Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pseudoscience"

Revision as of 23:49, April 20, 2007

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...

Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences

Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives

Theory of evolution^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]

Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals

References

[1] ttp://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html

[2] ttp://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html

[3] ttp://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm

[4] ttp://skepdic.com/iridol.html

[5] ttp://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

[6] ttp://skepdic.com/phren.html

[7] ttp://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

[8] ttp://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm

[9] ttp://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/

[10] ttp://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html

[11] ttp://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm

[12] ttp://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf

[13] ttp://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

[14] ttp://skepdic.com/creation.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 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? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
+== Failing removal of the linked resources for evolution, links for the others... ==
+==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences==
+*[[Astrology]]<ref>http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html</ref>
+*[[Dianetics]]<ref>http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html</ref>
+*[[Exotheology]]{{fact}}
+*[[Graphology]]<ref>http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm</ref>
+*[[Iridology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/iridol.html</ref>
+*[[Orgone therapy]]{{fact}}
+*[[Parapsychology]]<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm</ref>
+*[[Phrenology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/phren.html</ref>
+*[[Psychoanalysis]]{{fact}}
+*[[Ufology]]{{fact}}
+== Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives ==
+*[[Theory of evolution]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref><ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>
+==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals==
+*[[Intelligent Design]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html</ref>
+*[[Creation Science]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/creation.html</ref>
+*[[Cryptozoology]]{{fact}}
+==References==
+<references/>