3 ms·

Just because something turns out to be true doesn't make it scientific. "Science" isn't a euphemism for correct, and "Pseudoscience" isn't an euphemism for wron

Just because something turns out to be true doesn't make it scientific. "Science" isn't a euphemism for correct, and "Pseudoscience" isn't an euphemism for wrong, even if many use them as such. You either followed the scientific process, or you didn't.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
> Just because something turns out to be true doesn't make it scientific. Right, but how does that relate to pejorative labelling policies? i.e. If even just 20% of readers will misinterpret the label, then why go with the label instead of something like 'disputed' which has a mis-interpretation rate close to 0%?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  "Disputed" is frequently misinterpeted as something like "50/50". It would not accurately reflect the real situation in the homeopathy scenario.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    > "Disputed" is frequently misinterpeted as something like "50/50". What does 50/50 mean in this context? If you mean a 50% probability of the article ultimately proving to be mostly true, then that would genuinely be the case for some small fraction of homeopathy articles?
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      People tend to read "disputed" as "there's significant camps of reputable experts on each side" when the actual scenario is "there's a tiny loud minority opposing the generally accepted consensus". Like climate change, or creationists trying to claim evolution is disputed at a scientific level. It isn't, but they'll tout lists of "experts who doubt evolution" to try and make people think there's more doubt than there really is. (Leading to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve as response.)
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > People tend to read "disputed" as "there's significant camps of reputable experts on each side" when the actual scenario is "there's a tiny loud minority opposing the generally accepted consensus". Yes I understand, what I'm saying is that is genuinely true for some small fraction of articles. Obviously not anywhere close to 100%, but the amount of people who would actually read 'disputed' as anywhere close to 100% of articles have 'significant camps' is almost 0.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

> Just because something turns out to be true doesn't make it scientific. Right, but how does that relate to pejorative labelling policies? i.e. If even just 20% of readers will misinterpret the label, then why go with the label instead of something like 'disputed' which has a mis-interpretation rate close to 0%?

ceejayoz 3y ago
"Disputed" is frequently misinterpeted as something like "50/50". It would not accurately reflect the real situation in the homeopathy scenario.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > "Disputed" is frequently misinterpeted as something like "50/50". What does 50/50 mean in this context? If you mean a 50% probability of the article ultimately proving to be mostly true, then that would genuinely be the case for some small fraction of homeopathy articles?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    People tend to read "disputed" as "there's significant camps of reputable experts on each side" when the actual scenario is "there's a tiny loud minority opposing the generally accepted consensus". Like climate change, or creationists trying to claim evolution is disputed at a scientific level. It isn't, but they'll tout lists of "experts who doubt evolution" to try and make people think there's more doubt than there really is. (Leading to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve as response.)
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      > People tend to read "disputed" as "there's significant camps of reputable experts on each side" when the actual scenario is "there's a tiny loud minority opposing the generally accepted consensus". Yes I understand, what I'm saying is that is genuinely true for some small fraction of articles. Obviously not anywhere close to 100%, but the amount of people who would actually read 'disputed' as anywhere close to 100% of articles have 'significant camps' is almost 0.