Revision as of 18:03, April 25, 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...

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

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

Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals

References

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)

[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 45: / Line 45: @@
 ==References==
 <references/>
+== 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)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pseudoscience"