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

This Pseudoscience related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Fad diets[edit]

" Fad diets in particular are prone to this [Frequent changes in methodology without changing the conclusions], spewing out technobabble on how this newly discovered trick will trim the hell out of your waistline while not explaining why it dropped the previous dozens of claims." This seems to imply that fad diets have a single source, which simply brings out new ones when the old ones fail. Is this so? Fad diets have any number of origins, and may even (the current gluten free one being an example) have a scientific origin (in this case, that a small number of people need to exclude gluten, therefore "gluten is bad for you"). SophieWilderModerator 19:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Mention an evolutionary reason explaining where pseudo-science and conspiracy theories derive their attractiveness from[edit]

There is a TED conference where this was mentioned. It goes like, imagine humans several 10.000 years ago gathering food, and someone hearing a sound, viewing something strange that might indicate a major predator scouting for some well tasting human flesh? We better be 10 times wrong and flee, rather than being wrong 1 time and being eaten. Today this translates to why our eyes are often caught by conspiracy theories: we better read them because they sound quite deadly if the claims would be true, and live another day, rather than risking to skip them and missing out on some key information to survive. The downside of this is of course that we have to spend hours to read and verify stuff: it is easy to claim something just spending a couple of minutes, but it may take hours to analyse and go look for facts that debunk the conspiracy theory. Hence the raison d'être of rationalwiki: make a page on yet another conspiracy theory and use the available shared free time, knowledge to help debunk it in a collaborative effort instead of having to do all the debunking yourself. It's a time saver, so you can continue to focus on what's really important in your life. Where would be the most appropriate place to mention this? Sorry, no more time than this. Thy. newcomer --SvenAERTS228 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Cover story (sticky)[edit]

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.

From tmtoulouse:

  • 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:

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. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Better? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 17:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Last call[edit]

Seems like most problems have been addressed. Any objections to golding? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we gold it now? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg EVERY SINGLE MISSILE HIT THE TARGET!!! AAAAAAAAAGHH!!!!! 16:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've got nothing. It looks pretty polished. Every time I think "maybe it's missing X", I peruse a bit further and find it. Readable, full of useful visual aids, breaks down its topic thoroughly, and light-to-medium snark when required. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and went and gilded it. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333 18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible useful quote[edit]

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.

FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Finding appropriate and serious tone[edit]

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.[14] 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[edit]

Please remove all inappropriate tones!— Unsigned, by: Avatarlegend / talk / contribs

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[edit]

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: / talk 15:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)