Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
> I'm coming across as much more strident in
this thread than I mean to
> be. But the point is that pseudoscience is in fact *bullshit*, not
> science, and there's going to be no label that doesn't puff up the
> subjects with false respectability that won't soon carry the same
> connotations. Because it is in fact bullshit.
Pseudoscience can very well be characterized as
bullshit. However, the
process whereby certain studies and practices are classified as
pseudoscience is also bullshit.
And what's that process, as you understand it?
- d.