[WikiEN-l] Parascience subst. pseudoscience

[Chris Jenkinson]

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.
> 
>> 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.  Describing astrology, Intelligent Design[0], the healing
> power of magnets[1], etc. as "pseudoscience" is entirely accurate.
> 
> 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".
> 
> Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  Encyclopaedias are expected to tell the
> truth, whether they do so in a neutral tone of voice or not.  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.  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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> [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 ...
> 

I second the above comment (and I was trying to get at this myself, less
eloquently I might add).

Chris