On 6/28/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: Sorry, I didn't know that... /Habj

On Jun 28, 2005, at 7:22 AM, Habj wrote: 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. 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

On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 01:50:15AM +1000, David Gerard wrote: 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(a)whoi.edu>

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.) 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

David Gerard wrote: 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