Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

"exorcism"

inasmuch as science does not deal with spiritual realities, exorcism cannot be considered a pseudoscience unless believers in it start making claims that could be subject to scientific enquiry. 142.163.195.41 (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Resurrection

Resurrection is the concept of coming back to life after death. Death is the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism. In a number of religions, a dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and is resurrected. Belief in the resurrection of the dead, and Jesus' role as judge, is codified in the Apostles' Creed, which is the fundamental creed of Christian baptismal faith. The Book of Revelation makes many references to resurrection, about the Day of Judgment when the dead will be raised. Resurrection is often confused with resuscitation. Resuscitation is the process of correcting a physiological disorder (such as lack of breathing or heartbeat) in an acutely ill patient. Resuscitation is an important part of intensive care medicine, anesthesiology, trauma surgery and emergency medicine. Well known examples are cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. 98.192.49.136 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

What are you trying to say in relation to improving the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Resurrection should probably be added to the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. 98.192.49.136 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Characterized by who? Are there reliable sources who do that? If there are none, it would be WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration

I am in STRONG disagreement that GBD qualifies as pseudoscience. First, it was an opinion on policy, that is, by definition, not pseudoscience. Nor is targeted attention to the vulnerable population "pseudoscience" - we don't vaccinate mice against smallpox. I don't feel any objective editor would include the claim that the GBD contained an "impossible idea". That line alone should clue anyone in on the problem. Herd immunity, the ineffectiveness of various US State policies, and the FACT that resources are limited aren't pseudoscience. It is really unfortunate, imho, that, right or wrong, a different opinion on what the best policy should be is subject to name calling.174.130.71.156 (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Never mind your view. Has it been characterized by one or more good sources as pseudoscience? Bon courage (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

12-step program info is far from appropriate

It is not entirely clear how it ended up on this list, given that no one has ever made the claim that 12-step programs were confirmed scientifically as the only treatment for addiction or a cure, but the vast majority of substance use disorder and addiction medicine professionals tend to see the value of 12 step programs, but just typically in conjunction with other medicinal and psychological therapeutic regimens. In fact the only thing that really would place it on this list based on how pseudoscience is defined here would be if Dr. Bob’s written views were taken to speak as a verification of 12-step programs as a form of science, which is ironic because the Doctor’s Opinion in the Big Book of AA, which actually would be considered both a form of narrative as well as case study, phenomenological, and even to an extent ethnographic forms of qualitative research. Still, based on how many things on this list don’t totally fit the definition listed on here as pseudoscience, I understand the reasoning for including. However, as a Wikipedia article, it should be important that the information provided, even for something like a list of pseudoscience topics, should be as unbiased as possible. Otherwise, I mean then wouldn’t that be just as unscientific? I say this because the two articles used for the 12-step program entry on this list are both secondary source online magazine articles, and given that neither of those media outlets are psychological, medical, or scientifically based at all, and given the nature of both of those articles which I found and read, the source material used is extremely one-sided, which is all the more concerning considering that same “pseudoscientific” program model, that has at least some support from the supposed experts, has spawned more than 200 types of “Anonymous” fellowships and has tens of millions of active and in recovery members on all inhabited continents and most countries, even Iran and is made available online in sparsely populated countries such as Greenland as well as countries less conducive to open in-person, attendance such as The Philippines. Borrissj (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources here seem fine though. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The linked article 12 step program has no information describing it as a pseudoscience. So it should be removed from this list per editor's note: "ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't know where that note came from; seems wrong. If the main article needs updating that's another matter. Bon courage (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been consensus for a while that this is a list of articles who's topics have been characterized as pseudoscience in its main article. Articles need to have that aspect to be listed here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it's just your odd view. I've been watching this page on and off for years and although you keep raising this, everybody else defers to RS in the usual way, as per the WP:PAGs. Check the archive to see this. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Where would I find this editor's note? I'm unaware of it, although I am familiar with similar inclusion criteria on other list pages. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's in the hidden note when editors click 'Edit source'. Here's what the hidden note says:

Please note that due to the controversial nature of the label "Pseudoscience", we must demand a reliable source from an appropriate source in order to include it. If something seems to be obviously pseudoscience, then either such a source likely exists somewhere or it isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion. The inclusion criteria must necessarily be strict enough that notability should be established at the main article first, using RS. So ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here.

I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr that the specific article itself (in this case 12 step program) should have content characterizing it as pseudoscience first before being added to this article. Some1 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. But we're not going to introduce some kind of workflow policy based on hidden markup comment that hardly anybody sees or heeds. I'll remove it. Such hidden comments are inappropriate especially since editors mostly edit by section now. By contrast the FAQ at the top of this page says an editor "feel free to suggest a topic or be bold and add it yourself" with any mention of this supposed "rule". Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"notability should be established at the main article first" as part of the WP:LSC of this list is pretty obvious since "Detailed discussion of these topics may be found on their main pages" is the second sentence of the lead. There are 18 pages of talk archive for this list and a large part of it is WP:LSC discussions so simply removing the editors note is not an option. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me that if we're going to have an inclusion criteria that requires that the entry be treated as psuedoscience in the main article, then that criteria should be prominently displayed to potential editors, not in some hidden note.

Whether we have and enforce that criteria is outside the scope of this particular thread. Seems like there's enough confusion (for lack of a better word) about whether we currently have this criteria that another discussion thread would be in order to clarify it. Or perhaps there is some previous thread that explicitly addressed the issue in which case we may not want to re-litigate that at this time. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This particular "rule" was added to the original "edit note" in 2013, apparently without discussion. Having a HTML comment is ridiculous since any editor using the visual editor, or editing a section directly will miss it anyway. If anything there should be a proper WP:EDN. It's not 2006 any more. Bon courage (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Since it was added without discussion, it seems like a discussion is in order. I'll start a new thread. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Some1@Fountains of Bryn Mawr more precisely, we need sources showing that experts or noted commentators have described the program as pseudoscience. We don't need to show it is pseudoscience. I believe we have that below in the sources I've linked. Though to comply with WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDSCI we also should say something along the lines of "Though recent evidence suggests it is as effective as other treatments in providing relief from alcohol use disorder" etc. Probably needs workshopping. But you get the idea. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources describing 12-step as "pseudoscience"

• Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lynn, Steven Jay; Lohr, Jeffrey; Tavris, Carol (2015). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (PDF) (Second ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 9781462505814. Retrieved 27 January 2023.

...these findings suggest that AA is indeed a pseudoscientific treatment, persisting by virtue of intuitive appeal and strident adherents despite weak empirical support...To conclude, the role of AA in the science-based AUD treatment enterprise has been highly controversial....from a scientific standpoint, there are reasons to be critical of AA’s outmoded etiological model and to question the strong identification of formal treatment programs with AA principles (Kelly, 2013). Participation in community mutual-help groups like AA will not be for all patients, but, for some, AA may very well enhance formal treatment efforts.

• Kaskutas, Lee Ann (2 April 2009). "Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness: Faith Meets Science". Journal of Addictive Diseases. 28 (2): 145–157. doi:10.1080/10550880902772464. eISSN 1545-0848. ISSN 1055-0887. PMC 2746426. PMID 19340677.

At the heart of the debate is the quality of the evidence. AA critics have argued that AA is a cult that relies on God as the mechanism of action [11], and that rigorous experimental studies are necessary in order to convince them of AA’s effectiveness. Their concern is well-founded. As will be evident from this review, experimental studies represent the weakest of the available evidence. However, the review also will highlight other categories of evidence that are overwhelmingly convincing with respect to AA effectiveness, including the consistency with established mechanisms of behavior change

• Ferri, Marica; Amato, Laura; Davoli, Marina (19 July 2006). "Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005032.pub2. eISSN 1465-1858. PMID 16856072.

No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. One large study focused on the prognostic factors associated with interventions that were assumed to be successful rather than on the effectiveness of interventions themselves, so more efficacy studies are needed.

• White, William L.; Kurtz, Ernest (2008). "Twelve Defining Moments in the History of Alcoholics Anonymous". Recent Developments in Alcoholism. Springer New York. pp. 37–57. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77725-2_3. ISSN 0738-422X.

