Category talk:Pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Up to 10 August 2006

[edit] Possible solution for alternative medicines (chiropractic) categorisation

I'm attempting a possible solution to the labeling at the bottom of the chiropractic page. If the problem is that the label appears to be making a statement, then (assuming they also fit in the science category), the :category:science can also be placed there along side the :category:pseudoscience label. This assumes that we are using the science category in the same manner as the pseudoscience category (any subject that discusses science). This effectively should neutralize the debate and allow for the discussion of the pros and cons in each. I'm attempting it today. We'll see how it goes. Wish me luck. --Dematt 11:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting approach... hmmm. Dunno, given that the categories still appear without annotations. But your logic is right on, and if editors insist on including one, then the other has gotta go on too where (per sig POV's) both PS and scientific aspects exist. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it is working though. We have editors that don't like the science label placed on alt med sites. Then we have others who put the PS label back on and don't put the SC with it, so it's still somewhat contentious. I don't mind the discussion of pseudoscience issue. It's calling one thing pseudoscience and not mentioning your favorite, i.e. I still have not seen anything in the field of medicine with a pseudoscience tag on it. Makes me question the whole motivation for the PS "as long as we discuss it" concept. Unless there is some real movement in this direction, I don't think it will work. So far all I see is one editors attempt only to place chiropractic in the PS category. --Dematt 15:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative medicine is either fundamental.society.paranormal.spirituality (IF it defines itself as entirely spiritual and if it does not pretend to be scientific whatsoever.) or fundamental.nature.science.pseudoscience (IF it pretends to use some scientific methods). I am trying clearify "paranormal and scientific category definitions" so solve their categorisation problems in Category_talk:Paranormal. --Ollj 17:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Representative and unquestioned examples"

I'm repeating this from Talk:Chiropractic because of its general relevance. One editor have argued that scholars don't mean the term PS pejoratively, and others have argued that pejorativeness aside, a significant scholarly POV is enough to use the category. The problem is that Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation doesn't agree with this stance (echoing WP:CG's concerns that I've already mentioned in the archives). Scholarly intention doesn't change popular usage, which remains pejorative and therefore subject to the NPOV issues cited on the tutorial. For example, scholars may and do use the term "cult", and not mean it pejoratively, but it's still a pejorative term in popular usage, which makes it a "sensitive" category. Same with pseudoscience, which by definition means the proponent is engaging in misrepresentation in some way. That's a "sensitive" assertion to make, and invokes WP:NPOVT#Categorisation.

That NPOV page links to this guideline page, which says:

• "For some 'sensitive' categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for 'sensitive' categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization.

Thus, chiropractic, which per sig POV's has both sci and PS aspects, isn't a representative and unquestioned example of PS. Similarly with acupuncture. Please note: I don't make this argument for all alt-med stuff labelled as PS, just the stuff that scientists take seriously enough to test and for which significant reviewers like Cochrane say there is evidence suggesting efficacy. Acu and chiro are the only ones I can think of, apart from a few herbs. I know there are various studies supporting various alt-med things, but I don't know of evidence-based medicine reviewers saying that meta-analysis of multiple studies suggests efficacy for them. I do recall seeing a Cochrane publication supporting chiro for low back pain, and Acupuncture#Scientific_research covers existing EBM stuff for acu.

NPOV's point about categories and "representative and unquestioned examples" seems pretty clear to me. KV, I respect the fact that we may agree to disagree here, but imo just because some scholars don't mean the term pejoratively doesn't change the fact that in popular usage it actually is understood to be pejorative. What do other editors think? regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jim Butler. This is all the same repetition of what is already in the archives. The category includes all articles that have issues of pseudoscience. Confirmation bias has pseudoscience issues, as does chiropractic (in both practice and theory). There is no way you can argue that either subject has no issues of pseudoscience. The primary and overruling NPOV rule is that pseudoscience is to be explained as science has received it. That has been achieved to some extent in the chiropractic article. The primary reason for categories is to help the reader browse related articles. To help the reader browse articles with issues of pseudoscience in them, chiropractic is to be added. Chiropractic has its own particular issues that relate to pseudoscience, and having the article in the category helps the reader understand those particular aspects of pseudoscience. An article can have both scientifically supported and pseudoscience aspects. In fact most subjects considered pseudoscience have aspects that are scientifically grounded or supported. This category is not a list of Wikipedia approved pseudosciences. It is to help the reader read issues of pseudoscience in related articles. NPOV policy on science over pseudoscience prevails, and helping the reader browse related articles is the primary objective. So lets accept the fact, and get on with helping the reader. KrishnaVindaloo 06:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello KV! Yes, this issue was raised in archived talk, here and in subsequent sections. Readers will note the lack of consensus among editors in those recent discussions.

Your statement that "The category includes all articles that have issues of pseudoscience" is not accepted by all editors, or even a majority of them. As you have probably noticed, a large majority of editors at chiropractic and perhaps half of the editors at pseudoscience disagree with you on using the category for chiro, and that includes some editors like Fyslee, Jim62sch and Kenosis who appear sympathetic with scientific skepticism, but also share my NPOV concerns.

