Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathological skepticism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and move to Pseudoskepticism. —Mets501 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathological skepticism

[edit]

Non-notable term; Google shows the phrase "pathological skepticism" practically unheard of outside of parapsychology and UFOlogy web sites. Almost all the references in the article point back to a single article written by a sociology professor in a self-published journal, and the few that don't simply show that somebody, somewhere, once used the term "pseudo-skepticism" in print somewhere way back when. Beyond the notablity problem, the article is overwhelmingly POV. This might deserve a line or two in Skepticism or Debunker, but that's about it. Aaron 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep -- Marcello Truzzi was a highly respected Professor, at Eastern Michigan University, who wrote many articles on the subject. The subject is verifiable from reliable sources. The phrase "pathological skepticism" is verifiable in a number of other sources, [1][2], as is pseudoskepticism,[3][4]. Wikipedia NPOV Undue Weight tells us that "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper." It is not against Wikipedia policy for an article to be "POV", only if the article is non-NPOV which is not the same thing. --Iantresman 22:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iantresman. I also think it would be in good taste to open a discussion on the article talk page before listing for AFD. Potentially could save everyone here a lot of time. Given that there are many articles the subject, I don't see why it can't grow. I also don't see why it would necessarily need to grow anyway to merit an article. Derex 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per ScienceApologist. Delete nothing worth keeping. An attack term made up by one person isn't notable. Arbusto 02:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Less than 1200 google hits[5], eight for google scholar [6], of which two seem to be irrelevant (the ones on law and film). Ian argues that Marcello Truzzi is notable but I only see about 16,000 google hits for him.[7]. POV is definitely a concern as well. GabrielF 04:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Jim Butler's analysis below: 18000 hits for Pseudoskeptism. Harald88 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The irony! Deny the article first, ask questions later, never (see the first characteristic of Pseudoskepticism). A reminder that pseudoskepticism is not skepticism. It would be like suggesting that we merge pseudoscience with science. As for room to grow, yes there is much that could be added, such as Truzzi's motivation for developing the subject, examples of the various characteristics with respect to specific subjects, and comments from other commentators. As for the notability of Truzzi, he is the author (or co-author) of a number of books,[8] and many articles in reputable journals,[9] --Iantresman 09:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, pseudoskepticism is no more a critique of skepticism, than pseudoscience is a critique of science. Pseudoskepticism is a false skepticism, ie. it is not skepticism. --Iantresman 13:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Pseudoskepticism is a label invented by Truzzi to criticize certain skeptics. --ScienceApologist 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the term is Truzzi's version of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Bubba73 (talk), 00:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And is "pseudoscience" also No True Scotsman fallacy, and should be deleted? Obviously not. In my opinion, this whole discussion reeks of double standard. If it's bad for "believers" to mess with the Pseudoscience entry, then it's just as bad if "skeptics" try to censor the Pseudoskepticism entry. I don't believe for one second the listed reasons for deletion. If they were true, then where are all the calls for deletion of "pathological science" and "pseudoscience," on the grounds that these other terms are inherently POV, or are nothing but no-true-scotsman fallacy, or are nothing but smear tactics? Should we delete "Creationism" because the term is inherently POV? Of course not. In fact, NONE of these terms are inherently POV, fallicious, etc., and all are useful and in use. Be honest now, and admit the actual reasons why this term needs to be hidden: Truzzi created a powerful weapon now being used by creationists and other believers, and it can be weilded as an effective rhetorical ploy to make the skeptic side of any debate look bad. This must be stopped!  :) Delete it from WP! (Yet the same issue is true of the words pseudoscience and pathological science. Perhaps a Creationist group should mount an attempt to delete the Pseudoscience entry. Get a big enough group working for months, and they can do it. Heh. They won't have to work very hard, since they can just copy all the "skeptic" arguments being used on this page!) --Wjbeaty 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the misunderstand also stems from (a) the misconception that non-NPOV is POV (b) That a POV requires an opposing POV to make an article NPOV. See WP:POV --Iantresman 12:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consider myself to very much be a skeptic, and I defend the inclusion of this topic here. (I happen to be the ringmaster for the Skeptic Ring and the Anti-Quackery Ring, so I think I have a bit of understanding on the subject.) It is a real concept used in the real world, and therefore Wikipedia should cover it. I really doubt that many skeptics are totally free from occasionally giving way to pseudoskeptic tendencies. Who doesn't get a kick out of an occasional ad hominem attack on true believing idiots? (How was that for an example?....;-) Why do we love Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" program? Because we find it perfectly appropriate, in the name of humor, to make fun of our antagonists. Skepticism and pseudoskepticism abide side-by-side in many of us, and it is only our higher self that intellectually recognizes and attempts to suppress the tendency to sink to the same level as many of our antagonists, especially when involved in serious discussions (which Penn and Teller don't pretend to be doing, although they still are spot on much of the time). The same principle is involved in racism: much as we'd like to think we are totally free of racist tendencies, we actually often harbor them in one way or another. This is human nature. I still support a strong keep, but only after renaming to the much more common expression "pseudoskepticism." -- Fyslee 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak ... whatever. The article was more POV before the layer of edits that I did immediately before the AfD was initated. An article like this should not be written in a way that suggests we support the theory that there is such a thing as "pathological skepticism" or "pseudoskepticism". The claim that this is a real phenomenon is intrinsically POV. However, the claim that such a phenomenon has been perceived by Truzzi and that this pejorative expression has been used by Truzzi and others to label it is objectively correct. If the article is retained, it will need to be policed for POV, and if that doesn't work the inherently POV nature of the article will have been evidenced. For the moment, I have no clear opinion either way as to whether it should be deleted. Metamagician3000 03:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iantresman. No more POV a term than pseudoscience or cult: controversial, yes, and worth keeping for that very reason. Such articles should be retained and improved, not deleted because some editors dislike the subject matter. On notability, Googling for Boolean variations on "pseudoskepticism" turns up in excess of 18,000 hits[11] , compared to the 500-odd yielded by "pathological skepticism"[12]. However, as with the terms "pseudoscience" and "cult", "pseudoskepticism" is used in a variety of ways (cf. Google Books[13]). The "meta" approach taken at cult offers a way around the POV problem of covering only a single definition (i.e., Truzzi's). (Such an approach is still needed at pseudoscience, btw). -Jim Butler(talk) 06:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:GabrielF/911TMCruft notes: "These AfDs primarily targetted articles on subjects with little or no notability, which violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V and which were created (in my opinion) for the purpose of promoting people, ideas, and books rather than for furthering wikipedia's mission." --Iantresman 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep but rename to Pseudoskeptism in view of the 18000 Google hits (see Jim Butler) and because it's a less strong term. The article needs to be expanded though, currently it's too much focussing a few people. Harald88 07:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Adjusted preferred spelling and changed to Strong Keep in view of current expansions as well as the good potential for a more content-based article, similar to pseudoscience. Harald88 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-the term exists, and thus someone may want to look it up on wikipedia to see what it means! I think wikipedia is *quite* capable of provide a concise objective article on where the term originated and what it means. If we have to instead go around hysterically deleting articles because they might lapse into POV, we might as well all pack up and go home!--feline1 12:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article now cites uses of the term "pseudo-skepticism" from 1869 and 1908, and has consequently grown in size by 40% since the AfD began, and demonstrating use of the term outside of parapsychology and UFOlogy, and its notability in philosophy. I should also note that I am one of the primary authors of the article. --Iantresman 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look through the citations, you'll find that all the Truzzi references come from his paper "On Pseudo-Skepticism", of which the 12 references [3]-[14] all details Truzzi's "Characteristics of Pseudoskepticism" by noting the context. These references could be replaced with a single general reference to the paper, but we'd loose the context. Of the remaining 8 citations, Truzzi is referenced twice, not bad since he probably contributed more to the subject than anyone else. --Iantresman 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most articles about pseudoskepticism appear to be attributable to Truzzi. If you can find others who wrote about pseudoskepticism, please include material you consider relevant, or list the source so others can assess it. --Iantresman 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, as I said, perhaps the granularity of this article is unsupported by the narrow context in which the term is applied, and the narrow body of work in which it is described.--Rosicrucian 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This logic sounds a little like "heads I win, tales you lose". WP has articles on other memes originated primarily by one person (e.g., selfish gene). Truzzi's ideas aren't nearly as famous as Dawkins', but they have been picked up by others, and Truzzi himself was notable by WP standards. I agree with Iantresman's point below re WP:NPOV#Undue_weight (WP not paper, OK to represent even tiny minority views adequately in articles about them). -Jim Butler(talk) 03:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truzzi was Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University with a good track record of books,[14] and articles,[15]. He also help found the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), and became editor of its journal, The Zetetic (later to become The Skeptical Inquirer). I think it is fair to say that Truzzi is not unfamiliar with the subject, and the article information attributed to Truzzi is verifiable. Again, if you have other sources you feel are relevant, please include them. --Iantresman 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying Truzzi is not noteworthy, nor am I implying that he was not an expert on the subject. I'm implying that since he seems to either be the only expert on it, or at best one of a tiny few using the definition he codified, perhaps it is not as notable as you assert it is, and certainly not notable enough to carry an article by itself I am not against its mention in Wikipedia, it's covering one man's theories in this much detail that I'm opposed to.--Rosicrucian 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept appears to have been around a long time before Truzzi. I do no dispute that Truzzi may have been the only person to write on the subject seriously. That there are articles mentioning the subject,[16] and thousands of Google hits,[17], I think makes it worthwhile. Wikipedia is packed with articles I personally consider non-notable; but I recognise that they be be notable to others, and they do me no harm. I am reminded that "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper."WP:NPOV#Undue_weight --Iantresman 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- or rename to pseudoskepticism with mention of pathological skepticism and continue to bulid the article in a NPOV manner. Pseudoscience, pseudoskepticism, etc. are all fields related to the philosophy of science. Surely even rational skeptics agree that the phenomenon described by Truzzi exists. Lets just continue reporting what these experts are saying. --Dematt 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dematt raises a good philosophical point. The phenomenon described by Truzzi exists in the same way that "pseudoscience" does: a pattern that the speaker wishes to highlight by critically differentiating it from another pattern (with which another speaker has perhaps erroneously identified it). There are cases in which some people may not believe that such differentiation is meaningful or important (e.g., nontheists who don't care about identifying various heresies). Still, if the meme is significant enough, I think WP should cover it. -Jim Butler(talk) 03:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge It is not notable, but in this case being properly sourced, clear and concise trumps notability. Has the author tried to get a similar article into wiktionary? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "pseudoskepticism" and keep per Dematt. The current title is used much, much, much less than "pseudoskepticism." It is also an awkward expression that is unnecessarily pejorative -- pseudo is bad enough, and it is accurate. The phenomenon exists and few can claim to be totally free of it. If they do, they need a different mirror.....;-)
  • Comment: Google results show great notability and common use of "pseudoskepticism"
  • Keep but rename to pseudoskepticism by analogy with pseudoscience (and mention that analogy in the article), per Dematt. It's a real philosophical/psychological phenonemom (it can be observed operating here on Wikipedia) and surely must have been studied by other academics under some other name. CWC(talk) 08:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added to the article, details of (a) a University of Colorado course (b) a University of Arizona department, that studies or researches pathological skepticism. The article has now grown by half since the AfD begun. --Iantresman 10:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. The POV that "certain forms of skepticism are excessive or damaging" is certainly notable and merits coverage in the article on Skepticism. Conceivably, if there's too much material on that aspect to be accommodated in the Skepticism article, it could be summarized there and elaborated on in a daughter article, but the latter would be something like Criticism of skepticism. It wouldn't be titled with this nonnotable term. I agree that Truzzi was notable (there's been no AfD on Marcello Truzzi), but that doesn't mean that every term he discussed needs its own article. JamesMLane t c 11:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to pseudoskepticism. Merge "abuses of skepticism" into "pseudoskepticism." "practically unheard of outside of parapsychology and UFOlogy web sites." No, I've heard the term commonly used among member scientists at meetings of Society for Scientific Investigation (SSE) and used in their journal, and also used in online and offline discussions of the psychology behind various science controversies. It's a useful shorthand term, same as "pathological science." In my experience, pseudoskepticism is certainly a genuine behavior-flaw analogous to pathological science (also analogous to "flamer" or "troll,") and it's not merely a smear tactic. In fact, is it not a smear tactic if someone labels "pseudoskeptic" as purely POV? Should we also delete the entry for "pathological science" because it implies bad things about certain people? "Pseudoskeptic" is just as POV as "pseudoscientist," the former being coined based on the latter. Both can be used as neutral labels, and both can be hurled as ad hominem or smear tactics during fights. If "pseudoskepticism" should be deleted because some people use it as derogation, then we must also consider deleteing "pseudoscience" and "pathological science" entries as well. And delete "flamer" and "troll" for good measure. The first step in understanding a new phenomenon or concept is to give it a name. Truzzi is not the first to notice it, but is one of the early ones naming it. Others independantly gave the same phenomenon different names currently in far less widespread use, e.g. "pathological skeptic," "scoffer," "skepto-path," and "abuse of skepticism." I've been a member of local skeptic groups and debated on both sides of "believer/skeptic" issues, and over the years I've met a significant number of people both online and off who call themselves "scientific skeptics" but who constantly fall into the misbehaviors that Truzzi points out. Pseudoskepticism is a sort of mental flaw very much similar to "flamer:" there are some people who are unrepentant shameless flamers, and some who are unrepentant shameless pseudoskeptics, and many others covering an entire spectrum. But among the population of skeptics, the habitual pseudoskeptics are certainly not in the majority, yet they certainly have a significant impact. Carl Sagan directly and repeatedly cautioned skeptic groups against pseudoskeptic behavior, but without giving a succinct label to the behavior. And CSICOP split off from JREF partly because of just these issues (today JREF is very pseudoskeptic-tolerant, seeing little wrong with laughter and ad-hominem, while CSICOP has gone far in distancing itself from such things.) Would it have been better if skeptic groups coined the term? They did. Truzzi himself is a long time skeptic, and he debunks irrational beliefs as well as aiming skepticism at Skeptic groups. The term "pseudoskepticism" had its birth in the self-criticism within the CSICOP group, and only later was it employed by Creationists during evolution flamewars, etc. And finally: just as pseudoscientists try to distort or delete portions of the WP pseudoscience entry, the pseudoskeptic fringe would love to see this entry removed. I strongly suspect that this current deletion attempt is no way innocent, and may very well be disingenuous in that the reasons listed for the deletion are not the actual reasons leading to this deletion review. --Wjbeaty 09:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The issue is not whether the term exists nor whether the term should exist but whether we have enough information to write a WP:V and WP:NPOV compliant article. As for the comment about the SSE- the SSE is somewhat on the fringe of things. JoshuaZ 15:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could have fooled me. The initial comment regarding simply show that somebody, somewhere, once used the term "pseudo-skepticism" in print somewhere way back when is making an issue of whether the term is in common contemporary use. Perhaps you personally don't see this as an issue, but others here obviously do. If the terms aren't being used in forums, journal papers, skeptic magazines, etc., then deleting the entry has no important consequenc. About Google hits: beware, since a large number of hits are simply mirrors of WP entries appearing on other sites. A better gauge of the level of usage might be to search Usenet Newsgroups at groups.google.com. About Truzzi: this WP entry started out referencing other websites and not Truzzi's paper, and was tarred with the brush of being unprofessional. Now that it references an actual publication, it's tarred with the brush of being Truzzi-centric. Damned if you do, damned if you don't (the important thing to those disliking its use is that it remain tarred, eh? Stigmatize it so it may be ridiculed and dismissed without fair consideration and without their needing to leave the political-emotional-beliefs mental state.) And shouldn't we be deleting "Cargo Cult Science" too? It's obviously just a Feynman-centric conceit and a ploy to sell Feynman books. And about SSE: the membership of that group is professional scientists. Unless things there have changed, members of the public cannot join as members, but may subscribe to the journal as "associates." The SSE is "fringe" to the extent that the group is in the business of giving fair invesigations of odd phenomena, whereas skeptic groups make the assumption (usually unspoken) that paranormal events, alien visitation, etc., aren't occurring. To a staunch disbeliever, the SSE certainly looks like a bunch of idiots --67.136.141.97 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pathological skepticism: "I am a scientist and I know the truth, so don't try to change my mind with facts," is seen in many scientific fields, not just applied to pseudoscience. There is much good, thought provoking material in this article, and I will leave it to the editors who follow the subject to use the editing process to maintain NPOV and to document their statements in the article. Edison 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat tangential suggestion: If we keep this article, perhaps we should make it clear in our policy and guideline pages that labelling a wikipedian as a pseudoskeptic (or whatever name we settle on) is not a useful contribution to wikipedia discussions. Just a thought, CWC(talk) 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pathological_skepticism&oldid=1142243606"