[WikiEN-l] Pseudoscience category - GSPOV

Tue Jun 28 21:07:44 UTC 2005

David Gerard wrote:

>There's lots of pseudoscience that isn't alternative medicine. That a group
>claims a given label is demeaning doesn't mean it doesn't and shouldn't
>apply.
>  
>
But it *clearly* is demeaning---it's not a neutral, descriptive label 
such as "alternative medicine" that is simply a category of stuff with 
no value judgment about it.  "Pseudoscience" is not a label anyone would 
use for any reason except to attack a particular theory.  It's actually 
quite common in scientific circles to hear it lobbed as a pejorative, 
usually qualified with something like "so-and-so's work is verging on 
pseudoscience".  It's certainly not appropriate as a neutral description 
in any context along the lines of "this theory is [[pseudoscience]]", 
which is what the category label is, in effect (although a claim like 
"this theory is considered [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] by the 
mainstream scientific community" is of course fine, if true).

-Mark