci: again, no one is suggesting that there there isn't a medical issue here. Some clinical practices (in the medical sense of the phrase) can sometimes have a deleterious effect - we're all agreed on that. However, not all pseudoscience-based clinical practices have deleterious effects, and not all of of the practices that have deleterious effects are properly considered pseudoscience-based, and none of this has any relation to the vast range of pseudosciences that have nothing whatsoever to do with medicine and no conceivable health effects at all (unless you consider being probed by aliens or having your thoughts stolen by a parapsychologist to be a public health issue).

The quote doesn't belong here, because the way it's used takes it out of its original article context in order to assert that there are public health issues with pseudoscience broadly put, which is just silly on the face of it. it's wp:OR via panning-for-quotes. I am frankly shocked that there are so many people swimming upstream against reason just to keep this silly paragraph in the article. common sense and logic both say that this quote (if it is used at all) should be somewhere specific to medical issues (which is the context of the article it comes from) not being pushed into some heavy-handed statement about pseudoscience as a whole. --Ludwigs2 11:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not mention the quote at all, except for the word "quackery". The reliable source I mentioned spends a lot of space considering some medical treatments with a potentially pseudoscientific basis and the harm that they might cause. So from a broader perspective the views presented in that book and similar books should be represented. The authors there have their own careful way of phrasing things: they do not use the term "quackery" anywhere. So their meaning can be conveyed by a simple paraphrase or even a direct quote if appropriate. Concentrating on one sentence from a recent article does not seem at all worthwhile if similar content can be found elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

However, both you and the source you mention are explicit that this is limited to medical treatments, and as you and I both know 'quackery' is a derogatory reference to certain kinds of non-scientific medicine. Your source does not solve the core problem here, which is that people are taking a taking a risk encountered in bad medicine and trying to expand it (unreasonably) to a risk of bad science.

Again, by analogy (to co-opt Hans' example from above): the following two statements are true: (i) Humans are mammals. (2) Humans have no fur. it might be appropriate to add a line in the 'Human' article which says "Humans are mammals who lack fur". It would be completely inappropriate to add a line to the 'Mammal' article that says "Mammals are creatures who lack fur when they are human". The fact that humans lack fur probably does not belong on the mammal article at all - certainly it should not be part of the overview where the concept 'mammal' is defined. likewise, the fact that bad medicine might have health risks does not belong as part of the definition of pseudoscience. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reputable scientists have written that potentially pseudoscientific techniques used in medical treatments can be hazardous. At the moment you seem to be suggesting that statements like this from a WP:RS, satisfying WP:V, cannot be used in this article. Is this correct? Mathsci (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

again, that's not what I'm suggesting, never has been, never will be, and I have already made numerous statements to the contrary. Please read the discussion before making comments; ignorance is not an excuse for gross misstatements of this sort. This is not about wp:V or wp:RS, this is about wp:UNDUE and wp:SYN. thanks. --Ludwigs2 07:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, this dispute is eerily similar to an earlier one in which a source was abused by quote-mining absurd claims that, among other things, the entire topic of ghosts is pseudoscientific. That dispute was blown out of all proportion because a lot of scientifically oriented readers participated without realising what it was about. The disruption only stopped after I had wasted many hours of my life on compiling detailed evidence about it for a user RfC. (I believe the user in question learned something in the process, in which case it was at least not completely futile.)

The question is not whether medical pseudoscience exists, or whether it is harmful. (Of course the answer to both questions is yes.) The main question is whether medical pseudoscience should be portrayed as dominating the topic of pseudoscience in general. It's not about whether to say certain things in the article, but about how and where to say them. And the proponents of conflating pseudoscience and quackery are abusing a source that only says what they want it to say if you blatantly ignore its context. Hans Adler 08:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors are suggesting that there there isn't a medical issue here when they blatantly ignore the source and its context. If editors think the article is not balanced then they can present additional sources to expand but not delete a high-quality source they have a personal disagreement with. The text is well sourced and is a good summary of the 2010 source. Hans Adler, the claim you added "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." is not supported by the 1965 reference. The claim "The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud." did not pass V when you did provide V. Please don't restore text that failed V. Hans Adler, do you agree to stop blindly adding OR. At the top of this thread I requested V but the editors who continue to add the OR have refused to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

*sigh*

"Editors are suggesting that there there isn't a medical issue here when they blatantly ignore the source and its context." – I am not sure that anyone here denies that medicine-related pseudoscience can cause health threats. (Ludwigs2 denied something related but subtly different, and context is everything.) I have not seen such a denial. However, pseudoscience that is not related to medicine (e.g. creationism) is almost never a health threat, and no amount of cherry picking and quoting out of context from sources that very obviously only speak about medical pseudoscience, although the fail to mention the fact, is going to change this.

