Clean Copy (talk | contribs) →Weakly sourced entries: new section |
Clean Copy (talk | contribs) →Weakly sourced entries: add miscellany |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
'''Earth energy and vortices? Feng Shui? Ley lines?''' |
'''Earth energy and vortices? Feng Shui? Ley lines?''' |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
<!-- **** PLEASE BOTH INCLUDE THIS SECTION IN A NEW ARCHIVE AND KEEP THIS SECTION ON THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** --> |
|||
== Weakly sourced entries == |
== Weakly sourced entries == |
||
Line 283: | Line 273: | ||
===Subliminal perception=== |
===Subliminal perception=== |
||
* '''[[Subliminal perception]]''' is visual or auditory information that is discerned below the threshold of conscious awareness and has an effect on human behavior. It went into disrepute in the late 1970s <ref name="snopes">{{cite web|title=Urban Legends Reference Pages: Business (Subliminal Advertising)|publisher=The [[Urban Legends Reference Pages]]|url=http://www.snopes.com/business/hidden/popcorn.asp|accessdate=2006-08-11}}</ref> but there has been renewed research interest recently.<ref name="[s]" /><ref name="Westen 2006">Westen et al. 2006 "Psychology: Australian and New Zealand edition" John Wiley.</ref> |
* '''[[Subliminal perception]]''' is visual or auditory information that is discerned below the threshold of conscious awareness and has an effect on human behavior. It went into disrepute in the late 1970s <ref name="snopes">{{cite web|title=Urban Legends Reference Pages: Business (Subliminal Advertising)|publisher=The [[Urban Legends Reference Pages]]|url=http://www.snopes.com/business/hidden/popcorn.asp|accessdate=2006-08-11}}</ref> but there has been renewed research interest recently.<ref name="[s]" /><ref name="Westen 2006">Westen et al. 2006 "Psychology: Australian and New Zealand edition" John Wiley.</ref> |
||
===Hypnosis=== |
|||
**The following is badly worded, as it affirms hypnosis' validity. Perhaps an entry under past life regression is warranted. |
|||
* '''[[Hypnosis]]''' is a state of extreme relaxation and inner focus in which a person is unusually responsive to suggestions made by the hypnotist. The modern practice has its roots in the idea of [[animal magnetism]], or mesmerism, originated by [[Franz Mesmer]]<ref name='Hypnosis_ACS'> {{cite web|url=http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Hypnosis.asp |title=Hypnosis |accessdate=2008-02-25 |publisher=[[American Cancer Society]] }}</ref> and though Mesmer's explanations were thoroughly discredited, hypnosis itself is today almost universally regarded as real.<ref name="[s]" /><ref name="Westen 2006"/> It is clinically useful for ''e.g.'' pain management, but some claimed uses of hypnosis outside of hypnotherapy clearly fall within the area of pseudoscience. Such areas include the use of hypnotic [[regression]] beyond plausible limits, including [[past life regression]].<ref name='Hypnosis_Lynn'> {{Citation| first=Steven Jay | last=Lynn| coauthors=Timothy Lock, Elizabeth Loftus, Elisa Krackow, and Scott O. Lilienfeld| contribution=The remembrance of things past: problematic memory recovery techniques in psychotherapy| title=Science and Pseudoscience in Psychotherapy| editor-first=Scott O.| editor-last=Lilienfeld| coeditors=Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr| publisher=Guilford Press| place=New York| pages=219–220| date=2003| year=| isbn = 1572308281| contribution-url=| format=| accessdate=2008-02-25 }} "hypnotically induced past life experiences are rule-governed, goal-directed fantasies that are context generated and sensitive to the demands of the hypnotic regression situation." </ref> Also see [[false memory syndrome]]. |
|||
===Iridology=== |
|||
* '''[[Iridology]]''' is a means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can identify and diagnose health problems through close examination of the markings and patterns of the [[Iris (anatomy)|iris]]. Practitioners divide the iris into 80-90 zones, each of which is connected to a particular body region or organ. This connection has not been scientifically validated, and disorder detection is neither selective nor specific.<ref name='iridology_IntelliHealth'> {{cite web|url=http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?d=dmtContent&c=358826&p=~br,IHW/~st,24479/~r,WSIHW000/~b,*/ |title=Iridology |accessdate=2008-02-01 |date=2005-07-07 |publisher=[[Natural Standard]] }} "Research suggests that iridology is not an effective method to diagnose or help treat any specific medical condition." </ref><ref name="Ernst">Ernst E. Iridology: not useful and potentially harmful. ''Arch. Ophthalmol.'' 2000 Jan;'''118'''(1):''120-1''. PMID 10636425</ref><ref name='iridology_AMA'> {{cite web|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-175.998.HTM |title=H-175.998 Evaluation of Iridology |accessdate=2008-02-01 |publisher=[[American Medical Association]] }} "Our AMA believes that iridology, the study of the iris of the human eye, has not yet been established as having any merit as a diagnostic technique." </ref> Because iris texture is a phenotypical feature which develops during gestation and remains unchanged after birth (which makes the iris useful for [[Biometrics]]), Iridology is all but impossible. |
|||
===Ayurveda=== |
|||
* '''[[Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health|Maharishi's Ayurveda]]'''. Traditional Ayurveda is a 5,000 year old alternative medical practice with roots in ancient India based on a mind-body set of beliefs.<ref name="ayurveda_ama">{{cite web | url =http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml | title = Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-97) | year = 1997 | publisher = [[American Medical Association]]}}</ref><ref name="ayurveda_quackwatch">{{cite web | url = http://www.skepdic.com/ayurvedic.html | title = Ayurvedic medicine | publisher = [[Quackwatch]] | accessdate = 2008-08-16}}</ref> Imbalance or stress in an individual’s consciousness is believed to be the reason of diseases.<ref name="ayurveda_ama" /> Patients are classified by body types (three ''[[Ayurveda#Tridosha_system|doshas]]'', which are considered to control mind-body harmony, determine an individual’s "body type"); and treatment is aimed at restoring balance to the mind-body system.<ref name="ayurveda_ama" /><ref name="ayurveda_quackwatch" /> It has long been the main traditional system of health care in India,<ref name="ayurveda_quackwatch" /> and it has become institutionalized in India's colleges and schools, although unlicensed practitioners are common.<ref name="ayurveda_review">{{cite journal | journal = [[Medical Anthropology Quarterly]] | author = Lesley A. Sharp | title = Review of Fluent bodies: Ayourvedic Remedies for Postcolonial Imbalance | url = http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/maq.2003.17.4.511 | doi = 10.1525/maq.2003.17.4.512 | issue = 4 | pages = 511–512 | month = December | year = 2003 | accessdate = 2008-08-16 | volume = 17}} (page [http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/maq.2003.17.4.512 512])</ref> As with other traditional knowledge, much of it was lost; in the West, current practice is mostly based on the teachings of [[Maharishi Mahesh Yogi]] in the 1980s,<ref name="todd"/> who mixed it with [[Transcendental Meditation]]. The most notable advocate of Ayurveda in America is [[Deepak Chopra]], who claims that Maharishi's Ayurveda is based on [[quantum mysticism]].<ref name="todd">{{cite book | title = The Skeptic's Dictionary | author = Robert Todd Carroll | editor = John Wiley and Sons | year = 2003 | pages = 45–4? | isbn = 0471272426 | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=6FPqDFx40vYC&pg=PA45&dq=ayurveda+pseudoscience&client=opera&hl=es }} ([http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html Pseudoscience] and [http://skepdic.com/ayurvedic.html Ayurvedic medicine] entries in the online version)</ref> |
|||
===Therapeutic touch=== |
|||
* '''[[Therapeutic touch]]''' is a form of [[vitalism]] where a practitioner, who may be also a nurse,<ref name='TT_CSI'> {{cite web|url=http://www.csicop.org/articles/therapeutic-touch/ |title="Therapeutic Touch" Fails a Rare Scientific Test |accessdate=2007-12-05 |last=Wallace |first=Sampson |coauthors=Lewis Vaughn |date=1998-03-24 |work=CSICOP News |publisher=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry }} "Despite this lack of evidence, TT is now supported by major nursing organizations such as the National League of Nurses and the American Nurses Association." </ref> passes his or her hands over and around a patient to "realign" or "rebalance" a putative energy field.<ref name="scientificamerican"/> A recent [[Cochrane Review]] concluded that "[t]here is no evidence that [Therapeutic Touch] promotes healing of acute wounds."<ref name='TT_Cochrane'> {{cite journal|title=Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds|journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews|date=2003/2006|first=DP|last=O'Mathuna|coauthors=RL Ashford|volume=2003|issue=4|pages=CD002766|doi= 10.1002/14651858.CD002766|url=http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab002766.html|accessdate=2008-01-27 }}</ref> No biophysical basis for such an energy field has been found.<ref name='TT_QW_RN'> {{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/tt2.html |title=Further Notes on Therapeutic Touch |accessdate=2007-12-05 |last=Courcey |first=Kevin |publisher=Quackwatch }} "What's missing from all of this, of course, is any statement by Krieger and her disciples about how the existence of their energy field can be demonstrated by scientifically accepted methods." </ref><ref name='TT_NCCAM'> {{cite web|url=http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm |title=Energy Medicine: An Overview |accessdate=2007-12-05 |date=2007-10-24 |publisher=National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine }} "neither the external energy fields nor their therapeutic effects have been demonstrated convincingly by any biophysical means." </ref> |
|||
===Chinese medicine=== |
|||
* '''[[Traditional Chinese Medicine]]''' (TCM) is the [[Traditional medicine|traditional medical]] system originating in [[China]] and practiced as an [[alternative medicine]] throughout much of the world. It contains elements based in [[Taoism]], [[Buddhism]], and [[Neo-Confucianism]],<ref name=Unschuld1985>{{cite book|last=Unschuld|first=Paul Ulrich|title=Medicine in China: A History of Ideas|publisher=University of California Press|year=1985|isbn=0520062167}}</ref> and considers the human body more in functional and [[Vitalism|vitalistic]] than anatomical terms.<ref name='TCM_MDA_DT' /><ref>{{cite news|title=The Roots of Qi|url=http://www.csicop.org/sb/2000-03/qi.html|publisher=CSICOP|date=|accessdate=2009-02-12}}</ref> Health and illness in TCM follow the principle of [[yin and yang]], and are ascribed to balance or imbalance in the flow of a [[Putative energy|vital force]], ''qi''.<ref name="NIH-1997consensus" /><ref>{{cite news|first=Stephen|last=Barrett|title=Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html|publisher=Quackwatch|date=December 30, 2007|accessdate=2009-01-04}}</ref> Diagnostic methods are solely external, including [[Pulse diagnosis|pulse examination]] at six points, examination of a patient's tongue, and a patient interview; interpractitioner diagnostic agreement is poor.<ref name='TCM_MDA_DT'> {{cite web|url=http://www.mdanderson.org/departments/cimer/display.cfm?id=62639b39-b458-4926-8a9b3cb261dc1e4d&method=displayfull&pn=6eb86a59-ebd9-11d4-810100508b603a14 |title=Traditional Chinese Medicine: Principles of Diagnosis and Treatment |accessdate=2009-02-12 |work=Complementary/Integrative Medicine Therapies |publisher=[[The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center]] }}</ref><ref name=Acu_NCAHF_pos /><ref name=Maciocia>{{cite book|first=Giovanni|last=Maciocia|title=The Foundations of Chinese Medicine|publisher=Churchill Livingstone|year=1989}}</ref><ref name='TCM_diag_QW'> {{cite web|url=http://www.acuwatch.org/reports/diagnosis.shtml |title=Why TCM Diagnosis Is Worthless |accessdate=2009-02-16 |last=Barrett |first=Stephen |date=2008-03-28 |work=Acupuncture Watch }}</ref> The TCM theory of the function and structure of the human body is fundamentally different from modern medicine, though some of the procedures and remedies have shown promise under scientific investigation.<ref name="NIH-1997consensus">{{cite web |author=NIH Consensus Development Program |title=Acupuncture --Consensus Development Conference Statement |url=http://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997Acupuncture107html.htm |date=November 3–5, 1997 |publisher=National Institutes of Health |accessdate=2007-07-17}}</ref><ref name=TCM_CSI_1>{{cite news|title=Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China: A Report of the Second CSICOP Delegation (Part 1)|url=http://www.csicop.org/si/9607/china.html|publisher=CSICOP|date=|accessdate=2009-02-12}}</ref> |
|||
:* '''[[Acupuncture]]''' is the use of fine needles to stimulate ''acupuncture points'' and balance the flow of ''qi''. There is no known [[anatomical]] or [[histological]] basis for the existence of ''acupuncture points'' or ''meridians''.<ref name=Acu_NCAHF_pos> {{cite web|url=http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html |title=NCAHF Position Paper on Acupuncture (1990) |accessdate=2007-12-30 |date=1990-09-16 |publisher=National Council Against Health Fraud }}</ref><ref name="Mann_drunkard">[[Felix Mann]]: "...acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots that a drunkard sees in front of his eyes." (Mann F. Reinventing Acupuncture: A New Concept of Ancient Medicine. Butterworth Heinemann, London, 1996,14.) Quoted by Matthew Bauer in ''[http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/section.php?xSec=122 Chinese Medicine Times]'', Vol 1 Issue 4 - Aug 2006, "The Final Days of Traditional Beliefs? - Part One"</ref> Some acupuncturists regard them as functional rather than structural entities, useful in guiding evaluation and care of patients.<ref name="NIH-1997consensus" /><ref>Kaptchuk, 1983, pp. 34–35</ref><ref>{{citation | last = E | year = 2004 | title = A brief history of acupuncture | journal = Rheumatology | volume = 43 | issue = 5 | pages = 662–663 | doi = 10.1093/rheumatology/keg005 | url = http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/43/5/662 | pmid = 15103027}}</ref> [[Dry needling]] is the therapeutic insertion of fine needles without regard to TCM theory. Acupuncture has been the subject of active [[scientific method|scientific]] research since the late 20th century,<ref name="pmid17265547">{{cite journal |author=Ernst E, Pittler MH, Wider B, Boddy K. |title=Acupuncture: its evidence-base is changing |journal=Am J Chin Med. |volume=35|issue=1 |pages=21–5 |year=2007 |pmid=17265547 |doi=10.1142/S0192415X07004588}}</ref> and its effects and application remain controversial among Western medical researchers and clinicians.<ref name="pmid17265547"/> Because it is a procedure rather than a pill, the design of controlled studies is challenging, as with [[surgery|surgical]] and other procedures.<ref name="NIH-1997consensus"/><ref name="pmid17265547"/><ref name="pmid12184353">{{cite journal |author=White AR, Filshie J, Cummings TM |title=Clinical trials of acupuncture: consensus recommendations for optimal treatment, sham controls and blinding|journal=Complement Ther Med. |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=237–245 |year=2001 |pmid=12184353 |doi=}}</ref><ref name="pmid16783282">{{cite journal |author=Johnson MI |title=The clinical effectiveness of acupuncture for pain relief--you can be certain of uncertainty|journal= Acupunct Med. |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=71–9 |year=2006 |pmid=16783282 |doi=}}</ref><ref name=IOM2005>Committee on the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the American Public. (2005). ''[http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11182 Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States]''. National Academies Press.</ref>{{rp|126}} Some scholarly reviews conclude that acupuncture's effects are mainly [[placebo effect|placebo]],<ref>{{cite journal |author=Madsen MV, Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A |title=Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups |journal=BMJ |volume=338 |issue= |pages=a3115 |year=2009 |pmid=19174438 |doi= |url=http://bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=19174438}}</ref><ref name="Ernst_2006-02"> {{cite journal |title=Acupuncture - a critical analysis |journal=Journal of Internal Medicine |date=2006-02 |first=Edzard |last=Ernst |volume=259 |issue=2 |pages=125–137 |pmid=16420542 |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16420542?dopt=Abstract |accessdate=2008-04-08 |doi=10.1111/j.1365–2796.2005.01584.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_needlingx }}</ref> and others find likelihood of efficacy for particular conditions.<ref name="pmid17265547"/><ref name="Cochrane back 2005">{{cite journal |author=Furlan AD, van Tulder MW, Cherkin DC, ''et al.'' |title=Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain |journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) |volume= |issue=1 |pages=CD001351 |year=2005 |pmid=15674876 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD001351.pub2 |url=http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001351.html}}</ref><ref name="pmid15266478">{{cite journal |author=Lee A, Done ML |title=Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting |journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) |volume= |issue=3 |pages=CD003281 |year=2004 |pmid=15266478 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub2 |url=http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003281.html}}</ref><ref name="WHO 2003.3">Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials. [[World Health Organization]], 2003. Section 3. [http://www.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js4926e/#Js4926e.5 Section 3 (HTML)]; [http://www.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4926e/s4926e.pdf]</ref> |
|||
::* '''[[Acupressure]]''' is [[Manual therapy|manual]] non-invasive stimulation of ''acupuncture points''. |
|||
::* '''[[Acupuncture points]]''' or ''acupoints'' are a collection of several hundred points on the body lying along ''meridians''. According to TCM theory, each corresponds to a particular organ or function. |
|||
:* '''[[Meridian (Chinese medicine)|Meridians]]''' in TCM are the channels through which ''qi'' flows, connecting the several ''zang-fu'' organ pairs.<ref name='TCM_MDA_DT' /><ref name='meridian_NCI'> {{cite web|url=http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?CdrID=449742 |title=Definition of Chinese meridian theory |accessdate=2009-02-16 |publisher=[[National Cancer Institute]] }}</ref> There is no known [[anatomical]] or [[histological]] basis for the existence of ''acupuncture points'' or ''meridians''.<ref name=Acu_NCAHF_pos/><ref name="Mann_drunkard"/> |
|||
:* '''[[Moxibustion]]''' is the application on or above the skin of smoldering [[mugwort]], or ''moxa'', to stimulate ''acupuncture points''. |
|||
:* '''[[Qi]]''' is the [[vital energy]] whose flow must be balanced for health. Qi has never been directly observed, and is unrelated to the [[energy]] used in science.<ref name='acu_SA_2005'> {{cite journal|title=Full of Holes: the curious case of acupuncture|journal=Scientific American|date=2005-07|first=Michael|last=Shermer|coauthors=|volume=293|issue=2|pages=30|id= |url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=full-of-holes|format=|accessdate=2009-02-16 }}</ref><ref name='Acu_CSI'>{{cite news | first=Victor J. | last=Stenger | coauthors= | title=Reality Check: the energy fields of life | date=1998-06 | publisher=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry | url =http://www.csicop.org/sb/9806/reality-check.html | work =Skeptical Briefs | pages = | accessdate = 2007-12-25 | language = }} "Despite complete scientific rejection, the concept of a special biological fields within living things remains deeply engraved in human thinking. It is now working its way into modern health care systems, as non-scientific alternative therapies become increasingly popular. From acupuncture to homeopathy and therapeutic touch, the claim is made that healing can be brought about by the proper adjustment of a person's or animal's "bioenergetic fields."" </ref><ref name=TCM_CSI_2>{{cite news|title=Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China: A Report of the Second CSICOP Delegation (Part 2)|url=http://www.csicop.org/si/9609/china.html|publisher=CSICOP|date=|accessdate=2009-02-15}}</ref> |
