|From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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