":::::::::I was actually trying to describe what I thought the source said as well as the problem wikipedia has with such sources.  if you just want my simple summary of this article, it is saying this: ""Proper understanding of the role science plays in our culture, and of the methods that scientists use, is important for people wanting to make informed choices about their welfare.  The contemptuous disregard for science displayed by some public figures and the media can reduce funding for vital research, spread unscientific or pseudoscientific ideas, and ultimately damage the public's scientific literacy and destroy the credibility of valid research"".  I'm reading between the lines a bit, obviously - the problem with this article is that it's so obviously an opinion piece, and the author is jumping all over the place (from vaccinations to creationism to political pandering to lack of science-based television).  it's clear he mostly wants to talk about medicine (e.g. ""Rather than consult scientific professionals for expert medical advice, they increasingly place their faith in pseudoscience""), but he's painting in such broad, grumpy strokes that it's hard to bring it into a consistent focus.  I think this article is usable here if it's made clear that he's talking about (a) scientific literacy, and (b) medical pseudoscience (noting that he doesn't specify precisely what that means).  But I don't think that this article constitutes a meaningful discussion of pseudoscience itself.  In other words, we can use it to say that ""pseudoscientific ideas are spread through public ignorance, with some deleterious effects"", but we can't use it to say that ""pseudoscience cases deleterious effects"" - the latter is not really supported by the article.  do you see the difference?    

 "