I reverted you because you changed "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health" to "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health" and moved the paragraph where this appeared from a separate section below "Identifying pseudoscience" up into the more prominent section "Overview", where it doesn't belong. The first sentence is clearly true, although I am not sure that we have a source for it at the moment. The second sentence is bullshit in the technical sense. Obviously if I had known that the footnote after the first sentence, far from supporting it, has practically nothing to do with it, then I would have removed the footnote and tagged the sentence as citation needed.

The following sentence appears to claim that I did something: "The claim 'The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud.' did not pass V when you did provide V." For the life of me I can't guess what you are claiming that I have done. Please write more clearly and make sure not to get editors confused. On the substance, I remember various versions of the NSF's Science and Engineering Indicators as saying things similar to this sentence, but I don't know whether that particular sentence (which seems completely unnecessary in this article, for more than one reason) is true or not, and I can't be bothered to check. If my attention had been drawn to that sentence when I reverted you, I might have simply removed it. Hans Adler 19:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, no more blatant policy violations. Your reverted QuackGuru because it seems you did not like what the reliable source said. Deleting sourced text becuase you did not like where it was in the article is not right. The text is sourced from a 2010 reliable source but you preferred to blindly revert after it was explained in the edit summary the text was OR. See WP:IDHT. Now that Hans Adler and other editors are unable to provide V they should move on rather than continue restoring OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue with QuackGuru has been referred to administrators at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#QuackGuru_again_-_what_do_I_do_now.3F. Please feel free to contribute there. --Ludwigs2 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How about you try to not add original research or replace sourced text with text that failed V and as suggested by PPdd improve the text (rather than continuing to delete a source you have a strong personal disagreement with). The text was a good summary of the 2010 source. Can you think of an even better summary? QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR: "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery are serious threats to public health."

• Meyer, David I. (2011). "Pseudoscience plagues the health of our nation". Torrance Daily Breeze. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Ladimer, Irving (1965). "The Health Advertising Program of the National Better Business Bureau". Am J Public Health. 55: 1217–1227. Retrieved February 25, 2011. page 1219.

I was unable to verify the text using references currently in the article. Sourced text was replaced with OR.

This text along with other sourced text was deleted from the article. "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health."

• Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) This very reliable source was deleted from the article.

Possible WP:OR: "The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud." There still seems to be original research in Pseudoscience#Impacts and concerns. Can any editor provide V for the text. I tried to explain this to other editors before but the challenged text remains in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Suitability of the source

The main discussion has become complex and I am finding it hard to track. For my sake and perhaps others' I propose separating out the issue of the value/applicability/suitability of the disputed source and ask that we maintain that focus in this subsection.

Everyone agrees that there is one introductory, motivational sentence in the abstract stating that pseudoscience is a threat to public health. I and others have stated that to be a useful source there must be some justification for this statement in the full text. However, no one has yet shown us where in the full text there is support for (or simply mention of) the claim that pseudoscience is a public health risk, not even QuackGuru, the editor who originated the citation and insists we include it. We have had days in which anyone could have read the source and reported where it discusses pseudoscience and public health. I see three reasons, possibly all simultaneously true, why this has not yet occurred: 1) the article contains nothing beyond the throw-away sentence in the abstract to support the claim, which is highly likely given that the source is not about public health, 2) those who think this is an important contribution to our topic have not actually read the full text (the source is only available online for a fee), and 3) some think that a single sentence in the abstract is all we need to make an encyclopedic claim without regard for whether the full text includes any support for that claim. Jojalozzo 02:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to speculate on the reasons why no one has presented a justification for this from the full text. I think all we need to do is point out the fact that no one has, and that should be sufficient to exclude this source from this article - when/if someone does present it, we can reconsider. --Ludwigs2 07:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Still no evidence that the full text of the 2010 source addresses the claim of health threats or anything about public health. While quite active in other discussions since I posted this latest request, QuackGuru is remarkably silent on this point. Jojalozzo 01:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I did present the evidence on 17:58, 8 March 2011 that the full text of the 2010 source addresses the issues you claim is not in the full text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, your objection was that the full text did not address the claim of health threats or anything about public health. But I did provide the evidence on 17:58, 8 March 2011. Jojalozzo, can you acknowledge the text is sourced and similar text is found in the full text too.

