[WikiEN-l] Pseudoscience vs. 'junk science'

[Poor, Edmund W]

Eclecticology wrote:

> As a first impression for distinguishing between the
> debates about pseudoscience from those about junk science
> is as follow:
> 
> "Pseudoscience" tends to relate to theoretical concepts
> that are on the fringes of science, and usually involve
> supporters of "mainstream" science versus supporters of
> alternative theoretical concepts.
> 
> "Junk science" depends on divergent interpretations or
> applications of principles which in themselves are
> already accepted by mainstream science.
> 
> "Pseudoscience" tends to focus on theory.  "Junk science"
> tends to focus on application".
> 
> All parties to both debates tend to cite facts, or at
> least perceived facts.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with saying that a hypothesis must
> be true as long as it remains nothing more than a
> hypothesis. i.e. a statement that is subject to be
> tested, and a basis for experimental design.

Thanks. If that info is not in the [[pseudoscience]] and 
[[junk science]] articles, it should be.

Uncle Ed