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