David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I'm coming across as much more strident in this thread than I mean to be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
Pseudoscience can very well be characterized as bullshit. However, the process whereby certain studies and practices are classified as pseudoscience is also bullshit.
And what's that process, as you understand it?
A "scientist" _believes_ that some topic is pseudoscientific, and simply puts it on the list without question. It is trite to say that astronomers do not believe in astrology, but how many of them would have the time to investigate the matter further. Although astrologers will largely draw upon astronomical calculations as a part of their work, most of astrology has nothing to do wioth what astronomers do. For that alone it is of no real interest to them.
Ec