Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Florida Uni, chiropractic dept, astrology faculty

Hello. This section is for discussing the majority scientific view that chiropractic is unwelcome at universities, along with bigfoot institutes, and crop circle laboratories etc. [1]KrishnaVindaloo 02:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (because it is pseudoscientific)

Okay. Now read an actual official report submitted to FSU which lays to waste the mythological propaganda that chiropractic is a pseudoscience. [2] The FSU decision was more about politics and less about health care. Honestly KV, really read this through. (I know it is long!) Everything is documented. Everything is cited. I think it might be a real eye opener for you. Thanks. Levine2112 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it already. Here's an interesting scientology method that chiropractors use: [3]. KrishnaVindaloo 02:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Some people use chiropractic for some pseudoscientific reasons. Some people use astronomy for pseudoscientific reasons. Some people use math for pseudoscientific reasons. Still doesn't make any of those a good example of pseudoscience. I am happy you read that report that independent council submitted to FSU. Care to comment or discuss anything? Levine2112 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me KV has (again) put the cart before the horse. That Scientology latches onto something speaks more to Scientology's parasitic nature than it does to the validity of whatever it has latched onto.

In any case I echo Levine2112's question: Care to comment or discuss anything (from the FSU submission)? •Jim62sch• 11:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure! So when are the chiropractors going to move in? KrishnaVindaloo 11:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It must be a lonely life when one's sole quest is to prove chiro to be pseudoscience. BTW: we've already had the discussion regarding the true, not pathological, skeptics on this page who do not feel that all of chiro fits the mold and thus should be left off the page, and that we find your one-man crusade to be tiresome. •Jim62sch• 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be time to move for a community ban of KrishnaVindaloo from this and related articles. His involvement is profoundly disruptive and serves mainly to advance a position, which is a violation of core policies. Guy 12:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. KV definitely has a POV, but the impulse of KV to use chiropractic medicine as an example for this page isn't terrible. There are some real issues with chiropractic medicine as pointed out by Skeptical Inquirer [4] [5]. Books have been written on the subject. It's abundantly clear that subluxation is pure drivel. What exactly is the issue with KV? --ScienceApologist 13:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

