Athena has put up a post on Pseudo-science and Archaeology which I like. It has two particular good points. Firstly she defines what she means by pseudo-science and then she explains why it matters. The quibble I would have is one which could be applied with far more force to me. Is Pseudo-science the right word? I think it is in Athena’s case, because she defines what she means. However Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy has argued that the term pseudo-science is misleading because it gives the impression that pseudo-science is almost science. There’s nothing scientific about it. It’s antiscience and that’s the term he’s using.
He points out that the label we give to a position defines its opponents too. So if you plant a car-bomb outside an abortion clinic you’re “pro-life”, thus implying the guy or guyess you’re trying kill is anti–life. Does this have repercussions for history or archaeology?