Delirium (delirium@hackish.org) [050629 06:34]:
David Gerard wrote:
There is such a thing as pseudoscience and things that are deserve the label. It belongs under 'science' because it claims the clothes of science but isn't, hence the 'pseudo' - religion doesn't do that (except of course when it does). The objectors are basically stating "I don't like it being applied to my favourite thing so it must be a violation of NPOV." I see no reason to indulge this.
I still don't really like that idea, because it's strongly taking one side in a dispute. Should we, for example, have a [[Category:Pseudoscientists]] that we apply to [[Linus Pauling]] for his wacked-out ideas on nutrition? (Of course, he could also get [[Category:Scientists]] for his more respected work.)
Has this or anything as stupid aS this actually happened? i.e., not hypothetically.
This sort of derisive labelling I find troubling, even if it's derisive labelling that's widely accepted. The term "Alternative medicine", by constrast, doesn't carry nearly as much ideological baggage, because it can be read as either good or bad depending on your perspective, so more accurately simply labels a category of stuff without judging it.
There's lots of pseudoscience that isn't alternative medicine. That a group claims a given label is demeaning doesn't mean it doesn't and shouldn't apply.
- d.