Leif Knutsen wrote:
I think that if a field of inquiry, or a theory if you
will, is to be called "pseudoscience," then it has to be explained by what
criteria it is distinct from "real" science or protoscience. And then the
rebuttal from those who believe it is real science must be presented as well.
The argument for creationism (which I don't buy) is that the fossil record and other
physical evidence leaves unanswered questions in the "theory" of evolution.
Hence, they argue, you can't reject creationism as a valid form of scientific inquiry.
The fallacy is that if one explanation doesn't explain everything, then all other
explanations are equally valid.
"God created the universe," and "Creationism is a
pseudoscience" are
both hypotheses, and as such both should be subject to hypothesis
testing. For a "sciense" to be a pseudoscience it must fall rigorously
within a formal definition of the term. More simply put the fallacy is
"If A implies B, then not A implies not B".
I think it is important to have an article about
pseudoscience, but it would be more interesting and readable, and less contentious, if we
omitted examples altogether.
Possibly. It's a reasonable suggestion, but avoids the problem that
people put all manner of material under this heading. A strictly
correct article based on the philosophy would satisfy the purists among
us, and chase away everybody else on both sides of these arguments.
Ec