This was what was more or less thrashed out on [[Talk:Alternative medicine]] - that "alternative medicine" may or may not be rubbish, but is sincere; but quackery includes knowing deception. FWIW.
I don't see how this is a workable distinction. It's not the treatments that are sincere or not - it's their practitioners. I'm sure there are lots of sincere homeopaths - but who's to say that there aren't a few who know that the remedies don't work (better than any placebo) but sell them anyway?
Likewise, how do you know that [[Jomanda]] wasn't sincere and acting in good faith? And how can you know that practitioners of [[Chelation therapy]] aren't sincere? Both are currently in the quackery category.
Regards, Haukur
On Jun 28, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
I don't see how this is a workable distinction. It's not the treatments that are sincere or not
- it's their practitioners. I'm sure there are
lots of sincere homeopaths - but who's to say that there aren't a few who know that the remedies don't work (better than any placebo) but sell them anyway?
Likewise, how do you know that [[Jomanda]] wasn't sincere and acting in good faith? And how can you know that practitioners of [[Chelation therapy]] aren't sincere? Both are currently in the quackery category.
I believe my point was that the practitioners of [[Chelation therapy]] are quite sincere and include a good number of serious research scientists and physicians. I'm not really sure why it's in Quackery except that perhaps some uses might qualify as an alternative treatment, in which case it illustrative of the apparently total confusion between the two categories.
Laurascudder
Haukur Þorgeirsson (haukurth@hi.is) [050629 02:22]:
Likewise, how do you know that [[Jomanda]] wasn't sincere and acting in good faith? And how can you know that practitioners of [[Chelation therapy]] aren't sincere? Both are currently in the quackery category.
That second example is a Gohde-ism, so it would be impossible to say ;-)
- d.