David Gerard wrote:
There is such a thing as pseudoscience and things that
are deserve the
label. It belongs under 'science' because it claims the clothes of science
but isn't, hence the 'pseudo' - religion doesn't do that (except of
course
when it does). The objectors are basically stating "I don't like it being
applied to my favourite thing so it must be a violation of NPOV." I see no
reason to indulge this.
I still don't really like that idea, because it's strongly taking one
side in a dispute. Should we, for example, have a
[[Category:Pseudoscientists]] that we apply to [[Linus Pauling]] for his
wacked-out ideas on nutrition? (Of course, he could also get
[[Category:Scientists]] for his more respected work.) This sort of
derisive labelling I find troubling, even if it's derisive labelling
that's widely accepted. The term "Alternative medicine", by constrast,
doesn't carry nearly as much ideological baggage, because it can be read
as either good or bad depending on your perspective, so more accurately
simply labels a category of stuff without judging it.
-Mark