Talk:List of pseudosciences

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon pseudoscience.svg

This pseudoscience related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Attachment Therapy vs. Attachment Theory[edit]

I think the distinction between these two needs to be mentioned as they are sometimes confused, and really have nothing in common.

Attachment *theory* is an extensively researched, evidence-based, and clinically proven system for exploring parent/child relationships, and fostering healthy parent/child interactions with children aged 6 and under. It has been included in many successful programs designed to mitigate and prevent child abuse. (See for example, the "Circle of Security" project.)

Attachment *Therapy* is pure quackery. Attacment Therapy -is- child abuse.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Do we still need this?[edit]

It's a badly ordered, badly maintained list that mixes indiscriminately a lot of things.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Colon hygiene[edit]

I fail to understand why a hygienic measure is labeled "pseudoscience". But then again the mockery comes fron the same kind of "scientists" that used to refuse washing hands before performing medical procedures because it was considered "pesudoscience" at the time, which resulted in massive deaths by sepsis at maternity wards and were "scienfically" blamed on a fiction called "puerperal fever". How many medical fictions are still in place today? I could name dozens. The pseudoscience of mammography for example has just been officially abandoned in Switzerland. (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice evidence-free complaint there, pardner. How about you showing us your stuff?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 01:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Economics is under the category of "partial pseudoscience". Firstly, what does this even mean? Secondly, if social sciences, in general, are partially pseudoscientific because they are not exact sciences, the same can be said about other social sciences, such as sociology, psychology, or anthropology. — Giorgi Gzirishvili (T · C),

The historical perspective[edit]

There should be some comment in the text that some 'pseudosciences' were considered valid in the past/were cutting edge pre-science - eg astrology and herbalism. (Astrology might well have been a means of giving good advice to the leader - 'the stars are against your winning this war' = the other kingdom has twice as many soldiers and a host of peasants who have been granted 'no taxation on your acquisitions' rights'; herbalism/folk medicine will have a certain amount of trial-and-error validity or at least 'drink this for two weeks and your illness will be cured (as that is how long it lasts) or at least makes you feel good (ditto with aromatherapy); and prophecies have now been renamed psephology and betting shops.) (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. I'm not going to do it, though. Ithaca8 (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Is 'cutting edge pre-science' a reasonable description (with eg Isaac Newton being part of the astrology-astronomy overlap). Some of the items on the list were, #at the time they were developed# possible future science - it is only when they were proven non-viable that they became pseudosciences. (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete list?[edit]

Shouldn't Anthropogenic climate change be there too? — Unsigned, by: / talk

Elaborate. Do you mean ACC itself or the denial of ACC? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
You tell me. Which of the two is pseudoscience? — Unsigned, by: / talk
Given the 90 something percent of Climatologists who say ACC is real and we should do something about it... Yeah, denalists are wrong. But something tells me you beg to differ... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
You read into my mind. Surely you have a source for that 90-something-percent figure? — Unsigned, by: / talk
How about this? Avida Dollarsher again 21:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Climate change denialism is pure delusion. Unless you think birdwatchers are being hoaxed by migratory birds that have been awarded grants by green corporations. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
When presented with an actual source they flee, typical. Oxyaena Harass 23:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@ Thanks for communicating your concerns regarding a coverage gap here. I've added the denialism section which included the aforementioned climate change denialism (which we all agree is pseudoscience which partakes in cherry-picking statistics, creating huge conspiracy theories, having no peer review, ignoring large swaths of evidence, misrepresenting scientific terms, and having huge conflicts of interest), and this is hopefully now a more comprehensive list. Feel free to add other denialist movements (I just remembered Statin denialism...). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. This page is indeed more complete now. (I didn't know about Statin denialism -- at first I read "Stalin denialism" and thought it was about denying Communist crimes!) — Unsigned, by: / talk