I note that references to the actual studies were given in the article. I also note that your quest for "reproducible results" was definitely met in the Englan

I note that references to the actual studies were given in the article. I also note that your quest for "reproducible results" was definitely met in the England/Wales vs Chicago murder statistics the article reproduced. I am of the camp that the term pseudo-science is a derogatory one, and should remain so. Otherwise, how else should we label such things as SETI and Human Induced Global Warming to warn the uninformed that the rigor of the scientific method as it's applied in every other field is not being followed in these , ahem, "fields"? As for whether pseudo-science is an apt definition of what the author engaged in, I'm afraid, without reading the quoted studies, I must remain uncommitted. I did very much enjoy the article, however.