Talk:Pseudoscience

Comment

This is potentially a very controversial article, trimmed from a Wikipedia article that has long suffered from disputes, mainly arising from its use as a vehicle to attack particular subjects or fields regarded as discreditable by some, but as respectable by others.

Articles should neither seek to promote nor to disparage particular beliefs, only to accurately report the opinions of notable authorities when argued carefully in strong, verifiable sources. In my view, this article is about the concept of Pseudoscience, and the difficulties of distinguishing pseudoscience from "real" science, and it should not get sidetracked into judgements on any area of science or alleged pseudoscience except insofar as is essential to illuminate the problems encountered in trying to make a rigorous distinction. In doing so, the article should not appear either to endorse or to rebutt the proposition that any given area is "pseudoscientific", given that a key issue in dispute is whether the term has more than perjorative content. As this is an on-line encyclopedia, sources should, wherever possible, be verifiable online (e.g. in PubMed abstracts), and some of the present sources could be improved upon in this regard especially. However some of the major sources are prominent books published by Popper, Kuhn and others, and the use of these is unavoidable. However, key elements of the content may be available as quotations in secondary sources on-line; if so please add these. The article is still raw, and I think that neither the views of Popper or those of Kuhn are treated adequately. There should be a section on "popular" conceptions of what constitute pseudoscience; this will be difficult to write neutrally. Gareth Leng 16:20, 28 October 2006 (CDT)