I agree with the notion that wikipedia should profess the truth, but my problem in
allowing us to label certain fields, beliefs, or whatever, as “quackery,” or
“pseudoscience,” etc., is manifold:
- It assumes that our readers need such labels because they can't make an informed
judgment otherwise - this seems to me the opposite of what we are trying to do here
- I don't know who among us is qualified to determine what is true or not - my
personal experience is that those who most loudly invoke scientific jargon are also most
prone to abuse it
- and last but not least, what is unassailable science this year is archaic superstition
the next year.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.