Talk:pseudoscientific

pseudoscientific
I'd like to see both definitions verified. They seem iffy and possibly like original research to me. __meco 09:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The first definition - Of, relating to, or employing pseudoscience - has widespread long-term use. Hundreds of book hits, going back to the late 1980s.  (The only variation is the alt hyphenated spelling, but this is not the issue you have raised).  Easily verified.--Dmol 10:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But don't forget that this is not Wikipedia. We expect ALL entries to be original research - not just copied from other dictionaries. SemperBlotto 14:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added two citations for the first sense. There is a sort of grey area, though: is it pseudo+scientific (i.e. resembling, but not actually, science) or pseudoscience+ific (employing pseudoscience)? In practice they are almost the same. Equinox ◑ 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The OED says "From pseudo-: + scientific:, after pseudoscience:", which seems a good compromise. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the citations is that they don't actually document the specific definition. My particular issue is with the word employing. I was arguing on a Wikipedia talk page the position that employing the theory of either science or pseudoscience can not be labeled scientific or pseudoscientific per se. __meco 09:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added an etymology section, tweaked the first definition, and removed the second sense as RFV-failed. The first sense is clearly in widespread use, but needs to be tweaked further. - -sche (discuss) 04:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-passed as clearly in widespread use, whether it needs to be tweaked or not. - -sche (discuss) 16:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)