From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RodWeathers (Talk | contribs) at 17:34, 11 January 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.
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

Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals



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)

Disagree, if this is supposed to be different form Wikipedia we should show how lists of this sort might be created with a liberal bent. Ergo, a list with conservative bias, per CP guidelines and commandments. Flippin 15:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't even see how to create a list with conservative bias. RSchlafly 00:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, leaving 'evolution' on the list might be a good start. (If you don't mind looking silly to both liberals AND conservatives who happen not to treat the Old Testament as a science textbook, that is.) And you can add "global warming", seeing how at least some conservatives seem to think it's a Communist plot to destroy the American economy. --Gulik2 00:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, let's suppose I think that global warming is a commie plot. Then it might be unscientific, political, fraudulent, destructive, socialist, and I don't know what else, but not necessarily pseudo-scientific. How would I show that it is pseudo-scientific and why would anyone care?
If you really think that pseudo-science is a useful term, then why not introduce pseudo-conservative, pseudo-democracy, pseudo-truth, and pseudo-religion? RSchlafly 01:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you show examples of where those terms have been used and in contexts that address the comment by Gulik? "pseudo-science" is a term that is used regularly as opposed to pseudo-religion which is tautological, and pseudo-truth which is an oxymoron, for starters. Flippin 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)


Why isn't Theory of Evolution mentioned here? Although I agree it's not as flimsy as, for example, phrenology, it's important to mention it since it's still aggressively promoted by some scientists, without standing on any firm scientific grounds. Although not a good example of pseudoscience, it's an important example of pseudoscience. Hammet 11:44, 14 March 2008 (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. --JackSmith 09:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)


Can someone provide an explanation as to why this term is on the list? I'm not removing it without asking first, but I don't see how this belongs in the same category as the others. --DinsdaleP 12:02, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Look into Freudian psychoanalysis (as opposed to modern psychology). It's based upon a lot of very crazy beliefs that are not testable (tripartite separation of the psyche, Oedipal complexes, etc.) - Rod Weathers 12:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)
[edit: agree with Rod] Have you found any proof of psychoanalysis? Or is it just the sex-obsessed maunderings of Freud and his cultist followers? MikeSalter 12:12, 11 January 2009 (EST) (EST)
I think there needs to be a distinction between the state of a scientific field at the time of its origins, and the current level state of the art. Early medicine involved techniques like bloodletting and the use of leeches that would be considered bad or pseudoscience today, but we don't regard contemporary medicine by those early practices. In the same light, I would not evaluate the validity of modern-day psychoanalysis by the methods of its first practicioners like Freud, who were taking baby steps by comparison. --DinsdaleP 12:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Psychoanalysis is, almost by definition, based upon an acceptance of Freudian theory. You can't separate 'then' from 'now' in this field. MikeSalter 12:23, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Mike is right. There's a reason why the term psychology is used rather than psychoanalysis. There is no psychoanalytic "science." - Rod Weathers 12:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Climate change

'Anthroprogenic Global Warming' - the greatest con perpetrated by pseudoscientists in recent decades - surely this should have a place. MikeSalter 12:12, 11 January 2009 (EST)