[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

Tue Dec 13 02:53:02 UTC 2005

-- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> So what term do you suggest for the thing that is
> currently usefully described by the word 
> "pseudoscience"?

I dunno- "quasiscientific," maybe. Because 'pseudo'
carries a prejudicial connotation of 'falseness,'
while 'quasi' carries a perhaps more accurate
connotation of "almost" or "partly" being something;
in this case, as something being based in science.

The term "pseudoscientific," to be fair, seems like a
natural one to use in cases where non-scientific
claims are asserted as if there was established
scientific proof. Its probably more accurate to just
call certain specific outlandish claims as plain
scientific 'fraud,' though my guess would be that that
would probably be considered POV. 'Pseudoscience' is
not much different than calling something 'fraud,'
though 'fraud' seems to imply deliberate deception
rather than an honest claim, written in religionese,
and borne of intellectual confusion (SPOV) or
'ecstatic inspiration' (RPOV).

There are claims which are best described as being
from the POV of the domain to which they belong:
religion, philosophy, or metaphysics, etc. (ie.
'pseudoscience' is naturally in the domain of
science). That alone should satisfy in almost any case
I can think of. Whether String Theory should also be
called "quasiscientific" of course stands out as an
interesting fulcrum for Wikipediology.

Stevertigo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 