[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

[billy mills]

David Gerard write:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> >> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> >>> Your request is illogical.  It asks for something right  when it is
> >>> wrong by definition.  If I see something as "right" I would not call
> >>> it pseudoscience.
>
> >> Exactly - so how is it POV to demonstrate in an article why a
> >> pseudoscience is wrong?
>
> > Because you had to characterize it as pseudoscience in the first place.
>
>
> This resembles a circular argument.
>
> Is there any word or phrase in *common usage* (i.e., we can't coin a
> Wikipedia-only neologism) that covers what is meant by "pseudoscience"?
>
>
> - d.

Yes. Problem is that it's "pseudoscience"

User Filiocht