Talk:Pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

random comments I have on this article[change source]

A couple of notes I want to make to editors of this page and those considering editing this page.

I have worked really hard to not use the word "prove" in this article, but for the article to still be understandable at the same time. I agree that the word "prove" is a convenient word to use when discussing the issue of validity in science, but people (both readers and editors of the article) have got to understand that "proof" in science is a misconception, and a common one at that. I know this because I hold several advanced degrees in science, namely a double masters in chemistry and biology. Using the words "proof" or "proven", even informally, only reinforces the misconception that scientists actually prove things. I ask that any future editors please write in such a way as to reflect this fact.

I have also worked to make this page as neutral as possible -- although I suppose that it is basically impossible for anyone to write without building their own opinions into their writing in any way whatsoever. I have avoided using highly controvesial subjects as examples of pseudoscience. I have also embedded words like "mainstream scientists" in the article to account for the fact that there are a few scientists actually do believe in some ideas that are generally considered pseudoscience (e.g. my colleague that thinks that we never landed on the Moon). If you find my writing to be non-neutral, then feel free to let me know or change it yourself.

Additionally, I would like to add that there is a difference in how commoners use the word "theory" and how scientists use the word "theory". To a commoner, the word "theory" is a hunch, or a suspicion. To a scientist, the word "theory" refers to a generally accepted body of knoweldge, such as the theory of gravity, the kinetic theory of gasses, and so forth. I ask that any future edits of this article please write in such a way to reflect this fact as well.

Finally, I have no problem with the notion that one man's pseudoscience is another man's reality. But I do ask that people not write in ways that are so open minded that their brains fall out, to quote Carl Sagan. There may not be any absolute right answers in science, but let's not give the impression that there aren't any wrong answers either.

~~the_photon