In my opinion/experience, those who dislike terms such as woo/pseudoscience have been its defenders—attempts at such language control is deflection. Being triggered by scientific critiques and inability to de-personalize from these critiques doesn’t justify expiring the terms.
-
-
A competent adult patient is free to decline any therapy he chooses, as long as the consequences of doing so are understood. The problem with quackery is that it involves what I like to call misinformed consent.
-
What I mean by "misinformed consent" with respect to quackery is that consent is given on the basis of misinformation, the claim that a pseudoscientific treatment will be efficacious and safe, when there is either no evidence to support that claim or evidence that it causes harm.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Ethically
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Does at least show though that your view is not all-pervasive. With the Sci Am author on this one.
'The term lacks a coherent meaning and leads to unnecessary polarization, mistrust, disrespectfulness, and confusion around science issues.'