Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/17/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
But not at the expense of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
And using "pseudoscience" alone would be at the expense of NPOV
You still appear to be trying to "prove" this by assertion.
The problem is that "pseudoscience" is a subjective term. Whether a topic is pseudoscience is not a black-and-white thing. Who determines whether the scientific method has been followed? Not us! That would be original research, and asserting a point of view. Yes, sometimes it will be obvious. However, most of the time it will not be. The proponents of these theories will never be of the opinion that they are pseudoscience, and that they fail to conform to the scientific method!
Wikipedia often has the problem of falling into pushing a relativist point of view. This is one of those occasions.
This is the whole point. Many of the topics that are typically put into the pseudoscience category are deeply suspect. I could choose any one of them and spend an entire lifetime trying to determine whether it is science or pseudoscience, and the results would still be inconclusive. So I would prefer to find some relatively neutral term, put a caveat at the top of the list, and go on with life.
I have no particular sympathy for Creation Science, but I find it odd that I should be in a position where I need to defend their right to be referred to in a relatively respectful manner.
Ec