Ray Saintonge wrote:
Of course, because the other ideas are normally all wrong, it's not POV to include a criticism section in the article with references to scientific experiments demonstrating that the idea is wrong.
Your statement that "the other ideas are normally all wrong" is a POV. If your criticism depends on a POV then it too is a POV. A scientific experiment that shows something to be wrong is not the same as one that fails to show it right. To say that something which is not science is necessarily pseudoscience is a textbook application of the fallacy of [[False dilemma]].
One of the fun, but often irritating aspects of the NPOV debates/disputes is getting to the bottom of this very issue. I think that anyone who wants to assert what is "scientific truth" on WP needs to come to terms with just how primitive the state of science still is (and we should be glad for that). In other words, humility has to be a central value.
The editors of the article on Pseudoscience, Quackery, and other articles that seek to make these distinctions are constantly struggling with the issue; I think they will only succeed if they concentrate on making it an honest dialectic rather than an attempt at arriving at the truth.
All science, and I think it's safe to be that categorical, is tentative; the conceptual models are based on available information. Some models (the earth is round) do a better job of describing reality and predicting what will happen next; but it is safe to say that they will in time be overtaken by others. Add to that the difficulty of achieving a consensus among scientists on anything but the most basic concepts, and we are arrogant indeed to think that we are in a position to pronounce what is scientifically true on issues that are controversial in the real world.