Talk:Pseudoscientific method

Is this an actual thing? If not, we should move it to essay space. And if someone would like to make the science/pseudoscience sections into a side-by-side, that'd be pretty cool, I think.-- "Shut up, Brx." 00:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we make articles out of user observations. Anything endemic to pseudoscientific methodology is already covered in the pseudoscience article, and specific examples are included on the pages of specific pseudosciences anyways.  I say move this to essay space and strip it of nav templates and categories-- "Shut up, Brx." 21:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine - we're bound to have a few similar articles, and I'm sure rwians weren't the first to come up with it. Peter Subsisting on honey 21:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe some duplication, but it comes from another angle. I like it.--Weirdstuff (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a separate topic. I have no philosophical objection to it moving, but the pseudoscientific method itself is a distinct concept form pseudoscience as it can be used even in support of genuinely scientific concepts, or (more often) in pathological science. JzG (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)