And in the end, maybe what it comes down to is: Categories should not serve as "warning" flags. They are meant to just be taxonomic devices.
Agreed. If someone reads an article on, say, homeopathy and only realizes when she sees the categories at the bottom that the thing doesn't work then there's something wrong with the article (incidentally I think [[homeopathy]] makes the "doesn't work" part fairly clear as it is).
I think rejecting this particular useful category on grounds of the NPOV-policy is a bit too much. Almost every category could be questioned by someone. For a random example I see that the article on the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints is in the "Christian denominations" category. There are Christians that think Mormons aren't Christians.
As for the "alternative medicine" category then I suppose "medicine that has not been proven to work" or some such would be more accurate. I for one would actually prefer "quack medicine" since "alternative" has some undeserved positive connotations and implies that quackery is somehow a viable alternative to actual medicine.
So, don't forget to take the Grumpy Scientist Point of View into account :)
Regards, Haukur Þorgeirsson (User:Haukurth)
On 6/28/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
I think rejecting this particular useful category on grounds of the NPOV-policy is a bit too much.
In what way is it useful? That has not yet been explained to me.
As for the "alternative medicine" category then I suppose "medicine that has not been proven to work" or some such would be more accurate. I for one would actually prefer "quack medicine" since "alternative" has some undeserved positive connotations and implies that quackery is somehow a viable alternative to actual medicine.
I encourage everyone who take part in this debate, to study the category tree in and around the category "Pseudoscience". Actually, there is one Category "Quackery" and another one called "Alternative medicine". Quackery is a sub-category to Alternative medicine, but while Quackery is also a sub-category to Pseudoscience Alternative medicine is a sub-category to Medicine.
Quackery and alternative medicine is not the same. In Great Britain, healers etc. are often welcomed to work in the hospitals. That is alternative medicine/complementary medicin, choose what term you like best. The German ex-med-doctor (forgot his name) who claim that cancer is pure psychological and cancer patients should leave the normal health care and go to him for some kind of therapy, is a definity quack.
As I said before, I see the Pseudoscience category as a "scrap bin" for those who don't want to take the time to distinguish one thing from the other.
/Habj
Habj (sweetadelaide@gmail.com) [050628 23:23]:
I encourage everyone who take part in this debate, to study the category tree in and around the category "Pseudoscience". Actually, there is one Category "Quackery" and another one called "Alternative medicine". Quackery is a sub-category to Alternative medicine, but while Quackery is also a sub-category to Pseudoscience Alternative medicine is a sub-category to Medicine.
Note that the alternative medicine area in particular was badly fouled up by [[User:John Gohde]], aka [[User:Mr-Natural-Health]], whose idiosyncratic and confrontative behaviour currently has him banned for a year. So the area is generally in really bad need of a cleanup and one should take care before using it as an example in the present discussion ;-)
- d.
On 6/28/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Note that the alternative medicine area in particular was badly fouled up by [[User:John Gohde]], aka [[User:Mr-Natural-Health]], whose idiosyncratic and confrontative behaviour currently has him banned for a year. So the area is generally in really bad need of a cleanup and one should take care before using it as an example in the present discussion ;-)
Sorry, I didn't know that...
/Habj
Habj (sweetadelaide@gmail.com) [050629 23:45]:
On 6/28/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Note that the alternative medicine area in particular was badly fouled up by [[User:John Gohde]], aka [[User:Mr-Natural-Health]], whose idiosyncratic and confrontative behaviour currently has him banned for a year. So the area is generally in really bad need of a cleanup and one should take care before using it as an example in the present discussion ;-)
Sorry, I didn't know that...
Editors who are looking for something to do and who have knowledge of the area and of the views held on it may like to look through edits under those two usernames and see what articles could do with checking over. There's quite a lot. There's also [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine]], which was basically under his personal control, but will have lists and ideas on stuff to do.
- d.
