I'm the midst of reading Henry H. Bauer's excellent book, Science or Pseudoscience (University of Illinois, 2001). He argues that the dividing line between science and "pseudoscience" is not as clear as normally seen; they often work in parallel. Originally, for example, the propositions that meteorites or ball lightning exist were seen as pseudoscientific. Now they are seen as scientific. To quote the blurb on the back cover, "geniuses are cranks who happen to be right while cranks may be geniuses who happen to be wrong." The kind of pseudoscience he discusses includes the work of Immanuel Velikovsky and the later Wilhelm Reich (e.g., orgone boxes). But there's another kind of pseudoscience that he misses, one that's exemplified by the economics profession. It's social science that masquerades as physical science, pretending that there's a consensus among economists, that what "economics" means is obvious, that the field is engaged in "normal science" within an established and monolithic paradigm (neoclassical economics) and making steady progress, ignoring anomalies, and handling controversies internally. -- Jim Devine [Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount University] "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.