Editing Eurovision Wiki:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (section)

== Western esotericism ==
*{{la|Western esotericism}}
This is about {{diff2|1343980392}}. Please chime in. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  15:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*: Reported at [[WP:AIAV]]. Orbital strike in 3...2...1... --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

:I believe in western esotericism. What’s so wrong with that? [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-16717-30|&#126;2026-16717-30]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-16717-30|talk]]) 16:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

::: I have blocked the TA for a week for edit warring. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 16:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:I did the initial reverts of the IP editor's removal; however I will say there doesn't seem to be much mention of the relevant pseudoscience in the body of the article, just the one shout-out of Theosophy/Anthroposophy under the "18th, 19th and early 20th centuries" section. [[User:DiodotusNicator|DiodotusNicator]] ([[User talk:DiodotusNicator|talk]]) 23:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::Yup, because "pseudoscience" is a relatively new concept (it appeared since 1844 in the scientific literature). [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  23:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I guess my question is whether the pseudoscience mention is really due in the first paragraph of the lead, given that the body has just one statement akin to "Theosophy/Anthroposophy, which are descendants of Western Esotericism, are pseudoscientific". I'm not experienced with [[WP:FRINGE]] but my impression is that "occultism" would be more accurate than "pseudoscience" here when describing "stuff the Western esoteric tradition has influenced" [[User:DiodotusNicator|DiodotusNicator]] ([[User talk:DiodotusNicator|talk]]) 00:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I would really like to see an argument that the statement "Western esotericism It has influenced, or contributed to, various forms of pseudoscience" is false while maintaining that it ''has'' contributed to religion and science. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm not arguing the statement is false, I'm sharing my impression of the scholarship regarding Western esotericism, which is that the tradition's influence on "pseudoscience" is a significantly less-notable fraction of its influence on "occultism" - this is demonstrated by the extent of coverage devoted to these topics in the body of the article: the single sentence I mentioned above, which is sandwiched between discussions of the tradition's influence on occult movements.
:::::With regards to "science", I really wouldn't know, and I don't think anyone interested in this subject cares about the influence of, say, Hermes Trismegistus or Aleister Crowley on modern academic science specifically. But I would like to point out that, for many of the ancient/early modern writers at the ground floor of "Western esotericism", there was not really much difference between the study of religion as such and what you and I would call science: see [[Pythagoreanism]] or [[Hermeticism]]. The latter is a good example of an -ism with elements that can surely be called "pseudoscience" from a modern academic perspective, but is likely better described by "occultism" or "mysticism". It would be anachronistic and certainly undue to call the work of [[Paracelsus]], for example, pseudoscientific. [[User:DiodotusNicator|DiodotusNicator]] ([[User talk:DiodotusNicator|talk]]) 02:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:{{cite journal|last=Asprem|first=Egil|year=2015|title=Dis/unity of Knowledge: Models for the Study of Modern Esotericism and Science|work=[[Numen (journal)|Numen]]|url=https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/38778222/Asprem-2015-DisUnity_of_Knowledge_Numen-libre.pdf?1442351453}} {{twlac|doi=10.1163/15685276-12341391}} guys already got 3 works cited in the article so i assume a decent source if needed. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 02:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks, this is interesting stuff and IMO, supportive of my argument above that "pseudoscience" is probably not due in the first paragraph.
::*{{tq|"...the only role left for esoteric cultural systems is as antique curiosa that only misguided “pseudoscientists” would continue to take seriously...Yet historical evidence reveals a much more complex picture. Long after the Enlightenment, attempts to synthesize esoteric and scientific knowledge have been carried out not only by “fringe‐science” amateurs or occultist obscurantists lacking a proper understanding of modern science, but by cutting‐edge professional scientists as well."}}
:::*Note "occultist obscurantists" - this is what I mean by saying "pseudoscience" could probably be better replaced by "occultism", as it's specifically these occultist obscurantists' mumbo-jumbo about aether and whatnot that's being referenced by "pseudoscience" in the disputed lead sentence. The influence on occultism is way more notable than the influence on modern occultists' pseudoscientific theories (which are, IMO, not particularly notable at all.)
::*{{tq|"...the fact remains that those who produce the New Age science discourse are not coming from some pseudoscientific margin far removed from the world of academia, but straight out of our best institutions of higher education."}}
:::*I would also add that what this sentence describes has been going on since [[Ficino]] published his translations of the Hermetica, Plato, and the Neoplatonists, examples include [[John Dee]] or the [[Cambridge Platonists]]
::[[User:DiodotusNicator|DiodotusNicator]] ([[User talk:DiodotusNicator|talk]]) 03:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::That sounds like a reasonable argument, but i'm on shaky ground. I think you might have a tough row to hoe making it here were editors are constantly dealing with both the "fringe‐science" amateurs and the professional scientists. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 03:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm interested in reading what @[[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] or @[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] think of this source, and whether they would accept replacing "pseudoscience" with "occultism" in the lead paragraph as a matter of [[WP:WEIGHT]]. The article covers over two millennia of intellectual history and contains a single sentence about pseudoscience. [[User:DiodotusNicator|DiodotusNicator]] ([[User talk:DiodotusNicator|talk]]) 07:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Let's look at another source:[https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/revisiting-the-nazi-occult/pseudoscience-reconsidered-ss-research-and-the-archaeology-of-haithabu/760D8C800683975E5C7F6AC1A7D1E58A]
:::::"ALONG WITH NOTIONS OF ESOTERICISM, scholars have frequently employed the concept of 'pseudoscience' to describe forms of knowledge production in Nazi Germany. Indeed, these two concepts overlap in important ways. Both refer to approaches that contemporaries regarded as legitimate pathways to understanding concepts of Volk and Rasse, but that postwar scholars have since interpreted as evidence of the irrationality of Nazi ideology. Moreover, both implicated a wide range of pursuits that historians now characterize as unscientific. But where practitioners of esotericism often valued it as a form of 'antiscience' with a focus on deriving knowledge from a nonmaterial realm, scientists used the term pseudoscience pejoratively to describe any approach falsely claiming scientific authority through a nominal or flawed engagement with empirical methods. In practice, of course, these distinctions are not always easy to draw, and the overlapping valency between such esoteric fields as parapsychology or dowsing and putatively pseudoscientific praxis in the Third Reich raise questions about the ways in which culture, politics, and social convention have historically played a role in determining what science is and which approaches are acceptable or unacceptable."
::::There is also the aspect of what the True Believers claim to by part of esotericism. See [https://adlc.org.uk/colleges/esoteric-college/]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 09:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::::IMHO, I think Western esotericism and occultism are synonymous. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  17:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Not in the slightest. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 21:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::For a rather dry academic introduction into what western esotericism actually is, I would recommend ''The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction'' (OUP, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke); he defines occultism as a subtype of western esotericism, which is closer to the scholarly consensus, but I've seen scholars dispute even that. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 21:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)