Talk:Pathological science/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Please reduce references to footnote format

In the section on cold fusion, I added a couple of references to papers. Some clever person who understands how to edit these pages reduced the first footnote to a number in parenthesis. That is a better format. Please do that to the second footnote as wall, and you might as well remove "See:"

It will be interesting to see whether my additions survive or whether the skeptics erase them. It will be a test of the Wikipedia philosophy. --Jed Rothwell

That was me; and I also did those fixes you suggested. Flattery will gain you much... --maru 22:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

(Oh and hey, it is easier to discuss this sort of thing if you register here. Makes things difficult for impersonators, plus there is a handy feature to 'watch' selected pages, that is, have them monitored for changes and a way to easily see the diffs. A lifesaver I tells ya. --maru 22:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC))

Cold fusion debate

I'm in no way qualified to comment on the technical merits of cold fusion experiments. I am, however, rather qualified to comment on the merits of Wikipedia articles, and the extended section on cold fusion in the middle just doesn't belong in this article. Judging from the comments below, it's clearly just something that evolved in place as a result of arguments between pro- and anti-cold fusion factions. It adds nothing of merit to the article, makes it longer unnecessarily, and is just ugly.

I've removed the whole shebang and just linked to the cold fusion article. We don't need a mini reproduction of that fine article here. If you dislike my changes, do be so kind as to discuss. George 20:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with George here. Every time I looked at this page, the "cold fusion" section was getting longer and longer. Clearly, the fact "cold fusion has been accused of being pathological science" belongs on pathological science but just as clearly, the appropriate place to discuss the rightness or wrongness of the accusation is cold fusion, not here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the material on cold fusion. I do not mind a bit that George removed it, HOWEVER, as long as there is any mention of cold fusion, I think one or two sentences rebutting this point of view should be included. The article here said that cold fusion supporters deny it is pathological because they say it is new. That is not the reason. They deny it because it does not fit the criteria, except perhaps the last one. - Jed Rothwell

Aether and String Theories?

Aether theories: cranks and legitimate physicists never seem to give these up. Would they be considered pathological?

My big question is String Theory. Tons of brains, time, and money has been poored into String Theory with practically no results. If this fervor starts to die out more rapidly, will it become the next pathological science? Even if it does work, the field still seems very pathological to me right now.

I would put aether theories far more over into the pseudoscience field. I haven't seen recent data, but I'd wager that the proportion of PhD physicists who hold to an aether theory is utterly tiny. It's mostly just cranks

String theory is a much harder one. I agree that it may turn out to be a pathological science, if, as many people argue, it makes no predictions and is ultimately abandoned for something else. Unfortunately, it's probably only possible to (reliably) diagnose pathological science retrospectively. Given that, at this point, string theory is well within the mainstream of physics, I don't see posting it here.

Alternative idea: We could add a section on current controversies into which we shovel cold fusion, string theory, and whatever else we can think of

George 18:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The jury is still out on string theory. If it is shown to be correct then it isn't pathological. If it is shown to be wrong and dies, then it isn't pathological. Only if it is shown to be wrong and doesn't die is it pathological.

The Dec 2005 Scientific American has an article on black holes that says Could spacetime literally be a kind of fluid, like the ether of pre-Einsteinain phydsics?. So something like the ether probably isn't completely ruled out. Bubba73 (talk), 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

How is this consistent?

The page says that N-rays are universally regarded as pathological science. Yet, the page also says that "Critics of the concept argue that it fails to offer criteria that distinguish lasting discoveries (and other scientific studies) from mere fads and fallacies and that it could be applied to many revolutionary discoveries of the past. Critics also urge others to abandon the phrase." These appear to be contradictory; if critics don't believe that pathological science is a well-defined concept, then it is impossible for N-rays to be universally regarded as pathological science. Ken Arromdee 20:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Because this paragraph is contradictory and contains weasel terms, I've removed it. Ken Arromdee 07:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

More bogus nonsense about cold fusion

Apparently, a skeptic stepped in here, erased what I wrote about cold fusion, and replaced it with bogus imaginary nonsense. He claimed that “that the effect is at or near the limit of detectability” and that cold fusion researchers blame the instruments when the effect is not seen. The experimental literature contradicts these assertions completely. Whoever wrote that simply made it up. I expect he will revert the text and substitute his imagination for facts. --JedRothwell 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Do N-rays fit the definition?

The definition of "pathological science" in the article says ideas that would simply not "go away", long after they were given up on as wrong by the majority of scientists in the field. From what I read, the idea of N-rays did essentially quickly go away after Wood's 1904 paper in Nature, except for Blondot and a few believers. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, N-rays were one of the original examples given, so it must fit (at least at the time). Bubba73 (talk), 01:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

pseudoscience vs. pathological science

On an edit on Jan 17, 2006, Magnus Mopus makes the comment "theres no reason to have this as a distinct article (ie. merge to pseudoscience)". I think that the two are definitely distinct, so they should not be merged. In fact, I'm not entirely happy with the word pseudoscience being used in the definition of pathological science. Bubba73 (talk), 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although much pseudoscience is pathological, the converse is not categorically true. Take polywater for example: the theory was the result of legitamte, funded, peer reviewed research. It wasn't pseudoscience, it was just the result of poor procedure; an accident. Pretty big difference. I think this article should definetly be kept.Shaggorama 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Support for polywater

As the entry on polywater makes clear, the numbers of scientists initially finding supporting evidence greatly exceeded 2. Robma 14:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not according to Franks, who has written the most authoritative description of the research. Several authors published papers about the subject, especially theory papers, and many groups reported attempts to replicate. As described in the article on polywater, some of the effects were seen by others. But only two groups reported that they had fully replicated and they were convinced the effect was anomalous (and not merely contamination). See: Franks, F., Polywater. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1981. --JedRothwell 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

CORRECT!!

"to 0.01 mm from a 2 mm source, a physical impossibility in the propagation of any kind of wave" this should be corrected to, ....a 2mm continous EM source or something like that. Slicky 06:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Lysenkoism Blurb

Well, if anyone wants to delete Lysenkoism that's fine, but as long as it's up there I thought it necessary to clarify the statement that "many scientists of the time were forced into publicly recanting politically unacceptable ideas such as evolution (those that refused were imprisoned or executed)." The term "evolution" is was a bit too vague. At least according to its Wiki, Lysenkoism included Lamarckian ideas and a repudiation of heredity and genetics (for the aforementioned political reasons) but it seemed rather contradictory to me that a state claiming to be even a little atheist would repudiate evolution entirely, as could have been construed from the old statement. Skido85 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pathological science is not Pseudoscience

These are not the same thing, but I note that some people do indeed lump the terms together. I've amended the text to reflect both points of view, and provided citations.

I've also marked a number of areas where citations are require to support some of the modern "interpretions" of Pathological science. Without citations, such interpretations are personal views, and inadmissible. --Iantresman 14:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Antiscience

Perhaps the editors of this discussion might wish to look at the wiki articles antiscience and antireductionism with a view to perhaps considering any potential areas of overlap between them. Peter morrell 17:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well personally I don't think much of that topic directly applies. The key issue on this topic is that there is science, but it's being taken too far. Things like cargo cult science, pseudoscience, etc. are different in that there is no science involved, only, as the Simpsons so finely put it, "scienticians". Your link has some bearing, but in this case it seems to be more of an active dislike, a philosophical issue more than anything to do with a particular scientific debate. All of this just illustrates the vagueness of the topic IMHO. Maury 14:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Facilitation of introduction

I suggest the citations in the introduction are made more hidden, to facilitate for the reader to go through it. For example:

Pathological science is the process in science in which people are tricked into false results by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions[1]. It is present among practices pretending to be science, e.g. pseudoscience, amateur science... [2]

[2]Bart Simon

Anybody disagrees? Mikael Häggström 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As the main parts are direct quotes, it shouldn't be changed. I would love to reword it somewhat. --Wfaxon 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

False reference

I removed the ref to http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm from the article. Polywater and cold fusion came after the author's death, for example. Vassyana 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is cold fusion a pathological science according to 2004 DOE ?

Several recent edits show that there is an argument on whether 2004 DOE panel can be used to show that cold fusion is a pathological science. There are many arguments that it does not consider it so. Instead, it considers it as a scientific controversy, like they are many others:

When asked about the evidence for power that cannot be attributed to an ordinary chemical or solid state source, the 2004 DoE panel was evenly split. This clearly shows that there is a scientific controversy on the subject, that the subject is not pathological, and that further research is warranted. Hence, the conclusion of the panel to continue research. A pathological science would not receive support for funding.
When asked "is the evidence convincing beyond doubt?", the panel mostly responded negatively. Hence, they concluded against federally-funded projects. This shows that cold fusion cannot justify large research projects, not that it is a pathological science: this argument is thus irrelevant in the pathological science article.

