[WikiEN-l] Neutrality and the "majority" view (was: "Rampant scientism")

[Poor, Edmund W]

When people say "most scientists believe X" I daresay what
they really mean is:

* X is true, so let's stop arguing about it

Wikipedia's policy on controversial subjects clearly
forbids this kind of pre-emptive shutdown of discussion. 
So let's talk about what we ought to do instead of that. 

First, a question:

1. What is a majority view?

If indeed 51% of scientists (or doctors holding a Western
M.D. degree, or moviegoers, or Linux enthusiasts) BELIEVE A
CERTAIN THING, then the article should simply report that
the indicated proportion of the group in question adheres
to that POV.

If the majority is larger than 51% - say, 95% - we can
safely call that an "overwhelming majority". If it is 99.8%
we can say "virtually all". (Note that some published
writers might considered 2/3 to be "overwhelming", but that
is just THEIR POV! If as many as 1/3 of a group disagree
with something, our readers are better served by telling
them that 2/3 of the group believe it, and that 1/3 of the
group disbelieve it).

Having stated the general principle, I wonder how many are
still with me? Getting bored? Angry? . . .

2. Chiropractic as an example

I'd L-O-V-E to know what proportion of Western M.D. "health
professionals" give credence to any of the "alternative"
practices our Wikipedia articles are starting to describe.

In two out of two cases I know of (admittedly not a
'scientific' sample), men with severe back pain got
immediate, lasting relief via chiropractic. One was a
soldier who said he wrenched his back when he stepped into
a hole on a road march; muscle relaxants and so on tried by
military doctors didn't help him at all, he said; he
wound up spending his entire monthly salary on chiropractic
treatment, which he said "worked".

The other case was me: I suffered a muscle spasm when I
bent over to plug in a computer; after getting my back
cracked at a chiropractor's office I immediately felt
better and didn't even need aspirin.

Perhaps we can distinguish chiropractic's effectiveness at
treating back pain, from its more general claims; there
might be a part of the system which can be proven to work,
even if other parts remain dismissed by M.D.'s as
pseudoscientific quackery.

3. Approaches to alternative medicine

Can we generalize from how we talk about chiropractic
(which seems to work for SOME complaints) to how we ought 
to describe other "alternative" approaches?

How about acupuncture? I've read anecdotal reports that
inserting needles at certain points can dull pain, even
that as intense as a woman experiences in childbirth.
Surely this has been the object of controlled studies.

I just read last month about a study on Echinacea,
comparing its effectiveness vs. placebo. Well, can't we
report those study results?

4. Conclusion

Some people believe surgery and synthetic drugs are "bad
for you" and are looking for other ways to treat ailments.
I suggest we report NEUTRALLY on their motives and results.

Uncle Ed