So whether or not somehting is "science" or "pseudoscience" depends on the context, not the content?

My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly rather subjective, is that it doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply *must* be true. "Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but does so selectively, deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict its hypotheses.

I would love it, if someone would expand the Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience and junk science, in a scrupulously neutral way.

For example, the [[global warming]] article has never clarified the relationship (if any) among solar activity, carbon dioxide levels, and observation of temperature at sea level, the lower atmosphere, and the upper atmosphere. Someone who knows what has been observed, and which observations have been deliberately hidden or ignored, could make a great contribution here.

I think Sheldon is the best-qualified person to do this, as he has the most facts at his command.

Uncle Ed _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus