Delirium (delirium(a)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.