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works, (excluding logical rationalism, which has been superseded by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religion was outdated and superstitious nonsense.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