[WikiEN-l] Re: Pseudoscience category - GSPOV
Laura K Fisher
laura at thescudder.com
Tue Jun 28 16:09:59 UTC 2005
On Jun 28, 2005, at 7:22 AM, Habj wrote:
> I encourage everyone who take part in this debate, to study the
> category tree in and around the category "Pseudoscience". Actually,
> there is one Category "Quackery" and another one called "Alternative
> medicine". Quackery is a sub-category to Alternative medicine, but
> while Quackery is also a sub-category to Pseudoscience Alternative
> medicine is a sub-category to Medicine.
I guess I'm not sure how I would define "Quackery." Both pseudoscience
and alternative medicine are clear, but some of the members of
[[Category:Quackery]], like [[Chelation therapy]] I'd put in
[[Category:Alternative medicine]] as it's currently a therapy under
study rather than one proven to not work. I think that Quackery
shouldn't be a subcategory of Alternative medicine. The articles that
do use Alternative medicine to promote their Quackery should belong to
both categories, but in my opinion not all members of the Quackery cat
are also Alternative medicine.
>
> Quackery and alternative medicine is not the same. In Great Britain,
> healers etc. are often welcomed to work in the hospitals. That is
> alternative medicine/complementary medicin, choose what term you like
> best. The German ex-med-doctor (forgot his name) who claim that cancer
> is pure psychological and cancer patients should leave the normal
> health care and go to him for some kind of therapy, is a definity
> quack.
>
> As I said before, I see the Pseudoscience category as a "scrap bin"
> for those who don't want to take the time to distinguish one thing
> from the other.
I don't think that pseudoscience is a scrap-bin any more than
alternative medicine is a scrap-bin for valid alternative treatments.
It's simply a way of grouping ideas outside of the mainstream. I also
agree with the previous poster who said that they shouldn't be used as
warning labels at the bottom of the article. They often are, but a
well written article in either pseudoscience or alternative medicine or
quackery will make it clear why it has been placed in that category
because it will present both points of view on the theory.
Laurascudder
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list