Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Ray,
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
Yup. See also [[euphemism treadmill]]. Creating
a politically-correct
neologism won't change the situation: People who are misleading the
public (by pretending to scientific research they aren't doing) don't
like having the fact pointed out.
20,000 Google hits is not a characteristic of a neologism.
So it's a euphemism, not necessarily a neologism. A slight
improvement; like being rescued from the fire and dumped into the
frying pan.
Whatever rhetorical label you want to attach to the terminology only
obfuscates the issues.
The difference is that "parascience" assumes
good faith;
"pseudoscioence" does not.
Assume Good Faith is a community tool, not an explanation of how to
achieve NPOV.
And in you mind good faith is not essential to NPOV?
Describing astrology, Intelligent Design[0], the
healing power of
magnets[1], etc. as "pseudoscience" is entirely accurate.
Not without evidence.
Describing it as "alternative science" is
adopting a label that
fraudsters and dupes (e.g. I've no doubt many astrologers really
believe they're telling the truth, which makes them more dupes than
liars themselves) would prefer, conjuring up as it does positive
thoughts of the spiritual knowledge of the Ancients of the Orient, as
with "alternative medicine".
So because fraudsters and dupes choose to use such a label then their
guilt must be transferred to anyone that uses the term? I don't know
what you mean by "the spiritual knowledge of the Ancients of the
Orient". It seems like an ignorant substitute for a lack of facts and
knowledge.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are
expected to tell
the truth, whether they do so in a neutral tone of voice or not.
I don't subscribe to the same self-righteous interpretation of "the
truth" as you. That's perhaps why I need to read a neutral point of
view to be able come to a scientific conclusion. Neutral point of view
is different from your "neutral tone of voice"
It is not POV to call a liar a liar; it is not NPOV to
refuse to do
so. NPOV does not oblige us to give all sides a fair hearing. That's
called "journalistic balance", and it's an ethically bankrupt concept
which inevitably hands victory to the biggest liar.
It defies journalistic balance to limit one's offensive epithets to one
side only. Calling someone a liar requires some basis for saying so.
Your presumption that he is a liar is not such a basis. I'm sorry to
hear that you believe the debate to be to be between two sets of liars.
We're obliged to be truthful, and neutral;
we're not obliged to be
"balanced". We should be careful that, in our rush to give
pseudoscience a fair hearing, we do not start POV-pushing for them.
We shouldn't be POV pushing for either side, neither for what you cal
"pseudoscience" nor scientism.
Someone, I think it was David Gerard, said recently
that we won't get
into trouble if we lean too far towards what Jack Lynch calls "SPOV":
'tis better to be thought of as scientifically accurate than to be
considered a haven of confused POV-pushing liars. If it was him, he's
exactly right.
Being scientifically accurate, no matter where it leads us, is superior
to being todies of SPOV-pushing liars.
[0] That is, the American extremist Christian fraud
"Intelligent
Design", not the concept of an intelligent designer
[1] By which I mean those who promise to send you a motivational VHS
tape and a packet of fridge magnets for just $199.95 (+ $4.95 p&s)
and if you pay NOW by credit card you'll get not one, not two, but
FOUR free sets of steak knives ...
What happened when you tried to get your money back? I can understand
that such an expereince could give rise to your bitterness.
Ec