→Reliable peer reviewed journal: piffle |
→Reliable peer reviewed journal: did you seriously ignore that a peer reviewed jounal meets V and should not be deleted because you think it is bias per NPOV |
||
Line 307: | Line 307: | ||
::choose. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
::choose. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Here is the reality of the debate. Please try to choose to respect Wikipedia policies. You seem to be ignoring the real NPOV issues. Your edit summary claimed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&action=historysubmit&diff=405155229&oldid=405150654 editing paragraph; 'public health' is wrong term; source removed as it does not support claim being made; refocusing on the NSF, which is really where this paragraph wants to go.] You claim the source does not support the claim. The text is supported by the reliable peer reviewed journal. For example, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092400 Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved.] You claim 'public health' is the wrong term when the source does specifically use the term 'public health'. Your personal disagreement with the source is not a good reason to delete the source. Do you agree in the future you will not replace sourced text with unsourced text. You claimed the NSF website verified the text you added to the article. When I looked closer at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&action=historysubmit&diff=405157950&oldid=405150654 your edit] it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and it seems you replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed and I could not verify the text with any of the articles from the NSF website. Is there some reason you are not going to try to verify the text or delete the unsourced text you added to the article after the text was challenged. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. Do you agree is was a mistake you deleted sourced relevant text from a reliable journal. I don't think you have provided any good reason a peer reviewed journal should be deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS. When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources there would be no reason in the future to add attribution in the text because you claim the source is asserting the claim. A personal disagreement is not a serious dispute among reliable sources. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you agree to follow V and NPOV policies better in the future. Do you think the text you added is inaccurate and unsourced. Do you think unsourced claims it is appropriate to replace sourced information with unsourced text when there is already an reliable journal available. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is taking the source out of context. It looks like you diluted the meaning of the text because you disagree with the claims the source makes. Do you agree with [[WP:NPOV]] that it says do not remove sourced information because you think it seems [[Confirmation bias|biased]]. See [[WP:V]]: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." See [[WP:V]]: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." See [[WP:IRS]]: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." See [[WP:NPOV]]: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems [[Confirmation bias|biased]]." You seem to not understand that the reference is from a reliable peer reviewed journal that similar to other references found in the article. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=== Sourced text was replaced with unsourced text === |
=== Sourced text was replaced with unsourced text === |
Revision as of 05:05, 14 January 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 70 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Science, verb or noun?
The lead seems to presents a case whereby some things are scientific facts and some things are not. It's my contention (as a neuroscience researcher), that science is not a list of facts but rather a defined process as to how one should go about formulating and testing theories. And how one should present their observations to the greater scientific community. Any thoughts on this?
Lead needs Organization
Repeated attempts too reorganize this page into manageable sections have been thwarted. IT would be appreciated if editors begin discussion here, and remember to use the "edit/summary" box when editing a page. Issues include:
Bias Lead
Article requires unbias lead. current lead is over defined and presents multiple viewpoints of the same concept. Such a topic as this can be adequately defined in a single sentence, such as the one by user:Lawstubes which was Pseudoscience is unverifiable, does not adhere to scientific methodology & consequently lacks its status; often presented in a scientific context by scientists, it appears scientific, but is not. This sentence contains all necessary info to classify the topic, WITHOUT BIAS! This is key in understanding the modification by lawstubes, it is, in fact unbias while the current lead is a number of different biases all mashed up into one. This is not to say the current lead is inadequate, only that it is overqualified for the job & should be categorized in an overview.
Sections
The current Lead has already been broken up into sections throughout the article, such as is already done in the sections interpretations & Etymology. Editors appear extremely attached to the current lead, and are denying its transformation into an overview, which would be ill advised as the article needs an overview section.
References/Citations
Certain references/citations within this article contain relevant subtext & this subtext should be embedded into the text of the article itself, rather than tucked away in a reference and USED by editors in bias manor.
Overall citation/reference oversight may be necessary, as there may be infringement...Not sure.
Recent Edits
Kenosis, while you're cleaning things up, would you check in here to discuss.
- I'm not sure why the Paul Hurd requires attribution. I'm not a pusher of ASF, but I think this claim about pseudoscience and scientific literacy is pretty uncontroversial. Ocaasi (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- What's the rationale for having an overview section?
- Is it better to have the small mentions about religion, pop-science, and clinical psychology separated in different sections?
- Can the histories of Popper and Thagard be cleaned up, per the copy-edit. Ocaasi (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Very quickly and somewhat incompletely at the moment (and I'm not implicitly promising to deal with every component here). for convenience I'm numbering your four "bullet points":
(1) I'm not sure why the Paul Hurd requires attribution. I'm not a pusher of ASF, but I think this claim about pseudoscience and scientific literacy is pretty uncontroversial.
WP:ASF no longer exists, but since you're a regular at that page perhaps you could figure out how to rectify that situation regarding editors who come to rely on long-standing provisions in core content policies.
(2)What's the rationale for having an overview section?
The "overview" presents the general "lay of the land", so to speak, for the unfamiliar reader because scientific method itself is very commonly a tough subject for them. And as numerous RSs have made eminently clear, the demarcation problem has proven over the course of a century of attention by some of the best minds on the planet to be a vexing one with many twists and turns and myriad facets.
(3) Is it better to have the small mentions about religion, pop-science, and clinical psychology separated in different sections?
This definitely seems to me worthy of further discussion, but IMO it definitely should be accompanied by careful analysis of the RSs. You've noted three entirely different areas about which various RSs have attempted to separate science and, as you've noted, religion, pop science and clinical psychology. My gut hunch is that it's a very ambitious project if it's to be at all stable and sustainable in this article.
(4)Can the histories of Popper and Thagard be cleaned up, per the copy-edit.
I apologize for having caught up your cleanup of, e.g., the paragraph about Thagard (which in my view you unnecessarily turned into a subsection because it needed only a brief paragraph to tell the reader what Thagard contributed to the debate in 1978). I've since copyedited that paragraph a bit, and my revert of your major reorganization took care of your own self corrections of your revisions of the Thagard material (diffs available upon request, in case you don't recall or can't find your specific edits to which I'm referring). If you have a more specific complaint about what I did there, I'm all ears, but I apologize that likely can't promise to respond until about a day from now. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)- ASF or no, in-text attribution is only needed in certain circumstances. Why do you think this is one of them, is all I'm asking. (NPOV policy still includes: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.")
- I disagree that the overview section is needed; I think it's a crutch for a topic that could just be better edited. There are many subjects as complicated or controversial as this and I can't recall any of them having overviews. I think we should incorporate it into the lead, history, definition/identification sections as fits.