Pcarbonn (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor cross-reference?

It seems to me like Creationism doesn't really belong in the See Also section, as it doesn't really seem to me as an example of pathological science, at least as described in the article, which says that pathological science occurs when a scientist is originally conforming to the scientific method. Creationism didn't start with the scientific method at all. --L3prador 00:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. "Intelligent Design" is what Creationists call Creationism when they use the scientific method to try to debunk evolution. So, "Intelligent Design" belongs in "See Also", not Creationism. Intelligent Design is most definitely pathological science, as it thinks of itself a science, yet will never ever subject itself to the rigors to which it subjects competing theories. Dave420 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A quibble. While it appears to be absolutely true that some people who believe in Creationism push Intelligent Design, I think mainly for political reasons, I don't think Intelligent Design is in fact based on Creationism. (Which says something about the scientific ignorance of the Creationists, that they push ID without understanding that if ID was real, Creationism would be in the toilet.)

To explain -- ID accepts the prevailing scientific perspective about the Earth being quite old. ID accepts geological processes. ID accepts the fossil evidence. It then disagrees with evolutionary theory and claims that the evolutionary processes were "designed". But Creationism claims the earth is young, geological process measurements are flawed, the processes are wrong, and that fossils are found the way they are either because "Satan did it" or that's just the order they were deposited "in the great flood."

So -- one can argue that ID is pathological science, or not -- but only in the most base political sense can one try to claim that ID is Creationism "in disguise". It really isn't, regardless of what some backwoods knuckle-dragging Creationist-believing folks think. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Article mostly fringe

I dislike this article strongly and suspect that it is heavily loaded with editors' opinions, and thereby is bordering to WP:OR with clear break against WP:NPOV. Who is classifying any non-mainstream science or other research branch as pathological science? Any committee that can be cited? Polywater and cold fusion being "newer examples", is a pathological clash between WP:OR and not WP:NPOV. Classifying Lysenkoism as not pathological science, is odd in the extreme, and probably quite ahistorical, where interviews instead may (my speculation) make a story of pseudoscience using a totalitarian system to quench opposition and gain system acceptance. Before making such statements, the mayhap editor should consult some historian. Representing Continental drift as not pathological science is seemingly wise in hindsight, except probably false. A claim that continents roll around and collide because they're residing on unstable sand and rubble, is clearly a very unphysical statement, and most geologists must have claimed this is bad reasoning. Only when modified in the 1960ies and 70ies to be based on fluid mantle movements, and when the proofs added up to a critical mass, the continental drift was accepted, and the acceptance occurred fast, not step-by-step as the article alleges. The sections Newer examples and Scientific theories that are not pathological science are clear cases of fringe wikipedianism (not pathological, there are other articles being such). Said: Rursus (☻) 06:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to editors to decide what subjects may fall under the label "pathological science", no matter what the reasoning. Langmuir verifiably labeled some subjects, but unless there are sources labeling others, then that would be either original research WP:OR, possibly synthesis. I would add requests for citations. --John294 (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my opinion too. This article is about Langmuir's concept of "pathological science", (and possibly other's ditto if we can find outside sources indicating a continuity, but for that we need outside sources); I'll add some requests too, here and there. Said: Rursus (☻) 10:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully support. Please don't be afraid to WP:be bold.Pcarbonn (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My uglification is in a pretty advanced state. I think there might be some continuity after Langmuir's concept, then from the book Voodoo science, but I think we have to rethink what the sections "Newer examples" and "Scientific theories that are not pathological science" really should contain. I, as an amateur in most scientific areas, am not willing to shoot down enterprises that seem like bizarre to my eyes, just because the logic seems weird. Said: Rursus (☻) 16:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

That article says ID is no science, so how can it be pathological science? VG ☎ 12:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold Fusion not "Langmuir-Pathological"

Reading around a little, trying to find up and down, and ideas of how to improve the second half of the article, I realized that Cold Fusion doesn't fit the Langmuir description very well: they're not working on the border of detectability, their energy productions are very clear, and they're laborating with factors that increases or decreases the levels of energy production, so the signal is not invariant from input factors. Their trouble is simply repeatability and a lot of chaos and unexpected behaviors in their experiments. They have been characterized as pathological, but not by the Langmuir-Criteria. Said: Rursus (☻) 06:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you say it. Many people have been slow to realize it. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is up for debate whether cold fusion is, or is not pathological science. It's more important what is verifiable. A straw poll via Google Books finds that several have mentioned cold fusion as pathological science, though it would be useful to know (a) their reasons (b) their sources. Likewise Google scholar sources. --John294 (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion was certainly seen as pathological science in the 1990's, but not anymore. All the books you pointed us to are from the 1990's. The ones after 2000's are not presenting it as such (e.g. "Undead science"). If you disagree, please point us to a specific book post-2000 that presents cold fusion as pathological science. On the other hand, many recent scientific papers published in respectable journal do show that it is a valid scientific controversy. The fact that half the 2004 DOE panel found the excess heat evidence convincing is an additional evidence. Please note also that a recent RfC decided against placing cold fusion in the Pathological science category. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"If you disagree, please point us to a specific book post-2000 that presents cold fusion as pathological science." Here's one: [1] Olorinish (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any problem mentioning that cold fusion was described as pathological science in the 1990s, if that is what the sources support. We can mention that cold fusion used to be described as such, again, only if the sources support it. It seems that the even "cosmology" has been described a pathological science.[2] --John294 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and also think that it is correct mentioning it as under attack being called "pathological science", only it is important the defenders of cold fusion getting their say too. Said: Rursus (☻) 14:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We can only say that a subject is "under attack" for being called "pathological science", if there is a source that says this. --John294 (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Then: Hyle 8-1 search for "What have Fleischmann and Pons been accused of that was ‘pathological’?". We may reformulate. However, I'm trying to get an overview, technicalities on exactly how much we are allowed to synthethise (irrespective of the WP:synthesis you mention below, we must make synthesis of nouns, verbs, adjectives etc in order to think, speak and edit), can wait for writing an actual text. Even weak texts are better than those that are in the article now. Maybe we should consider erasing the sections Newer examples and Scientific theories ... immediatelly? Said: Rursus (☻) 12:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no. My topic here, was what the article should contain. If it should contain "pathological science" per "Langmuir" or per some wider concept. If per "Langmuir", then it doesn't belong to here. This is my topic. The debate whether cold fusion is or isn't pathological science, should be outside wikipedia. However: the article should provide some coherent view of the concept "pathological science", then it must either adher to Langmuir or to some other definition. That's the conditions for NPOV:ing the article. Above, I just debunked (I think) that Langmuirs definition apply. As regards my opinion in cold fusion: I'm undecided, and therefore pretty neutral (I think). Said: Rursus (☻) 09:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with myself: I've changed my opinion, we can mention that cold fusion have been called "pathological", if we say that that is not according to Langmuir's criteria. Said: Rursus (☻) 14:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We can only say that cold fusion's description as "pathological science" differs from Langmuir's criteria, if a source says so (otherwise it is "WP:synthesis"). I think it will be easier to find a source that in general says "pathological science" is used in a way that may differ from Langmuir's criteria, and may be used pejoratively. eg. [3] --John294 (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this site gives such a debunking for polywater. Now, I'm reading them, and trying to understand what's science. See Thomas Samuel Kuhn and Imre Lakatos the science sociologists. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And I forgot to say: googling for the combination of "cold fusion" (or something other that is generally doubted) and "pathological science" may give some fine hits: if we behind a google hit find a site that makes a coherent analysis of "pathological science" and "cold fusion", then we have material for a replacement section in the article. But googling is just a survey preparation for finding potentially good material, it has no direct factual meaning for the content of wikipedia, it is just a surveying tool, that may or may not serve as a consensus maker in discussions. Said: Rursus (☻) 10:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Googling is just a search engine test, and not meant as a source. --John294 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible sources

Listing possible sources to use:

pathological science the sceptics dictionary (I believe there are a few logic defects in this site, but it sounds pretty OK),
Toward a general theory of pathological science - ~~good initiative!~~ (usable, but doesn't elaborate on Langmuir – it develops rules for antipathological behaviors of serious scientists),
Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion, the old claim "Cold fusion is pathological science" from 1989, not very substantial, but maybe usable for a list of allegations.
Cultural Boundaries of Science by Thomas F. Gieryn, this page (184) mentions pathological science but doesn't elaborate very well,
~~(For fun - not very usable: 'Global Warming' as Pathological Science),~~
‘Pathological Science’ is not ... seems to be a thorough analysis building on Langmuir,

Already used, stupid me! Said: Rursus (☻) 11:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Nature recension of the book "The Undergrowth of Science: Delusion, Self-Deception and Human Frailty" that elaborates on pathological science (in it's fullest sense, f.ex. doctors proponing lobotomy),
~~Here some extremist, declaring quarks being "pathological physics",~~
~~a critic against the term "Pathological Physics", listing arguments for Big Bang being "pathological physics" - maybe same as previous.~~ (Those two last were the same by some opponent against relativity theory),

That was all for now. L8R. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pathological Science: Sheldon Stone, 2000.

Said: Rursus (☻) 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Adapted from my RFAR evidence on Cold Fusion

I've added this paper as reference (credits for finding the paper go to User:Eubulides): Labinger JA, Weininger SJ (2005). "Controversy in chemistry: how do you prove a negative?—the cases of phlogiston and cold fusion". Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 44 (13). Here's an outline of the paper:

Old CF experiments were the only ones examined in detail by skeptics. Newer experiments, usually published in more obscure venues, are plagued by the following conundrum: the proponents "reasonably argue" they've avoided the mistakes of the past, but a skeptic "comfortably concludes that the generally much smaller effects now claimed are the result of more subtle errors".
No unifying theory explains CF, so each experiment has to be debunked individually. Disproving one experiment does not imply the others are equally flawed.
In an updated paper (D. L. Rousseau, Am. Sci, 1992, 80, 54-63) on pathological science, CF is given as an example.
The long-demanded control experiment using light (i.e. normal) water, published in 2003, did non show any excess heat being produced (unlike the heavy water experiments).
The paper offers this summary of the controversy:

“

So there matters stand: no cold fusion researcher has been able to dispel the stigma of “pathological science” by rigorously and reproducibly demonstrating effects sufficiently large to exclude the possibility of error (for example, by constructing a working power generator), nor does it seem possible to conclude unequivocally that all the apparently anomalous behavior can be attributed to error.

”

Comparing CF with phlogiston, the paper makes the following distinction:

“

There are clear differences between our two cases: whereas the phlogiston controversy involved choosing the best theoretical framework to rationalize a set of experimental observations, with cold fusions there are essentially no theoretical frameworks among which to choose. Instead we have a set of observations that cannot be rationalized in terms of existing standard theory, and need to decide whether they (or some fraction thereof) are real anomalies that require new ideas, or mere mistakes. The majority of the scientific community has (explicitly or implicitly) opted for the second interpretation, just as the majority decided against phlogiston at the end of the 18th century. It is easy, but (as we have tried to show) much too simplistic, to invoke irrationality to explain this persistence of heterodoxy. Instead, these two cases illustrate that, once the human imagination has conceived an idea, it can sometimes be very difficult to prove its non-existence.

”

I think it's reasonable to call cold fusion pathological science. That's the mainstream view. It could be wrong, but until that changes, Wikipedia should describe it. Pcap ping 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bart Simpson as an authority on pathological science?

Why are we quoting Bart Simpson? Does he actually discuss this on some episode? Is there another Bart Simpson who I don't know about? Vandalism? 119.82.248.67 (talk)

You mean Bart Simon Ph.D. (Sociology/Science Studies) University of California at San Diego (1998), MSc. (Sociology of Scientific Knowledge) University of Edinburgh (1990), B.A. (Cultural Studies) Trent University (1989). He wrote a book called "Undead science". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why has this discipline had few publications.....Since 1822.....???

according to Sciencedirect, rather than Google scholar....???

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=1259368734&_sort=r&_st=4&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a321b0482adbdec81ff601a7aac0d12e

Is it something to do with the policy of fooling ordinary people 愚民政策....Obscurantism....??? --124.78.208.87 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The study of pathological science is under the discipline of Sociology of scientific knowledge. As a social science, it's going to have very few publications in hard science journals.

It will appear on journal related to social stuff, science education, science in courts, etc. For example, in the Theory & Psychology journal [4] or the International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry [5], Daedalus (journal)[6], Science & Education[7], etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science, or medical conclusions

A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for phsyics, science, or medical conclusions is happening here[8]. PPdd (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed here

I removed a section of the article because there doesn't seem to be any sources for the claims that these ideas: cubical atom, continental drift, and Lysenkoism, are particularly "NOT" pathological science. If someone wants to reinstate this section, may I ask that they please explain themselves at lest or, preferentially, include some sources.

Thanks,

69.86.225.27 (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms

Some of the examples listed were pathological, but the article seems too abusive towards some of them. Unprofesional IMO. Also, why are there refrences to Jesus? Very few scientific theories have much to do with him, most are historical and don't apply. --Math-Man 05:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about specifics? Removing NPOV labels pending specific enumeration or discussion here. Anyone can slap NPOV on something, but it should be backed up with specific points for each. How is Compare NPOV? There are pontential or problematic parts of this article, but discuss and fix don't just slap NPOV labels around, that's the lazy approach to contoversies :-) --Vsmith 15:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of the examples given was on Radar Mapping of Venus. There was no supporting description (not to mention evidence) of the pathology involved either in the Pathological Science article or in the referred Venus article. What is the purported pathology? Is it not likely that this relatively recent work is still open for interpretation? I don't know, but I think there is some unwarranted bad-mouthing going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PEBill (talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Is homeopathy really a pathological science in the sense discussed at this page? I'd rather remove it. --till we *) 16:31, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Homeopathy is claimed, by practitioners, to be a medical remedy. Scientists have not only shown that it's theoretically impossible, but have actually shown as much with experimentation. It has not one iota of evidence to back it up. As such, it falls smack-dab into the middle of "pathological science". Same as Scientology. Maybe we should add that? Dave420 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. It was never science to begin with. The same for perpetual motion. Bhny (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The lede sentence says it well: it's when people are tricked into false results by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. Homeopathy... use of the term "false results" means we're talking about experimenters here, not your Great Aunt Hilda. I don't think experimenters are tricked into false results that much, mostly they are charlatans. There're no subjective effects or threshold interactions that would make a homeopathy experiment come out positive... there is wishful thinking (as opposed to just plain mendacity or lunacy), but you'd need such a level of wishfulness that we're more into the area of woo science here... I think that mendacity or lunacy are the main the causes of positive results on homeopathy experiments. Ditto for perpetual motion: all people who have reported positive results on perpetual motion experiments have been deliberate frauds, madmen, or simpletons. That's not the type Langmuir was talking about. Herostratus (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1985

"A 1985 version of Langmuir's speech offered more examples, although at least one of these (polywater) occurred entirely after Langmuir's death in 1957"

That does not make sense to me. If there is a "1985 version", it must have been rewritten by someone else, not Langmuir. That someone should be named, and the 1985 document should not be called a "1985 version of Langmuir's speech" but something like "<Someone>'s 1985 update of Langmuir's speech". --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pathological science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040103095705/http://blake.montclair.edu/%7ekowalskil/cf/ to http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Global warming as possible example

Should put global warming hypotheses as an example. Its supporters are still rising. Sometime around 2020 to 2050, when the current semi-centennial warming trend reverses, perhaps it will fade into oblivion. --Ed (?)

Ed, this kind of comment is not helpful. The scientific studies confirming the existence of a global warming trend are now just indisputable. This is a real scientific field, and the data and computer models are getting much firmer. Of course, how much of the current global warming is due to man-made contributions is still debateable (and well should be!) but this effect is real, it is measurable, and it is in no way pseudo-science. Your over-the-top comment on this topic betrays a political agenda, and not a scientifically informed view. --RK

If they are "indisputable" then why does the NOAA dispute it? Note that the NOAA is the same source used by advocates of the CFC-ozone-UV-cancer connection. Is the NOAA trustworthy only when it supports an environmentalist position, and discreditable otherwise? Your comment -- not mine -- betrays a political agenda, and not a scientifically informed view. --User:Ed Poor

Ed, you clearly didn't read the first five criteria here, because global warming theory obviously doesn't fit any of them, and if you think it does, you either can't read plain English or you don't give a damn about the truth (I suspect the latter). Whether or not it might happen to fit the sixth criterion might be an interesting discussion somewhere, but not in an encyclopedia. --Lee Daniel Crocker

I read it. Did you read the NOAA web page showing a 0.01 degree cooling trend since 1979?

