I know I’m going to get downvoted for going against the crowd, but as a biochemist my impression here is that there’s at least as much pseudoscience as there is science.
Also, if you know more than others, that's great, but in that case it would be better to share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. Simply posting a putdown doesn't do that.
My contribution was weak, but I do believe scientists have an ethical duty to say something, even if it’s not in the form of a complete lecture.
This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters.
I believe calling out pseudoscience as such is substantive. To be perfectly clear, I think not doing it would even be irresponsible. Also, substantiveness does not always require great detail, under most common usages of the term that I know of.
> This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters.
That is not at issue.
For the comment to count as substantive you have to explain something about why, and then you don't need the putdown part. People are slinging pejoratives and tropes like "pseudoscience" all over the internet. Adding "I'm a scientist" doesn't overcome this; besides which of course, anybody can say "I"m a" anything.
Because I used the word "pseudoscience" literally. Not as an insult, but as an academic word-label.
> People are slinging pejoratives and tropes like "pseudoscience" all over the internet.
Perhaps, but in this case, the most charitable reading is the literal one.
Seems like he's doing the classic "management" tactic of setting targets, measuring progress, and coming up with models to best represent/simplify complex systems.