Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I'm coming across as much more strident in
this thread than I mean to
be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not
science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the
subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same
connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Pseudoscience is nothing more
than dogmatic and irrational thinking trying to pretend it's exactly the
opposite to get public support. It should not be given a single bit of
credibility at all - and not giving it credibility would fit perfectly
with our policy of neutral point of view.
The Neutral Point of View has nothing to do with what you say, which
is clearly the ranting of someone who doesn't know WTF he's talking
about.
Despite being somewhat of a scientist myself (well, as a PhD student in
the sciences, in some sense a scientist-in-training), I tend to agree
more with Ray than David or Chris here. I can't say I have any interest
in pseudoscience, parascience, "alternative science", or whatever you
want to call it, and it certainly shouldn't be portrayed as accepted by
the mainstream, but on the other hand I see no reason or justification
for actively attacking it. The point of Wikipedia is not to discern
fundamental truths (an impossible task, and original research in any
case), but to document who says what. If someone has proposed what they
call a scientific theory, but most scientists think it's not one, then
we can report that matter-of-factly, preferably with citations to who
says what.
Using the label "pseudoscience" upsets this matter-of-fact reporting,
because we essentially take sides in the dispute. It's NPOV to say that
it's rejected by most scientists; that it's not taught in science
classes; that so-and-so a scientific body or eminent scientist has
issued a statement saying it's crap; and so on. Saying outright
"Wikipedia has concluded that it is fake science" is not neutral. More
neutral is "Wikipedia has concluded that it is claimed by its proponents
to be science, but not accepted by most scientists as science."
"Pseudoscience" means literally "fake science", which is the former,
and
therefore inappropriate; we need a term that means the latter.
-Mark