- Thagard might not need his own section, but I think the copy-edits for clarity and concision are still useful.
- I might try and redo some of the edits I made without getting into the broader issues you are presenting objections to. When you get back, we can see how you think it looks. It should be easier to judge piece by piece (I'll make smaller changes at a time) than all at once. I think the article is already improved, but could be morseo. Ocaasi (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ocaasi, I want to quickly add the following to what I just said a short while ago: You requested of me about three or four specific examples of edits. I'd already given you an important example concerning your sweeping reorganization and rewrite of the context of what this WP article presents to its readers, your having offerred to the readers essentially an assertion that WP has solved the demarcation problem by way of offering a synthesized definition of how readers can best go about identifying pseudoscience, about which I've just commented twice. Maybe you might start by actually reading just my edit summaries before demanding an encounter on Talk, of which, by the way, your recent edits seem conspicuously lacking.
IIRC, the point of the section on "Identifying pseudoscience" wasn't to imply that we WP editors as a group can say to readers how to do it, but that the section is presenting the cited reliable sources' various views about how they attempt to identify pseudoscience. Personally, I'm open to suggestions about how to better title this section so as not to imply we collectively as WP editors have "defined" pseudoscience, as you appear to me to have taken it.
But... Ocassi, I now see better that you're determined to do something, and something significant here. However it appears to me that despite your good very faith efforts to solve and define the issues for the reader in a way that readers can go forward into the world and know best from this WP article how to clearly separate and define the difference between science and pseudoscience, you've not actually beenreading the citations already provided before implementing what you've considered to be improvements here, and also appears to me that you do not well understand the complexities which have vexed some of the best minds for a century with no clear end to the demarcation problem in sight ((diffs in support of this current conclusion of mine about your apparent overreaching might be available on request, though you'll likely need to wait a day or two). In the meantime, I want to repeat that I acknowledge all your efforts appear fully in good faith... Kenosis (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC) - Ocaasi, I'm now outta here to check on other WP stuff and then get back to the inevitable RL (that'd be "real life") stuff, OK? Will talk with ya' later on as may be potentially helpful or otherwise appropriate. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Kenosis, could you lay off the personal assumptions. I did indeed read your edit summary. I Immediately offered a change that matched your objection and said that my phrasing was intended to be a simple statement rather than a creative invention or broad assertion. The word 'easy' was misplaced, but that's it. Don't confuse a poor word choice for anything more. I grasp the broader complications, and if you let go of the 'easy' example, the rest of the edits make for little drama. The word 'Definition' doesn't imply instruction, just a section on how RSs define pseudoscience. That's just a word-choice issue again, not a sign of the intent you are presuming. I didn't alter the Demarcation section, and I actually suggested moving it from the bottom of the article where it currently lies as much of an afterthought. As for reading citations, editing takes many forms and one of them is organization; verification is another that I was not focusing on at the time, and nitpicking about edit summaries seems silly. Making a bunch of assumptions and then claiming good faith seems a bit of a mixed message as well. But back to content, what about the issues I mentioned above? Ocaasi (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- That appears to me to be a request for specific diffs in support of my, as you say, "assumptions". Duly noted. Talk with ya in a day or two. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware of my diffs, and you don't have to waste the time. I meant assumptions you were making about my intentions or whether I had been reading your comments. There's a difference between how an edit appears to you and what I was trying to accomplish by making it. If we can drop those kinds of inferences, I think editing will be easier. Ocaasi (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was about to say: "Your first sentence" appears to me to be a request for specific diffs in support of my, as you say, "assumptions". Duly noted. Talk with ya in a day or two. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC) To which I quickly add: The rest of your statement is also duly noted, but as I said, I'm outta here for awhile for RL, and will get back to it in a day or two, including, if appropriate, an apology for my pointedness and/or for any outright mistakes I made. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Right, thanks. This process of editors posting reams of diffs to prosecute each other is one of Wiki's lesser qualities. We're both interested in this article being effective and thorough, and spending time impugning motivations... seems to focus on the wrong things. Let's just stick to the content and see if the article can be brought up to better standards on both fronts. Cheers until then... Ocaasi (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was about to say: "Your first sentence" appears to me to be a request for specific diffs in support of my, as you say, "assumptions". Duly noted. Talk with ya in a day or two. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC) To which I quickly add: The rest of your statement is also duly noted, but as I said, I'm outta here for awhile for RL, and will get back to it in a day or two, including, if appropriate, an apology for my pointedness and/or for any outright mistakes I made. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware of my diffs, and you don't have to waste the time. I meant assumptions you were making about my intentions or whether I had been reading your comments. There's a difference between how an edit appears to you and what I was trying to accomplish by making it. If we can drop those kinds of inferences, I think editing will be easier. Ocaasi (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- That appears to me to be a request for specific diffs in support of my, as you say, "assumptions". Duly noted. Talk with ya in a day or two. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Kenosis, could you lay off the personal assumptions. I did indeed read your edit summary. I Immediately offered a change that matched your objection and said that my phrasing was intended to be a simple statement rather than a creative invention or broad assertion. The word 'easy' was misplaced, but that's it. Don't confuse a poor word choice for anything more. I grasp the broader complications, and if you let go of the 'easy' example, the rest of the edits make for little drama. The word 'Definition' doesn't imply instruction, just a section on how RSs define pseudoscience. That's just a word-choice issue again, not a sign of the intent you are presuming. I didn't alter the Demarcation section, and I actually suggested moving it from the bottom of the article where it currently lies as much of an afterthought. As for reading citations, editing takes many forms and one of them is organization; verification is another that I was not focusing on at the time, and nitpicking about edit summaries seems silly. Making a bunch of assumptions and then claiming good faith seems a bit of a mixed message as well. But back to content, what about the issues I mentioned above? Ocaasi (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ocaasi, I want to quickly add the following to what I just said a short while ago: You requested of me about three or four specific examples of edits. I'd already given you an important example concerning your sweeping reorganization and rewrite of the context of what this WP article presents to its readers, your having offerred to the readers essentially an assertion that WP has solved the demarcation problem by way of offering a synthesized definition of how readers can best go about identifying pseudoscience, about which I've just commented twice. Maybe you might start by actually reading just my edit summaries before demanding an encounter on Talk, of which, by the way, your recent edits seem conspicuously lacking.
