Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
Because it assumes standards of evidence and even standards of what "science" is, how to define it, and whether or not all of what is generally considered "science" fits into these normalized molds (they don't).
It is too easy to forget the influence of Plato and Aristotle in the development of modern science. If these men had viewed things just a little differently the impact on today's science could have been staggering.
This is coming across as creationist^Wintelligent design arguments that SJ Gould disagrees with Darwin therefore evolution is dubious - making out that minor disagreements destroy the entire concept. See [[Thomas Kuhn]].
What was your substitute word for "pseudoscience" that is actually in current English usage (i.e. is not a Wikipedia-invented neologism) that would communicate this important concept without whatever offense it is you take toward it?
There are good reasons, though, for leaning towards the "scientific" point of view *when leaning is required*
Those who lean too much in one direction tend to fall over.
That's not even close to being an argument.
- d.