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