Sam Korn wrote:
In 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I'm still not at all convinced this is a problem, except in the view of those who don't like a label that accurately and concisely describes what they're doing. (and, per the A is part of B therefore B is part of A fallacy, I now expect someone to follow up with a marvellous strawman example of some unrelated grossly POV description)
I'm still not certain why "concepts described as pseudoscience" wouldn't do.
[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
It is NPOV and still conveys the same message. It is a little unwieldy, but it would work fine in prose and probably also as a category title.
I disagree. It's horribly clunky.
- d.