billy mills wrote:
David Gerard write:
Is there any word or phrase in *common usage* (i.e., we can't coin a Wikipedia-only neologism) that covers what is meant by "pseudoscience"?
Yes. Problem is that it's "pseudoscience"
I'm still not at all convinced this is a problem, except in the view of those who don't like a label that accurately and concisely describes what they're doing.
(and, per the A is part of B therefore B is part of A fallacy, I now expect someone to follow up with a marvellous strawman example of some unrelated grossly POV description)
- d.