From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Eugenics is a classic example of a pseudoscience. Flippin 16:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Graphology too. --Jeremiah4-22 16:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This page is all locked up, and contains loads of duplicated nonsense. Someone fix it.

Consistent formatting and content.

Please use consistent formatting for the various lists and spaces between the refs. As it stands, the Theory of Evolution link has no bullet item and a space between two refs. Additionally, if the Theory of Evolution is to have external references, please provide external references for all of the other items on the list. --Mtur 19:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are there external references for Theory of Evolution when there are none for any of the other links? What purpose do these external references serve that cannot be found by looking at the article mentioned? --Mtur 19:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Failing removal of the linked resources for evolution, links for the others...

Can a sysop look over these changes and make the edit? As of yet, Conservative has not responded to either the request to look here, or that of the one made on his talk page. The concern I have is the lack of consistency between the external resources for the page. I honestly believe that non external links should needed for this page (and instead address the issues on the pages they link to), but if they are to be there, they should be there for all of them. --Mtur 20:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My request to have Conservative on his talk page has been ignored. No one has responded here. The page is locked. Can someone please say "yea" or "nay" to the proposed changes and links on this page? --Mtur 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a sysop, and I favor deleting the page. It is just opinion. Why should it even be here? RSchlafly 20:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a person, and I don't favor deleting the page. It is just an opinion, but I think there could be something very important said on the topic. Flippin 09:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

RSchlafly you mean not your opinion. You don't seem to be averse to pushing blustering opinions of your own. Auld Nick 12:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences

Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives

Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals



Proposed revision

The term pseudoscience is really just an epithet for expressing disapproval of some ideas. There is no good definition that allows objective listing of just what is or is not a pseudoscience. Even the Uri Geller example is unconvincing. Does he pretend to be scientific? If not, then it is not pseudoscience. Geller has done all sorts of public demonstrations, so the fact that he has refused to bend spoons in some situations is not conclusive.

Generating lists of what is or is not pseudoscience is a silly exercise that just reflects the prejudices of the editors. It is just the sort of thing that Wikipedia would do that Conservapedia should avoid. I propose that a short definition be given, and the lists be omitted. RSchlafly 13:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Disagree, if this is supposed to be different form Wikipedia we should show how lists of this sort might be created with a liberal bent. Ergo, a list with conservative bias, per CP guidelines and commandments. Flippin 15:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't even see how to create a list with conservative bias. RSchlafly 00:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, leaving 'evolution' on the list might be a good start. (If you don't mind looking silly to both liberals AND conservatives who happen not to treat the Old Testament as a science textbook, that is.) And you can add "global warming", seeing how at least some conservatives seem to think it's a Communist plot to destroy the American economy. --Gulik2 00:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, let's suppose I think that global warming is a commie plot. Then it might be unscientific, political, fraudulent, destructive, socialist, and I don't know what else, but not necessarily pseudo-scientific. How would I show that it is pseudo-scientific and why would anyone care?
If you really think that pseudo-science is a useful term, then why not introduce pseudo-conservative, pseudo-democracy, pseudo-truth, and pseudo-religion? RSchlafly 01:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you show examples of where those terms have been used and in contexts that address the comment by Gulik? "pseudo-science" is a term that is used regularly as opposed to pseudo-religion which is tautological, and pseudo-truth which is an oxymoron, for starters. Flippin 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)


Why isn't Theory of Evolution mentioned here? Although I agree it's not as flimsy as, for example, phrenology, it's important to mention it since it's still aggressively promoted by some scientists, without standing on any firm scientific grounds. Although not a good example of pseudoscience, it's an important example of pseudoscience. Hammet 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Calling the theory of evolution a pseudoscience because an EXTREME minority of scientists disaggree is like calling all medical science and knowledge a pseudoscience because some people think new age medicine is more valid. The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution, people can dissaggree with it, but it is supported by testing, and follows the scientific method, unlike intelligent design, which only follows the first two steps. You can choose to not call ID a pseudoscience, but there is no concievable way you could justify calling evolution one. --JackSmith 09:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

  • I may be jumping in 2 years late, but 5% of scientists reject evolution, and that's not an extreme minority. That's enough to say that the theory is disputed. --Ed Poor Talk 10:24, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
If Evolutionary Biology is on the list of pseudosciences, then Intelligent Design/Creation Science should be right there with it. Regardless of your perception, there is ostensibly strong evidence on both sides, and avid, close-minded supporters on both sides. Neither side is falsifiable or has truly conclusive evidence in their favor. True, they have nice little piles of evidence, but the strongest points in these piles were usually created by the respective side via careful manipulation of the facts at hand. Truth be told, many people on both sides just defend their position because it's all they've known all their lives; their families brought them up with their minds closed and controlled, believing whichever side the parent took, and to a fully ideologically decided adult, the idea that he or she might be wrong is daunting. What I'm saying is, most arguments on both sides of this debate are made out of fear, hatred, and human emotion rather than calm intelligence and scientific yearning. It's a neverending war, and I experience this war everyday in what I see in others, and within myself. This applies to both evolution and creationism, making them both "pseudosciences" by the definition on this page. ForeverPeace 21:03, 27 January 2009 (EST)
I was reading through evolution, and according to Popper, who was a real authority on this stuff, evolution isn't scientific. ReneeStJ 20:40, 12 February 2009 (EST)
The Theory of Evolution is accepted by mainstream scientists, hence it lacks one aspect of being considered pseudoscience: rejection by the scientific community. Note that a theory may be valid despite having been dismissed by the mainstream. Infection by an "invisible substance" (see Semmelweis) and continental drift were both rejected by the mainstream for years.
Sometimes we know that there is a cause and effect relationship, even when we don't know the details. People have always known that "sunburn" comes from exposing your skin to sunlight too long, but the existence of ultraviolet rays is a comparatively recent discovery. Should scientists have slapped pseudoscience on the theory that sunlight causes tanning and burning, simply because they didn't know why it happened?
Anyway, evolution can be considered pseudoscientific if its proponents refuse to agree to any kind of test which could conceivably disprove their theory. --Ed Poor Talk 10:22, 29 July 2010 (EDT)


