User:Rocksanddirt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may contain uninformed wingnut drivel.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

summary of irc, and mantanmoreland arbcases

Important resource

My faith in the en.wikipedia governance and content management pracitices is currently quite weak. A few thoughts by others are below.

[edit] Why the constant labeling of pseudoscience is wrong (from the article on pseudoscience)

Philosopher of science Larry Laudan has suggested that pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and mostly describes our emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us".^[1] Richard McNally, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, states: "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites" and "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?".^[2]

[edit] Notes

^ Laudan L (1996) "The demise of the demarcation problem" in Ruse, Michael, But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy pp. 337-350.
^ McNally RJ (2003) Is the pseudoscience concept useful for clinical psychology? SRMHP Vol 2 Number 2 Fall/Winter[1]

editcountitis drugstore

User:Rocksanddirt/sandbox - stray thoughts, text to fix.