I don't want to stamp out the beliefs; I want to stamp out the fraud or the egregious error (hey, it might be the second sometimes) of misrepresenting those beliefs as science.
My main point is that pseudo-science is the misrepresentation of something else as science -- often deliberately by the initial perpetrators, then mistakenly echoed/perpetuated by the gullible. (Except that in the specific case of creationism, it seems an awful lot of the folks spreading it are being as intentionally deceitful as the instigators.)
I think that the world would be poorer without some of these ideas in it (though I know a couple of rationalist-materialist friends and acquaintences will disagree) ... but I do not think we would lose anything of value by insisting that magic be called magic, religion be called religion, gut feelings be called gut feelings, and only science be called science.
Since you've raised the censorship issue (I hadn't said anything about which means are justifed in the cause of stamping out pseudo-science yet): I'm pretty sure that laws against fraud and false advertising are not censorship in a legal sense, but you raise an interesting point -- do they count as an acceptable-to-most-people form of censorhip in a philosophical sense, or are they inherently in a different class? (I would hope that pseudo-science could be stamped out through education rather than censorious policies anyhow.)
Thing is, if we label things correctly, that will have the effect of doing away with pseudo-science, because pseudo-science is mislabelling. If you say that astrology is occult divination, then it is either superstition or mysticism, not pseudo-science. If you say that astrology works because God is putting clues there for us to peek at if we want and ignore otherwise, then it is religion, not pseudo-science. If you claim that astrology works because the gravitational effects of planets several light-minutes distant affect the development and functioning of our cells to a greater degree than immediate environmental factors, quantum 'noise' in the electrical and chemical processes, and genetics, then you have pseudo-science -- all the more so if you invent (or distort) references from astronomers and physicists to make that claim sound like it's backed up by physics. We do not have to abolish astrology in order to do away with pseudo-science.
Creationism attracts a larger share of criticism and pushback than, say, Hinduism, because creationists are actively attempting to get religious ideas taught in science class by turning religion into pseudo-science. Folks content to teach religion in church or temple instead of science class don't get the same kind of response.
(no subject)
My main point is that pseudo-science is the misrepresentation of something else as science -- often deliberately by the initial perpetrators, then mistakenly echoed/perpetuated by the gullible. (Except that in the specific case of creationism, it seems an awful lot of the folks spreading it are being as intentionally deceitful as the instigators.)
I think that the world would be poorer without some of these ideas in it (though I know a couple of rationalist-materialist friends and acquaintences will disagree) ... but I do not think we would lose anything of value by insisting that magic be called magic, religion be called religion, gut feelings be called gut feelings, and only science be called science.
Since you've raised the censorship issue (I hadn't said anything about which means are justifed in the cause of stamping out pseudo-science yet): I'm pretty sure that laws against fraud and false advertising are not censorship in a legal sense, but you raise an interesting point -- do they count as an acceptable-to-most-people form of censorhip in a philosophical sense, or are they inherently in a different class? (I would hope that pseudo-science could be stamped out through education rather than censorious policies anyhow.)
Thing is, if we label things correctly, that will have the effect of doing away with pseudo-science, because pseudo-science is mislabelling. If you say that astrology is occult divination, then it is either superstition or mysticism, not pseudo-science. If you say that astrology works because God is putting clues there for us to peek at if we want and ignore otherwise, then it is religion, not pseudo-science. If you claim that astrology works because the gravitational effects of planets several light-minutes distant affect the development and functioning of our cells to a greater degree than immediate environmental factors, quantum 'noise' in the electrical and chemical processes, and genetics, then you have pseudo-science -- all the more so if you invent (or distort) references from astronomers and physicists to make that claim sound like it's backed up by physics. We do not have to abolish astrology in order to do away with pseudo-science.
Creationism attracts a larger share of criticism and pushback than, say, Hinduism, because creationists are actively attempting to get religious ideas taught in science class by turning religion into pseudo-science. Folks content to teach religion in church or temple instead of science class don't get the same kind of response.
(no subject)