"Further information about the process of peer review and production can be found in this document: What happens to my paper?

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The source published in a reliable journal passes WP:V with flying colors. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge that on 8 March 2011 you said: "So indeed the full text does give a detailed explanation and context that there is a threat to public health" (my emphasis) but you offer no further justification for this statement. By my reading of the paper there is complete lack of detail and context for the authors' statement about public health. Please show us the text that provides the detailed explanation and context you refer to. 04:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "Please show us the text that provides the detailed explanation and context you refer to." Your objection was the full text did not mention anything about health threats or anything about public health. On 01:04, 9 March 2011 you claimed "Still no evidence that the full text of the 2010 source addresses the claim of health threats or anything about public health. While quite active in other discussions since I posted this latest request, QuackGuru is remarkably silent on this point." After I provided the evidence you are continuing to ask for "context". I did provide the context 17:58, 8 March 2011 and you could to acknowledge the source is also a reliable peer-reviewed reference. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking for the text of anyone's previous statements or your interpretation of them. I am asking for the specific text which you say is the authors' detailed explanation for their claim that pseudoscience is a threat to public health. All I am seeing in the paper is a brief throw-away mention of public health once in the abstract and once in the body of the paper. I see no detail whatsoever. Unless you mean to stonewall or "not hear," it behooves you to either produce the text with the detailed explanation or stop pushing for inclusion of this reference. Jojalozzo 20:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I did present it a while ago, but you did not reconsider it (or rather ignored it). No editor has given justification for deleting text that gives context and explains that there is a public heatlh threat from pseudoscience. The source also says "These are a serious matter of public health..." which shows it is sourced and gives context. The sentence refers to the previous sentences in the paragraph about pseudoscience. I'm sure I'm not the only editor who has read the full text source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I advise my readers to closely examine the references in Misplaced Pages because I have found it too common for editors to inappropriately "adapt" some sources to speak in favor of their ideology. This is one of those cases. An editor who clearly has a bone to pick with alternative medicine is attempting to develop the pseudoscience article as a reference to support his viewpoint. His reference has clearly used the "pseudo-" word to discredit complimentary medicine in order to justify the premise of the proposal made in the article. Circular sourcing in my opinion.

At issue here is how stable the article will be in the future. This issue has come up many times and if an alternative approach is not adopted, it will likely come up again ... and again. QG, why not try compromising rather than taking up so much of other editor's time? Tom Butler (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

quackGuru, I saw this at an/i, so I g have re-read both sources and neither of them justifies such a positive statement, nor, as pointed out above, could such a statement make sense when applied across the board to every form of pseudoscience. It would be enormously more fruitful to discuss the evidence that specific forms of pseudoscience are dangers to the public health, and these are to be found in the various articles, and a selection could be used here. for example, the dangers of chiropractic and Christian Science are thoroughly documented. There has been too much selective quotation in Misplaced Pages. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

QG is acting out of frustration??? Between going after the frustrated messenger and Kww's radical comment that, "...editors that believe that presenting pseudoscience in a favorable light is necessary to achieving balance don't have sufficient competence to edit" (I was referring to subjects labeled as pseudoscience!) I think we should give the article to QG and go hide before more of us get blocked.Tom Butler (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom Butler, I am summarising a relevant source which explains, amongs others things, the causes of pseudoscience. Is there a reason why you don't want material about the causes in this page.

DGG, the text I added to the article is actually a good summary of the pseudoscience article regarding pseudoscience. The text was not taken out of context. You wrote "It would be enormously more fruitful to discuss the evidence that specific forms of pseudoscience are dangers to the public health, and these are to be found in the various articles, and a selection could be used here." The articles made a claim about pseudoscience and public health with specific examples that are relevant here too. You claim using "a selection could be used here" but that is selective quotation and WP:OR if we used only a selection from the 2010 source. If you are suggesting to use only a selection here rather than summarising the pseudoscience claims from the 2010 source that would not be NPOV because the source is appropriate for this article too. You saw this at an/i, so you re-read both sources. The full text of 2010 source is not publicly available online. Since you read the source you might be able to help summarise it here. Can you think of a better summary of the source or do you support editors continuing to delete a relevant source. If you read both sources do you support the text that failed verification (no verification provided yet)? See #Replacing source text with original research continues. If you think the text is sourced can you provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete 'Impacts and concerns' section?