|||
:* '''[[Chinese herbology|TCM ''materia medica'']]''' is the collection of [[crude medicine]]s used in Traditional Chinese medicine. These include many plants in part or whole, such as [[ginseng]] and [[Wolfberry#Medicinal|wolfberry]], as well as more exotic ingredients such as [[Seahorse#Use in Chinese medicine|seahorses]]. Preparations generally include several ingredients in combination, with selection based on physical characteristics such as taste or shape, or relationship to the organs of TCM.<ref name='TCM_MDA_HM'> {{cite web|url=http://www.mdanderson.org/departments/cimer/display.cfm?id=1b608136-f1c3-43b5-a3e14b864d2d14c6&method=displayfull&pn=6eb86a59-ebd9-11d4-810100508b603a14 |title=Traditional Chinese Medicine: Overview of Herbal Medicines |accessdate=2009-02-12 |work=Complementary/Integrative Medicine Therapies |publisher=[[The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center]] }}</ref> Most preparations have not been rigorously evaluated or give no indication of efficacy.<ref name=TCM_CSI_1 /><ref name=Yuehua2004>{{Citation | last = Yuehua | first = N | year = 2004 | title = Chinese medicinal herbs for sore throat (Review) | doi = 10.1002/14651858.CD004877}}</ref><ref name='TCM_Pulse'>{{cite news | first=Nigel | last=Praities | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=GPs warned over Chinese medicine | date=2008-08-07 | publisher= | url =http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4120343&c=1 | work =Pulse | pages = | accessdate = 2009-02-16 | language = }}</ref> [[Pharmacognosy]] research for potential active ingredients present in these preparations is active, though the applications do not always correspond to those of TCM.<ref name=Normile2003>{{citation | last = Normile | first = Dennis | year = 2003 | title = ASIAN MEDICINE: the New Face of Traditional Chinese Medicine | journal = Science | volume = 299 | issue = 5604 | pages = 188–190 | doi = 10.1126/science.299.5604.188 | url = http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5604/188 | pmid = 12522228}}</ref> |
|||
:* '''[[Zang-fu]]''' is the concept of organs as functional yin and yang entities for the storage and manipulation of ''qi''.<ref name='TCM_MDA_DT' /> These organs are not based in anatomy.{{fact}} |
|||
===Miscellany=== |
|||
**Most of these are totally unsourced to anything claiming that they are even doubtful, much less pseudoscientific. |
|||
* '''[[Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory]]''' is a proposed unified theory of physics due to Myron Evans, a Welsh chemist.<ref>{{citation|first=Gerard|last='t Hooft|authorlink=Gerardus 't Hooft|title=Editorial note|journal=Foundations of Physics|year=2008|volume=38|pages=1–2 |
|||
|url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1008h127565m362 |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
* '''[[Electrogravitics]]''' is based upon the original work of Nikola Tesla and advanced by Thomas Townsend Brown that attempts to connect gravity and electromagnetism.<ref name=Priess>{{cite book|title=The Planets|author=Byron Preiss|year=1985|publisher=Bantam Books|isbn=0553051091|pages=27}}</ref> |
|||
* '''[[Expanding Earth]]''' is a historical proposal that was made alongside [[continental drift]] theory and has been all but abandoned by geologists, yet still has some lay advocates, the most famous of which is [[Neal Adams]] |
|||
* '''[[Hutchison effect]]''' is a proposed explanation for purported levitation caused by devices made by [[John Hutchison]]. |
|||
* '''[[Hydrinos]]''' are a state of the [[hydrogen atom]] that, according to proponent Randell Mills, are of lower energy than [[ground state]] and thus a source of [[free energy]]. |
|||
* '''[[Lawsonomy]]''' was a proposed philosophy and system of claims about physics made by baseball player Alfred William Lawson.<ref>{{cite book | title = Fads And Fallacies In The Name Of Science | author = Martin Gardner | pages = 69–79 | isbn = 978-0486203942 | publisher = Dover Publications | year = 1957| accessdate = 2008-01-10 }}</ref> |
|||
* '''[[Kauko Armas Nieminen]]''' is a self-published Finnish autodidact proposing various alternative physical ideas. |
|||
* '''[[Nucleonic energy]]''' is a technological concept developed by Canadian autodidact and inventor Mel Winfield.<ref>Winfield, Mel E. (2004). The Science of Actuality. Vancouver: University Press. ISBN 0-9739347-0-0.</ref> |
|||
* '''[[Ousiograph]]''' is a device created by schizophrenic Steven Green to detect the messages that are sent to one's brain.<ref>[[Ousiograph]], Dressler, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Fourth Edition, pages 648-655, 2007</ref> |
|||
* '''[[Polywater]]''' is a hypothetical [[polymer]]ized form of water proposed in the 1960s with a higher boiling point, lower freezing point, and much higher viscosity than ordinary water. It was later found not to exist, with the anomalous measurements being explained by biological contamination.<ref name='polywater_Rousseau'> {{cite journal|title=Case Studies in Pathological Science|journal=American Scientist|date=1992-01|first=Denis L.|last=Rousseau|coauthors=|volume=80|issue=1|pages=54–63|id= |url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AmSci..80...54R|format=|accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref> |
|||
* '''[[Scalar field theory (pseudoscience)|Scalar field theories]]''' are a set of proposals that modify [[electromagnetic theory]] in various non-standard ways. |
|||
* '''[[Ed Seykota|Theory of radial momentum]]''' is a proposal by Ed Seykota, a commodities trader, which claims to clarify "problems" with the application of the [[Bernoulli principle]]. |
|||
* '''[[Time Cube]]''' is a proposed [[theory of everything]] which holds that time is [[cubic]]. Its creator, [[Gene Ray]], finds those who are ignorant of or in disagreement with his theory to be "stupid and evil." According to his own web site, he is a diagnosed [[schizophrenia|schizophrenic]].<ref>Ray, Gene. ''[http://www.timecube.com Time Cube]''. 12 Mar. 2007</ref> |
|||
*'''[[Timewave zero]]''' is a [[numerology|numerological formula]] that was invented by the late [[psychonaut]] [[Terence McKenna]] with the help of the [[hallucinogen|hallucinogenic drug]] [[dimethyltryptamine]]. After discovering 2012 doomsday predictions, he redesigned his formula to have a "zero-point" at the same date as the Mayan longcount calendar.<ref>http://www.ralph-abraham.org/talks/transcripts/hyperspace.html</ref><ref>[http://www.hermetic.ch/frt/zerodate.html The Timewave: The Zero Date<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ |
Revision as of 21:16, 29 July 2009
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Memetics
Deleted memetics, references to the "mainstream considerations as psedoscience" were Aaron Lynch an american writer, Luis Benitez bribiesca a medic in a 2 page essay, and Alister McGrath a well know opponent of Dawkins. The three hold opinnions on the matter and dont add "the mainstream" support as presented. Looking for more solid references to revert the edit. 190.158.6.164 (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Memetics is an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer based on the concept of the meme. Starting from a proposition put forward in the writings of Richard Dawkins, it has since turned into a new area of study, one that looks at the self-replicating units of culture. It has been proposed that just as memes are analogous to genes, memetics is analogous to genetics. Memetics has been deemed a pseudoscience from several fronts. It has been called redundant, without physical basis, and a means for attacking others' beliefs as opposed to actual science; according to one reviewer, "Memetics is nothing more than a pseudoscientific dogma encased in itself."[1][2][3][4]
- My analysis parallels that of 190, above. I am not finding any indication from sources reliable to make the distinction that as pseudoscience is a notable description of memetics. The main article includes some criticism, but it does not appear to be widespread. If someone else can find a rock solid source for inclusion it should go back in the article, but I do not see it at present. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article is "topics characterized as pseudoscience". I would suggest that only a single reference is required to pass a characterized test. You state "some criticism" which is sufficient for a "characterization". BRIANTIST (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Focusing on what a single source or significant minority of sources say would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Everything in the world could be characterized as pseudoscience based upon a single reference if that reference just blanket labels everything that way. It has to rise to a level of significance in multiple reliable sources before it should be mentioned. (And to clarify, I am not opposed to memetics being listed presuming it has enough solid sources. I know a number of people think it is hooey, or at the very least that a lot of the claims associated with it are nonsense, but whether the people saying that are notable or have bothered to publish on the topic is another question. (I also did not specifically check the sources above, so there may be room to disagree with the above posters on those points, but I am just responding to rebut the idea that a single source makes something worth mentioning here.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- My main concern is that we use sources generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (emphasis in original). It is my assessment that the sources presented do not satisfy the inclusion criteria at the head of this article, but I am willing to be convinced (hence moving it here for discussion). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Focusing on what a single source or significant minority of sources say would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Everything in the world could be characterized as pseudoscience based upon a single reference if that reference just blanket labels everything that way. It has to rise to a level of significance in multiple reliable sources before it should be mentioned. (And to clarify, I am not opposed to memetics being listed presuming it has enough solid sources. I know a number of people think it is hooey, or at the very least that a lot of the claims associated with it are nonsense, but whether the people saying that are notable or have bothered to publish on the topic is another question. (I also did not specifically check the sources above, so there may be room to disagree with the above posters on those points, but I am just responding to rebut the idea that a single source makes something worth mentioning here.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article is "topics characterized as pseudoscience". I would suggest that only a single reference is required to pass a characterized test. You state "some criticism" which is sufficient for a "characterization". BRIANTIST (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are several good sources - I added one more - as well as one poor one. The terminology clearly justifies inclusion here; the standard is higher than many other sections, where just one known critic's comments have sufficed. If anyone objects, just take it back out again, and we can discuss it further, but it seems pretty clear to me that there's no justification for excluding this. hgilbert (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, only one source is needed and you agree that there is one. Second of all, the Benitez-Bribiesca paper is by an established medical researcher published in a mainstream journal. I don't quite understand your comment about an "unknown Venezuelan essay" in your revert edit summary; is there some sort of prejudice behind this? hgilbert (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wellll...look at that. Memes even have a well-deserved entry in the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Title: Memes as Pseudoscience. Hmmmm...guess this one's going back in. hgilbert (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I just noticed that too. Here is the Google Books link. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wellll...look at that. Memes even have a well-deserved entry in the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Title: Memes as Pseudoscience. Hmmmm...guess this one's going back in. hgilbert (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- This actually looks like a decent source. I am pleased the two of you are beginning to understand reliable sourcing and referencing. Jefffire (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Jefffire, no need for the snarky incivility. Please consider removing. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- This actually looks like a decent source. I am pleased the two of you are beginning to understand reliable sourcing and referencing. Jefffire (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Works for me, thank you. Personally, I file memetics with the Anthropic Principle - not all that interesting if posed conservatively, and absurd if posed without a decent grounding in the field. I would have preferred that the entry had remained here while we had this discussion, but all is well in the end. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Promissory materialism is a term coined by the philosopher of science Karl Popper to describe theories of consciousness that claim an exclusively biological basis for phenomena of consciousness. Such theories deny any independent existence of consciousness, considering this to be an effect of biological brain functions. Popper considered such theories to be based at present essentially wholly on promises of future discoveries rather than any extant scientific work and suggested that they would remain untestable by any empirical measures in the future, as such tests could at best establish parallelisms of consciousness and biological brain function. He decried the refusal of promoters of the theories to consider any alternatives to materialism.[5] The theories have been called "humbug" sustained by "elaborate evasions"[5] "superstition"[6] "antiscientific,"[7] "science turned upside down,"[8] "in conflict with biological evolution"[9] and a belief or faith without evidence.[10][11]
Removing new section from article for discussion:
* Promissory materialism is a term coined by the philosopher of science Karl Popper to describe theories of consciousness that claim an exclusively biological basis for phenomena of consciousness. Such theories deny any independent existence of consciousness, considering this to be an effect of biological brain functions. Popper considered such theories to be based at present essentially wholly on promises of future discoveries rather than any extant scientific work and suggested that they would remain untestable by any empirical measures in the future, as such tests could at best establish parallelisms of consciousness and biological brain function. Popper compared these theories to "humbug" sustained by "elaborate evasions" and decried their refusal to consider any alternatives to materialism.[12]
This seems to me more a critique of some forms of materialist philosophy than an example of pseudoscience falling in the remit of this article. Although Popper and Eccles are fairly harsh on the idea, I cannot find where they describe it as pseudoscience in fact, synonym, or effect. If there are more references from sources reliable to make the distinction showing that this is a notable idea, we can add this back in. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- He is critiquing claims similar, in their context, to quantum mysticism in the context of modern physics. Whether they are philosophical or not, they make scientific claims (here, that consciousness is reducible to biological events) and thus give themselves the appearance of science. Popper's whole point is that empirical evidence has never been provided for the purportedly scientific claims being made, "nor have any serious suggestions been made how this could be done".
- Popper calls the result "humbug," sustained by "elaborate evasions" and writes that it puts its own claims forward as scientific, to be one day validated by the march of science, but without any present evidence. Either this explicit terminology or this description are sufficient to classify it here; both together are quite clear. One reliable source - and this is a very reliable source - has sufficed for other topics here; shall we remove all topics for which only one source exists or allow these? I hope we are not proposing a double standard. hgilbert (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- In any case, I've restored the passage with supporting sources, as requested. hgilbert (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Jeffire: you removed this section with the edit summary, "Popper not liking something doesn't make it pseudoscientific." No, it doesn't. Neither does anyone characterizing anything. But see the title of this page; this is a list of topics that have been so characterized. PM is clearly characterized as pseudoscience, and by no means just by Popper. Unless we're going to go through the whole process of reevaluating the criteria for inclusion - which will mean reevaluating every entry - we have to use the criteria we have. We have agreed that if a topic has been so characterized by a verifiable source, it should be listed here. hgilbert (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is a clear case of WP:SYNTH, there is hardly a need to re-evalutate everything. Jefffire (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- This looks like a clear case of a topic which has been characterized as a pseudoscience by a notable source. Whether you agree with the characterization or not is irrelevant here. What's important is there is a soure (multiple ones) which has characterized the topic as a pseudoscience. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, some are arguing that descriptions of PM such as humbug, sustained by elaborate evasions, superstition, antiscientific, science turned upside down, in conflict with biological evolution, and a belief or faith without evidence are not equivalent to calling it a pseudoscience, whereas (for other fields) phrases like "There is little scientific evidence" (polygraphs), "it was the subject of an almost entirely critical Taskforce Report," "these ideas have been rejected", "effectiveness has not been demonstrated" or "ideas are not based in science" are. Can we clarify why using the latter to include subjects here is not WP:Synth, while the former are? I'd like to sign myself, Confused in Dayton, but am, yours truly, hgilbert (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- This looks like a clear case of a topic which has been characterized as a pseudoscience by a notable source. Whether you agree with the characterization or not is irrelevant here. What's important is there is a soure (multiple ones) which has characterized the topic as a pseudoscience. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is a clear case of WP:SYNTH, there is hardly a need to re-evalutate everything. Jefffire (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- My point is that we should be following the article's guidelines. This means that when there are six substantial sources fully satisfying WP:Verify that characterize a topic as pseudoscientific in various terms the topic should be included in this article, while when there are no sources whatsoever characterizing a topic as pseudoscientific it should not be included. Follow the guidelines: that's the point.
