Difference between revisions of "Pseudoscience"
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
(Proposed revision) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
[[Category: Pseudoscience]] | [[Category: Pseudoscience]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == 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. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:53, April 25, 2007
Pseudoscience is theory or speculation having the trappings of science, and presented as science, but not generally accepted as valid by the scientific community. The stated reasons for rejection usually relate to lack of observability, failure to follow the scientific method, be falsifiable, apparently lack of objectivity, or unwillingness to allow neutral outsiders to observe, test, or replicate findings.
For example, Uri Geller claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he can't do it in front of scientists or journalists.
Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences
- Astrology
- Dianetics
- Exotheology
- Graphology
- Iridology
- Orgone therapy
- Parapsychology
- Phrenology
- Psychoanalysis
- Ufology
Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives
Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals
References
- ↑ http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
- ↑ http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm
- ↑ http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/
- ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
- ↑ http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm
- ↑ http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf
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)