[WikiEN-l] Re: We should not stifle legitimate scientific discussion

[Sheldon Rampton]

Robert wrote:

>The position I disagreed with was an attempt to stifle
>legitimate scientific discussion of controversial issues.
>I strongly urge Wiki Users to read some of the articles
>below - yet not for the article content as such. Rather, I
>want to illustrate that the term "pseudoscience" has a
>specific use, and is used in a scientific context. It is
>not hatespeech; it in fact has a legitimate use.  This word
>should not be banned from our vocabulary.

I agree that the term "pseudoscience" has a legitimate place in 
discussions of science. Some terminology is necessary to mark the 
boundaries between what is science and what is not science. The 
Wikipedia article on pseudoscience is actually quite good.

I would contrast "pseudoscience" with the term "junk science," which 
is clearly a pejorative term that is designed to attack the character 
and qualifications of its alleged practitioners. Moreover, the term 
"junk science" is always used in reference to allegedly poor science 
by environmentalists and public health advocates. By contrast, it 
almost never gets used in reference to scientific misinformation 
coming from corporate polluters or even from the tobacco industry 
(arguably the worst single corrupting influence on science of the 
20th century). In fact, the tobacco industry has been the 
behind-the-scenes sponsor of many of the organizations that purport 
to attack "junk science"!
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------