William Jarvis and Stephen Barrett (authors, ediots of these articles) are at the forefront of anti-chiro promotion. Most of what you will find out there comes through their various nefarious organizations... NCAHF, Chirobase, Quackwatch... of course all of it falls victim to confirmation bias, which many notable critics of them have pointed out. The Keating article is decent. He knows his stuff, especially when it comes to chiropractic history. Emphasis on history. The concept of the vertebral subluxation has changed so much since its discovery. It is certainly not drivel anymore, but has a very solid scientific base. Despite what critics will try to assure you, there is no magic or cults or religion. It's all biology and it can all be confirmed. FACT: The brain sends and receives messages through the nervous system. FACT: Many signals pass through the spinal cord. FACT: A misaligned vertebra can cause swelling and impinge a spinal nerve. FACT: Removing the impingement allows for more efficient communication between your brain and the rest of your body. That's all there is to it really. Levine2112 00:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nefarious organizations"? "Very solid scientific base"? "magic or cults or religion"? There are some serious buzzwords you are pushing here that are not helping any. FACT: Chiropractic medicine is criticized TODAY as being pseudoscientific by a number of mainstream organizations. FACT: Chiropractic medicine has had very little confirmation in double-blind studies and is not endorsed by the AMA (which ignores it since Wilk v. American Medical Association) nor taught at major medical schools. FACT: There is no solid indication that chiropractic is the most effective way to remove "impingement" nor is there any study that shows people who undergo chiropractic treatment exhibit "more efficient communication between your brain and the rest of your body". That's all there is to it. --ScienceApologist 00:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First, let's discuss Double-Blind studies. Just like with surgical procedures, double-blind is a very difficult thing to acheive when researching chiropractic adjustments. Okay, perhaps you can fool the patient into believing he is getting a real adjustment when you are only giving him a sham (I don't know how, but let's assume that is possible). Okay, now how are you going to fool the practitioner in believing his is giving a real adjustment while he is only giving a sham? It's like fooling a surgeon into believe he is putting in an artificial heart but the whole procedure is a sham. Impossible. As for single blind studies, there are many which supports chiropractic. Allow me to point you to several hundred single blind and case studies published in a wide variety of scientific journals... [6] [7] [8]. Perhaps this will help you get your facts straight. Now you also say it is a fact that chiropractic is criticized today by a number of mainstream organizations. What is that number? Is it a large number? Is it a small number? What about the number of mainstream organization which endorse chiropractic? The AMA for instance does not criticize chiropractic and more and more chiropractors are found in hospitals working right along side MDs and DOs. Perhaps you would like to take a look at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [9]. Very informative. Levine2112 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Apart from you citing laudatory works from sources that would hardly be called impartial, you have just expelled a lot of hot air for really no reason. It doesn't matter "how many" organizations criticize chiropractic pseudoscience, it only matters that it happens and that it is a verifiable occurence. Regardless, this talkpage is not the place to argue over the status of chiropractic medicine, and it is really irrelevant to the point I am making which is that it is VERIFIABLY TRUE that there are groups and people including quite a few in the medical profession who currently dismiss chiropractic medicine as pseudoscience. Take it or leave it, that's a fact. There are also people who point out that there may be tangible benefits to chiropractors adjusting people's backs. Whether any of these facts deserve mention on this page is a matter of editorial opinion, but trying to skirt around the fact that chiropractic medicine has been denigrated is to deny the reality of the situation. By the way, the only reason the AMA doesn't criticize chiropractic medicine is due to litigation avoidance. I might also point out that there are also plenty of hospital chaplains working in hospitals according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but that doesn't make chaplaincy a scientific enterprise. Please dispense with the red herrings and realize that criticism of chiropractic as pseudoscience is a perspective you cannot argue people away from simply by yapping on a Wikipedia talkpage. --ScienceApologist 02:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on, SA. That is beneath you. Really. I thought I could carry on an intelligent conversation here and not accuse me of yapping or expelling hot air. Let me make one remark to show the folly of your argument and then be done with this. Chaplain, as you point out, are certainly positioned in a great deal of hospitals... but under what capacity? To heal? No. (Perhaps spritiually or something... but certainly not in the sense of medical healing.) Chiropractors are placed in hospitals to aid with the healing of patients, just like MDs and DOs. To compare chiropractors to chaplains is a very weak argument and I suspect you know that. Now if you want to talk about this rationally and with civility, I welcome it here, or at chiropractic or on my talk page. Levine2112 19:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This weird appeal to authority has no place here. Chaplains are definitely hired by hospitals to aid in the healing process just the same way as any other person hired by the hospital (doctors, nurses, chiropractors, candy-stripers, janitors, etc.). It's all part of a hospital's mission statement, there is no objective hierarchy of norms in terms of fulfilling such a mission statement. If someone is hired by a hosiptal, they are necessarily hired to help people "heal", that does not make the practice of said person scientific. Hopefully now red herrings can be put aside. --ScienceApologist 12:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this discussion is now archived, but come on! You are really grasping straws trying to give that chaplain argument any validity. Chaplains are hired under a religious/spiritual capacity. Doctors (MDs, DOs, and yes DCs) are hired to help physically heal the body. Levine2112 22:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112. Keating talks of chiropractic's PS aspects. This is an article on pseudoscience, so the aspects that he calls PS can be mentioned here. KrishnaVindaloo 02:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I have had some issues with KV, but I don't see anything wrong with his argument that chiropractic medicine has often been called a pseudoscience. Now KV may be a bit more dedicated to get that point into Wikipedia than I am, but the basic claim is certainly defensible and notable. Phiwum 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The view that chiro (or aspects of it) are PS is in fact already in WP, at Chiropractic and List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Most of the editors here are fine with that. There has been debate over including it in this article owing to concerns that chiro, being a mixed bag ("science, antiscience and pseudoscience", as Keating says), may not be a suitably representative example of the PS genre. That's a good-faith difference of opinion, especially coming from editors who have not objected to the inclusion of the chiro-as-PS idea elsewhere in WP.

Also, KV's approach to trying to get chiro included here has been an unfolding object lesson in how not to build consensus. For example, he's tried to get the pseudoscientific use of chiro in reparative therapy included here or at chiropractic, when it's so obviously a tiny-minority POV that at most it should be mentioned in the reparative therapy article itself. Despite suggestions to do so, KV hasn't attempted to put it there, but periodically still tries to get it in here and at chiropractic, which is not only contrary to Wp:npov#Undue_weight and WP:RS, but also invoke WP:POINT, WP:FANATIC, WP:CONSENSUS, and a host of related issues. Jim Butler^(talk) 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong support for article ban from pseudoscience articles at least, add to ArbCom case? The ad homs and instant mis-direct whenever discussion is attempted is highly disruptive. The vindictive "tit for tat" is especially annoying. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

KC, you have defended chiropractic several times and similar to Kenosis, you have used spurious arguments. So I will point out your bias and say you are pro-chiropractic. You have also been uncivil towards myself. What is disruptive is a group of proponents constantly throwing accusations of liar or dishonesty at myself, simply because I keep finding facts that show their interests in a pseudoscientific light, and use those facts to improve this article. KrishnaVindaloo 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Show me a diff where I have "defended" chiropractic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can make a direct quote. You said "The reference given, http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=83419614&oldid=83411556, did not even mention Chiropractic or subluxation. I have removed the ref and the entry it supposedly supported. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)". Your argument is totally off, and closely resembles a lot of other blinkering arguments from other proponents. Its just a desperate move to delete any mention of chiropractic shown in a pseudoscientific light. KrishnaVindaloo 12:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I find that a reference does not support a statement and you translate that into me being a "defender of chiropractic"? That's absurd. That makes me a defender of WP:V, not chiropractic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Puppy, you must dispense with logic, the antagonist finds it offensive. •Jim62sch• 00:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe your accusations (Guy and Jim) are unconstructive. I have done nothing more than to discuss, and to present NPOV compliant edits. If you wish to banish editors for doing such things, then I suggest you are in the wrong place. Above all else here, I have sought discussion. You don't have to join it. Its up to you. BTW, do you know when chiropractors are going to be allowed to present their pseudoscience in universities? KrishnaVindaloo 13:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you look carefully, you will find that the article, and many others, are made up of my own edits, all perfectly NPOV compliant. All in the face of proponents hurling abuse and personal attack towards me. With the help of other editors, I've helped uphold the Wikipedia convention of presenting pseudoscience as science sees it. By Wikipedia standards, I'm pretty cool! KrishnaVindaloo 13:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your constant harping on NPOV when virtually every editor disagrees with you, when you provide unacceptable sources or no sources, in violation of V and NOR, is reminiscent of Sam Spade. I suggest you stop trying to "prove" you are NPOV by dint of repitition; this does not accomplish anything but redundancy in your posts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out my edits, KC. You will see I (like some others) have contributed much to Wikipedia. And so many good edits have been denied by those with a soapbox or those with a liking for certain pseudoscientific subjects. Its a common problem that needs solving here. This article tends to get either censored by those wanting to create a fuss for no other reason than stifling negative views, or it gets locked by others who have ignored the reasonable goal of creating a clear article. It seems the view is, - clarity causes trouble, so its best off getting locked. Its in need of mediation. So, I will reiterate my message. Under mediation, my (and other's) NPOV compliant edits are more likely to be presented without the normal antagonistic soapboxing, whitewash, and censorship from the usual anti-Wikipedia, anti-clarity proponents. KrishnaVindaloo 15:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is apparent in the above edit; KV consistently and offensively attributes motives to many editors who have suggested that his sources are weak, or miscited, or that what he takes to be NPOV is far from it, and this subverts any discussion.Gleng 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. In every case it seems to be "you prove me wrong" not "I'll prove me right"; I think KV is suffering from m:MPOV and needs to stop the disruption. Guy 17:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the disruptive editing and tendentious argumentation should cease. ... Kenosis 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kenosis. So who was I attributing my comment to above? Do you think I should be booted for honesty or dishonesty? KrishnaVindaloo 02:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As a (relatively) uninvolved observer, it seems that, while KV has made constructive additions to the article at times and is a valued contributor, his comments on the talk page have tended toward trolling. This whole thread is an obvious example; it opened with an inflammatory, over-general, and unsupportable salvo from KV which had its desired effect. Angry denunciations feed into the problem, as would a page-specific ban. The most effective approach may be to stop rising to the bait that KV keeps laying out. Engage him/her on his/her constructive edits/suggestions and ignore the rest. Easier said than done of course. MastCell 18:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We tried that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

KV reads "not rising to the bait" as acceptance of what he has proposed. It is, then, a no-win situation. And yes, Guy is guite right re WP:MPOV. •Jim62sch• 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, for quite some time, cf. archived talk. -Jim Butler^(talk) 19:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello MastCell. You are not supposed to accuse people of trolling on discussion pages. If you suspect anyone of trolling, then contact the correct authorities to sort it out. If it is trolling to mention the term chiropractic or to place the term in the article, then there is something wrong in your definition of trolling. KrishnaVindaloo 03:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not supposed to what? Believe it or not KV, the discussion pages are precisely where trolling occurs, thus the observation fits in quite appropriately. •Jim62sch• 00:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to reiterate as I don't want KV to continue to evade/ignore this request... KV claims above that Webster's dictionary defines scientism as the use of PS language. I have asked him repeatedly to give us the full definition as he was reading it as I could not find any mention of PS in Webster's online or any other dictionary. In fact, scientism seems to be nearly the opposite of PS. The reason I am asking and re-asking for this info is two-fold. One, if KV can't produce this definition, then it tells us something about him as an editor here. But two and more important, it shows that the resource (the K and E article) - or at least the part he is trying to use - is invalid (as he is trying to use it to link Pseudoscience directly to the resources examples of things mainstream science considers to be "scientism"). So it's either the resoruce has it wrong and KV has it wrong (and he is lying about what he saw in Webster's) or there is another definition of scientism (one that means the exact opposite of the common definitions of the word) which KV and the resource are relying on. Levine2112 21:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See above from OED. This is it from on-line Webster: "1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist

2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences , and the humanities)"[10]. My 1997 hardcopy agrees. •Jim62sch• 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is clear. Look it up! Pseudoscientists are always using scientisms. [11]. They call their pseudoscience a science (eg chiropractic science) and they claim their science will do amazing things for them (eg, spiritual development through balancing your innate). Whatever way you define it, pseudoscientists use a lot of scientism. So it should be mentioned here. KrishnaVindaloo 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

KV, "scientism" as a term cannot be made plural. It may be true that pseudoscience advocates utilize similar arguments as to scientism supporters, but conflation of the two definitely is original research. You need to find a citation to a philosopher/historian/sociologist who describes the two conflated in order to include the novel association in this article. --ScienceApologist 02:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, SA. I'm discussing, not quoting in the article. I'm sure we will sort something out along the lines of a good ref though. KrishnaVindaloo 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

KV, you insisted that Webster's define scientism as the use of PS language. You misrepresented Webster's by incorrectly citing it. Incorrect citation seems to be a habit of yours. Please check your references and reflect them more accurately in the future to avoid confusion. Levine2112 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I never even put it in the article. Now tell me. Does it or does it not include the term pseudoscience? KrishnaVindaloo 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"It" what? The definition? You're quite sloppy with your antecedents here. •Jim62sch• 11:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I'm sloppy. Thats your argument then! Fine! I guess its an improvement on racist slurs and accusations of dishonesty. KrishnaVindaloo 12:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So clarify, dont make silly dramatic statements about "racist slurs" which have never been made. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

KV, like many people who feel ganged up upon is conflating all of his accusers as one person. Earlier there were some comments made that could have been taken as racial slurs (c.f. "You seem more to me like an Arjuna who headed off into battle having misunderstood Krishna."), but I don't think it is worth delving into. KV is basically acting like he is cornered and is simply lashing out at everybody who criticizes him. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If he feels cornered, perhaps it is because he was once again caught in a lie. But I don't feel there is any "ganging up" happening. I do feel that KV is inciting others purposefully. He needs to drop the accusations because that just stirs up more hostility (if you can call it that). He also needs to learn and grow and become a better, more responsible editor and change his negative attitude to a more friendly one. Just a minor point for instance... how many times have we showed him how to make a ref in the way we all agreed to do? I've written him special easy-to-follow instructions personally and still he refuses stubbornly. I've been more than nice to him about this and other things but yet he keeps on needling me, trying to get me to lash out or something. From my stance, I can tell you, that I didn't start the negativity with him. He did. I really tried and continue to try to keep things civil. Levine2112 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

SA, I suggest you read the Bhagavad Gita, all will come clear to you then. Quite an excellent book, really, and quite apropos to the behaviour of KV.

Also, the defence you offer for KV must needs be dismissed out of hand. KV is an adult, thus he has control over his actions. Feeding into his apparent desire to portray himself as a victim merely encourages his behaviour. •Jim62sch• 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if, and only if, there were any racial overtones, KrishnaVindaloo initiated them with an accusation of Western Anglocentrism, presumably as a speculated motive for the obvious "conspiracy" to "censor" Wikipedia. After his somewhat humorous wisecrack about pushing a WASP view here, and touched up here, I was almost fooled into forgetting some of the intense arguments that the various "conspirators" have had with one another about a wide range of issues on this talk page. As if to say that any move to reject classification of chiropractic as an example of pseudoscience in this article reflected a cultural bias. If I'm not mistaken, there appeared to be some degree of consensus — less than overwhelming but a consensus nonetheless — that chiropractic did not sufficiently meet enough of the thresholds for inclusion in this article as an example for the readers of what pseudoscience is. Insofar as that list of "fields considered pseudoscience" is no longer present at all, it appears perhaps even less appropriate to hold chiropractic out as an example, a poster child, so to speak. And if there is cause for KrishnaVindaloo to start an article about chiropractic in certain regions or nations, Wikipedia is big enough to accommodate such an article if it's consistent with the three main rules of VER, NOR, and NPOV, subject to discussion by any other editors that may choose to get involved in that article.

