Steve Bennett wrote:
In that, I actually agree. Wikipedia isn't a judge or critic of scientific methodology. In such cases we should report what was done and how the world responded to it.
I admit I haven't read most of this discussion. However, wouldn't the normal approach work here? If reputable science magazines claim a field is "pseudoscience" and only the field itself claims it is "science", would we not conclude it is "pseudoscience" simply based on the quality and range of sources that say so? Or is the issue that we are incapable of deciding whether "Creation Science Monthly" is a "reputable" "scientific journal" or not? If so, how do we decide that *any* publication is "reputable"?
The conclusion may be more easily reached when we deal with the subjects one by one. Even if I accept that you have adequately established the term "pseudoscience" in relation to creationism we will still need to go through the whole argument again with respect to each subject where the matter comes up. When it comes to these subjects there is a tendency on the part of "reputable science magazines" to become self-serving. The claims of being "science" within the field itself may only be partial claims. The "scientific astrologer" may indeed be performing acceptable statistical analyses of data, and have as much disdain for the everyday astrologer as the mainstream scientists does. Blanket statements tend to ignore these subtleties. The reputable magazine that makes such claims needs to be under an obligation to source the basis for the claims. I suspect that many of these magazines would prefer not to deal with these subjects at all. It's just not worth it to devote valuable magazine space trying to disprove something that you already believe to be false. nevertheless, a metaanalysis of how reputable magazines across many fields handle the area would be interesting
I prefer finding ways to circumvent any decision about the reputability of a magazine, especially when the only issue has to do with using a particular label. By assuming that we can judge the reputability of a magazine, aren't we just passing the buck from the problem to the meta-problem? Let the reader decide about the reputability of "Creation Science Monthly". If a reputable magazine claims that something is pseudoscience let's give a precise citation in the article so that any reader can try to track it down. Let's also say whether it was as part of an original study, or whether it was in the middle of the editor's monthly rant. Attaching a simple pseudoscience category label without proper attestation in the article is not enough.
Ec