|From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net |Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:27:08 -0800 | |Sheldon Rampton wrote: | |> Ed Poor wrote: |>
<megasnip> | |> "Junk science," by contrast, is quite a different beast. | |Oddly enough, I don't find as much controversy in the concept of junk |science. Even though there may be some dispute about the specific |practices to be included under that rubric, there does not tend to be |the sort of philosophical and definitional problems found with |pseudoscience. | |Eclecticology | |
The difference is that nobody either believes, or believes in, junk science, as it it is usually simply being trotted out to win a lawsuit or criminal trial, sell some machine, pass a law or some other easily discerned purpose.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88