Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as
Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as
astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as
psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the
paranormal and
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with
current tasks, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Pseudoscience article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.
Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid
here.
A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents the fields it lists as "pseudoscience" in an unsympathetic light or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (
WP:NPOV). The sections of the
WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:
The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the
Content forking guidelines.
These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (
WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (
WP:CITE).
Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (
WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (
WP:CON).
Notes to editors:
This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see
Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.
I have removed the line about
Paul Feyerabend under ===Criticism of the term===, because the cited source does not criticize the term, or even say anything about it. A quick search indicates that the entire book contains exactly one instance of the word pseudoscience, in the preface, when he says that Kuhn's terminology has "turned up in various forms of pseudoscience". Feyerabend using the term without comment does not make sense as a source to support a claim that he criticized the term, and the question of the dividing line between
Science (e.g., physics) and
Non-science (e.g., theology) does not make really sense for an article that is neither about science nor about non-science nor about the dividing line between the two. I have wondered whether it might have been added primarily as a
coatrack for the quotation in the note, which is about a different source. If someone feels strongly about Wikipedia including that information, I suggest that you move it to an article like
Demarcation problem instead.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 04:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Should UFO still be categorized as Pseudoscience and fringe science?
Socks don't get to start threads --
Ponyobons mots 19:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I recently got a notification on my talkpage when I edited this article.
So is UFO considered Pseudoscience and fringe science? if so why is US government considers it a national security threat and scientifically analyzing it?
"Our team of experts is leading the U.S. government’s efforts to address Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) using a rigorous scientific framework and a data-driven approach. Since its establishment in July 2022, AARO has taken important steps to improve data collection, standardize reporting requirements, and mitigate the potential threats to safety and security posed by UAP."
from the article: "When asked why she went all-in on prioritizing AARO as an element under her purview, particularly now, Hicks told DefenseScoop: “The department takes UAP seriously because UAP are a potential national security threat. They also pose safety risks, and potentially endanger our personnel, our equipment and bases, and the security of our operations. DOD is focusing through AARO to better understand UAP, and improve our capabilities to detect, collect, analyze and eventually resolve UAP to prevent strategic surprise and protect our forces, our operations, and our nation.”
Lonestar-physicist (
talk) 17:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
well that's such a huge false equivalency. So how do you determine when government is being misled or not? And what makes you think you're more intelligent than DOD scientists like Sean Kirkpatrick?
Lonestar-physicist (
talk) 17:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
We determine it by following what the best available
reliable sources say (this is how we determine more or less everything on Wikipedia). They're pretty clear. Ufology is a field dominated by fringe/pseudoscience.
MrOllie (
talk) 17:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
there's fringe/pseudoscience in every field, such as vaccinology. is Vaccinology considered fringe/pseudoscience?
Lonestar-physicist (
talk) 18:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
We don't have reliable sources that say so, so no.
MrOllie (
talk) 18:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
So in your opinion editors are supposed to not use their brain, ignore facts and delegate their thinking to so called reliable sources? Great idea!
Lonestar-physicist (
talk) 18:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's exactly what Wikipedia does, and always has done, because it roots our articles in fact rather than opinion. There is a big difference between fields that have some minor fringe/pseudoscientific theories attached to them, and fields (like UFOlogy) that are effectively completely fringe. And yes, that's what reliable sources say.
Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
And what makes you think you're more intelligent Intelligence does not come into it either. Your whole approach is totally fakakte. Pseudoscience, that is, a thing that pretends to be science, does not stop being pseudoscience just because someone falls for the pretense. That would be like throwing the theories of relativity out of the window just because of one measurement of a speed value above c. Mistakes happen. --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 18:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Intelligence is also irrelevant to this then? lol. that's what I meant about some people here expecting editors to not use their brains.
Aren't you just appealing to authority and pretending that your approach is science and fact based?
Lonestar-physicist (
talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I ask everyone to not make this personal and stay on subject. This is all to improve the article.
Lonestar-physicist (
talk) 18:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes. Wikipedia is based on appeals to authority, by design. That is the essence of our core policies,
WP:NOR,
WP:V,
WP:RS, etc.
MrOllie (
talk) 18:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
appeal to authority is a fallacy according to wikipedia
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument against shame), is a form of fallacy when the opinion of a non-expert on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument or when the authority is used to say that the claim is true, as authorities can be wrong
is a form of fallacy when the opinion of a non-expert - This is why we rely on experts (that is, reliable sources as laid out in
WP:RS).
MrOllie (
talk) 19:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
you don't make any sense man. read what you write first. you don't know what you're talking about.
Lonestar-physicist (
talk) 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Right back at you, my man.
MrOllie (
talk) 19:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
if you can't act as a grown up, please go play somewhere else.
Lonestar-physicist (
talk) 19:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
You can always tell an argument is going well when the personal attacks come out. You're right, though, we've accomplished everything this thread is going to accomplish - you now know that per Wikipedia's policies, this article can and will continue to identify Ufology as a pseudoscience. Feel free to take the last word if you require it.
MrOllie (
talk) 19:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Creationism vs Creation Science
I understand that the list for pseudoscience's is a quote,
but should the link for creationism be changed to
Creation Science rather than
Creationism, seeing that that page is dedicated to the specific pseudoscientific claims instead of
Creationism, which is more philosophical.
