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.