- BTW: Are you suggesting that Karl Popper is not a notable source? hgilbert (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Evolution Dissected" is a fairly blatant creationist tract. I think we can rule that out as a "substantial source", don't you ;) . In any case, I see no reason to suppose that this "promissary materialism" exists in any form other than in the writings of it's opponents. A bit like "reductionism", it's one of those things you only write about to be opposed to. Hey, how about we come up with a whole bunch of new words and declare them to pseudoscientific? Should liven the place up a bit. Jefffire (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I restored the section because the argument for it's removal (about it not being "clear cut" -- well neither is psychotherapy etc. also listed there) didn't seem to make sense to me, but there may be other reasons to remove it. The main problem with it is it is worded confusingly, so I do not know if Popper supports the idea or opposes it, and which way the people say is unscientific, etc. As it does not have an article yet, that may be an indication that the topic isn't notable enough for a mention here. I don't know. But at the very least the wording should be clarified. DreamGuy (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Eccles was a devout theist, so I suppose he probably opposed it. Regardless, one can disagree with something (even on quite fundamental philosphical levels) without regarding it a "pseudoscience", which is why I regard this as being highly synthetic addition. Jefffire (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- The term "promissory materialism" probably shouldn't be the title; this is Popper's special term for a widely promulgated idea, that all consciousness is biologically determined. Popper and many others believe that this idea's advocates are making claims with no evidential basis, and they are terming it pseudoscience or equivalents (look at the terms used). Does that help? hgilbert (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- A "widely promulgated idea" that few to no-one would actually regard as a proven scientific theorem. It's a straw-man, like Steven Jay Gould's Phyletic gradualism. Frankly I'm rather disappointed that respected philosophers would stoop to such a poor rhetorical device, but that's that.
- I guess I'm just slow. A variety of verifiable sources, including an extremely notable authority used elsewhere in this article, have described a topic in terms that are clearly equivalent to pseudoscience. Whether the topic is listed by the name given by the most prominent of these authorities and used by many others, or whether it is listed by their description of the theme (e.g. a "biologically-deterministic theory of consciousness"), no SYNTH is required; we can merely summarize their own descriptions without any new combinations, syntheses or original research whatsoever. If you prefer, we can use exact quotes throughout. hgilbert (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- How about you show some evidence that this is anything other than a non-notable strawman? Most scientists would say that consciousness was almost certainly biologically determined, but I don't know of any who are forwarding an actual scientific theory to explain it. Jefffire (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you're proving the point; as you say, most scientists say this. In addition, quite a few books have been written purporting to prove it; the sources listed in this section critique various of these - look at them for details.
- The topic is notable (though not always named using Popper's somewhat disparaging term); critiques are found in quite a number of mainstream works; it satisfies the criteria of this article, being a "...topic characterized as pseudoscience by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or by notable academics or researchers. Besides explicitly using the word "pseudoscience", some may also have used synonyms that help to explain why they consider a topic to be pseudoscientific. The existence of such expressed opinions suffices for inclusion in this list" hgilbert (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. There's no-one claiming "promissary materialism" as a scientific claim, only people holding philosophical opinions on the matter, or debating the relative weights of evidences on the debate. The "promissary materialism" that is being criticised only exists within the minds of those objecting to it. You've simply dreamt up a controvery based on a few strawmen. The fact that one of the references you cite is a creationist shows just how unable you are to find serious discussion of the matter. Jefffire (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like your rationale is based on a hefty dose of OR and you're the only one objecting. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- OR doesn't apply to talk page comments, you are aware. I'm asking that someone show some evidence that "promissary materialism" - the position that science WILL eventually prove a biological basis for consciousness - is actually held as a scientific position. It's quite distinct from garden variety monism, which I gather some editors are conflating with it here. Burdon of evidence is always on the editors wishing inclusion. Jefffire (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like your rationale is based on a hefty dose of OR and you're the only one objecting. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. There's no-one claiming "promissary materialism" as a scientific claim, only people holding philosophical opinions on the matter, or debating the relative weights of evidences on the debate. The "promissary materialism" that is being criticised only exists within the minds of those objecting to it. You've simply dreamt up a controvery based on a few strawmen. The fact that one of the references you cite is a creationist shows just how unable you are to find serious discussion of the matter. Jefffire (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why the concern about verifying how many people believe in "promissary materialism"? Popper's an excellent source, he said so, and that's that -- we cite him, and refrain from endorsing or refuting his view. You may think he's knocking down a straw man -- well, I too perceive a lot of fallacious reasoning in sources here, and Popper's just one more, but I don't let my preferences disclude sources just because I don't argee with their reasoning. (That's what I meant by "OR", although it was a poor
analogymetaphor.) - The notability of a topic, or how widely it is held, has never been used before as a consideration for inclusion on the list (just look at the range of topics). Popper is an RS, and if we go by longstanding consensus on inclusion criteria (as explicitly laid out in the lead, per WP:PSCI), then he goes in. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why the concern about verifying how many people believe in "promissary materialism"? Popper's an excellent source, he said so, and that's that -- we cite him, and refrain from endorsing or refuting his view. You may think he's knocking down a straw man -- well, I too perceive a lot of fallacious reasoning in sources here, and Popper's just one more, but I don't let my preferences disclude sources just because I don't argee with their reasoning. (That's what I meant by "OR", although it was a poor
- The citations already show this adequately. But cf. this and this or E Gerald, The remembered present: a biological theory of consciousness for a few examples. hgilbert (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're still supporting the creationist book as a "substantive source"? We'll discuss the finer points of WP:RS later.
- The remembered present: a biological theory of consciousness Looks like fairly standard materialism - not promissary materialism. You're conflating the two ideas entirely. Jefffire (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looking into "History Beyond Trauma" - I can't really find much of anything about "promissory materialism" in it from what's available online. Could you please quote the relavent section from it (also for the other books, for the benifit of those checking the reliability of your citations). Also, it appears to be written by nobodies. Another shining example of your "substantive source" ;) ? Jefffire (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The citations already show this adequately. But cf. this and this or E Gerald, The remembered present: a biological theory of consciousness for a few examples. hgilbert (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe that there is still some confusing about the scope of inclusion with the list. This article doesn't include items which we claim are pseudoscience. Rather, this list contains items which have been characterized as pseudoscience by notable academics or researchers or organizations. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 16:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since when have creationists been "notable academics or researchers or organizations"? I'd advice you to actually check the sources rather than blindly reverting. Jefffire (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just because someone is a creationist, does not mean that they are not a notable academic or researcher. To assume such a thing is highly POVish. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome. Does that mean we get to have a section on Evolution? Because a whole lotta creationists characterize it as pseudoscience. Auntie E. 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just because someone is a creationist, does not mean that they are not a notable academic or researcher. To assume such a thing is highly POVish. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. We absolutely should include that characterization as made by notable academics/researchers. Remember, even notable creationists are a reliable source for their own opinions. This article lists notable opinions ("characterizations"). An opinion about evolution as asserted by William A. Dembski, for instance, is notable. You and I and the majority of the science world may not agree with such a charactization, but "correctness" has nothing to with this list of opinions. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It rather does preclude someone from being a serious researcher. Why not prove me wrong and demonstrate that the authors of "Evolution Dissected" have made a serious contribution to biology and that they are well respected authors in the field? A few papers in Nature or Cell, that sort of thing (burden of evidence is on editors wishing inclusion after all). Because right now it looks like you're blinding defending kooks. Jefffire (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree with the very principle of what you are saying. The inclusion criteria of this article says nothing about the researcher being "serious"; only that the researcher is "notable". So while I - like you - don't take creationists seriously, I do regard them as notable with respect to the Wikipedia policy. (See Category:Creationists for a list of creationists notable enough to have their own article at Wikipedia).
- I think we commonly attribute Voltaire with, "I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it." I know some people will claim that I am defending "kooks". Such a claim is the hallmark move of the pseudoskeptical POV-pusher here at Wikipedia. It's tantamount to calling the U.S. Supreme Court "a bunch of Nazis" for allowing the National Socialist Party of America to march in Skokie. It's an unfair characterization and I know you wouldn't stoop that low, Jefffire, but I thank you for the admonishment.
- I don't believe in creationism. The "Tale of the Tape" on my user page should make that abundantly clear. But while I don't believe in what they say, I do neutrally recognize that there are creationist academics and researchers who are notable and thus have characterizations which perfectly satisfy the inclusion criteria of this list-article as currently written in the lead.
- So while I may not necessarily agree with what a creationist characterizes as pseudoscience, I will vigorously defend the right of that characterization to appear in this list. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 06:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Soliloquy aside- I asked for evidence that these particular authors were respected, and therefore notable. Please provide this. Jefffire (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- And I repeat that "respect" has nothing to do with notability and thus you are making an unnecessary request of me. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Soliloquy aside- I asked for evidence that these particular authors were respected, and therefore notable. Please provide this. Jefffire (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would phrase it that per WP:AUTHOR, writing a book does not necessarily make one notable. Popper, however, is indisputably notable, so why are we having this conversation? You may be interested in reviewing Mind uploading which - though not necessary for this discussion - seems to be an example of promissory materialism currently put forward by what we would normally characterize as scientists. Even if not totally applicable, it does make for an interesting read! -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 18:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's a tough one to answer. But I am certainly not discounting the book based on the fact that I disagree with theories it propounds. The author, Fredric Nelson, does not have an article written about him on Wikipeda (yet?), nor is there an article written about the book itself (yet?). In a cursory research attempt, I am able to discover that the Nelson is a pediatrician at a Philidelphia hospital and has been published in The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation and in AAP News. So that bodes well for his notability, but I am not rendering final judgment yet. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 18:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I understand perfectly well what "providing evidence" means and I don't appreciate your tone. I agree that being published in the AAP News helps to establish his notability as a pediatrician and that is off-topic here. The ASA publication, on the other hand, helps to establish his notability as a creationist. From the Wikipedia article: The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) describes itself as a fellowship of men and women in science and related disciplines, whose stated goal is to share a common fidelity to the Bible and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. Published articles such as this one and this one in the ASA's journal and the fact that he was a scientific (ahem) presenter at ASA meetings such as this one help establish Nelson's notability on the particular subject we are discussing, namely that he is a notable creationist academic/researcher. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 19:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Per the inclusion criteria given in the lead of this list-article, yes, I would advocate the inclusion of Evolution on this list. Dembski is clearly a notable academic and if he truly has a characterized Evolution as pseuodscience, then that characterization should be included on this page. Again, we as editors don't have to necessarily agree with the characterization, we only must recognize that the person making the characterization is a notable academic/researcher. Dembski is clearly that. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
(←) Are we really back to ignoring sources generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (emphasis in original) after only two months? Yes, it is entirely appropriate to limit this list to exclude extreme minority viewpoints, such as the idea that evolution, big bang theory, and the germ theory of disease are pseudoscience. Turning this list into a dumping ground for for this sort of thing would violate neutral point of view by inappropriately giving the impression of parity between the nonsense and the items sourced to ... (wait for it) ... sources generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- And promissory materialism is not the subject. The subject is the biological explanation for consciousness, as is clear from the description. PM is merely a frequently used sobriquet for this frequently advocated, dubious theory. (If we like we can change the title of the section to reflect this.) hgilbert (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- But our "notable" critics- Eccles and Popper (and almost entirely Eccles, based on what I've been reading)- are criticising "promissory materialism", not regular materialism. The rest of your sources are fairly poor. Since you've made no effort to defend them, I must assume you agree. This is why I made the point of WP:SYNTH- you have conflated two separate subjects in your rush to add this in. Jefffire (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- And promissory materialism is not the subject. The subject is the biological explanation for consciousness, as is clear from the description. PM is merely a frequently used sobriquet for this frequently advocated, dubious theory. (If we like we can change the title of the section to reflect this.) hgilbert (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to have misread what I wrote. We're not talking about a critique of materialism in general, but a critique of the biological explanation for consciousness, sometimes called "promissory materialism", and for which we have quite a list of sources, several of which are clearly notable and one of which is a disputed, but certainly plausible candidate for notability. Since any one of the notable sources would suffice, what are we arguing about? hgilbert (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I would argue that intelligent design creationists are prima facie not reliable to make distinctions relevant to this list. There may be exceptions, but why go there if we do not need to? As a side note, can we please stick to arguing this redlinked entry on its own merits (which, incidentally, I still find lacking) without getting sidetracked into another discussion on inclusion criteria and the misconstruing thereof? - 2/0 (cont.) 05:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there any objection to citing only Popper and sticking close to his words? To hell with the creationists (!!), but if Popper isn't an RS around here, what on earth is? --Middle 8 (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The original wording of the section cited only Popper; it was removed with the justification that there was only one author who had made a characterization to this effect. You just can't please some people.
- Obviously we should have one quite substantial source; additional, confirmatory sources seem sensible (if nothing else, to preclude this being demanded at some later point). BTW: None of these sources in any way violate WP:RS. hgilbert (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.99.82 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- That one would be pathological science, per sources that one day I have to get around to add to the cold fusion article.... --Enric Naval (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Earth Science candidates
Earth energy and vortices? Feng Shui? Ley lines?
Weakly sourced entries
Per request that insufficiently sourced entries remain on the talk page while sources are being found. Most of these have no source that terms them pseudoscience or the equivalent. If there is a source, it is inadequate or disputed.
Polygraph
- The Polygraph (lie detector) is an instrument that measures and records several physiological responses such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, breathing rhythms, body temperature and skin conductivity while the subject is asked and answers a series of questions, on the theory that false answers will produce distinctive measurements. There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs.[13][14] Despite claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[15]
Primal therapy
- Primal therapy is sometimes presented as a science.[16] The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (2001) states that: "The theoretical basis for the therapy is the supposition that prenatal experiences and birth trauma form people's primary impressions of life and that they subsequently influence the direction our lives take... Truth be known, primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. This is not surprising considering its questionable theoretical rationale."[17] Other sources have also questioned the scientific validity of primal therapy, some using the term "pseudoscience" (see Criticism of Primal Therapy).[No such sources are listed in this article]
Psychoanalysis
- Psychoanalysis is a body of ideas developed by Austrian physician Sigmund Freud and his followers, which is devoted to the study of human psychological functioning and behavior. It has been controversial ever since its inception.[18] Karl Popper characterized it as pseudoscience based on psychoanalysis failing the requirement for falsifiability.[19][20] Frank Cioffi argued that "though Popper is correct to say that psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific and correct to say that it is unfalsifiable, he is mistaken to suggest that it is pseudoscientific because it is unfalsifiable. […] It is when [Freud] insists that he has confirmed (not just instantiated) [his empirical theses] that he is being pseudoscientific."[21]
Subliminal perception
- Subliminal perception is visual or auditory information that is discerned below the threshold of conscious awareness and has an effect on human behavior. It went into disrepute in the late 1970s [22] but there has been renewed research interest recently.[23][24]
Hypnosis
- The following is badly worded, as it affirms hypnosis' validity. Perhaps an entry under past life regression is warranted.
- Hypnosis is a state of extreme relaxation and inner focus in which a person is unusually responsive to suggestions made by the hypnotist. The modern practice has its roots in the idea of animal magnetism, or mesmerism, originated by Franz Mesmer[25] and though Mesmer's explanations were thoroughly discredited, hypnosis itself is today almost universally regarded as real.[23][24] It is clinically useful for e.g. pain management, but some claimed uses of hypnosis outside of hypnotherapy clearly fall within the area of pseudoscience. Such areas include the use of hypnotic regression beyond plausible limits, including past life regression.[26] Also see false memory syndrome.
