As I said, I'm perfectly happy with saying that most -- the vast majority, perhaps, but I don't know -- of homeopathic practices and beliefs are considered pseudoscientific. I'd add a little nuance that some of the medical community have found some inspiration in its model of symptoms, but that generally this is still incorporated into the standard medical model (that is, just taking the "like helps like" approach doesn't mean they are abandoning any other medical methods or understandings). Which seems to be the state of things, as I understand them.
Putting something like that in the homeopathy article -- or even the pseudoscience article -- would be great and from a NPOV. But that sort of nuance can't be accomodated through our categorization technology, which is why I don't think we should be using categories for something like this.
FF
On 7/3/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Yes, I see. I suppose that's a fairly typical introduction to homeopathy. It sounds sort of plausible and somewhat interesting. Here's a sample pro-homeopathy article that starts like this:
[snip]