[WikiEN-l] Pseudoscience category - GSPOV
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Jun 28 17:45:38 UTC 2005
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
>>And in the end, maybe what it comes down to is: Categories should not
>>serve as "warning" flags. They are meant to just be taxonomic devices.
>>
>>
>Agreed. If someone reads an article on, say,
>homeopathy and only realizes when she sees the
>categories at the bottom that the thing doesn't
>work then there's something wrong with the article
>(incidentally I think [[homeopathy]] makes the
>"doesn't work" part fairly clear as it is).
>
The degree of doubt that there might be about homeopathy does indeed
belong in the article on the topic. We are, of course, in no position
to make a final determination that it either works or doesn't work.
Either position would be pseudoscientific. We can establish that a
dominant segment of mainstream science believes that it doesn't work.
Once that point has been established there is no need to revisit the
issue ad nauseam. If the major premise is questionable than so too are
any ideas derived from it.
>As for the "alternative medicine" category then I
>suppose "medicine that has not been proven to work"
>or some such would be more accurate. I for one would
>actually prefer "quack medicine" since "alternative"
>has some undeserved positive connotations and implies
>that quackery is somehow a viable alternative to actual
>medicine.
>
"Alternative medicine" is excellent as an NPOV category without
introducing a needlessly pejorative term like "quack". "Not proven to
work" within the rules of mainstream science is already implicit in the
term "alternative". The concepts "not proven to work" and "proven not
to work" are very different, and quackery would have more kinship with
the latter. I can just as easily see that "quack medicine" has
undeserved negative connotations, while "alternative" adequately warns
the user to proceed at his own risk. The credibility of the various
practices that come under this heading is wildly variable, and some may
indeed qualify as quackery, but certainly not all.
Ec
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list