stevertigo wrote:
No, I respectfully disagree. The word isn't a designation, because it defers to scientific rationality - ie. a particular view. Hence it IS a POV term, albeit one which is legitimate to state in the context of conflicts between science (rational methodology) and everything else. In short:
pseudoscience is a term from the language of science, and is not a neutral term in the context of debates where science is a partisan party.
Fred linked to Larry Sanger's quotes on the subject, which were quite to the point. But the NPOV pseudoscience section seems written from the POV of a disgruntled SPOV devotee "there was no consensus" instead of "was flat out rejected as contradictory with NPOV" but thats probably just nitpicking.
Off topic here, but you'd think that 200+ years after the Enlightenment we'd all accept that scientific (empiric) rationalism isn't just a 'view' but is the only sensible way to understand anything (with an exception for logical rationalism, i.e. philosophy)!
There are no 'conflicts' between Science (with a capital S) and anything else. Science, or empirical rationalism, is a method to discover how something works. Are there any other ways to discover how something works, (excluding logical rationalism, which has been superseded by empirical rationalism as using senses is rather more useful than thinking up the 'answer to the universe' without interaction) that I am not aware of? In case it needs saying here, I am aware of religion.
The concept of any kind of 'war' between science and religion is fundamentally wrong. The concept was actually constructed (very deliberately) by some rationalists in the 19th century who believed that religion was outdated and superstitious nonsense. Science, with its empirical nature, seemed a useful ally to have in a campaign to remove religion from society. It's not science and religion which are in conflict, it is people. The idea of a war is actually very revisionist, and a historical study of the trial of Galileo and the Enlightenment will show the holes in the argument that science and religion are in some kind of conflict.
Chris