Sam Spade wrote:
There isn't much to discuss here. Articles should cite verifiable POV's in a neutral manner. Ergo we cite scientific journal X, and religious periodical Y. Everybody reads and makes up their own minds.
Only the most irredeemable fanatic feels that science possesses a monopoly on the truth, or that all things labeled as "pseudoscience" by random eggheads (or worse yet POV pushing wikipedia editors) are in fact unscientific or lacking in merit.
I don't feel that science possesses a monopoly on the truth but other examples of alternatives to science which are 'true' would be nice. And examples of things labelled as 'pseudoscience' by 'random eggheads' which are actually scientific or have merit would be nice too.
Chris