Talk:Zionology

I'd never heard of "Zionology" when I happened upon this article. From the viewpoint of someone ignorant of the subject, who comes to Wikipedia seeking knowledge of it, I must tell the people who do know something about it that this article in its current state does a poor job of explaining it. Perhaps too much background knowledge is being assumed. Near the beginning there should be a clear, succinct statement of the underlying principle. Is it basically a form of biased history, blaming Jews for everything and attributing all sorts of evil motives to them? Does it get the "pseudoscience" tag because it espouses racial theories that address scientific subjects (heritability of particular traits) but does so unscientifically (e.g., claiming on little or no evidence that Jews have a genetic predisposition toward violence or avarice or whatever)? My personal opinion is that some classical forms of anti-Semitism (the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world or whatever) are rubbish but are not pseudoscience. That term relates only to a particular subcategory of all the rubbish that's out there. Anyway, I'd really appreciate some clarification in this article. JamesMLane 05:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was exactly that: rubbish presented as having solid scientific base, thus -logy. Unfortunately, this was not the only pseudoscience promoted by the authorities in the USSR. In general, totalitarian regimes often fall into this trap by politicizing everything and the lack of checks and balances. I agree, the article needs improvement. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even with the additional material you've added, I don't see how this qualifies as a pseudoscience. For example, racist views in the U.S.: (1) "The Negro has a smaller brain than the Caucasian and is therefore inherently less intelligent" -- pseudoscience; (2) "The civil rights movement is a Communist plot to take over America" -- not pseudoscience. This article makes Zionology sound much more like the second than the first. The truth or falsity of such statements is not something one would attempt to determine using the scientific method (reproducible experimental results, double-blind testing, quantitative prediction, etc.). Did Zionology address any questions that would fall within the realm of science, as opposed to history, ideology, etc.? If not, the tag should come off. JamesMLane 18:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course it was not any kind of science, but it was called a science and was presented as such. Backed by the state-sponsored "research", "scientific" symposiums, dissertations, etc. The efforts were made to make it distinguishable from pure propaganda. Are you saying the history is not a science? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 19:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would have no hesitation in saying that history is not a science. It follows that biased history is merely a form of bad history, not of pseudoscience. The scientific method (with controlled experimentation, etc.) simply isn't available to solve most historical questions, although techniques like radiocarbon dating can sometimes illuminate particular points. As for Zionology, if a field calls itself a science, while not only rejecting true scientific method but also speaking to questions that aren't even susceptible to scientific inquiry in the first place, I think it's a close question whether that's a pseudoscience. I've lodged the query on Talk:Pseudoscience in the hope that others will chime in here. JamesMLane 20:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree this is a weird case. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 20:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the line gets complicated with the Soviets because under their definition, Marxism itself was a "science." In fact throughout much of the Soviet period an entirely different philosophy of science was utilized (dialectical materialism). I think what makes this "psuedoscience" is the same thing that makes various Soviet applications of Marxism a psuedoscience as defined by non-Soviet/non-Marxist standards. In other words, the belief that history itself -- and not history in the sense of academic history, but in the sense of Marxist "history", the great wheel of time seen purely as the clash of interested forces and labor -- is a "science"; could be "psuedoscience."; At least, that's how I'm intepretting this -- it looks like a conspiracy theory more than a psuedoscience in the traditional sense of the word. But the Soviets had a lot of conspiracy theories they labeled as "science," so I suppose that makes them psuedoscientific? .... maybe that's a somewhat helpful attempt to figure out what's going on, maybe not (I'm coming to this as someone who has done some work with Soviet philosophy of science, but knows nothign about Zionology). I think what this would require to sensibly be in the psuedoscience category would be an addition to the entry on Psuedoscience which explains the above, perhaps, because as it is, Zionology doesn't jive at all with the current definition as given by the page. --Fastfission 20:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we could reconcile this by creating a subcat. Marxist pseudoscience? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 20:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if a full subcat is needed, but if someone else out there knew more about Soviet Marxism's claims to being "scientific", something along those lines might be useful... I don't recall enough off-hand to write anything good up, and don't really have the time to trawl through my books at the moment. Not to mention I wouldn't be looking forward to the inevitable edit wars which would come with labeling Marxism in any form a psuedoscience. ;) --Fastfission 20:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fastfission, why do you say it doesn't meet the definition as per Wikipedia? The current definition at Pseudoscience is: "A pseudoscience is any body of knowledge purporting to be either both factual and scientific, or of an even higher standard of knowledge, but which fails to comply with scientific method." That seems to apply to Zionology, Marxism and most organized religions. In other words, it's too broad. I realize there's been a great deal of discussion of definitional issues on Talk:Pseudoscience, which I haven't yet read. JamesMLane 03:23, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most organized religions (except Scientology, perhaps) don't pretend to be scientific. Zionology clearly was. Even the 1963 book was published by the Academy of Sciences. Fastfission is correct in that the Soviets curriculum taught that Marxism (Diamat, Political economy, etc) are all social sciences. How does subcat:Social pseudoscience sound? Not sure whether Marxism also belongs there. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just meant that it doesn't necessarily appear the meet the definition, that's all -- it's not obvious, because the whole "social science is hard science" Soviet Marxism thing isn't really covered anywhere. Maybe what I'll do is just add a heading to Psuedoscience which talks about the use of social sciences or ideologies as hard sciences in the Soviet Union, and then it will make more sense. --Fastfission 16:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I said that organized religions met the current Wikipedia definition of "pseudoscience" because, even though they don't pretend to be scientific, they claim to be "of an even higher standard of knowledge." The suggestions of a subcat for "Social pseudoscience" (or maybe it should be separate from and parallel to "Pseudoscience," not under it), and/or of adding a discussion of Soviet practices to the Pseudoscience article, are worth considering. The problem in dealing with Marxism is that, even though Marxism isn't a science in the form of chemistry or some such, Marx did have some valuable insights. It's precisely because he was addressing topics that aren't susceptible to scientific method that his observations, like those of any other political economist, can have merit though they're unscientific. That seems to me to be an important distinction between Marxism (or, for that matter, Zionology), on the one hand, and astrology, on the other. Therefore, I'd be more inclined to narrow the definition of pseudoscience, to call it something like "an attempt to address scientific topics in unscientific ways." Then there could be a separate discussion, perhaps in the Pseudoscience article, about the attempts by Soviets and others to give scientific trappings to ideological points of view that don't even qualify as pseudosciences. I'll admit, though, that the distinction wouldn't always be easy to draw. JamesMLane 17:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would remove the pseudoscience reference without hesitation. I find that most of its uses are pejorative and ignorant. I would prefer that its use be rigorously restricted to situations where the definition has itself been scientifically applied. There are many who would argue that all of "Political Science" is pseudoscience; thus applying the term to any particular political theory does not serve to distinguish it from any other aspect of political science. I appreciate that Karl Marx himself was sincere in his efforts to put economics on a scientific basis; he sought proofs that would substantiate his theories. If his theories proved to be miserable failures a century after his death that does not result in his efforts retroactively becoming pseudoscience. Such judgement must reflect the times in which he lived.