Can someone provide an explanation as to why this term is on the list? I'm not removing it without asking first, but I don't see how this belongs in the same category as the others. --DinsdaleP 12:02, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Look into Freudian psychoanalysis (as opposed to modern psychology). It's based upon a lot of very crazy beliefs that are not testable (tripartite separation of the psyche, Oedipal complexes, etc.) - Rod Weathers 12:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)
[edit: agree with Rod] Have you found any proof of psychoanalysis? Or is it just the sex-obsessed maunderings of Freud and his cultist followers? MikeSalter 12:12, 11 January 2009 (EST) (EST)
I think there needs to be a distinction between the state of a scientific field at the time of its origins, and the current level state of the art. Early medicine involved techniques like bloodletting and the use of leeches that would be considered bad or pseudoscience today, but we don't regard contemporary medicine by those early practices. In the same light, I would not evaluate the validity of modern-day psychoanalysis by the methods of its first practicioners like Freud, who were taking baby steps by comparison. --DinsdaleP 12:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Psychoanalysis is, almost by definition, based upon an acceptance of Freudian theory. You can't separate 'then' from 'now' in this field. MikeSalter 12:23, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Mike is right. There's a reason why the term psychology is used rather than psychoanalysis. There is no psychoanalytic "science." - Rod Weathers 12:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Climate change

'Anthroprogenic Global Warming' - the greatest con perpetrated by pseudoscientists in recent decades - surely this should have a place. MikeSalter 12:12, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Chiropractic is a mixed bag just like allopathic medicine and.....

I think it is fair to say that chriropractic is a mixed bag when it comes to pseudoscience just like allopathic medicine (medicine practice by MDs) is a mixed bag when it comes to pseudoscience.

I cite the following:


In his essay, A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready? , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."[1] Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, David Eddy professor of health policy and management at Duke University, told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."[2]


"Another example is Intermountain Healthcare, a nonprofit health-care system in Utah, where 80 percent of the care is based on evidence. Treatment data is collected by electronic medical records. The data is analyzed by researchers, and the best practices are then incorporated into the clinical process, resulting in far better quality care at a cost that is one-third less than the national average. (Disclosure: Intermountain Healthcare is a member of Mr. Gingrich’s organization.)"[3] conservative 23:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Rather than dump the entirety of the quackwatch medical database on chiropractic here, I will instead provide a link [4]. The main reason to list chiropractic in the page on pseudoscience is because its main tenant, that of spinal subluxation, is demonstrable false. The process of cracking the lower back of a person is effective for removing lower back pain, but chiropractic can actually be dangerous when applied to the neck area. ArnoldFriend 20:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Where is the comparison to risks of chiro vs. allopathic medicine when it comes to necks? conservative 21:12, 12 February 2009 (EST)

String Theory

I added string theory to the list since it fails the 'falsifiability' test, as referenced in the ST main article; though I would also point out that the same argument is frequently used by liberals to discredit intelligent design theory. Perhaps there should be some debate as to whether or not positivism is integral to a rational, conservative understanding of science.Gantczak 11:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For that matter, many parts of theoretical physics are pure speculation at this point in time. It's not true of the entire discipline, but perhaps we should create a new category for fields that are rife with pseudoscience? JoshN 12:58, 9 February 2009 (EST)


I don't understand why vaccination is on the list. I linked it to the very good article "vaccine" instead of the ridiculous article "vaccination" but I think it should be remove from the list.


Why has this been excluded? American osteopathy aside (in the States we've made our Doctors of Osteopathy much like our MD's), this field is almost irredeemably rife with medical quackery; osteopaths believe all disease is bone related. Typical holistic claptrap--CamilleT 19:01, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Karl Popper and Falsifiability

I reverted a change made by Ed Poor on this page about whether we should credit Popper with establishing the doctrine. I wanted to explain on his talk page but it is protected. Anyway I provided a source, but the main reason I think we can credit him is because I remember that his work on falsifiability stemmed primarily from his dissatisfaction with Marxian and Freudian "scientific" approaches to history and psychoanalysis. He was not the first person to 'mention' falsifiability but he was the first person to systemize the concept and apply it to show the folly of systems which explain everything and yet nothing. I think we can fairly give it to him. --DamianJohn 13:15, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Stephen Hawking

I removed the part about Stephen Hawking as it was not clear what exactly the article is talking about (it just said much of the work of). Also what work of his is not pseudoscience? Stevel (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2016 (EDT)