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:
The thing is that once numerous randomized controlled trials and
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:
(cur) (last) . . 01:30, 7 Dec 2003 . . Robert Merkel (put a big fat
"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.
You are absolutely correct. Not only is the scientism view POV it is American-centered. You can get a degree in natural medicine at the University of Hiedelburg and go into medical practice in Germany.
This has gone on long enough.
Fred
From: Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:19:23 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@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:
The thing is that once numerous randomized controlled trials and
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:
(cur) (last) . . 01:30, 7 Dec 2003 . . Robert Merkel (put a big fat
"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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In my (user:snoyes) defense:
I have been accused of spreading rampant "scientism" on wikipedia. Thanks, even though you surely didn't intend it to be, this is a positive thing.
One of the definitions from [[Scientism]]:
"Scientism sometimes refers to humanism and enlightenment values informed by science. In this use of the word, scientism is "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science." (Source: Michael Shermer, The Shamans of Scientism, Scientific American, 2002)"
Note that I unfortunately know too little about alternative medicine to make any contributions to the article. Which is why I restricted my comment to the talk page. (You will notice that I have not once edited [[Alternative medicine]]). My comment was a semantic criticism of the term "alternative medicine", even though it was not carefully labled as such.
It is my belief that the mere existence of the term is harmful. "Alternative". Alternative to what? Alternative to the "main-stream", right? Is something main-stream based on how many users it has? Or is it main-stream based on whether or not doctors prescribe it? Or is it main-stream based on whether or not your health insurance pays for it?
Even if you take a simple definition such as the number of users, this still creates enormous problems: According to some predefined threshold for usage by the general population, homeopathic medicine (for example) could be considered main-stream in Germany (for example). But it wouldn't be main-stream in many other countries. Is homeopathy an alternative medicine? According to some predefined threshold for prescription by doctors, anthroposophic orientation (for example) could be main-stream in the country you are located in. Is anthroposophic orientation an alternative medicine?
I submit that looking at medicine according to popularity is fundamentally flawed. Rather, the only thing that I find interresting is whether something can be proven to be medicinal. The term "alternative medicine" should therefore be junked.
Of course, now we get to the "scientism" part: What methods does one accept for establishing proof that certain actions have certain effects? I quite happily accept scientific methods, and quite happily reject quackery.
Denigrate it as "scientism" if you will, but I prefer it over fairy tales.
On Sunday 07 December 2003 13:19, Viajero wrote:
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:
The thing is that once numerous randomized controlled trials and
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:
(cur) (last) . . 01:30, 7 Dec 2003 . . Robert Merkel (put a big fat
"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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Viajero wrote:
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.
I think we have a basis for agreement here.
Take for example this comment by user Snoyes on the [[Alternative medicine]] talk page:
The thing is that once numerous randomized controlled trials and
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.
The quote starts from a reasonable premise, but draws improper conclusions. The rigour of science becomes the rigidity of science, and the fallacy of the excluded middle. It presumes that any thing which is "unsubstantiated", or unknown, or unidentified is ipso facto false. An Unidentified Flying Object may very well turn out to be an illusion, but it is unscientific to presume that. I prefer to accept the fact that it is unidentified, and go on with life with a compulsive need to answer what cannot be answered. And "wonder-healers" is certainly a straw man. There are surely some alternative practitioners who make extravagant claims or send out "penis enlarger" spam, but I would venture to say that there are far more who (like most physicians) quietly see patients in their treatment rooms, doing the best they can.
Or take this edit summary from the page history of the same article by user Robert Merkel:
(cur) (last) . . 01:30, 7 Dec 2003 . . Robert Merkel (put a big fat
"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.
The fallacy of authority. If the person making the statement is sufficiently authoritative, everybody will uncritically accept it as true.
I am the only one disturbed by this?
No!
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.
Steiner certainly believed in a more wholistic approach.
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.
The priests of scientism have become today's grand inquisitor's. It takes nothing less than one of Kuhn's paradigm shifts to shake things up.
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.
The big multinational pharmaceutical companies are aware of these things. For them the question is can it be patented? If the plants could be used just as they are found in the wild, there would be no profit in that.
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?
I've consistently supported that approach.
In any case, at the moment the [[Alternative medicine]] article is una gran porquer.
Indeed!
Ec
Hi all,
I am not getting anywhere with recent arrival Leumi. Despite his politeness and his good faith shown on Talk pages and his willingness to negotiate, he continues to try to insert pro-Israel/anti-Palestine bias in many of the articles he works on. He is either unwilling or unable to learn NPOV. Normal channels of communication appear to work but have no effect. (He is another young teenager with Asperger's; maybe this has something to do with it.) Last night I spent more than five hours over two articles [[The Holocaust Industry]] and [[Palestinian refugee]] endlessly trying to convince him that his edits were unacceptable. Others including Daniel Quinlan and Merv backed me up without our making any real progress. Finally, mercifully, the articles were protected by Angela.
The two above along with [[West Bank]] are now protected. My feeling his Leumi will continue to try to insert his POV as soon as they are free again. I would like a joint community action on how to do deal with this, before they are unprotected, because it is too tiring, too emotionally exhausting to have to deal with this on one's own, article by article. We have a user, Zero0000, who is the Real Thing, a historian with vast knowledge of Middle East history from original sources, and he is also spending far too much time have to protect articles from the infatigable efforts of Leumi to slant them..
Please help out, people. See my my documentation at [[User:Viajero/Leumi]]. Respond at [[User_Talk:Viajero/Leumi]]. Check every edit this kid makes. Leave messages on his Talk page. We are going to have to exert a vast amount of pressure on him if he is to become a valuable contributor. Mr Natural Health is a court jester compared to Leumi. If I end up having to hold the fort on my own, I'll get burnt out. (And Angela will be furious with me if she has to add me to [[Missing Wikipedians]] ;-))
Thanks.
V.
Hi all, a correction to my original post.
On 12/09/03 at 04:16 PM, Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl said:
We have a user, Zero0000, who is the Real Thing, a historian with vast knowledge of Middle East history from original sources,
Zero, who is not on this list, asked me to convey the following:
<quote> Just to set the record straight, I am one of those weird people who think that squinting at mouldy microfilms for a couple of hours is fun, but my professional training is not in history. Therefore it is not correct to call me a historian even though I admit to knowing a little about the subject. </quote>
V.
On 12/11/03 at 09:47 AM, tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com said:
Is this beginning to be a problem on Wikipedia? What can we do to help new users with impairments that affect their social skills?
Good question. In my experience (two cases so far), it only becomes an issue in the context of edit wars over highly contentious issues, such as Mother Teresa, where discussion is critical and faulty communication channels turn the interchanges into emotionally draining, deeply frustrating experiences as one feels one isn't "getting through" to the other person.
I wish I had answers for you.
V.
tarquin wrote:
Viajero wrote:
He is another young teenager with Asperger's; maybe this has something to do with it.
Is this beginning to be a problem on Wikipedia? What can we do to help new users with impairments that affect their social skills?
I'd say just treat them like everyone else. If someone is impaired by a "mental illness" or impaired by "just has no social skills," it comes out the same for the purposes of a community, so just try to find a way to get people to work together. I can only see things turning out badly if we try to cater to specific "mental illnesses" and so on. Now if we want to help new users who lack social skills in general fit in with our model, that's another matter entirely.
-Mark
On 12/11/03 at 09:47 AM, tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com said:
Is this beginning to be a problem on Wikipedia? What can we do to help new users with impairments that affect their social skills?
I also have asperger's. He may have it more severely than me, but if he has trouble understanding others' feelings, he has had plenty of opportunity to deal with that.
Frankly, anyone who *cannot* understand why he is being criticized is probably not high-functioning enough to type.
He may have the separate issue that he's a very patriotic person, just as some of the people involved with the Silesia articles are.
Nathan aka Pakaran