[WikiEN-l] rampant scientism

[Sascha Noyes]

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 at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- 
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from 
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc