Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It is characterized as a pseudoscience by UCLA planning professor Donald Shoup, especially as practiced by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. He argues that the ITE's calculations are arcane, overly specific, and typically based on minimal data and approximations that cannot be widely applied to other businesses, even of the same type ...
Some scientists might call some topic pseudoscientific, but there are at least two problems with this: 1) Not all scientists will agree, so the list is a list of what ONLY SOME scientist(s) call pseudoscientific, and 2) the label "pseudoscience" is a derogatory label indicating that the subject in question is not worthy of attention.
Pseudoscience is a broad group of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific, but that are not accepted as scientific by the scientific community. Pseudoscience does not include most obsolete scientific or medical theories (see Category:Obsolete scientific theories ), nor does it include every idea that ...
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience Support: Eldereft, Fyslee, Landed_little_marsdon, Hgilbert, QuackGuru, 2 Crohnie, Snalwibma, Verbal 2 Oppose: Levine2112, MaxPont, Tony_Sidaway. 6+2 / 3 I would like to interpret this as a consensus to rename the article to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (or something
An attempt to link Morgellons to the cause of Lyme disease has been attacked by Steven Salzberg as "dangerous pseudoscience". [ 34 ] Multiple chemical sensitivity [ 35 ] [ 36 ] is an unrecognized controversial diagnosis characterized by chronic symptoms attributed to exposure to low levels of commonly used chemicals.
IRWolfie has argued that this article is not a list of pseudoscience topics, but rather a list of characterized as pseudoscience. 172.250.119.155 has presented evidence that evolution has been characterized as pseudoscience. I don't think that this is a tolerable solution and we need to rethink what items actually belong on this list.
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should not be used to launch WP:POVFORKs and WP:LABELs should only be applied if it is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Something "widely used by reliable sources" should be prominent in the parent article.
[Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific ...