[WikiEN-l] Creationism is not horse-shit, it's pseudo-science

Thu Jul 21 20:22:02 UTC 2005

On 21/07/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> 
> > strictly limited.  If we had a category of "things which are widely
> > regarded, by scientists and others of a similar bent, as being less than
> > fully established science, but which are often, by those who are not
> > scientists, put forward as if they were science" then we'd have less
> > trouble, I think.
> 
> How about "disputed science" or "disputed scientific theories"?

But this doesn't really work. The steady-state universe is a disputed
scientific theory; impact-driven mass extinctions ditto... cold fusion
is about as wacky as you get whilst still being a disputed scientific
theory.

Lots of pseudoscience isn't a scientific theory which is disputed;
it's a theory the "scientificness" of which is disputed, if that makes
sense.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk