Michael Turley wrote:
I think the existence of a pseudoscience category doesn't require that every item ever thought to be pseudoscience should be in that category. For example, there is perfectly normal, scientific support for aromatherapy used for mood enhancement. For simple health problems like headache and stuffy nose, there is also proof that aromatherapy is at least somewhat effective for those uses. Yet some fringe supporters claim that it is capable of much more, so it is grouped in the category "pseudoscience". I don't think it belongs in that category.
I'd certainly agree with that. By the definition a lot of people are using to place things like [[aromatherapy]] into [[category:pseudoscience]], we could easily place [[psychiatry]] there as well, and certainly [[psychoanalysis]] (and putting [[Jacques Lacan]] and arguably [[Sigmund Freud]] into [[category:pseudoscientists]] would be even more of a slam-dunk).
Now while I might not personally mind such a judgment, I still think it'd be inappropriate, and don't see most of the rest as much different...
-Mark