From: Viajero <viajero(a)quilombo.nl> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:19:23 +0100 To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Subject: [WikiEN-l] rampant scientism Hi all, I am the last person who want to see Wikipedia turned into a repository for flaky, New Age esotericisms, but at the same time the scientism which has manifested itself in the past few days in response to Mr Natural Health's questionable contributions is also profoundly disturbing and likewise a very insidious form of non-neutrality. Take for example this comment by user Snoyes on the [[Alternative medicine]] talk page: double-blind experiments have shown a treatment to be effective, it is by definition not an alternative medicine anymore. It is therefore quite simply a case of the rigour of science vs. unsubstantiated claims by wonder-healers. -- snoyes Obviously, it has a certain logic to it, but such an attitude is *so* dualistic and dogmatic. Or take this edit summary from the page history of the same article by user Robert Merkel: "doctors think this stuff is bogus" sentence near the top of the article, where it belongs, rather than burying it at the bottom) This individual hasn't a shred of impartiality regarding the subject. I am the only one disturbed by this? Perhaps it is because I live in Northern Europe, where these issues are less polarized, but for me issue is anything but black and white. Alternative medicine is well-established here. My health insurance pays for various forms of it (some but not all). My GP is an MD with a conventional medical training, but anthroposophic orientation (Rudolf Steiner stuff). That means he prescribes both mainstream medicines as well as alternative therapies as he sees fit. I realize that double-blind trials are the gold standard in Western science, and I don't want to argue with that; however, there vast realms of human knowledge which have not yet been verified by these means, and to dismiss such empirical knowledge out of hand is both foolish and not our job. For example, I have travelled extensively in South American and one sees that vast amount of "alternative medicine" practiced there (I put it in quotes because for people there it is not "alternative"). I doubt that chewing coca leaves has ever been "proven" effective by Western scientific protocols for altitude sickness but millions of people in the Sierra believe it does. I was in a small village in the Altiplano once where the women cultivated a small, bitter green potato for its birth control properties. Again, something which I doubt has ever been "proven", but at the same time something one can't simply dismiss as quaint folklore. Can we get away from looking at healing as two opposing factions and see it rather as a broad spectrum of techniques, ranging from nuclear medicine to voodoo, of which some is "scientific", some is pragmatic, and all which have pros and cons? In any case, at the moment the [[Alternative medicine]] article is una gran porquería. V. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Hi all, I am the last person who want to see Wikipedia turned into a repository for flaky, New Age esotericisms, but at the same time the scientism which has manifested itself in the past few days in response to Mr Natural Health's questionable contributions is also profoundly disturbing and likewise a very insidious form of non-neutrality.

Take for example this comment by user Snoyes on the [[Alternative medicine]] talk page: double-blind experiments have shown a treatment to be effective, it is by definition not an alternative medicine anymore. It is therefore quite simply a case of the rigour of science vs. unsubstantiated claims by wonder-healers. -- snoyes Obviously, it has a certain logic to it, but such an attitude is *so* dualistic and dogmatic.

Or take this edit summary from the page history of the same article by user Robert Merkel: "doctors think this stuff is bogus" sentence near the top of the article, where it belongs, rather than burying it at the bottom) This individual hasn't a shred of impartiality regarding the subject.

I am the only one disturbed by this?

Perhaps it is because I live in Northern Europe, where these issues are less polarized, but for me issue is anything but black and white. Alternative medicine is well-established here. My health insurance pays for various forms of it (some but not all). My GP is an MD with a conventional medical training, but anthroposophic orientation (Rudolf Steiner stuff). That means he prescribes both mainstream medicines as well as alternative therapies as he sees fit.

I realize that double-blind trials are the gold standard in Western science, and I don't want to argue with that; however, there vast realms of human knowledge which have not yet been verified by these means, and to dismiss such empirical knowledge out of hand is both foolish and not our job.

For example, I have travelled extensively in South American and one sees that vast amount of "alternative medicine" practiced there (I put it in quotes because for people there it is not "alternative"). I doubt that chewing coca leaves has ever been "proven" effective by Western scientific protocols for altitude sickness but millions of people in the Sierra believe it does. I was in a small village in the Altiplano once where the women cultivated a small, bitter green potato for its birth control properties. Again, something which I doubt has ever been "proven", but at the same time something one can't simply dismiss as quaint folklore.

Can we get away from looking at healing as two opposing factions and see it rather as a broad spectrum of techniques, ranging from nuclear medicine to voodoo, of which some is "scientific", some is pragmatic, and all which have pros and cons?

In any case, at the moment the [[Alternative medicine]] article is una gran porquer.