Editing Pseudoscience (section)

===Criticism of the term===
[[Larry Laudan]] has suggested pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe human emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us".<ref>{{cite book|author-link=Larry Laudan|last=Laudan|first=Larry|year=1996|chapter=The demise of the demarcation problem |veditors=Ruse M|title=But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy|pages=337–350}}</ref> Likewise, [[Richard McNally]] states, "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one's opponents in media sound-bites" and "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?"<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=McNally RJ |title=Is the pseudoscience concept useful for clinical psychology?|journal=The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice|volume=2|issue=2|year=2003 |url=http://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html|url-status=live|archive-date=30 April 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100430162007/http://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html}}</ref>