Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 30 days

In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why has my edit been reverted? What did I do wrong? A1: Check the edit history for the article. Hopefully, the editor who reverted you left a useful edit summary explaining why they feel the previous version of the article to be better; occasionally, links to various policies and guidelines are included. The most common reasons for reversion are that the article should not contain editorial bias and every statement should be cited to sources reliable to the topic at hand. If you disagree with the reasoning provided or otherwise wish a fuller discussion, please check the archives of this discussion page for a similar proposal or open a new section below. Q2: One entry to this list is better described as an emerging or untested area of research, not pseudoscience. A2: A few topics have several facets, only some of which are described by reliable sources as pseudoscience; multiple notable descriptions or points of view may be appropriately included as described in Wikipedia:Fringe theories. On the other hand, proponents of a particular topic characterized as pseudoscience almost always self-report as engaging in science. The several points of view should be weighted according to the reliability of the sources making each claim. Advocacy sources are reliable only for their own opinions - it is okay to state that Dr. X claims to have built a creature under the usual caveats for self-published sources, but the creature's exploits should be described as reported in independent sources. If the majority of scientists would be surprised by a claim, it is probably not mainstream science. Q3: Real scientists are investigating this topic, how can it be pseudoscience? A3: Respected researchers, even Nobel Prize laureates, sometimes have or propound ideas that are described by sources reliable to make the distinction as pseudoscience, especially when they are working outside of their core expertise. Q4: Why is the description so negative? Why not just describe the views covered and let the reader decide? A4: The Wikipedia policy Neutral point of view requires that the prominence of various views be reflected in the articles. We strive to summarize the tone and content of all available sources, weighted by their reliability. Reliable in this context means particulary that sources should be generally trusted to report honestly on and make the distinction between science and pseudoscience. Q5: Why does this article rely on such biased sources? A5 Scientists generally ignore pseudoscience, and only occasionally bother to rebut ideas before they have received a great deal of attention. Non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience can only be had from second- and third-party sources. The following sources are almost always reliable sources for descriptions of pseudoscience: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Encyclopedia of pseudoscience An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural Skeptic's Dictionary Skeptical Inquirer talk.origins archive Bad Astronomy Quackwatch Sense About Science Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.) Statements from scientific societies Q6: Isn't pseudoscience a philosophically meaningless term? A6 The term describes a notable concept in common use. Q7: Why is a particular topic omitted? A7 Some ideas are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article; other topics have been explicitly rejected by the consensus of editors here at the talkpage. Please search the archives for relevant discussions before beginning a new one. Still, this list is far from complete, so feel free to suggest a topic or be bold and add it yourself. Q8: What relation does content here have to the four groupings (below) from the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience? A8 Many fail to understand the nature of this list. It is not exclusively about "Obvious pseudoscience", but, as the list's title indicates, about "topics characterized as pseudoscience" (emphasis added). That wording parallels the Arbcom description from group three: "but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" (emphasis added). Therefore we include items covered in the first three groups below, but not the fourth. In this list, we refuse to decide whether an item is or is not an "obvious" pseudoscience (although most of them are ). Four groups 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, April 14 2009, see discussion. Speedy keep, February 1 2007, see discussion. Speedy keep, January 31 2007, see discussion.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Science Mid‑importance Science portal 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Physics High‑importance Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Paranormal High‑importance 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine 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. Creationism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views High‑importance 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Scientology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add expanding Earth, now considered to be pseudoscience as per this source. 132.181.47.1 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lova Falk (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list is nice, but too terse.

For example, "The symptoms of "chronic Lyme" are generic and non-specific "symptoms of life".", which includes arthritis, swollen knees, swollen lymph nodes on neck or armpits, nail pitting and most importantly raised borrelial antibody levels in both IgM and IgG years after the original infection, treated with a very short low dose antibiotics course. Not to mention fungal and spirochaetal DNA in PCR of brain lysate of the deceased. Does the article claim that 1-day antibiotics course of two 100-miligram doxycycline treatment such was had been recommended in Texas in 2006 is a guaranteed course to clear the infection? A similar, weaker spirochaete that doesn't even have the heat shock proteins, that causes syphillis, does have a chronic stage that is long recognized. Also known to cause birth defects and abortions. Are we going to claim that it is all bogus now, that spirochaetes can not cause long lasting infections, ever?

The section on Technical Analysis tries to disprove the whole Dow Theory and Benoit Mandelbrots studies on different types of noise and random walk with tendencies. His note on the coin toss experiments is also of note, those too have exhibited trends. Or also, why does anyone try to disprove the formation of movement channels that are easily shown to be within exactly 0.5-sigma or 1-sigma levels. It is pure statistics, and yet it forms again and again. And what about the whole "return to previous levels" memory of price movements. Dead cat bounce doesn't exist or something? Disproving Technical Analysis means disproving Jesse Livermore had existed. 90.64.64.68 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove Lysenkoism, the entire paragraph is psuedohistorical. Gosos67 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It looks pretty historical to me, and supported by RS. If you think otherwise please provide RS. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 17:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Materialism

From a brief read on the Historical Materialism section, two points stand out.

First, I do not believe the categorisation of Historical Materialism as a pseudoscience is made with the same weight of evidence as the majority of the other points on this list. Whilst there are a few sources the reference in writing is primarily around the statements of Popper. Effectively, this renders the argument that Historical Materialism is a pseudoscience down to an argument from authority.

Second, Historical Materialism is too broad a term. Does this refer to mechanistic/mechanical/vulgar historical materialism (itself rejected by Marxist theory), chemistic(?)/chemical historical materialism (a development more in line with Marxist theory which is occasionally used as a comparison), dialectical historical materialism (AKA the Marxist method of analysis), or even some kind of metaphysical historical materialism (whatever that might look like)? At the amount of breadth the article currently possesses, what remains is to claim that changes and developments in society come from elsewhere than the material world, in some way. Given how much of the article rejects a dualism of a vital force, and rightly so, it seems strange to reject monoist materialism so broadly.

If it must be included at all, these things must be taken into consideration. However, I would suggest it should be removed altogether, due to the political nature of calling historical materialism pseudoscience in a broad stroke, and with such limited basis. 2A0A:EF40:E03:2E01:D1AB:2A94:3B8C:3422 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that historical materialism is a science? EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 08:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EntropyReducingGuy My position should be clear enough from my previous statements without going into further detail, no? 81.78.242.100 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. This list includes topics that (1) some people have presented as science, but (2) have been described as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. Which of these two points do you disagree with here? EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 09:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not correct that Popper is the only source of this characterization. The article here also mentions Imre Lakatos and Ernest van den Haag. The article about Historical Materialism itself also mentions Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem. The article Criticism of Marxism also mentions Bertrand Russell and Murray Rothbard. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 09:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]