[WikiEN-l] Parascience subst. pseudoscience

Wed Dec 21 09:43:53 UTC 2005

David Gerard wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>The difference is that "parascience" assumes good faith; 
>>"pseudoscioence" does not.
>>    
>>
>And by the way, "pseudoscience" does not imply bad faith; it implies
>incompetence. The pseudoscientist frequently takes the label as a
>personal attack because they literally do not understand why what they
>do is not science at all, even though they sincerely believe in what
>they are doing.
>
>    http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
>
>- an article on why so many New Age advocates exhibit the reasoning
>skills of cheese. And feel so put-upon when people who know what science
>is point and say "pseudoscience": they literally don't understand what's
>pseudo- about it.
>
I have no significant problems with McLaren's article.  She's especially 
right about the debate being a clash of cultures.  She does not use the 
word "pseudoscience" even once in the entire article.  Her reference to 
other words like "quack" or "fraud" is only to point out the damage that 
such vocabulary can cause.  So when you want to insist on keeping the 
word "pseudoscience" I begin to wonder whether you have seriously read 
the very article that you recommend. 

If "pseudoscience" implies incompetence that applies equally to the two 
sides.  Why shouldn't they feel put-upon when you use such offensive 
terminology to describe them.  Do the so-called scientists who use the 
term "pseudo-" understand what's pseudo- any better.  Very few have made 
any attempt to understand what they're talking about.

If the divide that McLaren so aptly describes is ever going to be 
bridged its not going to be by name calling, but by respecting  the 
views of others without judgement.  Only then can there be any progress 
toward common solutions.

Ec