Ray Saintonge wrote:
I agree, and many of the mainstream scientists who are quick to attach the "pseudoscience" label have likely done little or no study of the field that they want to label. In doing so they are themselves acting pseudoscientifically.
When a field of study is clearly grossly defective as science but still insists it's a science, it's pretty obvious. (In the case of intelligent design, the smoking-gun documents showing it was invented as a creationist stalking horse have reached the public eye and are referenceable.) A scientist doesn't have to become an expert in aetherometry to call it pseudoscience any more than you have to become a heroin addict to say that being so is probably a bad thing.
Is medicine anything other than a branch of science? "Unorthodox science" anybody?
It's bodily tech support that tries to be supported by science. c.f. [[Evidence-based medicine]].
- d.