Cover story (sticky)
This would make a great cover story. (It's the third hit on Google.) Plenty of the criticisms on the talk page are still valid, though.
- The costs of pseudoscience, both in terms of dollars, life and health, and general rational and critical thinking skills (tmt found this, also see Anti-science#Why_it_is_important)
- Data on who believes what, that new Rasmussen poll just came out and there are others
- The demarcation problem at least outlined
From David Gerard:
- What does the Wikipedia article have that we should have, and what can we put in that they can't? (WP's sections on explanations for why pseudoscience is, the demarcation problem, and the implications seem good)
Also: should Pseudoscientific method be merged in, since it's barely linked to and to directly contrast science's and pseudoscience's processes? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The last sentence of the lead is pretty sketchy. Hard to read, and a rather poor analogy/metaphor. The donkey in the lion suit in Narnia would be just as good, by which I mean, not very. ħuman 16:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can we gold it now? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ EVERY SINGLE MISSILE HIT THE TARGET!!! AAAAAAAAAGHH!!!!! 16:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've got nothing. It looks pretty polished. Every time I think "maybe it's missing X", I peruse a bit further and find it. Readable, full of useful visual aids, breaks down its topic thoroughly, and light-to-medium snark when required. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Possible useful quote
According to critical contextual empiricism, to count as knowledge, a consensus must be reached through a process of critical deliberation and scrutiny governed by four norms:
1: There are public venues of criticism, such as professional journals and conferences.
2: There is uptake of criticism: members of the community respond appropriately to the criticism and revise their views accordingly.
3: There are publicly recognized standards for the evaluation of theories.
4: There is tempered equality of intellectual authority: intellectual capacity and relevant expertise are the only criteria by which people are given the right to participate in the collective discussion, and all those who possess the needed intellectual capacity and relevant expertise can in fact realize their right to participate, regardless of gender, race, and so on.
Finding appropriate and serious tone
Good article overall, but in order to be taken seriously, the tone must be appropriate.
One of the pictures has a caption "Creationist William Dembski. (Yes, his head really is that shape.)" This is not appropriate. In a debate, respect your opponents even if you do not respect their ideas.
The following is present in the article: Evolution and Mendelian genetics, meanwhile, were declared to be "bourgeois pseudoscience", and their supporters were sent to the gulags, which is exactly the way science's peer review process works. The reader does not expect sarcasm, so the statement becomes confusing. In general, sarcasm does not belong in a serious scientific/academic debate. Even if this is an accurate quote from Lakatosz, his comment on the peer review process is not relevant to the topic of pseudo-science.
The "sound science" subsection overflows with author's anger/impatience. -Unsigned by Cogito
- 1) Please sign your posts. 2) The man looks like a gigant finger wearing clothes. This must be acknowledged. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Random comment by new dude
- Which tones do you find untuenful? You might also wish to read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? Cheers. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Perfect description of the AGW Religion
I cannot understate how well this article underlines the problem with the people (ie. Those that fashion themselves as Scientists) that are trying to prove the postulation known as AGW. So in this light, I will give a rare kudos to the spirit of the article, albeit done in the same pathetic and subjective (non-Rational) manner as the rest of this site. — Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk 15:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I coined the term "Deep Crank" for the variety of pseudoscience that originated when deep learning did. Proponents claim that deep learning can be used to predict and in some cases invent new ways of solving problems such as condensed matter physics. In a slightly more wingnutty variety they even claim that NASA or some other organization is using deep learning to simulate faster-than-light travel methods with the intention to build an actual prototype. While NASA did at one point have a laboratory to study FTL they concluded that the energy usage was far too high and no amount of wishful thinking or clever software would solve that.
The mere possibility of DL solving anything apart from revenue creation for companies selling expensive TPU chips whuch ironically end up being used for crypto-currency mining in many cases is laughable. Yes there are uses for the chips and modules but in most cases a conventional graphics card will work just as well though be less efficient. Yes its possible that one day advanced AI may *eventually* solve problems but we are more likely to reach the wall well before sentient computers become possible: 3nm chips seem to be a theoretical limit set by the laws of physics. — Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk
Social sciences aren't science?
The section on social sciences misses the point. Like the hard sciences, people use and misuse the scientific method. Unlike many hard sciences, there is often no clear testable cause-effect relationship (like "Chemical X interferes with Pathway Y in Organism Z"), just evidence that doesn't definitively differentiate between multiple models. Further, there's rarely an instrument like, say, a barometer, that provides clear unambiguous measurement of something. That doesn't make it NOT a science, just science that much less likely to be able to fully explain the underlying phenomenon. However, these factors do mean that pseudosciences and untestable models are more common and harder to dispute in social sciences. Fortunately, they're also often a bit less harmful than, say, homeopathy as the sole treatment for cancer. DerFluchtPlan (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)