[WikiEN-l] rampant scientism

[Viajero]

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.