It is significant that the writer of this muddled article credits the origins of "Zionology" to a propaganda department. With that alone I abandon all hope that science is at issue, and without science there is no pseudoscience.

I would attach no weight to the -ology argument that suggest that such a suffix implies a science. That kind of thinking would render ideology into a science. There is an unfortunate tendency in these "Jewish" issues that is practised by both sides: that is to perpetuate the confusion between words such as Jewish or Semite on one side and Zionist or Israeli on the other. It is very frustrationg for those of us who prefer clear distinctions between these terms. Eclecticology 22:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is only natural that Jews have full spectrum of opinions about any subject and don't hesitate to discuss them in public, as they have long standing polemics traditions. OTOH, anti-Semites prefer to suspect Jewish conspiracy, in addition it has become politically incorrect to admit being an anti-Semite. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is totally wrong for an anti-Zionist to extrapolate his anti-Zionism into an excuse for blaming all Jews for everything that's wrong in the world. Eclecticology 22:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is wrong, but this accusation is NOT anti-Zionism, it is garden-variety anti-Semitism. Let's get our terminology straight. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is equally wrong for Jewish extremists to draw inferences of anti-semitism when someone is severely critical of the Israeli state. Eclecticology 22:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government does not automatically constitute anti-Semitism. OTOH, there is a big difference between being a) "severely critical of the Israeli state" policies and b) questioning the legitimacy of the existence of the Jewish state or advocating its destruction. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The trouble with ruling out anything a propaganda department says is that some of it is "genuine" pseudoscience. For example, there might be a false claim that DNA analysis shows some inferiority in the genes of a disfavored ethnic group. That seems to me to be pseudoscience. A false claim that the group is being funded by foreign enemies is not pseudoscience. I'm not applying a definition here. These are just my gut reactions about the meaning of the term. I do agree with you that the "-ology" suffix is not, by itself, enough. JamesMLane 02:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Genuine pseudoscience" seems to be an oxymoron. :-) The DNA example could be more a matter of lying with statistics. Propagandists aren't "doing" any science, real or pseudo; they're just taking the data and putting a particular spin on them. Propagandists and advertisers are paid to promote a certain point of view, the truth of which may be no more than coincidental. The kind of situation that you describe was at the centre of the bell-curve controversy a few years ago. Some people were able to draw some inappropriate inferences from the statistical material, and a public that was just as unschooled in statistics was equally quick to condemn these results. Statistics from IQ tests may very well have ended up with one racial group having a median score lower than another group. From there the hypothesis that one group is inferior to the other is a testable one, which may be proven false in the testing, or which may lead to additional factors to explain the data. At this point we do not yet have pseudoscience. Eclecticology 03:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For the n-th time: the whole thing was nothing but propaganda presented as a science. As such it was supposed to serve as a ground, or basis for propaganda. The post-Soviet sources refer to it as pseudoscience or quasiscience. Do we have a good category for it? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "propaganda"! Eclecticology 04:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although I believe that the article also has other POV problems, I have too little background in the subject to attempt a revision. My involvement in this article is thus confined to the misuse of the term "pseudoscience". Eclecticology 04:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"I would attach no weight to the -ology argument that suggest that such a suffix implies a science. That kind of thinking would render ideology into a science." Eclecticology 22:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry you are wrong here. The suffix "-logy" means science, theory or study. See your favorite dictionary. (funny I should write it to someone whose nickname ends with it). Particular ideologies usually end with "-ism". ←Humus sapiens←Talk 19:31, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The meaning of the suffix is broader than "science". For example, speaking of the USSR, the phrase "Kremlinologist" was commonly used to describe the people who tried to figure out the power relationships among the secretive Soviet leaders, using such clues as who was standing where on the reviewing stand at a parade. It was a legitimate field of study but it wasn't a science. Beyond that, the way a field is referred to by its adherents is not dispositive as to its true nature. The name is one example of the way the proponents tried to give their bigotry the veneer of a science, but calling it so doesn't make it so. JamesMLane 05:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)