| Revision as of 00:05, 13 September 2023 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 65) (bot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:54, 16 November 2024 edit undoMcSly (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers32,216 editsm Reverted edit by 2409:4080:8E1D:4AAB:0:0:6A0A:9811 (talk) to last version by TryptofishTag: Rollback |
| (78 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Biology|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
| Line 82: |
Line 81: |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=GA|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Homeopathy |class=GA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Homeopathy}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine |class=GA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |class=GA |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting |date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV. Its contents should be treated with extreme caution, and any material taken from it must be carefully verified.}} |
|
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting|date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV. Its contents should be treated with extreme caution, and any material taken from it must be carefully verified.}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
| Line 126: |
Line 125: |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mathematically impossible statement == |
|
== Consumer Fraud Category? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article contains this statement: |
|
It is established that homeopathy is ], but Misplaced Pages's definition of ] clearly states '''intentional''' deception, as opposed to sometimes ignorant deception which is the case with quackery/health fraud. So should this category still apply? No source demonstrates that homeopaths are engaged in (the regular sense, intentional) fraud. In my view, it's like saying that doctors performing bloodletting were frauds -- untrue, they were ignorant. ] (]) 15:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"A 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum, would require 10^320 universes worth of molecules to contain just one original molecule in the final substance." |
|
|
This does not make any sense. For one, the volume of diluent would have to be (literally) astronomically large. For two, I'm pretty sure no known scientific process achieves this level of purity. If homeopaths in fact claim to achieve this level of purity, I suppose that's just another false claim: but I don't think it should be treated as a fact. ] (]) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's supposed to be earth atmoshpheres not "universes", I think.<span id="Usedtobecool:1722222132127:TalkFTTCLNHomeopathy" class="FTTCmt"> — ''']''' ] 03:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
::No, it's universes. The math is supposed to show how aburd homeopaths' claims are. Of course, homeopaths do not do the diluting all at once: take one "duck liver molecule" (whatever that may be) and 10^320 universes of water. They do it step by step, and in summary it amounts to that. --] (]) 04:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's precisely the point, though: no human can perform a dilution "step by step" that achieves anything even remotely resembling 1 molecule in 1 galaxy's worth, much less 1 universe's worth. This 10^320 universes must come from bad math or some mistake somewhere. If the idea is to discredit homeopathy, it would be best not to do so with logically impossible math / physics. ] (]) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Demonstrating that something is mathematically impossible seems to me to be a darned good way to discredit it. ] (]) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The ''maths'' itself is correct - a 200C dilution is genuinely that small a resulting number of molecules. And it's actually not that difficult to dilute something to that level - it's only a 1:100 dilution performed 200 times. If you were diluting in bigger amounts of solvent you could do it very quickly. ] 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If this is all ], it doesn’t need to be included, mathematically sound or not. It’s like refuting creationism with the ]— you don’t need to prove something with no basis in science, that clearly is incompatible with science on a macroscopic scale (it doesn’t work) is ''also'' incompatible with science on a microscopic scale. That should be obvious. ] (]) 15:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It cites a source. ] (]) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It still seems like kind of a strange statement to include for the same reason I already described. Does this help the reader understand the topic or just double down on the fact that homeopathy obviously has no basis in science in a weird, overly technical way? ] (]) 16:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
::::::::I made this edit, to make clearer to readers that it isn't OR: . --] (]) 17:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024 == |
|
:Are you saying that categorization is not ]? It does say "fraud" in the lead and with three citations. ] (]) 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{collapse top|Collapse AI blather}} |
|
::Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Those three sources do not characterize homeopathy with the word 'fraud' (I am cleaning this up by removing that word in the lead and removing the ref to the , which mentions nothing about fraud or quackery.) |
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Homeopathy|answered=yes}} |
|
::In general, when homeopathy is referred to as 'fraud' (for example, ]), we are talking about ], which, according to the article, involves fraudulent ''or'' ignorant practices in healthcare. If we agree on that -- then precisely, not verifiable according to ] -- categorization should be uncontroversial, and it is unclear where homeopathy is reliably established as 'intentional fraud'. |
|
|
|
This critique of homeopathy focuses on the system's funding, pseudo-scientific aspects, and the flaws in its purported benefits, rather than providing an objective overview of the system itself. It targets and undermines the supporters of homeopathy, leading me to question Misplaced Pages's reliability. For instance, some people assert that vaccines are scientifically proven to be beneficial, while others, presenting genuine cases of side effects, argue against them. If I were to present only one-sided arguments on Misplaced Pages, how would the extensive research in this field be valued? My concern is that Misplaced Pages should not provide a platform for biased views to propagate. The sheer number of references does not necessarily validate the claims, as opposing viewpoints are often supported by numerous sources as well. If Misplaced Pages lacks the ethical standards to prevent the publication of content without considering the writer's bias or without an editorial board to set boundaries, readers like me may lose trust in the platform. |
|
::My concern, summarized: the ] is about ], not ]. Homeopathy is uncontroversially quackery, but we can't say the same for fraud. Obviously, I'm unsure about this, which is why I have put this into the discussion to get an opinion. Quite confusing how health fraud encompasses ignorant practices too, while the English definition of fraud very clearly involves intentional deceit. Want to get experienced editors' opinions on this matter and how categorization works in general (the guide is a bit ambiguous.) ] (]) 18:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
:::Well, you can just boldly remove the category if you think it fails verification. Someone might object though and come to this discussion. Also, we shouldn't base our assessment of what fraud, consumer fraud, etc. are upon what the wikipedia articles say they are: whether homeopathy is (consumer) fraud depends solely on what RS say about the matter. ] (]) 18:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 09:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::Fair enough, but this is regarding ], which would require some perspective on the definition, right? Plus, as mentioned before, the RS in the lead didn't mention fraud. ] (]) 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I can't make bold edits on this article as they are automatically assumed to be disruptive. ] (]) 20:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
:{{notdone}} Please use this template for precise editing requests on matters where consensus has been achieved. ] (]) 09:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:There's a combination of true believers and frauds in the homeopathy business. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed, but the same can be said of any practice. ] (]) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: Also depends on the location. There are many true believers in homeopathy in Asia, for example. Meanwhile, in the West ... . ] 18:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Take this with a pinch of salt, but I would contend that most practitioners, even in the West, actually believe in it. But yes, it is worse in Asia -- in India, it is heavily institutionalized. Hard to say that a considerable fraction of Indian homeopaths are frauds. I just feel that the consumer fraud label doesn't wholly encompass quackery, and it's tough to justify it. ] (]) 18:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:The FDA definition of health fraud does not require any sort of intent. {{Quote2| "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines health fraud as the deceptive promotion, advertising, distribution, or sale of a product represented as being effective to prevent, diagnose, treat, cure, or lessen an illness or condition, or provide another beneficial effect on health, but that has not been scientifically proven safe and effective for such purposes."|}} ] (]) 19:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I guess you didn't read what I wrote. I agree that homeopathy is health fraud. ] (]) 19:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We're in a tricky area here, as, just like with telling falsehoods, quackery (health fraud) does not always have to be deliberate: "A quack is a "fraudulent or '''<u>ignorant</u>''' pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess; a charlatan or snake oil salesman". Ignorance qualifies for the label. When someone should know better and acts against what is common knowledge, they can justly be called a fraud, even if they are an ignorant true believer. |
|
|
|
|
|
The parallel with lying is seen in how we, and all RS and fact-checkers, deal with Trump. In the beginning, his flood of falsehoods was not labeled "lies", based on the argument that we did not know what he was thinking, IOW we didn't know if he knew what he was saying was false. Then it got so bad that even the most staunch opposers of labeling him a liar, such as at the New York Times and Washington Post, said they would start to do so because he should know better. His motivation was now irrelevant. His total disregard for the idea of truth qualified him for the label of "liar". He was making false statements that were against obvious common sense and what everyone else knew, so they began to label him a liar. Since then we don't try to figure out if someone knows better. If they are acting against what the vast majority of people know better, then they are culpable of willful ignorance, and if an innocent ignorant person gets caught up in that, well, that's too bad, but the public good is more important than sparing their feelings. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 20:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I noted the definition of a quack and '''fully agree''' that homeopathy is quackery/health fraud. However, as a general term, "fraud" unquestionably includes intent. Now, in a parallel point of discussion about the article, the lead's mentioning of fraud ''alongside quackery, which is equivalent to health fraud'', is '''not in the sources'''. Furthermore, one source is completely irrelevant and mentions neither. Regarding the category, it is not uncontroversial. In general, I don't see how the reference to the lone word "fraud" can be helpful, as the article clearly establishes that homeopathy is health fraud. This is my final position. ] (]) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm not very well-read on American politics, but I don't think Trump is a fair analogy to this. A lie is an intentionally false statement. A quick read of ] shows that the term "lie" came in favor due to "frequent repetition of claims he <u>''knew''</u> to be false" -- probably much easier to ascertain about one person than thousands of homeo-quacks, for whom there would really need to be some reliable sources establishing this. In India, the system is so skewed that there is a ] for quackery, and so the "vast majority of people" don't know better and it's not "obvious common sense." ] (]) 20:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't know if this is over now but what about changing category "consumer fraud" to "health fraud" (which is a category)? ] (]) 23:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've added health fraud as a category, that should be completely uncontroversial and is supported by sources. Still seeking consensus on removing 'consumer fraud', as well as changes to the lead. Waiting for those who reverted my edits to respond. ] (]) 02:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I've been watching, but haven't commented until now. I agree with adding the health fraud category, and in my opinion, that would make it reasonable to remove the consumer fraud category. I think it's also reasonable to say and link to ] in the lead section. --] (]) 19:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The sources provided in the lead do not support that conclusion, however. Especially the Telegraph source, which really should be deleted as it doesn’t even refer to quackery, although my deletion was illogically reverted. |
|
|
:::: is about all I could find on whether alt med is intentional fraud, and the answer is uncertain — it “will be so when knowledge is widespread in the future.” Unless someone else can find a source that actually refers to homeopathy as quackery ''and'' fraud, I cannot see how the inclusion of that word is justified. |
|
|
::::It’s a bit like saying “evolution is a theory,” supported by sources, and the word “theory” linking to a definition that equates to hypothesis. Or “conspiracy ]” with the link to a scientific theory. It’s a mischaracterization. |
|
|
::::When is there going to be any consensus? I do not see how this is that controversial. Especially removing the Telegraph source! ] (]) 06:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You've made some interesting points, but I don't believe you're going to see consensus for this change, given people's opinions above. If you wish to pursue it further, you might want to request some outside perspective via ] or starting a ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Really doesn’t look like there even is a dispute. Do we really need to go through dispute resolution for cleaning up an irrelevant source and removing wording that is not supported in the slightest by the sources? I understand the discussion regarding the inclusion of the *category*, which is why I started it, but the stuff in the lead seems like taking 2+2=5 to a dispute. Basically, my edits were assumed to be vandalism, and when it turned out that they weren’t, the discussion was stopped — no one has given a single argument in favor of keeping the lead as it is except “consensus hasn’t been reached”! If you’re going to revert my edits, then enlist your reasons for reverting the entire thing? |
|
|
::::::Here is the flow of events: I start a discussion, and I’m advised to make a bold edit. 1st edit - reverted because assumed vandalism. I restored because of an incorrect reason to revert. This was then reverted again because “talk didn’t reach consensus”. Is this valid under ]? And now I’m being advised to reach consensus based on bogus reverts that have zero “opinions”. ] (]) 06:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yes, there is ''obviously'' a dispute. No one mentioned vandalism other than yourself. Referring to reverts you disagree with as "bogus" is unhelpful. ] (]) 09:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Actually, the first edit revert ] — and the second revert was practically the same. Both were not motivated by the opinions of those reverting. Just unhelpful warnings. Apologies for using the loaded term “bogus”, it isn’t to say that they were not in good faith. Just unhelpful, and undermining one’s ability to make bold changes. If any change at all needs to be discussed, then why not protect the page more strongly? |
|
|
::::::::Anyhow, I don’t care enough to continue discussing who was right or wrong, I’m just trying to improve the article, and not a single point I have made regarding the content has been addressed. The “dispute” is essentially “let’s reach consensus.” ] (]) 10:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::For the record was noting that this discussion had not reached consensus. Apologies if I was unclear when mentioning ] much earlier but you're generally supposed to wait until consensus has been reached before trying a second edit. (I do see that the first reverter initially said they made a mistake but iirc by then the second revert already happened. It's best to wait even if you think the reason for reverting was wrong.) ] (]) 19:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Well, I was sure the reason was wrong as soon as the vandalism notice popped up on my talk page. Secondly, both the reverts weren’t motivated by an actual difference of opinion; the first was a mistake and the second was “Hey, your change got reverted and the talk hasn’t reached a consensus (for what bold change?) so you can’t make any change. Let me also drop a warning to further intimidate you.” I sought out the opinions of experienced editors, and the response most have given is to try and shut me down. |
|
|