Iridology
- Iridology is a means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can identify and diagnose health problems through close examination of the markings and patterns of the iris. Practitioners divide the iris into 80-90 zones, each of which is connected to a particular body region or organ. This connection has not been scientifically validated, and disorder detection is neither selective nor specific.[27][28][29] Because iris texture is a phenotypical feature which develops during gestation and remains unchanged after birth (which makes the iris useful for Biometrics), Iridology is all but impossible.
Ayurveda
- Maharishi's Ayurveda. Traditional Ayurveda is a 5,000 year old alternative medical practice with roots in ancient India based on a mind-body set of beliefs.[30][31] Imbalance or stress in an individual’s consciousness is believed to be the reason of diseases.[30] Patients are classified by body types (three doshas, which are considered to control mind-body harmony, determine an individual’s "body type"); and treatment is aimed at restoring balance to the mind-body system.[30][31] It has long been the main traditional system of health care in India,[31] and it has become institutionalized in India's colleges and schools, although unlicensed practitioners are common.[32] As with other traditional knowledge, much of it was lost; in the West, current practice is mostly based on the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the 1980s,[33] who mixed it with Transcendental Meditation. The most notable advocate of Ayurveda in America is Deepak Chopra, who claims that Maharishi's Ayurveda is based on quantum mysticism.[33]
Therapeutic touch
- Therapeutic touch is a form of vitalism where a practitioner, who may be also a nurse,[34] passes his or her hands over and around a patient to "realign" or "rebalance" a putative energy field.[35] A recent Cochrane Review concluded that "[t]here is no evidence that [Therapeutic Touch] promotes healing of acute wounds."[36] No biophysical basis for such an energy field has been found.[37][38]
Chinese medicine
- Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is the traditional medical system originating in China and practiced as an alternative medicine throughout much of the world. It contains elements based in Taoism, Buddhism, and Neo-Confucianism,[39] and considers the human body more in functional and vitalistic than anatomical terms.[40][41] Health and illness in TCM follow the principle of yin and yang, and are ascribed to balance or imbalance in the flow of a vital force, qi.[42][43] Diagnostic methods are solely external, including pulse examination at six points, examination of a patient's tongue, and a patient interview; interpractitioner diagnostic agreement is poor.[40][44][45][46] The TCM theory of the function and structure of the human body is fundamentally different from modern medicine, though some of the procedures and remedies have shown promise under scientific investigation.[42][47]
- Acupuncture is the use of fine needles to stimulate acupuncture points and balance the flow of qi. There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[44][48] Some acupuncturists regard them as functional rather than structural entities, useful in guiding evaluation and care of patients.[42][49][50] Dry needling is the therapeutic insertion of fine needles without regard to TCM theory. Acupuncture has been the subject of active scientific research since the late 20th century,[51] and its effects and application remain controversial among Western medical researchers and clinicians.[51] Because it is a procedure rather than a pill, the design of controlled studies is challenging, as with surgical and other procedures.[42][51][52][53][54]: 126 Some scholarly reviews conclude that acupuncture's effects are mainly placebo,[55][56] and others find likelihood of efficacy for particular conditions.[51][57][58][59]
- Acupressure is manual non-invasive stimulation of acupuncture points.
- Acupuncture points or acupoints are a collection of several hundred points on the body lying along meridians. According to TCM theory, each corresponds to a particular organ or function.
- Meridians in TCM are the channels through which qi flows, connecting the several zang-fu organ pairs.[40][60] There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[44][48]
- Moxibustion is the application on or above the skin of smoldering mugwort, or moxa, to stimulate acupuncture points.
- TCM materia medica is the collection of crude medicines used in Traditional Chinese medicine. These include many plants in part or whole, such as ginseng and wolfberry, as well as more exotic ingredients such as seahorses. Preparations generally include several ingredients in combination, with selection based on physical characteristics such as taste or shape, or relationship to the organs of TCM.[64] Most preparations have not been rigorously evaluated or give no indication of efficacy.[47][65][66] Pharmacognosy research for potential active ingredients present in these preparations is active, though the applications do not always correspond to those of TCM.[67]
- Zang-fu is the concept of organs as functional yin and yang entities for the storage and manipulation of qi.[40] These organs are not based in anatomy.[citation needed]
Miscellany
- Most of these are totally unsourced to anything claiming that they are even doubtful, much less pseudoscientific.
- Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory is a proposed unified theory of physics due to Myron Evans, a Welsh chemist.[68]
- Electrogravitics is based upon the original work of Nikola Tesla and advanced by Thomas Townsend Brown that attempts to connect gravity and electromagnetism.[69]
- Expanding Earth is a historical proposal that was made alongside continental drift theory and has been all but abandoned by geologists, yet still has some lay advocates, the most famous of which is Neal Adams
- Hutchison effect is a proposed explanation for purported levitation caused by devices made by John Hutchison.
- Hydrinos are a state of the hydrogen atom that, according to proponent Randell Mills, are of lower energy than ground state and thus a source of free energy.
- Lawsonomy was a proposed philosophy and system of claims about physics made by baseball player Alfred William Lawson.[70]
- Kauko Armas Nieminen is a self-published Finnish autodidact proposing various alternative physical ideas.
- Nucleonic energy is a technological concept developed by Canadian autodidact and inventor Mel Winfield.[71]
- Ousiograph is a device created by schizophrenic Steven Green to detect the messages that are sent to one's brain.[72]
- Polywater is a hypothetical polymerized form of water proposed in the 1960s with a higher boiling point, lower freezing point, and much higher viscosity than ordinary water. It was later found not to exist, with the anomalous measurements being explained by biological contamination.[73]
- Scalar field theories are a set of proposals that modify electromagnetic theory in various non-standard ways.
- Theory of radial momentum is a proposal by Ed Seykota, a commodities trader, which claims to clarify "problems" with the application of the Bernoulli principle.
- Time Cube is a proposed theory of everything which holds that time is cubic. Its creator, Gene Ray, finds those who are ignorant of or in disagreement with his theory to be "stupid and evil." According to his own web site, he is a diagnosed schizophrenic.[74]
- Timewave zero is a numerological formula that was invented by the late psychonaut Terence McKenna with the help of the hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine. After discovering 2012 doomsday predictions, he redesigned his formula to have a "zero-point" at the same date as the Mayan longcount calendar.[75][76]
References
Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.
- ^ "Benitez-Bribiesca, Luis (2001):Memetics: A dangerous idea. Interciecia 26: 29–31, p. 29.
- ^ McGrath, Alister (December 7, 2004). Dawkins' GOD: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 119–135. ISBN 1405125381.
- ^ Rosenfelder, Mark. "The new pseudoscience of memes" (Essay). Retrieved 2009-04-24.
- ^ Martin Lockley, "Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life" (book review)
- ^ a b Karl Popper and John Eccles, The Self and Its Brain. pp. 96-9. ISBN 0415058988
- ^ John Carew Eccles, Evolution of the brain, p. 253
- ^ Françoise Davoine, Jean-Max Gaudillière, Susan Fairfield, History Beyond Trauma, ISBN 1590511115. P. 107
- ^ Fredric P. Nelson, Evolution Dissected p. 79
- ^ Eccles, quoted in Arnold M. Cooper, Otto F. Kernberg, Ethel Spector Person Psychoanalysis, p. 197-199
- ^ Maxine Sheets-Johnstone, The primacy of movement, p. 472
- ^ This view of the theory is also supported by Robert Spaemann and Oliver O'Donovan in Persons, p. 95-6
- ^ Karl Popper and John Eccles, The Self and Its Brain. pp. 96-9. ISBN 0415058988
- ^ "Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation". Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress
Office of Technology Assessment. 1983. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
{{cite web}}
: line feed character in|publisher=
at position 33 (help) - ^ "Monitor on Psychology - The polygraph in doubt". American Psychological Association. 07-2004. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Vergano, Dan (2002). "Telling the truth about lie detectors". USA Today.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Primal therapy homepage
- ^ Moore, Timothy (2001). Primal Therapy. Gale Group.