On Jun 28, 2005, at 7:22 AM, Habj wrote:
I encourage everyone who take part in this debate, to study the category tree in and around the category "Pseudoscience". Actually, there is one Category "Quackery" and another one called "Alternative medicine". Quackery is a sub-category to Alternative medicine, but while Quackery is also a sub-category to Pseudoscience Alternative medicine is a sub-category to Medicine.
I guess I'm not sure how I would define "Quackery." Both pseudoscience and alternative medicine are clear, but some of the members of [[Category:Quackery]], like [[Chelation therapy]] I'd put in [[Category:Alternative medicine]] as it's currently a therapy under study rather than one proven to not work. I think that Quackery shouldn't be a subcategory of Alternative medicine. The articles that do use Alternative medicine to promote their Quackery should belong to both categories, but in my opinion not all members of the Quackery cat are also Alternative medicine.
Quackery and alternative medicine is not the same. In Great Britain, healers etc. are often welcomed to work in the hospitals. That is alternative medicine/complementary medicin, choose what term you like best. The German ex-med-doctor (forgot his name) who claim that cancer is pure psychological and cancer patients should leave the normal health care and go to him for some kind of therapy, is a definity quack.
As I said before, I see the Pseudoscience category as a "scrap bin" for those who don't want to take the time to distinguish one thing from the other.
I don't think that pseudoscience is a scrap-bin any more than alternative medicine is a scrap-bin for valid alternative treatments. It's simply a way of grouping ideas outside of the mainstream. I also agree with the previous poster who said that they shouldn't be used as warning labels at the bottom of the article. They often are, but a well written article in either pseudoscience or alternative medicine or quackery will make it clear why it has been placed in that category because it will present both points of view on the theory.
Laurascudder
Haukur Þorgeirsson (haukurth@hi.is) [050628 21:42]:
As for the "alternative medicine" category then I suppose "medicine that has not been proven to work" or some such would be more accurate. I for one would actually prefer "quack medicine" since "alternative" has some undeserved positive connotations and implies that quackery is somehow a viable alternative to actual medicine. So, don't forget to take the Grumpy Scientist Point of View into account :)
There was a bit of a revert-war over this last year - [[Alternative medicine]] had [[Category:Pseudoscience]] on it (for things like homeopathy, which defies physics and chemistry), and this was getting removed because some of it is closer to protoscience (e.g. acupuncture, in which the stated theory may appear to be nonsensical but the stuff may work, for some values of 'work'). So I solved it by also creating [[Category:Protoscience]] and adding suitable things to that and putting both on the article ;-)
There is such a thing as pseudoscience and things that are deserve the label. It belongs under 'science' because it claims the clothes of science but isn't, hence the 'pseudo' - religion doesn't do that (except of course when it does). The objectors are basically stating "I don't like it being applied to my favourite thing so it must be a violation of NPOV." I see no reason to indulge this.
- d.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 01:50:15AM +1000, David Gerard wrote:
There is such a thing as pseudoscience and things that are deserve the label. It belongs under 'science' because it claims the clothes of science but isn't, hence the 'pseudo' - religion doesn't do that (except of course when it does). The objectors are basically stating "I don't like it being applied to my favourite thing so it must be a violation of NPOV." I see no reason to indulge this.
Some folks seem to treat the labels "pseudoscience" and "quackery" as if they always implied deliberate deceit on the part of the practitioners -- that is, by labeling homeopathy (for instance) as pseudoscientific, we would be alleging that homeopaths are each guilty of fraud.
I don't think that's necessarily going on, though.
It seems to me that "pseudoscience" really has to do with inquiry and skepticism -- or rather, a lack of them: that is, with credulity; with readiness to believe, and to insist that others should believe -- in the absence of sufficient evidence ... and eventually, despite the evidence.
If fraud is malicious deception, then pseudoscience is -- perhaps; I know I'm going out on a limb here -- negligent deception: telling people something wrong *not* because you're setting out to mislead them for your personal benefit, but because you don't want to check very carefully.
Something interesting about followers of pseudoscience is that they tend to jump on any single study which suggests confirmation of their belief. Any experiment which looks favorable for _one_ element of the claimed belief-system is taken as confirmation of the _whole_ belief-system. (Kind of like the Duhem-Quine thesis run in reverse.)
Experiment is used to reassure the believer, rather than to elucidate or explore the mechanisms or reasons behind the claimed phenomena:
"This study said that sick people who are prayed over, heal faster. This proves that Jesus Christ -- as conceived of in my own sect -- exists, loves us, and answers prayers!"
Another line commonly associated with this kind of argument is, "Why do you care _how_ it works? If it works, that's good enough!" This is, for instance, presented against claims that a remedy's apparent effectiveness is due to the placebo effect, or due to some physical cause rather than a supposed occult cause. Again there is the lack of inquiry -- an apparent desirable result is taken at face value; those who seek to answer the "how" and "why" questions are dismissed as nitpickers or as looking for an excuse not to believe.
(There's a standard response here, "But scientists don't know how aspirin works either, and nobody thinks that's pseudoscience." Perhaps that was once the case, but it was demonstrated in 1971 that aspirin works by neutralizing an enzyme that participates in the production of chemicals that signal pain. Science bothers to ask the "how" and "why" questions, and eventually answers them -- it doesn't say "it works; that's good enough.")
Another curious aspect of the behavior of followers of pseudoscience is the one-sided nature of their rivalry with the relevant science. They often see themselves as engaged in a dialogue or debate with scientists, whereas scientists do not usually see themselves as engaged in a debate with pseudoscience.
Creationism probably furnishes the best examples here -- I've often read creationist responses to discoveries in genetics or paleontology, along the following lines:
"Look, it's those atheistical scientists trying to prove evolution again. Aren't they hopeless? Why do they fight so hard against God?"
Geneticists and paleontologists do not see themselves as engaged in "proving evolution" or "fighting against God". Creationists seem to believe that that they and evolutionary scientists must be parallel or similar in their behavior -- that since creationists spend so much time and energy "disproving evolution" and "fighting against Satanic atheism" that their opponents *must*, logically, spend equal time and energy "proving evolution" and "fighting against God".
(Likewise, it sure seems that Scientologists spend a lot more effort hatin' on psychiatry than psychiatrists spend hatin' on Scientology -- but it's Scientology doctrine that psychiatrists are "Suppressive People" engaged in a conspiracy to suppress Scientology.)
Karl A. Krueger (kkrueger@whoi.edu) [050629 05:50]:
(Likewise, it sure seems that Scientologists spend a lot more effort hatin' on psychiatry than psychiatrists spend hatin' on Scientology -- but it's Scientology doctrine that psychiatrists are "Suppressive People" engaged in a conspiracy to suppress Scientology.)
Speaking of which, our Featured Article on [[Xenu]] is getting a LOT of links in the blogosphere, and many news articles on the fine upstanding movie actor [[Tom Cruise]] have clearly used the Xenu article in their research. So now we need to get [[Scientology]] up to Featured quality. Help on this is most welcomed; please work on it with a view to [[Category:Scientology]] and its many subcats, as most sections should be summaries of a more extensive article elsewhere. (What's a nice NPOV title for the discussion of whether or not it is in fact a religion?)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
There is such a thing as pseudoscience and things that are deserve the label. It belongs under 'science' because it claims the clothes of science but isn't, hence the 'pseudo' - religion doesn't do that (except of course when it does). The objectors are basically stating "I don't like it being applied to my favourite thing so it must be a violation of NPOV." I see no reason to indulge this.
I still don't really like that idea, because it's strongly taking one side in a dispute. Should we, for example, have a [[Category:Pseudoscientists]] that we apply to [[Linus Pauling]] for his wacked-out ideas on nutrition? (Of course, he could also get [[Category:Scientists]] for his more respected work.) This sort of derisive labelling I find troubling, even if it's derisive labelling that's widely accepted. The term "Alternative medicine", by constrast, doesn't carry nearly as much ideological baggage, because it can be read as either good or bad depending on your perspective, so more accurately simply labels a category of stuff without judging it.
-Mark
Delirium (delirium@hackish.org) [050629 06:34]:
David Gerard wrote:
There is such a thing as pseudoscience and things that are deserve the label. It belongs under 'science' because it claims the clothes of science but isn't, hence the 'pseudo' - religion doesn't do that (except of course when it does). The objectors are basically stating "I don't like it being applied to my favourite thing so it must be a violation of NPOV." I see no reason to indulge this.
I still don't really like that idea, because it's strongly taking one side in a dispute. Should we, for example, have a [[Category:Pseudoscientists]] that we apply to [[Linus Pauling]] for his wacked-out ideas on nutrition? (Of course, he could also get [[Category:Scientists]] for his more respected work.)
Has this or anything as stupid aS this actually happened? i.e., not hypothetically.
This sort of derisive labelling I find troubling, even if it's derisive labelling that's widely accepted. The term "Alternative medicine", by constrast, doesn't carry nearly as much ideological baggage, because it can be read as either good or bad depending on your perspective, so more accurately simply labels a category of stuff without judging it.
There's lots of pseudoscience that isn't alternative medicine. That a group claims a given label is demeaning doesn't mean it doesn't and shouldn't apply.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
There's lots of pseudoscience that isn't alternative medicine. That a group claims a given label is demeaning doesn't mean it doesn't and shouldn't apply.
But it *clearly* is demeaning---it's not a neutral, descriptive label such as "alternative medicine" that is simply a category of stuff with no value judgment about it. "Pseudoscience" is not a label anyone would use for any reason except to attack a particular theory. It's actually quite common in scientific circles to hear it lobbed as a pejorative, usually qualified with something like "so-and-so's work is verging on pseudoscience". It's certainly not appropriate as a neutral description in any context along the lines of "this theory is [[pseudoscience]]", which is what the category label is, in effect (although a claim like "this theory is considered [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] by the mainstream scientific community" is of course fine, if true).
-Mark
David Gerard wrote:
I still don't really like that idea, because it's strongly taking one side in a dispute. Should we, for example, have a [[Category:Pseudoscientists]] that we apply to [[Linus Pauling]] for his wacked-out ideas on nutrition? (Of course, he could also get [[Category:Scientists]] for his more respected work.)
Has this or anything as stupid aS this actually happened? i.e., not hypothetically.
I'm not sure, but I fail to see any meaningful distinction between a possibly hypothetical [[Category:Pseudoscientists]] and the [[Category:Pseudoscience]]. If it's acceptable to label theories considered pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community with [[Category:Pseudoscience]], why isn't it acceptable to label the people who came up with those theories [[Category:Pseudoscientists]]?
-Mark
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
And in the end, maybe what it comes down to is: Categories should not serve as "warning" flags. They are meant to just be taxonomic devices.
Agreed. If someone reads an article on, say, homeopathy and only realizes when she sees the categories at the bottom that the thing doesn't work then there's something wrong with the article (incidentally I think [[homeopathy]] makes the "doesn't work" part fairly clear as it is).
The degree of doubt that there might be about homeopathy does indeed belong in the article on the topic. We are, of course, in no position to make a final determination that it either works or doesn't work. Either position would be pseudoscientific. We can establish that a dominant segment of mainstream science believes that it doesn't work. Once that point has been established there is no need to revisit the issue ad nauseam. If the major premise is questionable than so too are any ideas derived from it.
As for the "alternative medicine" category then I suppose "medicine that has not been proven to work" or some such would be more accurate. I for one would actually prefer "quack medicine" since "alternative" has some undeserved positive connotations and implies that quackery is somehow a viable alternative to actual medicine.
"Alternative medicine" is excellent as an NPOV category without introducing a needlessly pejorative term like "quack". "Not proven to work" within the rules of mainstream science is already implicit in the term "alternative". The concepts "not proven to work" and "proven not to work" are very different, and quackery would have more kinship with the latter. I can just as easily see that "quack medicine" has undeserved negative connotations, while "alternative" adequately warns the user to proceed at his own risk. The credibility of the various practices that come under this heading is wildly variable, and some may indeed qualify as quackery, but certainly not all.
Ec