From the article: "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a scientific agency of the United States Department of Commerce". They are a politically-driven institution whose purpose is to support the goals of big business.

"The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause." Okay, this might only be half true, because we can detect anthropgenic greenhouse gas emissions. But global temperature correlates better with the sunspot cycle than with carbon dioxide levels, so this criterion is partly acceptable.

"The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results." This is obviously true.

When someone claims something is "obviously true", it's time to beware of observer bias. The increased frequency and strength of atlantic hurricanes and pacific tropical storms, the retreat of alpine glaciers and the polar ice caps, the earlier arrival of spring and changes in geographical distribution of insect species - I could go on, but all these effects are easily measurable, highly significant, and many orders of magnitude above the threshold of detectability. So, I've got evidence to back my position that this criterion is not met. What have you got? You've got "obviously true". I think you're "obviously biased".

"Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested." One of the IPCC scenarios assumes that the entire world grows economically at the same rate as the United States. This strains credulity, as do several other of their scenarios.

"Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment." All right, this criterion might not fit, but the fact that the IPCC et al. totally ignore the contrary evidence of the NOAA is just as good a criterion as this one.

"The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion." As you point out, this is true.

Don't worry, I'm not going to jump in and make wholesale changes in articles to suit my opinions. I promised SR and April I wouldn't. But on the talk pages I will talk.

I would expect no less, my esteemed opponent (you can read that in much the same vein as "the honorable gentleman" in a British parliament debate :-). Believe me, I am as much a skeptic of many environmental claims as any rabid righter--hell, I don't think there's really any evidence that warming would be harmful in any way (except possibly to a few folks who build houses too close to shore), and I generally oppose many of the enviro-wacko's legislation proposals. I think the Sierra club is a gang of extortionists. But despite those political opinions, I refuse to classify as "patholoical science" that which is a very widely held and respectable scientific opinion, because my honesty comes first, and only then my politics. --LDC

The peoples of the Netherlands and my own hometown, Long Island, or for that matter, a good portion of the coast, or any islands, will no doubt appreciate being characterized as having build houses 'too close to the shore'. --maru 19:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Aw, you're so honorable! You, you, you gentleman, you! There, I said it: I called you a name. Want to make something of it?!

Without getting into the debate about global climate change, I'd note that the IPCC numbers were heavily political and were in effect making engineering decisions about how much life was worth in the places that would have reduced economic activity or more flooding or bad weather. Their numbers added up to 15x more value for a life in the developed than developing world!

See more at http://www.gci.org.uk - 'value of life' section

So, this is another definition of "pathological science" or "political engineering" - assuming widely variant safety standards for different parts of your user base...

Yes, but not in the sense this article is about...

I think this is a magnificent example of 'pathalogical science' on display. The Global warming deniers certainly qualify. Observe their dismissal and refusal to even aknowledge the proponderance of physical observable evidence listed above. Thats worse than an 'ad hoc' excuse, thats just straight head-in-sand tactics. Observe their outright LIE about the NOAA, claiming they deny global warming (on the front page of NOAA right now are three seperate articles about the real and measurable impacts of global warming). They have an agenda, its not based on science, truth or reality, and they squirm and wiggle every time such science is actually presented. They act and reqct exactly like flat-earthers, creationists or holocaust deniers. Thank you for putting on such an ideal demonstration of the subject matter of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.140.2 (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes Global Warming is a great example of Pathological science. Through all geological history the globe has either been warming or cooling, never stable. Of course the comment above fails to mention the pathology in the science that posits global warming is man made. Therein lies the pathology of the misdirection inherent in the whole global warming debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.137.68 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is easily arguable that Global Warming is Pathological Science since it is not verifiable by independent means. One cannot verify the temperature of any specific location yesterday, much less 100 years ago. In addition, coverage of sensors is not uniformly global. There has been no consistent form of temperature measurement accurate within the tenths of degree precision required for conclusive evidence. The issue is not how many believe it (e.g. "consensus"). The issue remains whether it is believable with the evidence provided and INDEPENDENT verification. Without verification it fails the scientific method as we know it today. 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)