But instead, in the meantime, KrishnVindaloo has pursued yet a new angle, which is to keep repeating that NPOV trumps consensus, conveniently forgetting that it is not he alone who has the right to determine what NPOV is in this instance, or in any instance. As I said above, it's time for the disruptive editing and tendentious argumentation to cease. The simplest way to do that would be to simply stop doing it. ... Kenosis 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

People really need to disengage themselves at this point. We're talking about Wikipedia here, people. Speculating as to KV's motivations is so far removed from the stated-purpose of the talkpage as to be borderline in violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I recommend moving all this stuff to a more appropriate location or dropping the matter at once. --ScienceApologist 12:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

These are not speculations on the whole. I gave a summary sketch of some of the overlapping issues, with quotations used intentionally as samples of some of the accusations that have been leveled by KrishnaVindaloo at others. All of these are readily verifiable should they need to be put in one place for more convenient viewing. Specifically, KrishnaVindaloo has accused the users here, in various combinations, of being racist, and "conspiring" to "censor" Wikipedia. So it already was an issue, one that can, and should, stop. But I refuse to let lie, hanging in mid-air, the accusation leveled at Jim62sch and others of being racist without commenting and putting it into a reasonable summary perspective. I don't care what guidelines it violates, WP:AGF has been just about thoroughly exhausted with this user. ... Kenosis 16:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Then start a User:RfC already! --ScienceApologist 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need as yet. Per WP:AGF, I still presume the tendentiousness can stop, as you also advocated. I just didn't want to leave something as serious as an accusation of racism hanging in mid-air. Take care; good to see you here. ... Kenosis 16:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this part of the Quote?

If so, format it properly:
""EMDR, Thought Field Therapy, and all the rest rightly deserve critique, just not on the grounds of pseudoscience." •Jim62sch• 11:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

KV controversy and proposed User RfC

I can understand the frustration people are feeling with KV. However, can I ask people to do the sane thing and just take a breather from all the accusations and talks of banning? After all, this is only a Wikipedia article and KV isn't so ridiculously out-of-line as many of the POV-pushers we see at Intelligent design or Creationism for examples. Frankly, the accusations flying around seem to be proposing major surgery for a few minor ailments: the remedy proposed looks worse than the disease. As such, it may be a good idea to solicit some outside opinions. I realize that User RfCs are sometimes looked upon disfavorably, but perhaps KV will be okay for a request for comment for the sake of trying to get some outside opinions on the situation? -ScienceApologist 13:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Try reading through the Talk pages here and on Vitalism, from the top, and look at his contributions on the Talk pages of chiropractic. Personally, I think that before you ask for more discussion, see how extensively many different people have tried to reason with him.Gleng 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

SA, I edit just a handful of articles due to limited time. The fact that certain editors of other articles are wasting even MORE precious editorial time than KV has wasted of editors here is small consolation. Sure, KV's style and content are less egregious than the worst ID-POV-pushers, but they're still disruptive. He's been repeatedly asked to change his approach, and if anything has only become more fanatical. If you or anyone else can get him to hear you on this issue and change course, my plaudits and thanks. If not, then I strongly suggest some sort of sanction. (I'm not sure how all that works; I guess it would mean an RfC, but another approach might be a community ban via ANI[12] as was done with User:Mccready.) Jim Butler^(talk) 18:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go on record as supporting the former proposed remedy and I will oppose the latter proposed remedy. --ScienceApologist 12:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific behavior

I think part of the problem here is that we mistake pseudoscientific behavior for pseudoscience itself. Just because someone acts like an idiot, does not mean he is one. IOW, the definition of pseudoscience only pertains to scientific method. It is true that pseudosciences will behave in manners that make them suspect and we list them. But you can't use the suspected behavior to label them. We have to ask, are they using the scientific method to substantiate their claim? If they are, they are not a pseudoscience. Then it is up to us to determine why they are behaving that way? Are they using advertising because they are in a very competitive market? Are they being criticised by their competition, etc. etc.. That is why we have to use, not only verifiable sources, but reliable sources. Pseudoscience is a part of scientific philosophy that has no set criteria. We have to consider people with MSc as the experts in this field. Just my 2 cents. --Dematt 14:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)