Daniel Ehrenberg wrote: Yes! Even a noted skeptic like Michael Shermer is very careful about using the word. Pseudoscience literaly means false science. In reality many of the subject areas popularly encompased by the term have never been proven true to the satisfaction of the traditional scientific community. To say that not proven equates to proven false is to apply the fallacy of the excluded middle that is often phrased "If you're not with us you're against us." A great deal of this material is on the fringes of science, and most will likely never become accepted truth, but it is presumptuous to know or say exactly what part is false. Quite often there is a tiny kernal of truth that has been distorted out of all recognition by supporters and detractors alike. The term "pseudoscience" is as much a pejorative as "kike" or "faggot" which have been discussed in a concurrent thread Yes! Even more because of the word "never" than because of the word "communism". It's beside the point that the statement is dead wrong. "Never" and "Always" are two absolute concepts that challenge an opponent to produce a single counterexample That's all it takes to disprove them.. A qualified yes. You can't be expected to produce opposing facts that you don't know anything about. It's also intellectually dishonest when you wilfully ignore facts contrary to your belief. But the attached blame is very limited. If I know Wikipedians, theres's always someone ready, willing and able to entusiastically present the opposing POV. The problem comes when you don't give the other person's contribution it's due consideration. Yes. Words can be powerful if you use them well. In a military operation between two countries you can say the A annexed B or that A liberated B with very different effects. It is very common for people to choose words that will accentuate a point of view. Eclecticology