Changes
/* Stephen Hawking */ new section
[[Eugenics]] is a classic example of a pseudoscience. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:20, 20 April 2007 (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.
--[[User:JackSmith|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:ForeverPeace|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. [[User:ReneeStJ|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:22, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
== Psychoanalysis ==
"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.)"[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24beane.html?ref=opinion] [[User:Conservative|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 [http://www.chirobase.org/]. 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. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)
::::Where is the comparison to risks of chiro vs. allopathic medicine when it comes to necks? [[User:Conservative|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.[[User:Gantczak|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? [[User:JoshN|JoshN]] 12:58, 9 February 2009 (EST)
= Vaccination =
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.
== osteopathy ==
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--[[User:CamilleT|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. --[[User:DamianJohn|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? [[User:Stevel|Stevel]] ([[User talk:Stevel|talk]]) 14:16, 13 September 2016 (EDT)