The original intent of ASF no longer exists and now editors can do this? Mass changes to NPOV policy will eventually result in mass changes to Wikipedia articles. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- What, you mean attribution of a opinion to its author? why is that problematic in this case? --Ludwigs2 06:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated: "Mass changes to NPOV policy will eventually result in mass changes to Wikipedia articles." You are asking me if in-text attribution is problematic when you eliminated core ASF policy. If there is no ASF then it may no longer be problematic at least as far as ASF is concerned. According to you, you disapprove of the fact/opinion distinction. So I assume you think attribution in the text has your approval. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- QG, I agree with you that attribution is not needed here, but I don't think we need ASF to fix it, just some discussion. We still have guidance not to lessen assertions by suggesting they are contested if they're not; attribution can but doesn't always do that. In this case, I think that attribution unnecessary, since the view seems commonplace and uncontroversial. Why can't we just figure it out with reference to reasons rather than an explicit policy. Ocaasi (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- You assert you don't think we need ASF to fix it. You don't think we need policy? Just some discussion of what policy then? I don't know if I can say the in-text attribution here is a violation of ASF when ASF no longer exists. QuackGuru (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we need policy for every kind of edit. Discussion of NPOV, in light of its continuing guidance on attribution should suffice ("Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."). As editors we can still think and be reasonable without an explicit policy to tell us exactly what to do. Ocaasi (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- That was not ASF. That is vague and random text without even the examples of what is an inline qualifier. I agree there is no explicit policy to tell us what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hey QG, I think that's taking the situation to an extreme. There is great policy in NPOV and V which require that this kind of situation be cited, proportionally and neutrally presented, and not given attribution when it would make a passage appear contested if it is not. That's great policy, and claiming that recent changes are merely IAR is as baseless as saying that any policy at all is instruction creep. Ocaasi (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Don't you mean that there was a great NPOV policy? I hope editors prefer the rewritten instructions and the new NPOV policy. QuackGuru (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hey QG, I think that's taking the situation to an extreme. There is great policy in NPOV and V which require that this kind of situation be cited, proportionally and neutrally presented, and not given attribution when it would make a passage appear contested if it is not. That's great policy, and claiming that recent changes are merely IAR is as baseless as saying that any policy at all is instruction creep. Ocaasi (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- That was not ASF. That is vague and random text without even the examples of what is an inline qualifier. I agree there is no explicit policy to tell us what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we need policy for every kind of edit. Discussion of NPOV, in light of its continuing guidance on attribution should suffice ("Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."). As editors we can still think and be reasonable without an explicit policy to tell us exactly what to do. Ocaasi (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- You assert you don't think we need ASF to fix it. You don't think we need policy? Just some discussion of what policy then? I don't know if I can say the in-text attribution here is a violation of ASF when ASF no longer exists. QuackGuru (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- QG, I am not interested in hearing you rant about revisions of NPOV. I had a very simple question: Why in this particular case is attribution to the author unneeded? If you give a good reason, then I will support removing the attribution. However, it seems to me that this opinion is not a commonly accepted fact in the scientific community or the greater world, but rather a argument being made by this particular author. I happen to think it's a good argument, but it is an argument nonetheless, and ought to be attributed to its source. --Ludwigs2 16:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- When there is no longer ASF policy because of you what are you basing your argument on. When it is not commonly accepted fact in the scientific community that seems to mean there is no serious dispute. If there is no serious dipsute can editors add attribution in the text whenever they want now. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ludwigs, would having another source as well make it seem like less of a single person's argument? I guess that's like asking if instead of proving that X's argument is contested by coming up with a competing RS, it would be sufficient to show that it's not 'one guy' to resolve the attribution issue. Is that an approach that will work in situations like this? Ocaasi (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ocaasi: the issue with this particular phrase is that it is - obviously - a pedagogical construct that this researcher has developed, as opposed to a research result. That's not a bad thing, mind you - academics and educators are always coming up with pedagogical rubrics that help in education, as well they should. But pedagogical rubrics are not matters of broad consensus, they are subject to change, and educators use them or not at their own discretion. Attribution is called for. It's not like (in this particular case) the phrase is actually being contested (e.g. "Hurd says that ... while Schultz says ..."). But since the next line points out that there is disagreement over whether meaningful distinctions can be made we shouldn't imply in the first line that there is a universal consensus that a distinction can be made.
- QG: I didn't ask for a generic assessment of NPOV issues, I asked you about this particular case. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I pretty much fully agree with Ludwigs2's first paragraph just above, which well describes my reasoning for specifically attributing the just referenced sentence currently in the second paragraph of the lede to Paul DeHart Hurd (1905-2001). With or without WP:ASF, it's essentially the same editorial reasoning, which is that the statement "being able to distinguish science from pseudoscience such as astrology, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and other superstitions is part of gaining scientific literacy' is, at least on the evidence presented thus far, pretty much solely attributable to Hurd. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I readily admit I was being very conservative in that attribution, and am open to other reasonable alternatives, examples of which have already been suggested elsewhere in this thread. ... Kenosis (talk)
- Yeah, I did notice the slight tension between the sentences, but the demarcation problem is not typically something taught alongside the scientific method, while identifying pseudoscience is. Maybe we could split the difference and say "Educators consider identifying pseudoscience... part of scientific literacy". Though there is an argument being presented here, I don't think it's one limited to Paul Hurd, even if he might be most well know for promoting it. It seems like the solution, rather than taking a just-assert-it or just-attribute-it approach, either of which have logic behind them, that we find out who else shares this view and how broadly it is considered--either by finding a source which addresses the scope or just more sources which echo the argument. Ocaasi (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you have more sources that convince you it's more of a general belief than Hurd's particular perspective, then I'm open a more general form of attribution. as I said, I don't find the phrase problematical, it just doesn't strike me as the kind of thing that can be offered as a transparent truism. It's just too obvious that it's something being argued for, not something that is. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed with QG it probably should be stated more factually. Agree with Kenosis and Ludgwigs we need to do more to show the is-ness of the statement. I don't have sources to do it, but I would be surprised if we couldn't find some very authoritative descriptions regarding scientific literacy and pseudoscience. Where to look? Ocaasi (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can see this discussion is going nowhere becuase the NPOV policy mass rewrite is gone down the wrong way to nowhere. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- QG: Pull the CD out, blow off any dust, and reinsert it. This track keeps skipping at the same point in the song. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- What part of policy supports or does not support the attribution in the text when NPOV is vague and misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- QG: allow me to point out that while you've been complaining about what's been happening at wp:NPOV, the rest of us have discussed the case here and come to a reasonably informed decision about the matter. You can (and I assume will) continue to complain about NPOV, but why? there's no problem here - stop trying to make one. --Ludwigs2 21:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- What part of policy supports or does not support the attribution in the text when NPOV is vague and misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- QG: Pull the CD out, blow off any dust, and reinsert it. This track keeps skipping at the same point in the song. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can see this discussion is going nowhere becuase the NPOV policy mass rewrite is gone down the wrong way to nowhere. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed with QG it probably should be stated more factually. Agree with Kenosis and Ludgwigs we need to do more to show the is-ness of the statement. I don't have sources to do it, but I would be surprised if we couldn't find some very authoritative descriptions regarding scientific literacy and pseudoscience. Where to look? Ocaasi (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you have more sources that convince you it's more of a general belief than Hurd's particular perspective, then I'm open a more general form of attribution. as I said, I don't find the phrase problematical, it just doesn't strike me as the kind of thing that can be offered as a transparent truism. It's just too obvious that it's something being argued for, not something that is. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ludwigs, would having another source as well make it seem like less of a single person's argument? I guess that's like asking if instead of proving that X's argument is contested by coming up with a competing RS, it would be sufficient to show that it's not 'one guy' to resolve the attribution issue. Is that an approach that will work in situations like this? Ocaasi (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- When there is no longer ASF policy because of you what are you basing your argument on. When it is not commonly accepted fact in the scientific community that seems to mean there is no serious dispute. If there is no serious dipsute can editors add attribution in the text whenever they want now. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- QG, I agree with you that attribution is not needed here, but I don't think we need ASF to fix it, just some discussion. We still have guidance not to lessen assertions by suggesting they are contested if they're not; attribution can but doesn't always do that. In this case, I think that attribution unnecessary, since the view seems commonplace and uncontroversial. Why can't we just figure it out with reference to reasons rather than an explicit policy. Ocaasi (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated: "Mass changes to NPOV policy will eventually result in mass changes to Wikipedia articles." You are asking me if in-text attribution is problematic when you eliminated core ASF policy. If there is no ASF then it may no longer be problematic at least as far as ASF is concerned. According to you, you disapprove of the fact/opinion distinction. So I assume you think attribution in the text has your approval. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- And allow me to comment that the phrase "no serious disputed has been presented per WP:ASSERT", even setting aside the grammatical errors, is devoid of meaning. What are you pointing to, and why does ASSERT come into play, and what resolution are you suggesting to the problem that you claim to be seeing? Don't just say these things because they sound cool. --Ludwigs2 16:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- WP:ASSERT comes into play when a statement is implied it is controversial when there is no serious dispute. If you can't show there is a serious dispute then don't imply there is one. Your asking too many questions when you rewritten ASSERT against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please choose which argument we're going to have; I'm not going to discuss changes to this page and changes to NPOV at the same time.
- WP:ASSERT comes into play when a statement is implied it is controversial when there is no serious dispute. If you can't show there is a serious dispute then don't imply there is one. Your asking too many questions when you rewritten ASSERT against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- With respect to this page: it is your obligation to show that this opinion about the relationship of pseudoscience to scientific literacy (and the later claim about the dangers of pseudoscience) are general enough to be presented in wikipedia's voice. So far as I can tell the first is the opinion of one author, and should be treated and attributed as such, while the second is clearly hyperbolic (only a small proportion of pseudoscience poses any danger to the public, unless you're worried about attacks by bigfoot and space-aliens) and requires more careful contextualization. --Ludwigs2 02:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Should Chiropractic at least be mentioned?
I often hear the practice of chiropractic adjustments cited by people discussing pseudoscience. Should it at lease be mentioned in the article? Zegoma beach (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- It may be mentioned. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- It may be mentioned if you have reliable sources discussing it in those terms, and only then if it is relevant. There are hundreds of 'pseudosciences', and it wouldn't make any sense to discuss all of them. Why chiropractic? Also, if you were going to discuss Chiropractic, you would have to identify the specific aspects within the field that have been characterized as 'pseudoscientific'. Spinal manipulation for lower back pain is not pseudoscientific; vertebral subluxations for energy flow may be. The amount of nuance required to accurately describe the situation might make it more appropriate for Chiropractic than here. Ocaasi (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Ocaasi (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Given the recent UK court case on the issue, I'd be surprised if we can't find a RS to back this up. Chiropractic controversy and criticism has a referenced statement in its first paragraph that "For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not support using this article to list or discuss specific cases of pseudoscience. This article should remain focused on the theory and study of the subject without going into particulars. There may be a need for a portal article that would connect this article with articles about instances but I see no need to expand this one to include specifics. In that case I'd suggest renaming this article to something like "Pseudoscience theory". Jojalozzo 16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Would have to agree -- List of topics characterized as pseudoscience alrwady exists, and already includes Chiropractic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Process vs Substance
It seems to me that much controversy and disagreement could be avoided by focusing the article on the practise of pseudoscience, rather than fields and disciplines in which pseudoscientific practices are perceived to be common. The reason is that deciding which fields and disciplines to include as pseudoscience is undefined. The particular area of study in which pseudoscience is used is not particularly relevant to the debate and classifying these as bogus or genuine seems to fall outside the mandate of an article explaining pseudoscience. For example I could make up a pseudoscientific method for studying a respected science like physics or biology, and yet labelling physics or biology as 'pseudoscience' because of this would be innacurate. It is quite clear when the scientific method is not being followed however and this leaves us with plenty of material for defining and explaining the concept of pseudoscience in an encyclopedic way. What I am proposing is that the article focuses solely on what constitutes bad scientific practice (it already covers this very well) and remove references to specific examples of fields of pseudoscience. Where examples are necessary it would be more accurate to cite actual pseudoscientific work which is demonstrably flawed rather than sweeping generalisations about areas of study. The introductory paragraph would then read something like:
"Pseudoscience is the practice of presenting non scientific information, claims or beliefs as scientifically established, without adhering to a valid scientific methodology. Pseudoscience often fails to produce supporting evidence or plausibility, and cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. The term "pseudoscience" is inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[2] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.[2]
According to Paul DeHart Hurd, being able to distinguish science from pseudoscience such as often practised in astrology, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and other superstitions is part of gaining scientific literacy.[3][4] There is, however, some disagreement among philosophers of science and members of the scientific community as to whether there is a consistent and meaningful way to distinguish the results of pseudoscience from those of non-mainstream science.[5][6]"
I think this works better as a general tone for the article as it removes the neccessity for people to defend their area of study, without removing necessity for people to be accountable for actual failures to adhere to rigorous scientific methodologyDrunkenduncan (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't tell what's changed in your proposal - I find it very difficult to switch back and forth between the two versions. Perhaps you can highlight the differences. Jojalozzo 15:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
NPOV Boundaries between science and pseudoscience
The section Boundaries between science and pseudoscience merely discusses the mis-labeling of things as pseudoscience when in fact they were potentially scientific, others cite theorems for which there is no proof as being pseudoscience. The misuse or abuse of the term does not make something which is pseudoscience no longer so. Other references have shown that something is not science if it does not provide evidence (i.e a theorem without evidence, proof or any possible proof), this merely lays the boundary then at distinguishing pseudoscience from non-science. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Suitable to include in the main text
According to this edit summary the text is not suitable for the lead. So, I put it in the main text with this change. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Did this change replace sourced text with WP:OR? Does the source say "may in some cases". Did the change fail WP:V? I do, however, I agree with the placement. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I've removed this text, as it is an obvious misrepresentation of the source. Looking at the abstract in the link, three things are eminently clear:
- This is a brand new article that has in no way stood the test of time
- That the author is not discussing the dangers of pseudoscience, but is using that phrase as a casual introduction to his real topic, the psychological factors that lead people to accept pseudoscience
- That at best this line would point to medical pseudoscience (it's published in PubMed), and at worst it would apply to a restricted subset of medical pseudoscience which the author describes in detail in the first sections of the article.