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Merkin, Daphne (2004), "Psychoanalysis: Is It Science or Is It Toast?", New York Times
{{citation}}
: Unknown parameter|day=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Currie, G; Musgrave, A (eds) (1985) “Popper and the Human Sciences (Nijhoff International Philosophy Series)” SpringerVerlag, pp13-44
- ^ Popper KR, "Science: Conjectures and Refutations", reprinted in Grim P (1990) Philosophy of Science and the Occult, Albany, pp. 104–110
- ^ Cioffi, Frank (1985), "Psychoanalysis, Pseudo-Science and Testability", in Currie, Gregory; Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Popper and the human sciences, Springer, ISBN 9789024729982. Reprinted in Cioffi, Frank (1998), Freud and the question of pseudoscience, Open Court, ISBN 9780812693850
- ^ "Urban Legends Reference Pages: Business (Subliminal Advertising)". The Urban Legends Reference Pages. Retrieved 2006-08-11.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
[s]
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Westen et al. 2006 "Psychology: Australian and New Zealand edition" John Wiley.
- ^ "Hypnosis". American Cancer Society. Retrieved 2008-02-25.
- ^ Lynn, Steven Jay (2003), "The remembrance of things past: problematic memory recovery techniques in psychotherapy", in Lilienfeld, Scott O. (ed.), Science and Pseudoscience in Psychotherapy, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 219–220, ISBN 1572308281
{{citation}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|coeditors=
ignored (help) "hypnotically induced past life experiences are rule-governed, goal-directed fantasies that are context generated and sensitive to the demands of the hypnotic regression situation." - ^ "Iridology". Natural Standard. 2005-07-07. Retrieved 2008-02-01. "Research suggests that iridology is not an effective method to diagnose or help treat any specific medical condition."
- ^ Ernst E. Iridology: not useful and potentially harmful. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2000 Jan;118(1):120-1. PMID 10636425
- ^ "H-175.998 Evaluation of Iridology". American Medical Association. Retrieved 2008-02-01. "Our AMA believes that iridology, the study of the iris of the human eye, has not yet been established as having any merit as a diagnostic technique."
- ^ a b c "Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-97)". American Medical Association. 1997.
- ^ a b c "Ayurvedic medicine". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2008-08-16.
- ^ Lesley A. Sharp (2003). "Review of Fluent bodies: Ayourvedic Remedies for Postcolonial Imbalance". Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 17 (4): 511–512. doi:10.1525/maq.2003.17.4.512. Retrieved 2008-08-16.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) (page 512) - ^ a b Robert Todd Carroll (2003). John Wiley and Sons (ed.). The Skeptic's Dictionary. pp. 45–4?. ISBN 0471272426. (Pseudoscience and Ayurvedic medicine entries in the online version)
- ^ Wallace, Sampson (1998-03-24). ""Therapeutic Touch" Fails a Rare Scientific Test". CSICOP News. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved 2007-12-05.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) "Despite this lack of evidence, TT is now supported by major nursing organizations such as the National League of Nurses and the American Nurses Association." - ^ Cite error: The named reference
scientificamerican
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ O'Mathuna, DP (2003/2006). "Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003 (4): CD002766. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002766. Retrieved 2008-01-27.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ Courcey, Kevin. "Further Notes on Therapeutic Touch". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-12-05. "What's missing from all of this, of course, is any statement by Krieger and her disciples about how the existence of their energy field can be demonstrated by scientifically accepted methods."
- ^ "Energy Medicine: An Overview". National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2007-10-24. Retrieved 2007-12-05. "neither the external energy fields nor their therapeutic effects have been demonstrated convincingly by any biophysical means."
- ^ Unschuld, Paul Ulrich (1985). Medicine in China: A History of Ideas. University of California Press. ISBN 0520062167.
- ^ a b c d "Traditional Chinese Medicine: Principles of Diagnosis and Treatment". Complementary/Integrative Medicine Therapies. The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
- ^ "The Roots of Qi". CSICOP. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
- ^ a b c d NIH Consensus Development Program (November 3–5, 1997). "Acupuncture --Consensus Development Conference Statement". National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
- ^ Barrett, Stephen (December 30, 2007). "Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
- ^ a b c "NCAHF Position Paper on Acupuncture (1990)". National Council Against Health Fraud. 1990-09-16. Retrieved 2007-12-30.
- ^ Maciocia, Giovanni (1989). The Foundations of Chinese Medicine. Churchill Livingstone.
- ^ Barrett, Stephen (2008-03-28). "Why TCM Diagnosis Is Worthless". Acupuncture Watch. Retrieved 2009-02-16.
- ^ a b "Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China: A Report of the Second CSICOP Delegation (Part 1)". CSICOP. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
- ^ a b Felix Mann: "...acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots that a drunkard sees in front of his eyes." (Mann F. Reinventing Acupuncture: A New Concept of Ancient Medicine. Butterworth Heinemann, London, 1996,14.) Quoted by Matthew Bauer in Chinese Medicine Times, Vol 1 Issue 4 - Aug 2006, "The Final Days of Traditional Beliefs? - Part One"
- ^ Kaptchuk, 1983, pp. 34–35
- ^ E (2004), "A brief history of acupuncture", Rheumatology, 43 (5): 662–663, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keg005, PMID 15103027
- ^ a b c d Ernst E, Pittler MH, Wider B, Boddy K. (2007). "Acupuncture: its evidence-base is changing". Am J Chin Med. 35 (1): 21–5. doi:10.1142/S0192415X07004588. PMID 17265547.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ White AR, Filshie J, Cummings TM (2001). "Clinical trials of acupuncture: consensus recommendations for optimal treatment, sham controls and blinding". Complement Ther Med. 9 (4): 237–245. PMID 12184353.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Johnson MI (2006). "The clinical effectiveness of acupuncture for pain relief--you can be certain of uncertainty". Acupunct Med. 24 (2): 71–9. PMID 16783282.
- ^ Committee on the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the American Public. (2005). Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. National Academies Press.
- ^ Madsen MV, Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A (2009). "Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups". BMJ. 338: a3115. PMID 19174438.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Ernst, Edzard (2006-02). "Acupuncture - a critical analysis". Journal of Internal Medicine. 259 (2): 125–137. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2796.2005.01584.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_needlingx. PMID 16420542. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
{{cite journal}}
: Check|doi=
value (help); Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Furlan AD, van Tulder MW, Cherkin DC; et al. (2005). "Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD001351. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001351.pub2. PMID 15674876.
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Lee A, Done ML (2004). "Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (3): CD003281. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub2. PMID 15266478.
- ^ Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials. World Health Organization, 2003. Section 3. Section 3 (HTML); [1]
- ^ "Definition of Chinese meridian theory". National Cancer Institute. Retrieved 2009-02-16.
- ^ Shermer, Michael (2005-07). "Full of Holes: the curious case of acupuncture". Scientific American. 293 (2): 30. Retrieved 2009-02-16.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Stenger, Victor J. (1998-06). "Reality Check: the energy fields of life". Skeptical Briefs. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved 2007-12-25.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) "Despite complete scientific rejection, the concept of a special biological fields within living things remains deeply engraved in human thinking. It is now working its way into modern health care systems, as non-scientific alternative therapies become increasingly popular. From acupuncture to homeopathy and therapeutic touch, the claim is made that healing can be brought about by the proper adjustment of a person's or animal's "bioenergetic fields."" - ^ "Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China: A Report of the Second CSICOP Delegation (Part 2)". CSICOP. Retrieved 2009-02-15.
- ^ "Traditional Chinese Medicine: Overview of Herbal Medicines". Complementary/Integrative Medicine Therapies. The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
- ^ Yuehua, N (2004), Chinese medicinal herbs for sore throat (Review), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004877
- ^ Praities, Nigel (2008-08-07). "GPs warned over Chinese medicine". Pulse. Retrieved 2009-02-16.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Normile, Dennis (2003), "ASIAN MEDICINE: the New Face of Traditional Chinese Medicine", Science, 299 (5604): 188–190, doi:10.1126/science.299.5604.188, PMID 12522228
- ^ 't Hooft, Gerard (2008), "Editorial note", Foundations of Physics, 38: 1–2
- ^ Byron Preiss (1985). The Planets. Bantam Books. p. 27. ISBN 0553051091.
- ^ Martin Gardner (1957). Fads And Fallacies In The Name Of Science. Dover Publications. pp. 69–79. ISBN 978-0486203942.
{{cite book}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help) - ^ Winfield, Mel E. (2004). The Science of Actuality. Vancouver: University Press. ISBN 0-9739347-0-0.
- ^ Ousiograph, Dressler, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Fourth Edition, pages 648-655, 2007
- ^ Rousseau, Denis L. (1992-01). "Case Studies in Pathological Science". American Scientist. 80 (1): 54–63. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Ray, Gene. Time Cube. 12 Mar. 2007
- ^ http://www.ralph-abraham.org/talks/transcripts/hyperspace.html
- ^ The Timewave: The Zero Date