::::::::::Anyhow, it seems as though we’re getting somewhere. ] (]) 18:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm fine with removing the "consumer fraud" category. It is unclear to me why you want to remove the Telegraph cite; it appears relevant. ] (]) 09:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::It has no mention of quackery or fraud. ] (]) 10:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It quotes medical and scientific experts saying that it is "nonsense", "non-science", that it's use is "mad", and that it is "witchcraft", and links to another such statement with text describing it as "rubbish". That's certainly enough to support "quackery" as a paraphrase. Look at the meaning, not just the individual words. ] (]) 11:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Agreeing with this. It's also supportive that the other sources present do explicitly use the term quackery. ] (]) 19:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Good point. I would contend then that the use of the phrase “quackery AND fraud” based on those sources is original research, and fraud should be deleted. There seems to be agreement among other editors that the category of consumer fraud should also be removed. Are these changes fair? ] (]) 18:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think the health fraud category makes the consumer fraud category redundant, so as with other editors here I think the consumer fraud category could be removed, but otherwise no. As I said, don't look at the individual words, look at the meaning and paraphrase that. ] (]) 18:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::To paraphrase the meaning of any of that to “fraud” is an enormous leap and purely ]. We aren’t the arbiters of meaning. For a conclusion like “fraud” to be drawn, it needs to explicitly be present in those sources. I would contend that it is absolutely incorrect, too — I had previously noted the distinction between fraud in the general sense and health fraud/quackery. Nobody has addressed that. Why not change “quackery and fraud” to “quackery (or/, also known as,) health fraud”? And we can remove the link to the general sense of fraud that includes intent. In my opinion, that is much more precise and avoids controversial conclusions regarding the belief of the medical/scientific community. ] (]) 18:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== If Homeopathy doesn't work, then why does the British royal family use it? == |
|
|
|
|
|
If Homeopathy doesn't work, then why does the British royal family use it? |
|
|
|
|
|
Here's my contribution: |
|
|
<pre>While the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates – the founder of western medicine – was the first recorded person to express the idea of curing ‘like with like’ more than 2,000 years ago, it was Hahnemann who made this principle into a system of treatment.</pre> |
|
|
] (]) 19:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* A number of high-profile people have espoused homeopathy. It does not mean that any of them are more qualified to make good choices in regards to their healthcare. ] 20:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Homeopathy oldest European alternative medicine? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article states the following about Homeopathy: "Homeopathy, the longest established alternative medicine to come out of Europe," the source being a book on homeopathy. |
|
|
|
|
|
How do we define something as established? Animal magnetism, for example, was created 20 years prior (in Vienna) and is still being practiced today in various countries in Europe (most prominently, it seems, in France), even if the term 'animal' has been dropped. It still has institutions. I would therefore consider it as a 'longer established alternative medicine to come out of Europe.' |
|
|
|
|
|
In the end it is but a detail, and homeopathy is without question much wider spread than magnetism. What do other things of this? ] (]) 12:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Alternative medicine is simply stuff that is used as medicine but has no valid evidence of efficacy. So, humorism is alternative medicine now, although it was mainstream for centuries before homepathy was invented. |
|
|
:I think this claim is simply a meaningless ] and should be deleted. --] (]) 12:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree, the sentence is more factually correct (and concise) without this particular insertion. |
|
|
::I am sure there is a debate to be had which form of complementary healthcare is the oldest, still established form coming from Europe--but this debate is largely inconsequential to the audience of this Misplaced Pages page. ] (]) 13:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
:::I agree, and I have removed it: . --] (]) 19:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
The article contains this statement:
"A 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum, would require 10^320 universes worth of molecules to contain just one original molecule in the final substance."
This does not make any sense. For one, the volume of diluent would have to be (literally) astronomically large. For two, I'm pretty sure no known scientific process achieves this level of purity. If homeopaths in fact claim to achieve this level of purity, I suppose that's just another false claim: but I don't think it should be treated as a fact. Andrewbrink (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
Q1: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the article? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy must be included in the article. The articles on Misplaced Pages include information from all significant points of view. This is summarized in the policy pages which can be accessed from the Neutral point of view policy. This article strives to conform to Misplaced Pages policies, which dictate that a substantial fraction of articles in fringe areas be devoted to mainstream views of those topics.
Q2: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the lead? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy belongs in the lead section. The lead must contain a summary of all the material in the article, including the critical material. This is described further in the Lead section guideline.
Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.)
A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence.
Q4: Does Misplaced Pages consider homeopathy a fringe theory? (Yes.)
A4: Yes. Homeopathy is described as a fringe medical system in sources reliable to make the distinction. This is defined by the Fringe theories guideline, which explains: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done Please use this template for precise editing requests on matters where consensus has been achieved. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)