A little off-topic, but I found this amusing:
Quote:
Each field of science has its own complement of pseudoscience....
Economists have long-range economic forecasting.
I'd be interested to hear the criteria which judges economics science and long-range economic forecasting pseudoscience. I've done a little economics over the years and it seems to me a lot of it is pseudoscientific (ie the uncanny ability to predict what's just happened and provide cogent explanations for why hardly anyone expected it, the plethora of equations and models whose variables are so arbitrary and subjective as to be almost valueless, the fervour with which competing views are disparaged, etcetera).