Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> Your request is illogical. It asks for
something right when it is
>> wrong by definition. If I see something as "right" I would not call
>> it pseudoscience.
> Exactly - so how is it POV to demonstrate in
an article why a
> pseudoscience is wrong?
Because you had to characterize it as
pseudoscience in the first place.
This resembles a circular argument.
Is there any word or phrase in *common usage* (i.e., we can't coin a
Wikipedia-only neologism) that covers what is meant by "pseudoscience"?
- d.
Yes. Problem is that it's "pseudoscience"
User Filiocht