4 ms·
Wikipedia's List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
- peter_d_sherman 5y agoDisclaimer: I don't know if any of these topics are true or false, or partially true, and/or partially false! Second Disclaimer: Take all of the writings on this page with the proverbial "Grain of Salt". Do your own research! Tertiary Disclaimer: "Here Be Dragons..." (Comedy: (since I like to write comedy!): "When Researchers don't stop other Researchers from researching topics characterized by Wikipedia as pseudoscience -- then all sorts of things happen!" <g>)
- temporallobe 5y agoGlad I saw chiropractic in that list. A lot of people I know tried to get me into it, and even on the surface it seemed shady af before I tried it. I ended up trying a few sessions which only resulted in my spine being hurt. I finally did some research on the practice and was shocked to discover its hokey and snake oil-like roots. What’s fascinating to me that in the US, it’s treated like an acceptable alternative to genuine medical treatment, but most studies have shown it’s no better than therapeutic massage. To increase legitimacy, many practitioners use the title of “Doctor” because of their Doctor of Chiropractic degree, fooling many into believing that this has some relationship to being a medical doctor. I am not saying it’s totally useless, but the fact that chiropractic is so popular and is even a *thing* just seems very odd when we have well-established treatment modalities such as PT, therapeutic massage, and spinal surgery.