You say "The primary and overruling NPOV rule is that pseudoscience is to be explained as science has received it." Not quite. The point that "pseudoscience is to be explained as science has received it" is indeed stated clearly on NPOV pages, but not to the exclusion of other aspects of NPOV, such as "describing a dispute fairly". We can easily say what scientists think about pseudoscience without slapping the category on every article that has been argued to have aspects of pseudoscience.

My point is that the statements on categorization are just as much a part of NPOV as the sections on pseudoscience, giving "equal validity", and making necessary assumptions, passages which some editors have cited as supporting your view. In fact, these aspects of NPOV are entirely consistent with one another. We can get the point across without using the category in every conceivable instance, and there are good reasons not to, as explained above in the NPOV tutorial using the example of Menachem Begin.

The criteria I'm suggesting for alt-med, evidence-based medicine reviews, aren't arbitrary. They are as good as scientific sources get for medicine. EBM is a clear threshold that would keep the tag off certain fields, but permit it to stay on a number of topics that are more obviously "representative and unquestioned examples". The simple fact, KV, is that no matter how we describe the category on its page, it remains a pejorative term and a sensitive one. Readers who don't click through are likely to see the category as a label (cf. category naming), and that label does not adequately or fairly explain how scientists have received these fields.

Remember the most basic description of NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." The category "asserts"; cf. WP's categorization guidelines. We can still describe scientists' views without the POV problems of using the category. Readers can still browse without it. They can read the pseudoscience article via wikilinking.

No offense taken or intended if we disagree, KV. Just wanted to argue my case adequately here. Remember, we do agree on citing and discussing pseudoscience in articles. Our only disagreement is about a tiny little label in a couple of arguably borderline cases. I'm simply saying that the use of it is misleading and POV when it appears without the context of adequate discussion. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - Note that one editor, Wclark, suggested in the archives that the Wikipedia software might be modifiable to allow annotation of categories (e.g., that only certain aspects have been called pseudoscientific, or whatever). That would smooth out the NPOV problem and incorporate an advantage that lists have, cf. WP:CLS. I think it's an excellent idea. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking briefly at the list, I think the category is useful, but admittedly contentious. There are some articles in the subcategories like "Mammals discovered since 2000", "Vaccine controversy", and "Gaydar", which upon examination sound as if they are discussing scientific data, not pseudoscience. Classification of "Social Darwinism" is a philosophical question - the doctrine uses science to 'justify' its political goals in a way I find improper, yet how can I say that Spencer, who taught Darwin the phrase "survival of the fittest", was a pseudo-scientist? Every political viewpoint claims some degree of justification from scientific fact and theory, and if you begin saying that the ones you disagree with are pseudo-science because of that, where do you stop? Yet I'd refuse to exclude "Eugenics" from the list, since so many of its practicioners failed to make any effort at devising a consistent theory and were simply accepting racial or other prejudice as axiomatic while presenting their efforts as scientific. In general, I don't think Wikipedia can shy away from making decisions about how to categorize things; the tough cases will simply need to be brought to a head and confronted individually. Mike Serfas 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I hadn't noticed the entries you pointed out. Indeed it is really a matter of being a reasonable editor. Reasons for inclusion: Does the subject have an issue of PS that helps the reader understand issues of PS? Basically, it helps if an article says why something is considered PS. I'll have a look at the articles you suggested. And of course, if a subject is considered PS by reputable sources that comes into it. But also remember that the category is not a list of pseudosciences. So there's no need to be too defensive about any particular entry. I'll get back to you on the ones you mention. KrishnaVindaloo 06:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Mike. Sure, I can't find the term pseudoscience in those articles you mentioned, though the cat has been added. I suggest they be removed and only restored if someone can provide a reliable source to say they think the subject is PS, and preferably say why they think it is so. They may have been added through some kind of personal agenda. KrishnaVindaloo 06:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't they have concepts that could be discussed as PS as well? Or is that just for chiropractic and acupuncture? --Dematt 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

They may do, but until there is clear mention and sourcing on the article, I would remove them from the cat. They can be restored if proper sourcing or evidence for the view of them being pseudoscientific ever turns up. KrishnaVindaloo 08:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's also a format problem here. Pseudoscience directs people to subcategories, but the subcategories are not only for pseudoscience! For example, "Gaydar" that I mentioned above is indexed in "alleged human skills", a subcategory of pseudoscience ... but "alleged human skills" is also (and foremost) a subcategory of "Human skills"! I think the only way the problem can be solved is by having one category for any given subcategory, or better yet, by eliminating all the subcategory pages and simply having their contents on the main Pseudoscience catalog, indented beneath each subcategory heading. This should then be checked with the alphabetical list that follows, so that the catalog contains simply categorically-indexed and alphabetically-indexed versions of the exact same list of items. But this is likely a broader problem in Wikipedia...Mike Serfas 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure Mike, I think you are right. But its only really a problem when editors apply it poorly. I still have some faith in good editors here:) KrishnaVindaloo 05:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sorting (notes)

I moved subcategories of pseudoscience deeper INTO their subcategories of pseudoscience. Mostly into Creationism, Divination or Earth mysteries. Ie. category "intelligent design" is now ONLY in "creationsism", wich is still in "pseudoscience".

Might need "category supernatural" and "category junk science" soon do differenciate "pseudoscience" better. (ie. for creationism that is more than just "pseudoscience" ) --Ollj 15:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)