David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith; "pseudoscioence" does not.
And by the way, "pseudoscience" does not imply bad faith; it implies incompetence. The pseudoscientist frequently takes the label as a personal attack because they literally do not understand why what they do is not science at all, even though they sincerely believe in what they are doing.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
- an article on why so many New Age advocates exhibit the reasoning
skills of cheese. And feel so put-upon when people who know what science is point and say "pseudoscience": they literally don't understand what's pseudo- about it.
I have no significant problems with McLaren's article. She's especially right about the debate being a clash of cultures. She does not use the word "pseudoscience" even once in the entire article. Her reference to other words like "quack" or "fraud" is only to point out the damage that such vocabulary can cause. So when you want to insist on keeping the word "pseudoscience" I begin to wonder whether you have seriously read the very article that you recommend.
If "pseudoscience" implies incompetence that applies equally to the two sides. Why shouldn't they feel put-upon when you use such offensive terminology to describe them. Do the so-called scientists who use the term "pseudo-" understand what's pseudo- any better. Very few have made any attempt to understand what they're talking about.
If the divide that McLaren so aptly describes is ever going to be bridged its not going to be by name calling, but by respecting the views of others without judgement. Only then can there be any progress toward common solutions.
Ec