The ever-growing definitions of AA have reached a point where they tell us more about each author than about AA as an organization or a framework of alcoholism recovery (Miller & Kurtz, 1994). AA has been variably depicted as a society (Wilson, 1949), social movement (Room, 1993), culture of recovery (White, 1996), system of beliefs and speech event (Makela, et al, 1996); spiritual program (Miller & Kurtz, 1994), and a religious cult (Bufe, 1991). One of the most pervasive characterizations of AA is that of a “treatment” for alcoholism (Bebbington, 1976; Tournier, 1979; Emrick, 1989; Najavits, Crits-Christoph, & Dierberger, 2000; McGovern & Carroll, 2003). In 1994, psychologist William Miller and AA historian Ernest Kurtz, wrote a seminal article noting popular and professional misconceptions about AA. Using AA’s own literature, Miller and Kurtz challenged these misconceptions.

All we really need is to show some experts have characterized AA as pseudoscientific. And we clearly have that in Lilienfeld and Kaskutas. We don't actually have to show it's pseudoscience to have it included in this list.

To be fair, this is somewhat superseded by some recent sources, e.g. this 2020 review

Kelly, John F; Abry, Alexandra; Ferri, Marica; Humphreys, Keith (6 July 2020). "Alcoholics Anonymous and 12-Step Facilitation Treatments for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Distillation of a 2020 Cochrane Review for Clinicians and Policy Makers". Alcohol and Alcoholism. 55 (6): 641–651. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agaa050. eISSN 1464-3502. ISSN 0735-0414. PMC 8060988. PMID 32628263.

AA/TSF interventions produce similar benefits to other treatments on all drinking-related outcomes except for continuous abstinence and remission, where AA/TSF is superior. AA/TSF also reduces healthcare costs. Clinically implementing one of these proven manualized AA/TSF interventions is likely to enhance outcomes for individuals with AUD while producing health economic benefits.

But I would say an appropriate and DUE treatment would be to say something along the lines of "AA has been criticized as pseudoscientific, a religious cult, etc. but recent reviews of the evidence have shown it is effective blah blah blah"

Just my 2 cents. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, you are on the wrong articles talk page. You need to establish this at Talk:Twelve-step program. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

no local consensus supersedes any other local consensus. and we can do both. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria / Edit note

This list article does not have a "proper" edit note. It should.

Currently there is some disagreement regarding whether we should require that the entry be described as pseudoscience in the main article. There is a hidden editors note somewhere that states this requirement, but apparently it was added without discussion many years ago.

So, let's try to craft an edit note, and address whether the above requirement should be part of the inclusion criteria.

Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we need one though? Since the early days of this article the WP:PAGs have moved on and WP:FRINGE become well established. We could say material here should be in WP:SYNC with main topic article, but I would oppose anything which implied editing had to be done in a certain sequence of that lack of WP:SYNC'd content was an excuse to delete well-sourced content from anywhere. Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There are several reasons why each entry should already be described as pseudoscience in the main article:

• WP:POVFORK - "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article"
• WP:FRINGE - is this a fact and major point of view? Hard to tell if we showing "broadly supported by scholarship" or just cherry picked sources.
• WP:LISTPURP-NAV - list is (or has become) a navigation list, a series of linked articles (topics) that all contain the feature topics characterized as pseudoscience - content needs to be there to be indexed here.
• INVISIBLE to editors working on the topic. There can be allot of name calling here and those who know the topic (editors of the topic) will never see it. Best to bring up material at the linked article where it can be evaluated to see if it meets guidelines and policy.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The material should be in sync, but the problem is elevating this into an absolute requirement, so that editors can use the lack of synchronisation as an excuse to delete content, even if it is well-sourced. Also some topics (e.g. Earthing therapy) are so obscure they don't even have a main article, but are worth mentioning here. Bon courage (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

No edit note, please. I see no reason why we should require that the primary article A) exist, B) directly claim in the body that it is pseudoscience. It should be enough that we have sources here describing it as such. That is the inherent nature of WP:V. Yes, consistency is good (and should be the goal), but it isn't a mandate, and it isn't about having "first one article say something then the other". There is no hierarchy of list vs content articles on wikipedia. it's all the same jazz. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It should be enough that we have sources here describing it as such. By that standard Climate change[1] and Evolution[2] belong on this list. Anyone could just start a POVFORK here. Hence the note added by Valjean is a pretty good idea. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)