In 12/16/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
I'm still not at all convinced this is a problem,
except in the view of
those who don't like a label that accurately and concisely describes
what they're doing.
(and, per the A is part of B therefore B is part of A fallacy, I now
expect someone to follow up with a marvellous strawman example of some
unrelated grossly POV description)
I'm still not certain why "concepts described as pseudoscience"
wouldn't do. It is NPOV and still conveys the same message. It is a
little unwieldy, but it would work fine in prose and probably also as
a category title.
--
Sam