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