[WikiEN-l] Parascience subst. pseudoscience

[Ray Saintonge]

Mark Gallagher wrote:

> G'day Ray,
>
>> Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> Yup.  See also [[euphemism treadmill]].  Creating a politically-correct
>>> neologism won't change the situation:  People who are misleading the
>>> public (by pretending to scientific research they aren't doing) don't
>>> like having the fact pointed out.
>>
>> 20,000 Google hits is not a characteristic of a neologism.
>
> So it's a euphemism, not necessarily a neologism.  A slight 
> improvement; like being rescued from the fire and dumped into the 
> frying pan. 

Whatever rhetorical label you want to attach to the terminology only 
obfuscates the issues.

> The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith;  
> "pseudoscioence" does not.
>
> Assume Good Faith is a community tool, not an explanation of how to 
> achieve NPOV.  

And in you mind good faith is not essential to NPOV?

> Describing astrology, Intelligent Design[0], the healing power of 
> magnets[1], etc. as "pseudoscience" is entirely accurate. 

Not without evidence.

> Describing it as "alternative science" is adopting a label that 
> fraudsters and dupes (e.g. I've no doubt many astrologers really 
> believe they're telling the truth, which makes them more dupes than 
> liars themselves) would prefer, conjuring up as it does positive 
> thoughts of the spiritual knowledge of the Ancients of the Orient, as 
> with "alternative medicine". 

So because fraudsters and dupes choose to use such a label then their 
guilt must be transferred to anyone that uses the term?  I don't know 
what you mean by "the spiritual knowledge of the Ancients of the 
Orient".  It seems like an ignorant  substitute for a lack of facts and 
knowledge.

> Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  Encyclopaedias are expected to tell 
> the truth, whether they do so in a neutral tone of voice or not.

I don't subscribe to the same self-righteous interpretation of "the 
truth" as you.  That's perhaps why I need to read a neutral point of 
view to be able come to a scientific conclusion.  Neutral point of view 
is different from your "neutral tone of voice"

> It is not POV to call a liar a liar; it is not NPOV to refuse to do 
> so.  NPOV does not oblige us to give all sides a fair hearing.  That's 
> called "journalistic balance", and it's an ethically bankrupt concept 
> which inevitably hands victory to the biggest liar.  

It defies journalistic balance to limit one's offensive epithets to one 
side only.  Calling someone a liar requires some basis for saying so. 
Your presumption that he is a liar is not such a basis.  I'm sorry to 
hear that you believe the debate to be to be between two sets of liars.

> We're obliged to be truthful, and neutral; we're not obliged to be 
> "balanced".  We should be careful that, in our rush to give 
> pseudoscience a fair hearing, we do not start POV-pushing for them. 

We shouldn't be POV pushing for either side, neither for what you cal 
"pseudoscience" nor scientism.

> Someone, I think it was David Gerard, said recently that we won't get 
> into trouble if we lean too far towards what Jack Lynch calls "SPOV": 
> 'tis better to be thought of as scientifically accurate than to be 
> considered a haven of confused POV-pushing liars.  If it was him, he's 
> exactly right. 

Being scientifically accurate, no matter where it leads us, is superior 
to being todies of SPOV-pushing liars.

> [0] That is, the American extremist Christian fraud "Intelligent
>     Design", not the concept of an intelligent designer
>
> [1] By which I mean those who promise to send you a motivational VHS
>     tape and a packet of fridge magnets for just $199.95 (+ $4.95 p&s)
>     and if you pay NOW by credit card you'll get not one, not two, but
>     FOUR free sets of steak knives ... 

What happened when you tried to get your money back?  I can understand 
that such an expereince could give rise to your bitterness.

Ec