So whether or not somehting is "science" or "pseudoscience" depends on
the
context, not the content?
My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly
rather subjective, is that it
doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply *must* be true.
"Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but does so selectively,
deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict its hypotheses.
I would love it, if someone would expand the Wikipedia articles on
pseudoscience and junk science, in a scrupulously neutral way.
For example, the [[global warming]] article has never clarified the
relationship (if any) among solar activity, carbon dioxide levels, and
observation of temperature at sea level, the lower atmosphere, and the
upper atmosphere. Someone who knows what has been observed, and which
observations have been deliberately hidden or ignored, could make a great
contribution here.
I think Sheldon is the best-qualified person to do this, as he has the most
facts at his command.
Uncle Ed
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.