As far as I can tell, this entire section is a combination of original research, comments specific to medical quackery, and isolated cases where bad things happened. The only worthwhile comments in it are in the last two lines, where it talks about public science education, and that can better be handled in different sections (and I think already is). Does anyone have a valid analytical reason to retain this section? --Ludwigs2 04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I promised myself that, in the future, I would stay out of these fruitless discussions, but Ludwigs, you made a perplexing statement in your 04:39, 20 March 2011 edit summery: "Reich was not sent to jail for pseudoscience, but for violating commerce laws." I do not expect editors to allow anything in the article that admits potentially harmful damage from accusing someone of being pseudoscientific, but you cannot ignore the way overzealous people will use such a term to justify suppression of alternative theories.

From the Wilhelm Reich Museum website, the reason Reich was jailed was in part "The Complaint declared that orgone energy does not exist,..." Pseudoscience was not a commonly used term in those days, but the phrase "does not exist" is a modern day code phrase for pseudoscience. In fact, the description of orgone energy is nearly identical to the description of other subtle energy such as biofield energy and the same energy under half a dozen other names: (1) Mass free and has no inertia (making it difficult to measure); (2) Universal; (3) The medium for electromagnetic and gravitational activity; and, (4) That from which matter is created.

I am not arguing here that this is a real energy, although it is noteworthy that it keeps getting independently discovered. Modern incarnations of the energy are clearly identified as pseudoscience. For instance, search "energy" here. In my view, you reverted a good addition to the article for a bogus reason. Tom Butler (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom, that isn't the issue. I have no doubts that Orgone qualifies as pseudoscience. However, I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that any other purveyor of psuedoscience in the history of the universe will end up going to (and dying in) jail in quite the way that Reich did. Might happen, of course, but it can't really be considered an 'impact' or 'concern' of pseudoscience. This whole section seems to be little more than a series of scare stories about bad, bad things that happen to people who practice pseudoscience, and to that extent has no more place in the article than plot summaries for the Friday the 13th movies belong on the teen sexuality article. --Ludwigs2 01:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience" not published in BJP 2010

I believe this article never made it into print, though a preprint edition has been available online since 3/16/2011 (8 days ago). Jojalozzo 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A free version of the paper is available on the authors' institutional web site. but there is no indication that it has been peer reviewed. The only mention of pseudoscience and public health other than the notorious first sentence of the abstract is in the introduction: "Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." Jojalozzo 04:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." It is your opinion the source is unreliable or bias. See this diff for more information on the reliability of the peer-reviewed source. The source will soon be published in the Br J Psychol (PMID 21092400). QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you are referring to. I certainly didn't say the source was biased. Those are your words. I pointed out that the paper has never been published and nothing in the abstract or the full text justifies or supports tangential claims about public health. By my reading, statements in the paper about health appear to be simply motivation for a study of cognitive distortion - an extremely poor, weak source to rely on for a Misplaced Pages article. In my opinion the sources we have already do a fine job of supporting claims about the impacts of pseudoscience. Please explain what problems you see with the sources we have now and how referencing this cognitive distortion paper (if/when it's published) would resolve those problems. Jojalozzo 03:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The source meets WP:V. You claim the source is weak but I previously shown the source is peer-reviewed and the current article does not discuss the specific details found in this particular source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The source fails wp:UNDUE. sorry. --Ludwigs2 18:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, you claim the source fails wp:UNDUE because you seem to think the source is wrong. You think the source is not appropriate while you seem to prefer WP:OR according to your edit that added text you were unable to verify. What is piffle supposed to mean? Jojalozzo, you clearly dispute the source. What is dnft supposed to mean you wrote in your edit summary? QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

DNFT means "do not feed this," referring to what I consider a pointless dispute over the inclusion of a reference that may technically meet some of the standards for a source but which contains a single, solitary phrase without which it is useless as support for claims about pseudoscience and public health. Jojalozzo 20:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"piffle" means that I think you said something that isn't worthy of serious consideration. And I say the reference fails UNDUE because (as I have said repeatedly) is it an off-hand phrase from the abstract of an article form a different field on a different topic. And incidentally, the fact that you repeatedly refuse to address that point (aka IDHT) is what earns you piffles. --Ludwigs2 02:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The extremely reliable source explains the causality of pseudoscience related issues, among other things. It is indeed relevant to this article and should be given its DUEWEIGHT. How many other peer-reviewed sources are there about the problems related to pseudoscience and public health? There are other sources but this source is the most reliable that is peer-reviewed source. Do you understand peer-reviewed sources are more reliable than most other sources? The statement in the abstract is very similar to the statement in the full text. What claims in the full text do you think is sourced that would be a good summary to use in this article. The field of pseudoscience and illusionary thinking is related to an article about pseudoscience. According to the RfC on this source there are other similar sources currently in the article. But I suppose you think thoses sources are also UNDUE? Do you still think the entire section must be deleted because you don't think the term and the source about public health is wrong and your original research is right? See WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@QG: I am still interested in your explanation of problems you see with the sources we have now to support claims about the impacts of pseudoscience and how referencing this cognitive distortion paper (if/when it's published) would resolve those problems. Jojalozzo 20:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I previously told you the source is peer-reviewed and you were unable to make a specific response to my comment about the source being peer-reviewed. It is not an argument to delete the source if the PubMed abstract is a little bit ahead of the print version. This is arguably the most reliable source for pseudoscience related health and education problems. The sourced text is not duplication from another peer-reviewed source. The current section is very short and does not have enough article content from reliable sources like peer-reviewed sources or any type of reliable source. I think most editors understand the source meets WP:V and WP:RS. I think you or any other editor needs to stop claiming the source is weak (unreliable) or not about pseudoscience related issues. The new section is very short and will improve if it is expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the paper is probably peer reviewed but was pulled for some reason from the Nov 2010 BJP issue - since the paper does not address public health issues, it doesn't matter one way or the other in this discussion. I apologize for the distraction of bringing it up.

No matter how verifiable and reliable a source is, it's still got to support the material in the article to be useful. The Matute paper is concerned with cognitive errors and contains nothing beyond a cursory off-hand mention of public health threats. It is nowhere close to a Misplaced Pages-quality source for the public health impacts of pseudoscience. We have weeks of discussion here that I find most notable for the lack of, even the avoidance of, explanation for why this reference is useful and what it contributes that cannot be found in other sources. Jojalozzo 02:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you claim the source is a paper, "probably" peer reviewed and pulled for some reason from the Nov 2010 BJP issue? The peer-reviewed source is not a paper and the source was not pulled or withdrawn. The Epub is ahead of the print. See Br J Psychol. 2010 Nov 18. (PMID 21092400). Your previous objection was that the full text did not discuss public health impact and now you are coming up with more excuses. The source is relevant to the topic and you should try to stop trying to block improvements to the article. Can you come up with a more accurate summary than the previous version? QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your quibble over whether this is a paper or not strikes me as one more way to avoid presenting the actual content of the paper that you feel is so critical for support of claims of public health threats of pseudoscience. By my reading the full text says nothing about public health beyond a throw away line. Your quibble of over my wording about the content of the paper again avoids the main issue which is where in this paper is there any detailed explanation of pseudoscience and public health that you have claimed here and here makes it such a good source. Jojalozzo 17:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The authors don't need to continue to repeat themselves in the full text to include an accurate summary here. The source is reliable despite your objections. See WP:SOURCES. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying the authors need to do anything. Their paper is an interesting report on cognitive errors and is a reliable source on that topic. You on the other hand do need to back up your claims that "indeed the full text does give a detailed explanation and context that there is a threat to public health" and "the various aspects are discussed in more detail in the full text" or else give this up before your avoidance of addressing direct requests and questions brings unwanted attention. Jojalozzo 18:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I did provide the evidence from the full text but you have chosen to continue to ignore my comments.

"These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." is from the full text. As previously explained, the sentence that begins with "These are a serious matter of public health..." gives context. The sentence refers to the preceding sentences as being a serious matter of public health and educational policy. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already said I don't see that single sentence as "detailed explanation" and I can find nothing in the sentences before it having anything to do with public health. If this were a paper that was actually about public health and pseudoscience it would have real detail. This paper's single mention of public health does not meet my standard for detail. Your continuing to cling to these flimsy claims for this source are getting us nowhere. Your inability or unwillingness to advance this discussion is hindering productive work. Repeating the same arguments as if you don't hear the objections being raised simply draws attention to problems of collaborating on the project. Jojalozzo 14:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." The authors think at least the text in the paragraph are serious matters involving public health and educational policy. That is detailed context and material. Your objection against using this reliable source is harmful to the project. The authors think pseudoscience is a threat to public health. Do you think pseudoscience is a benefit to public health. Do you think the source is relevant to this article. Do you still think the source is weak or unreliable when it is peer-reviewed. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What you or I think about public health threats is irrelevant. I stand by my statement that Matute et al. is a good source for the role of cognitive distortion in pseudoscience but an extremely weak source for claims about pseudoscience and public health. All these repetitive responses and the "not hearing" over the last two months have added nothing new to change my position. Jojalozzo 20:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Poll for consensus on use of Matute et al. source

The question of whether we should use the Matute et al. source as support for claims of public health threats from pseudoscience has been discussed at length. I propose we poll to see if we have consensus. (Note: consensus doesn't mean we all agree but that a great number of us do and those who disagree have had sufficient opportunity to explain their position.)

Please keep explanations short and rebuttals, if any, shorter. Let's not recreate the discussion above, just get a sense of those working here.

• Inappropriate - the (as yet to be published) Matute et al. source offers no useful support for claims about public health and pseudoscience. Jojalozzo 20:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unusable. Neither the source nor the author are reliable for the topic in question (except, perhaps, in the narrow sense of discussing the cognitive biases that might lead people to believe in pseudoscience). --Ludwigs2 04:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Both Ludwigs2 and Jojalozzo seem to have a personal disagreement with the source. To all editors: Misplaced Pages is not the place to act on personal conflicts with peer-reviewed literature. See WP:NOTBATTLE. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Usable. The abstract explicitly says "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health" and the researcher's subsequent discussion cites other works which have discussed various aspects of this in more depth. Is there any actual reason to believe that pseudoscience is not a serious threat to public health, when there are millions of people buying pseudoscientific treatments instead of seeing a real doctor? bobrayner (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  Bob, please read the ongoing discussion before rendering an obviously uninformed opinion. No one is questioning that some kinds of medical quackery produce health risks. However, this quote is unusable because (a) it misrepresents what the source actually says, (b) it comes from a psychology journal that is not reliable for discussions of pseudoscience in general, and (c) the vast majority of pseudoscience (from UFOlogy to cryptozoology to cold fusion, to...) has no conceivable health impact whatsoever. Your concerns about medical treatments may be valid; this article is not the place to address them, and this source is not useful for the purpose. --Ludwigs2 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(a) Ludwigs2, you are continuing to misrepresent what the full text actually says when you claim the full text is being misrepresented. Bob explained the researcher's subsequent discussion cites other works which have discussed various aspects of this in more depth. (b) I previously explained this particular journal is peer-reviewed and very reliable per Misplaced Pages's WP:V policy. (c) I previously explained the source does not say all pseudoscience related issues are a threat to public health. Ludwigs2, please respect Misplaced Pages's policies. This article is the place to address pseudoscience illusionary thinking and public health impacts, among other things. No one is questioning that medical pseudoscience produce health risks except for you. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I realise that you feel very strongly about this subject, but it's pretty unhelpful to say somebody is obviously uninformed because they support the use of a source for a statement which does not fit your beliefs. This, in addition to the misrepresentation, is very frustrating. I thought this was a poll. If this is something other than a poll, you might wish to change the section heading. bobrayner (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I say your opinion is obviously uninformed because your opinion is obviously uninformed. That's not a problem, it's just something you need to correct. If you'd care to give informed support to the use of this source in this way, I'd be more than happy to hear it. But simply reiterating claims that have been raised and refuted earlier is senseless. Find a better argument; don't rely on the threadbare and easily discounted silliness that QG consistently pushes.

With respect to polls, this is not USA Today; One expects polls on wikipedia to reflect a substantive understanding of the topic, not to be mere kneejerk responses. I suggested to jojolozzo that framing this as a poll might be a bad idea for precisely this reason, because it would attract a whole lot of 'me too' responses from people who's concerns about pseudoscience cause them to turn a deaf ear to considerations of logic and proper scholarship. It seems to me there are plenty of valid sources detailing the problems with pseudoscience available in the world; we do not need to (and should not) misuse sources to make exaggerated claims about the subject.

And yes, please do keep up with the ad hominem arguments. The more you try to frame this as my beliefs rather than a question of proper scholarship, the easier you make this for me down the line. You'll see. --Ludwigs2 18:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I'm very interested in hearing more about the other works referenced in the paper that discuss the public health threats of pseudoscience in more depth since I didn't see them and they might be proper sources for impacts of pseudoscience. Please briefly list some of them for me. Jojalozzo 17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." The sentence refers to the preceding sentences in the same paragraph as being a serious matter of public health and educational policy. Jojalozzo, I thought I provided WP:V a while ago on this specific issue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

QG: I'm asking Bob, not you, about the other works he mentions. You (QG) and everyone else can find my still-unanswered and repeated requests addressed to you most recently in the previous section. Jojalozzo 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Unusable for that but the paper's conclusions could be used in the article. Poor practice to pick up a minor point that is clearly only meant to contextualise the paper rather than the conclusions that the authors have demonstrated through their work. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. See this diff and this diff. The source is not a paper and the full text explains the issues in more detail. Itsmejudith, you are close to repeating the same comment by Jojalozzo where he previously claimed the source is just a paper after I explained to him a long time ago the source is peer-reviewed. Itsmejudith, do you think peer-reviewed journals are unreliabe? The source does not say all pseudoscience related issues are a threat to public health, anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Usable. Jojalozzo's previous objection was that the full text did not mention anything about public health issues (the various aspects are discussed in more detail in the full text). The text is accurately sourced in accordance with WP:V and very relevant to the topic at hand. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Definitely usable This is mainstream scientific opinion. The scientific POV should be represented. There are few experts in "pseudoscience" as it is not a scientific field. The skeptic society might qualify... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  I agree that we need a scientific view. Rather than sources from pseudoscience experts, I like to see citations from public health practitioners. It doesn't make sense to me that cognitive psychologists end up being our choice to support public health claims, especially when the statement is clearly not intended to be authoritative. Jojalozzo 19:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Overview

Could someone explain why this article has an Overview section. Isn't that a) the lede; b) redundant with the lede; c) misnamed; or d) better split up into the respective sections that handle the content. What is the point of this section, or the precedent for including it in an article that is not that long or even that complicated? Would it be better broken up into 'history' and 'definition' or somesuch? Ocaasi 14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The overview is more detailed than the LEAD (this isn't a newspaper). It's critical so that when we point fringe-pushing editors to this article, they might understand (though highly doubtful) what constitutes pseudoscience and what doesn't. For most of us, it isn't complicated, misnamed, redundant. OrangeMarlin 15:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that adds up. Encyclopedias articles are overviews, and having an overview section within one, when there is already a lede, is a sign that the article is not well structured or organized. By analogy, consider if the lede had its own sub-section called 'introduction'. Or if the a History section had its own first sub-section called 'overview of prior events'. That could be justifiable in an extremely long article (which would almost definitely run into WP:FORK constraints before such a section was warranted), but since this is not a particularly long article, that doesn't make sense either.

Also, having a cheat sheet to educate POV-pushers is not part of the purpose of articles; I think that's a conflation of article-space and project-space goals. If we want to have something like that it should be at WP:FRINGE not here. Ocaasi 15:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The heading is unhelpful but I think some of the content is good - particularly on definitions of pseudoscience. Perhaps we could trim out a couple of redundant sentences, and rename the section accordingly? I'd agree that dealing with unhelpful editors is something we would normally do elsewhere (including on talkpages), but it is sometimes reasonable to adapt article content to such pressures. For example, if an instance of an ethnic label in a BLP (or a genre label in a music article) attracts lots editwars and drama, sometimes it's better to just remove that label... bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I find these discussions tendentious. Why don't editors spend time writing articles? As a warning, almost anything written here will involve edit warring. There are a large number of editors who helped write this article over the years that will stand up to any Fringe-pushing POV edits. And even a slight change will become a battle. It's only worth making changes to fringe editors with an agenda. Otherwise, the article is fairly useful. I use it all the time in the real life world as ways to point out pseudoscience. It's probably one of a handful of articles on Misplaced Pages that's actually academic-worthy. OrangeMarlin 17:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Top-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Top-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• B-Class philosophy of science articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
• Philosophy of science task force articles