[WikiEN-l] rampant scientism

[Fred Bauder]

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 at quilombo.nl>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:19:23 +0100
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l