- since I don't have access to PubMed at the moment I can't read the article to be sure what he's talking about, but I can say that as a research psychologist the author may not be qualified to render an opinion on the medical dangers of pseudoscience to the public, and if he is offering a new theorty on the psychological dangers to the public it's most likely not significant enough to use here.
- In short, the statement may not satisfy wp:UNDUE and the source may not be reliable for the use it's being put to here. can someone post the entire article for me to read? thanks. --Ludwigs2 06:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the diff we're talking about:
- Pseudoscience, superstitions and quackery threaten public health.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092400 Matute, H., Yarritu, I., Vadillo, M.A.; ''Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience,'' Br. J. Psychol. 2010 Nov 18 Epub.]</ref>
- Here's the abstract, where we are obviously drawing from the lead sentence:
- Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality of so many people that needs to be understood. The proposal we put forward is that these illusions arise from the normal functioning of the cognitive system when trying to associate causes and effects. Thus, we propose to apply basic research and theories on causal learning to reduce the impact of pseudoscience. We review the literature on the illusion of control and the causal learning traditions, and then present an experiment as an illustration of how this approach can provide fruitful ideas to reduce pseudoscientific thinking. The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better. Two different predictions arising from the integration of the causal learning and illusion of control domains are then proven effective in reducing this illusion. One is showing the testimony of people who feel better without having followed the treatment. The other is asking participants to think in causal terms rather than in terms of effectiveness. [1]
- Ludwigs2, how do you interpret this? You're welcome to improve on our use of the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- One of the above criticisms is that regarding the key sentence, "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved," it is not indicated by the abstract alone whether it is a passing observation or a key result of the study. If we're using this source for that claim, the relevant piece would come from the conclusion and not the background section. It's hard to tell how it the study approaches that statement without access to the full study, though... Ocaasi (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- What is significant about this study is the casual learning approach to get patients active in identifying causes, over just describing the modality effectiveness. The intro is sensationalism, for demonstrating relevance and getting attention. The study does not appear to be designed to validate the "serious problem". To say it does and include in this article is a pseudoscience illusion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- One of the above criticisms is that regarding the key sentence, "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved," it is not indicated by the abstract alone whether it is a passing observation or a key result of the study. If we're using this source for that claim, the relevant piece would come from the conclusion and not the background section. It's hard to tell how it the study approaches that statement without access to the full study, though... Ocaasi (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ludwigs2, how do you interpret this? You're welcome to improve on our use of the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Again, brangifer, if you could post a public link to something more than the abstract? I recognize the style of abstract here; I've done it myself. when you compress a 12-15 page article down to 250 words you have to toss out a recognizable context quickly and briefly and then get to your main result, and this often means that you do not do justice to the context. as I (and others) have said, that first line is over-brief framing, not study conclusions, which leads me to worry that (a) we are taking the phrase out of the author's context and misusing it, and (b) that the author might not be qualified to make the claim that we are asserting s/he made. an examination fo the full article would clarify that. --Ludwigs2 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Users could download the original article here, assuming they had access rights. (Easy to find, given the title of the journal.)
- I have placed a copy on my wikipedia website http://mathsci.free.fr/ludwigs2.pdf. Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Again, brangifer, if you could post a public link to something more than the abstract? I recognize the style of abstract here; I've done it myself. when you compress a 12-15 page article down to 250 words you have to toss out a recognizable context quickly and briefly and then get to your main result, and this often means that you do not do justice to the context. as I (and others) have said, that first line is over-brief framing, not study conclusions, which leads me to worry that (a) we are taking the phrase out of the author's context and misusing it, and (b) that the author might not be qualified to make the claim that we are asserting s/he made. an examination fo the full article would clarify that. --Ludwigs2 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Relevant excerpt
http://bpsoc.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/pre-prints/bjp898
The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience.
As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality and effectiveness of so many people that needs to be understood. One obvious route for research that many have already explored consists on investigating the psychological differences between believers and non-believers in pseudoscience and the paranormal, under the assumption that some type of flawed intelligence or other, related problems, are responsible for these beliefs. This approach, however, has not yielded consistent results (see Wiseman & Watt, 2006, for a review). We suggest a different route. The proposal we put forward is that systematic cognitive illusions that occur in most people when exposed to certain situations are at the basis of pseudoscience beliefs. Systematic errors, illusions, and biases can be generated (and thus reduced as well) in the psychological laboratory and are the result of the normal functioning of our cognitive system as it relates with the world and extracts information from it (see Lo´pez, Cobos, Can˜o, & Shanks, 1998, for an excellent review of biases in the causal learning domain). The main benefit from encompassing this approach is that much of what is already known from rigorous laboratory studies on causal and contingency judgments can be fruitfully incorporated into programmes designed to reduce the impact of pseudoscience in society. To this aim, we will first review laboratory studies both on the illusions of control and on the more general topic of causal learning in normal individuals, in order to show that these research lines provide convergent evidence and interesting suggestions that can help understand the illusions responsible for pseudoscientific thinking. A very simple experiment will then be reported as an example of how predictions arising from those laboratory traditions can be used to reduce the illusions and to design effective programmes to combat pseudoscience. |
- The extract of the Psychology paper that MathSci has been kind enough to put up here suggests that the paper is polemic in tone. In addition to its recent publication not giving it enough time to be peer assessed, this suggests that the paper may not yet have achieved the status of a source reliable enough for this article. I don't think that the article will be diminished by its omission. I have much sympathy with people like Quack-Guru [2] who conceive it to be their mission to save the world from the ravages of quackery, but I feel that this would be done best by keeping this article as neutral as possible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC).
- Sorry, it seems it was Ocaasi who posted the extract. It helps to sign posts at bottom. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC).
- I pasted text copied from MathSci's link, and didn't want to implicate anyone in a possibly excessive instance of fair use reproduction. The only purpose of posting was so we could all read it, and discuss the source. Towards that end, MathSci's version was very useful. Ocaasi (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC).
- Another reference for causal learning ... about time to start this article. The pseudoscience label doesn't seem to help address the causation issues. Seems like it's mainly a stone to cast in a warrior's battlefield. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I pasted text copied from MathSci's link, and didn't want to implicate anyone in a possibly excessive instance of fair use reproduction. The only purpose of posting was so we could all read it, and discuss the source. Towards that end, MathSci's version was very useful. Ocaasi (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, it seems it was Ocaasi who posted the extract. It helps to sign posts at bottom. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC).
'Cause and effect' subthread
- This article neglects the causality attribution issues when distinguishing between pseudoscience and science claims. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your addition, which has the article state: "The basic notion is that all experimental results on cause and effect should be reproducible...", does not make sense. Please clarify. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I appreciate your concern about cause and effect making sense; however, where are you mixed up? How would you suggest to improve? I was trying to keep it simple under the principle that empirical science aims to identify cause and effect relationships. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the sentence appears not to make syntactical sense. Probably the key problem is at "experimental results on cause and effect". Oh, and discussion of the atrticle belongs on article talk, not user talk. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, what syntax rule is being violated? Can you suggest an improvement? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- (i) Not being a grammaticist, I have no idea -- all I know is that it does not parse into anything meaningful. (ii) As I've no idea what it is supposed to mean, no. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Having no idea, I guess we will all remain baffled by the tag's meaning too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- (i) Not being a grammaticist, I have no idea -- all I know is that it does not parse into anything meaningful. (ii) As I've no idea what it is supposed to mean, no. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, what syntax rule is being violated? Can you suggest an improvement? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the sentence appears not to make syntactical sense. Probably the key problem is at "experimental results on cause and effect". Oh, and discussion of the atrticle belongs on article talk, not user talk. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I appreciate your concern about cause and effect making sense; however, where are you mixed up? How would you suggest to improve? I was trying to keep it simple under the principle that empirical science aims to identify cause and effect relationships. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your addition, which has the article state: "The basic notion is that all experimental results on cause and effect should be reproducible...", does not make sense. Please clarify. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- This article neglects the causality attribution issues when distinguishing between pseudoscience and science claims. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps then you should attempt to explain here what you were trying to say in the sentence in question. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, based upon the premise that science is the process to determine or describe causes and effect relationships with empirical observation. Causality is at the origin of scientific thought. However, the Pseudoscience issues tends to place science at the boundary between Aristotle's four causes. The simple addition was an attempt to bring causality references into the article, from the existing sources, as prompted by the studies which applied "causal learning" Thanks for rearranging this talk. I suspect creating a "causal learning" article and then appropriately cross referencing between this article, without a POV fork, would help expand Wikipedia's goals and give adequate weight to causality as related to pseudoscience. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think what you were attempting to say was that "The basic notion is that the cause and effect of all experimental results should be reproducible..." -- however, the "cause and effect" part of that would appear to be redundant -- as "The basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible..." is no less true, and would be the more general case -- as some scientific experiments don't seek to demonstrate causality, but merely correlation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it. Except when scientists can't keep up with tracking or measuring changes in causes to an effect, then there is a reproducibility issue. Some events have such an unusual confluence of causes, which experiments may find irrelevant or trivial; however, may unexpectedly, in unique conditions, affect the outcome. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- ok, there are two separate issues here, which ought to be kept separate unless you're trying to develop a mental hernia. Replicability (the ability to reproduce a particular effect) is always pragmatic and evidentiary - we see (measure) an effect being reproduced, regularly and consistently. Causality is always theoretical - it's an assertion about the underlying unseen causation of that observable regularity. That's why the theory of gravity is just (and always will be just) a theory: despite the fact that the effects are massively reproducible (pun intended), we cannot see the causation; all we can do is create theories which describe what we observe as best as possible. What I think you're trying to get at is that there is a difference between a theory which describes observations poorly (which is science, if weak science) and a theory which tries to prescribe observations that do not exist (which is pseudoscience). or am I missing your point? --Ludwigs2 15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, thanks ... I guess that is why causality can be theoretical expanded to absurdity, where as Replicability would assume a measurement standard. Can't wait to transform this discussion into content Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Reliable peer reviewed journal
The British Journal of Psychology is reliable and the text is relevant to this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- QG - reliability is not a magic wand. Sure, BJoP is an well-established and credible journal, and I see no reason to challenge the credentials of the author. However, neither of those points matter because - as the entire discussion above shows - you are quoting the source out of context. Trying to use a quote to make a claim that the source itself is not actually making is a wikipedia nono, and you don't make things better by saying "...but the source I'm misquoting is a good source." Do I really need to explain this to you? --Ludwigs2 10:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I edited the addition, since some of it was redundant, and the 'serious threat' claim is not well supported by the source. I think it reads reasonably well, but check it out. Ocaasi (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't really care, except that entire paragraph is just plain wrong, in multiple ways. Don't get suckered by QG's one-man pogrom against AltMed into making compromises with silliness. rewriting it now. --Ludwigs2 11:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Much better, and clearly where the bigger picture is. Writing with a focus on 'the source in your hand' is great for WP:V, but not for WP:NPOV. One quibble, can we edit out 'ontological claim', as I think the average encyclopedia reader won't know what to make of it? Ocaasi (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Done - I just removed the polysyllab. I was tempted to rewrite it "... ontic/deontic validity assertions..." just to mess with your head, but I refrained (in deed, if not in thought...). --Ludwigs2 12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Much better, and clearly where the bigger picture is. Writing with a focus on 'the source in your hand' is great for WP:V, but not for WP:NPOV. One quibble, can we edit out 'ontological claim', as I think the average encyclopedia reader won't know what to make of it? Ocaasi (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't really care, except that entire paragraph is just plain wrong, in multiple ways. Don't get suckered by QG's one-man pogrom against AltMed into making compromises with silliness. rewriting it now. --Ludwigs2 11:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I edited the addition, since some of it was redundant, and the 'serious threat' claim is not well supported by the source. I think it reads reasonably well, but check it out. Ocaasi (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can you show how the source was taken out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ocaasi, can you show how the text was poorly sourced. Do you think the journal is a reliable source when you stated a source may not have to be MEDRS. So far no good reason has been given to delete the reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."[3]
- The 'serious threat' claim is well supported by the source. The correct term is 'public health' because it is supported by the source. The text passed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, no. first, "Public Health" is almost invariably used to apply to things like sanitation problems, toxic spills, or epidemics, which affect large numbers of people indirectly and without their knowledge or volition. Pseudoscience would not be considered a public health issue in that sense since it can only affect individuals who seek it out. second, only a small subset of medical pseudoscience constitutes any threat to the health of individuals, so therefore the phrase does not fit when we are discussing pseudoscience more generally.
- Finally (and for the last time), verifiability is an exclusion principle, not an inclusion principle. we can remove statements that cannot be verified, but the fact that a statement can be verifiable does not guarantee its inclusion. statements which are taken out of context, that are off-topic, or that are otherwise being used in a way inconsistent with the author's intent or the article topic should never be included. --Ludwigs2 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The term public health is sourced per V. Your own orginal research review of the source is not verifiable. Diluting the text is taking the source out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The source is being used out of context to begin with, so that hardly matters. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can you show how the source is being used out of context rather than asserting it when the text is supported by the peer reviewed reference. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have already shown that, repeatedly. As I've said, the article in question is specific to medical issues, and the claim you are using is not the focus of the article but merely a framing point in the abstract. Those two things mean that the claim cannot be used in an article about general pseudoscience, both because pseudoscience is a much broader topic than medical issues and because there's no reason to believe the author would make that claim even about all medical pseudoscience.
- Can you show how the source is being used out of context rather than asserting it when the text is supported by the peer reviewed reference. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The source is being used out of context to begin with, so that hardly matters. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The term public health is sourced per V. Your own orginal research review of the source is not verifiable. Diluting the text is taking the source out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is the last time I'm making this point. if you ignore it (again) and make the same comment (again), I'm gathering up diffs of the six or seven times I've said it to you and opening an RfC/U. either address the point or give it up; the discussion moves on productively or it ends. understood? --Ludwigs2 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- When your edit summary claims 'public health' is the wrong term and the text you deleted is supported by the reference this suggests you do have a personal disagreement with the relevant source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't care what you think is 'suggested' by my edit summary; Please comment on the edit, not the editor. The NPOV issue I raised is a valid concern. Either discuss it, or drop the matter. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The edit summary did not match your edit. You claimed the text is not supported by the reference but the source does support the claim. The NPOV issue you raised is because you think the source is bias becuase you think the term 'public health' is wrong when it is supported by the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, the NPOV issue is that the source (1) is not talking about pseudoscience in general, but only about medical pseudoscience, and (2) the source is not arguing that pseudoscience is a danger to the public, but merely asserting that in the abstract to frame the issue (making it a point-of-view opinion rather than an analytic conclusion). Thus we have a primary source making a POV-assertion about a small subset of cases of the topic at hand - that carries no scholarly weight at all. --Ludwigs2 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The text that was added to the article from a journal was sourced. The source does discuss pseudoscience. If you think the source did not discuss pseudoscience then I suggest you read the source again. The source is not arguing that pseudoscience is a danger to the public. The source is stating it is a serious threat to public health. I previously explained the term 'public heatlh' is sourced. You are engaging in OR analysis of the source which is not appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- You just basically sidestepped what I said, and you are straying further and further from reason and common sense. If you keep pushing this point, I'm going to give up trying to talk to you and simply IAR your misuse of policy here as an inane detriment to the encyclopedia. If you like, let's get a wp:3O and lay out our arguments for a stranger to read - I can't imagine anyone who would find your logic convincing. --Ludwigs2 23:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree that this discussion is veering into the area of silliness. It would be best to put an end to it before accusations of trollery start flying. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
- Ludwigs2, your arguments are not based on V. You seem to want to justify your inclusion oif unsourced text despite you claiming the text is sourced. It does not matter you think the source is asserting the statement. What matters is that the statement is sourced in accordance with V.
- Xxanthippe, it would be best if you explain why sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal was deleted in favor of text that seems to be unsourced. The NSF website is not peer reiviewed and did not verify the text after I tried to verify the text. I am still waiting for verification and no reasonable explanation was given to delete sourced text. Xxanthippe, you seem to support Ludwigs 2 continuing to ignore V. QuackGuru (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree that this discussion is veering into the area of silliness. It would be best to put an end to it before accusations of trollery start flying. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
- You just basically sidestepped what I said, and you are straying further and further from reason and common sense. If you keep pushing this point, I'm going to give up trying to talk to you and simply IAR your misuse of policy here as an inane detriment to the encyclopedia. If you like, let's get a wp:3O and lay out our arguments for a stranger to read - I can't imagine anyone who would find your logic convincing. --Ludwigs2 23:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
QG:
- did you seriously just say that a primary source article is more reliable than an NSF-derived secondary publications?
- did you seriously just imply that wp:V trumps wp:NPOV?
If I didn't think you were serious I'd be laughing my ass off. well, I'm am laughing my ass off anyway, but it's tinged with a certain sympathetic sadness.
I'm done talking to you, because it's not going anywhere. if you want to do the wp:3O I suggested above, I'm game; if you don't, you're SOL, sorry. Your argument just doesn't have a leg to stand on, and you're the only person here who doesn't see it. --Ludwigs2 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your comments are not based on Wikipedia policy. Your edits are also based on Wikipedia. This content dispute shows you are not able to provide verification for your edit and refuse to comply with both V and NPOV. You have repeatedly ignored the concerns that you replaced sourced text with unsourced text. You seem to think you can delete sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal and replace it with with whatever unsourced text you want. Please restore the sourced text and try to summarise the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary: I am making a perfectly valid argument per wp:NPOV - you simply refuse to acknowledge it. I've heard your argument, and I've responded to that as well - you simply refuse to acknowledge my response. so be it. We aren't discussing this anymore, QG. You can either choose to accept my offer of wp:3O (or some other wp:DR process, if you prefer), or you can choose to go away. Or I suppose you can choose to keep blathering on here, but I'll simply dismiss any future posts you make (I'll simply respond with a 'piffle'), unless it looks like you're really giving proper consideration to my NPOV issues.
- choose. --Ludwigs2 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the reality of the debate. Please try to choose to respect Wikipedia policies. You seem to be ignoring the real NPOV issues. Your edit summary claimed editing paragraph; 'public health' is wrong term; source removed as it does not support claim being made; refocusing on the NSF, which is really where this paragraph wants to go. You claim the source does not support the claim. The text is supported by the reliable peer reviewed journal. For example, Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. You claim 'public health' is the wrong term when the source does specifically use the term 'public health'. Your personal disagreement with the source is not a good reason to delete the source. Do you agree in the future you will not replace sourced text with unsourced text. You claimed the NSF website verified the text you added to the article. When I looked closer at your edit it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and it seems you replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed and I could not verify the text with any of the articles from the NSF website. Is there some reason you are not going to try to verify the text or delete the unsourced text you added to the article after the text was challenged. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. Do you agree is was a mistake you deleted sourced relevant text from a reliable journal. I don't think you have provided any good reason a peer reviewed journal should be deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS. When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources there would be no reason in the future to add attribution in the text because you claim the source is asserting the claim. A personal disagreement is not a serious dispute among reliable sources. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you agree to follow V and NPOV policies better in the future. Do you think the text you added is inaccurate and unsourced. Do you think unsourced claims it is appropriate to replace sourced information with unsourced text when there is already an reliable journal available. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is taking the source out of context. It looks like you diluted the meaning of the text because you disagree with the claims the source makes. Do you agree with WP:NPOV that it says do not remove sourced information because you think it seems biased. See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." See WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." See WP:IRS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." See WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." You seem to not understand that the reference is from a reliable peer reviewed journal that similar to other references found in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- choose. --Ludwigs2 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Sourced text was replaced with unsourced text
Ludwigs2 thinks his opinion is more reliable than the journal according to this edit against WP:V and WP:OR. We should write with a focus on the source at hand per WP:V. Relevant text from the source was also deleted in a previous edit. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 now says he will have to look up the source. So, indeed the text is unsourced. We had sourced text from a reliable journal in accordance with V. There is still no good reason to delete reliable sourced text from a journal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Failed verification?
Pseudoscience generally requires some unjustified and unsupportable claim to scientific standing or experimental rigor.[citation needed] Superstitions, traditional beliefs, religious ideology or similar claims are not generally considered to be pseudoscience, even where they involve magical thinking or questionable cause-and-effect relationships, unless they actively claim to be scientific or supersede science.[original research?] Medical pseudoscience (sometimes called quackery) can in some cases pose a threat to health.[original research?] Many different scientists and scientific organizations, including the National Science Foundation, have called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud.[citation needed]
I tried to verify the text with articles from the NSF website. I was unable to verify the text. If we look closer at this edit it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed. To be fair, another editor previously diluted the meaning of the text from the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sources are great QG, but just because you find one doesn't mean we should take any sentence from it and represent it as the whole truth of the entire subject. With Ernst as well it results in articles that can seem pointy and unbalanced. I think it helps to look for all relevant sources which describe an issue rather than just the ones that support one perspective. Not all unquoted writing is OR, some is just summary, and it's a part of the encyclopedic process. So, you might be overly focused on Verification, to the exclusion of NPOV. If the NSF website is not the only relevant source for the recent changes, but there's general agreement that the recent text is a better reflection of the majority of sources out there (which many of us have encountered but may not have on hand to cite), then it's worth tracking down those sources rather than clinging to a verifiable but biased version. Ocaasi (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- You think the previous version was verifiable but biased. According to V, editors are simply to present what the reliable sources say. I see you were not able to provide verification for the text. You think requesting V or pointing out that the text failed V might be overly focused on Verification. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say."
See WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."
See WP:IRS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
I don't think there is any good reason a peer reviewed journal was deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS.
Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- You misinterpreted my analysis. I wasn't commenting on the source's bias, I was commenting on the bias in the resulting Wikipedia text from only relying on one source to make a broad claim about the subject. When we use sources which have bias, we attribute the views so that readers know where the bias is coming from. That's NPOV. So, if you'd like to use attribution, that's one way to incorporate the view proportionately. I think you are misreading V: it does not tell us what to do with sources we find, it only tells us that material must be verifiable. I think Ludwigs' exclusion/inclusion framework is accurate and useful. NPOV tells us what to do with the sources we find, assuming they are RS, and we are supposed to present their views with attribution if they have a bias and in the context of all significant views. Academic sources are usually reliable, but thus is not a gold standard academic source by any means, and editors must useddiscretion to evaluate where sources fit on the spectrum of reliability. That's at the heart of MEDRS and RS. As for V, context matters. You try to string V and RS/MEDRS and Weight together so that we are "forced" to include the sources you present. But that won't result in an encyclopedia which reflects all reliable sources in proportion to their relevance, reliability, and significance. There's a difference and it involves trying to craft a balanced article rather than just making a legal case for inclusion. Ocaasi (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources you do not add attribution in the text. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you think Ludwigs' inaccurate WP:OR and unsourced claims is approporaite and useful. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is not adding context. The text was diluting becuase you disagree with the claims the source makes. It is not right for an editor to delete the text or source because you don't like it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal of "citation needed" tag on unsourced sentence, why?
My only edit here was to put a "citation needed" tag on a nonsourced claim (false) sentence . It was removed here[4] Why? I am changing it back. Please explain the revert on the talk page, and I will listen.69.199.196.246 (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think a citation is not needed, but maybe some clarification. The sentence is not making a factual assertion about the world (e.g. accupuncturists), merely a categorial assertion: a traditional healer who makes no claim to science cannot not a pseudoscientist. To be one involves both making a claim to scientific methodology and that claim being false. Whether acupuncturists fall into this category depends on the practitioner and the side of the scientific debate your find yourself on. Ocaasi (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- You will not find an RS cite. Acupuncturists take their traditional mystical roots (locations of acupuncture points are based on the "number" of days in a year (365), and the "number" (12) of rivers in the Chinese empire. On top of this an edifice of "scientific" studies and "electromagnetic needle" "research, that is actually FUNDED by medical research grants, e.g., here[5], and even get published in NEJM! At least three editors recently tried to categorize this as pseudoscience here[6], and the edits were reverted because the "scientific" community was still out on this as to whether or not it is pseudoscience or real science! 69.199.196.246 (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is missing the point. The source is only saying that if a traditional medicine practitioner makes no claim to scientific rigor, than no matter how mystical, it cannot be called pseudoscience. Because there is no attempt to present it as science, there can be no 'pseudo'science. Ocaasi (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree, the pseudoscience label must have valid claims, else it is pseudo(wiki)science. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- You will not find an RS cite. Acupuncturists take their traditional mystical roots (locations of acupuncture points are based on the "number" of days in a year (365), and the "number" (12) of rivers in the Chinese empire. On top of this an edifice of "scientific" studies and "electromagnetic needle" "research, that is actually FUNDED by medical research grants, e.g., here[5], and even get published in NEJM! At least three editors recently tried to categorize this as pseudoscience here[6], and the edits were reverted because the "scientific" community was still out on this as to whether or not it is pseudoscience or real science! 69.199.196.246 (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)