There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Talk:List of pseudosciences
Attachment Therapy vs. Attachment Theory
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.)
Do we still need this?
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. 184.108.40.206 (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
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.) 220.127.116.11 (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. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)