Chip K. Daniels (
talk) 05:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)reply
changing the link seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. and if creation science is what we use for that subject on wikipedia, i think it makes sense for the text to also be changed to Creation Science.
Handpigdad (
talk) 04:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
We use the term "creation science" for creation science and "creationism" for creationism. Both are pseudoscience (see my contribution above; I moved yours down because it is newer, see
WP:THREAD), so there is no good reason to replace it. --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was No consensus to move, bordering on consensus not to move; either way, the merge is not on.
JBW (
talk) 21:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with the proposal to merge. Feynman's thoughts on the topic might merit more than a quick mention here; perhaps a paragraph.--
Srleffler (
talk) 22:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Not a bad idea. I don't think the speech is notable as a speech; unlike, say,
"We choose to go to the Moon", nobody talks about the build-up to it, the process of writing it, etc.
XOR'easter (
talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. I link to this article frequently. I like it the way it is.
WP:USEFUL says usefulness is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for including an article on Wikipedia, so I concede that the mere fact that I find this article useful may be insufficient reason to refrain from putting a thumb in my eye. The reason I look at Wikipedia is because I find it useful. I wish there were a way for the number of off-site links to a Wikipedia article to count for something. My first question is: who or what is being harmed by the existence of the
Cargo cult science article? That is, what purpose does the proposed merge serve? And "enough" for what? (With reference to the evidence-free assertion "A quick mention in
pseudoscience would be enough.") Feynman made points in this speech that resonate to the current day and which bear on the
Replication crisis in social psychology and related fields. Feynman anticipated that crisis decades before it came to light, and he might have prevented it, had more people heeded his advice. The talk was also reprinted verbatim in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (an article that links to
Cargo cult science, naturally) and is arguably part of what made that book a best-seller in its niche and keeps the book relevant. Also, the year for the speech was 1974, not 1934. --
Teratornis (
talk) 08:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The question is about notability, since the whole article is based on the speech itself. Before this discussion, there was some preliminary discussion at
WT:PHYS#Cargo_cult_science. Btw,
WP:NOHARM is another argument to be avoided.
That being said, I am a bit uncomfortable with merging to
Pseudoscience. That article should focus on the big picture, and a brief mention of Feynman's talk there may seem like trivia. The book
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! might be better target for merge. It would also allow more of the current content to be preserved. Perhaps have a section of its own there.
Jähmefyysikko (
talk) 09:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I can understand if this is not the right target but an article just to provide a definition does not seem right
WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Either the article is about the speech or about pseudoscientific practices. As an alternative I would agree with merging it into Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!.--
ReyHahn (
talk) 11:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Why would you merge it into a 1985 book, when it comes from a 1974 speech (which was reprinted in the campus magazine at the time, and other places later)?
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
WhatamIdoing: because it is adapted and discussed in that book.--
ReyHahn (
talk) 15:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose: cargo cult science is such a typical Feynman thing that is deserves its own article, as it has now. It definitely needs to be mentioned and wikilinked in this
Pseudoscience article. -
DVdm (
talk) 09:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
But then if you oppose could you provide your opinion on what the article should be about, is it about pseudoscientific practices or about Feynman's speech?--
ReyHahn (
talk) 11:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I.m.o. the current article is just fine as it is.
DVdm (
talk) 13:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Would you be against rewriting the lead to make it about the Feynman's speech?--
ReyHahn (
talk) 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I just went through the articles that link to it, only 7 article cite it without relegating it to "See Also" but except for
one, all the rest link to cargo cult science by making a reference to Feynman "Feyman in his speech...". The article seems to be just an easter egg to Feynman and not about cargo cult practices.--
ReyHahn (
talk) 14:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
(deprecated vote) Oppose, Cargo-Cult Science refers to action where researchers do not know what to do and refer to methods where it resembles scientific ones while it is actually an imitation of scientific thought. It does not always happens in fields where it is accepted as pseudoscience, for instance it can happen in physics.
Cactus Ronin (
talk) 18:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Should cargo-cult science remain as it is? Is it truly a term if it does not refer to Feynman?--
ReyHahn (
talk) 16:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
While this has become a common metaphorical interpretation of the phrase "cargo cult" it is not what Feynman described in his address. The entire thing is just a colorful description of confirmation bias.
2601:642:4600:3F80:80FC:12CB:6E21:D6E2 (
talk) 02:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Vote Change, Support
I got scolded by my professor. She and I had a talk about the definition of term.
Cactus Ronin (
talk) 14:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)reply
What was the conclusion?--
ReyHahn (
talk) 14:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I am convinced that the term "Cargo Cult Science" is a description of Pseudoscience.
Cactus Ronin (
talk) 15:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Cargo cult is a specific type of pseudoscience, and a reasonable place to have an article per
WP:SUMMARY. It is not (as of this writing) a mere dictionary definition of the term.
VQuakr (
talk) 17:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Would you be against rewriting the lead to make it about the Feynman's speech and not about cargo cult science in general (if that even exists)?--
ReyHahn (
talk) 15:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Climate science
is this pseudoscience? It cannot be tested repeated, falsified, it uses statistics but averaging averages leads to anything. Is it a sort of primitive sacrifice religion?
2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:D843:9A0C:FCCA:F08 (
talk) 19:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sj4452 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by
Sj4452 (
talk) 01:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply