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.