| Revision as of 21:27, 22 February 2016 editCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Summary section of the article does not provide a balanced view of the controversy related to the topic: retort← 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 |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{Caution|'''Important notice''': Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the ] of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's ''encyclopedia article'' about Homeopathy.}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{Trolling}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{British English Oxford spelling}} |
|
|
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN |
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|action1date=03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
| Line 63: |
Line 65: |
|
|action10result=delisted |
|
|action10result=delisted |
|
|action10oldid=520910103 |
|
|action10oldid=520910103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action11=GAN |
|
|
|action11date=07:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|action11link=Talk:Homeopathy/GA2 |
|
|
|action11result=failed |
|
|
|action11oldid=959644982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=GAN |
|
|
|action12date=13:16, 29 Oct 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|action12link=Talk:Homeopathy/GA3 |
|
|
|action12result=listed |
|
|
|action12oldid=985955563 |
|
|
|
|
|
| topic = natsci |
|
| topic = natsci |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Homeopathy|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Homeopathy}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|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 Medicine|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{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.}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=B|subpage=Biology}} |
|
|
{{recruiting}} |
|
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
|author = ] |
|
|
|title = Ivermectin booster Dr. Tess Lawrie goes all-in for homeopathy for COVID and long COVID |
|
|
|date = March 6, 2023 |
|
|
|org = ] |
|
|
|url = https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-booster-dr-tess-lawrie-goes-all-in-for-homeopathy-for-covid-and-long-covid/ |
|
|
|lang = |
|
|
|quote = Lawrie, as is the case with most quacks, is not happy with Misplaced Pages. Indeed, she starts out by looking at Misplaced Pages: "Let’s start with the lies and misinformation about homeopathy. Here's how the internet's propaganda factory Misplaced Pages currently defines it:" |
|
|
|archiveurl = <!-- URL of an archived copy of the page, if the original URL becomes unavailable. --> |
|
|
|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate = March 13, 2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author2 = Syeda ShahBano Ijaz |
|
|
| title2 = How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Misplaced Pages’s Credibility |
|
|
| org2 = ] |
|
|
| url2 = https://politicalsciencenow.com/how-conflicts-and-population-loss-led-to-the-rise-of-english-wikipedias-credibility/ |
|
|
| date2 = 29 May 2023 |
|
|
| quote2 = Take the example of the Misplaced Pages page on homeopathy: from 2001-2006, the lead on the page described homeopathy as a “controversial system of alternative medicine.” From 2006-2013, the content changed to mentioning that homeopathy has been “regarded as pseudoscience” and sharing that there is a “lack of convincing scientific evidence confirming its efficacy.” By 2015, this description had stabilized to “homeopathy is a pseudoscience.” |
|
|
| archiveurl2 = |
|
|
| archivedate2 = |
|
|
| accessdate2 = 30 May 2023 |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|counter = 62 |
|
|counter = 65 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Homeopathy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Homeopathy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
|
{{archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month |index=/Archive index |search=yes |auto=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive index |mask=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no |
|
|target=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive index |mask=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no |
|
}}__TOC__ |
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mathematically impossible statement == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 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 == |
|
|
{{collapse top|Collapse AI blather}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Homeopathy|answered=yes}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Homeopathy|answered=yes}} |
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
<Please remove the following paragraphs as they are completely biased point of views probably from an over enthusiastic homeopathic skeptics and is not allowing the reader to make their own judgement where two sides of the coin are presented. Right now as it stands is an unfair one sided introduction to homeopathy which millions of people use all over the world- and for over hundreds of years. And in many countries like India it is recognised by the government and there are hundreds of recognised colleges from which thousands of homeopaths graduate out from every year.To call these fake and a sham on wikipedia is an insult to the practice. There are good scientific evidence on the contrary and should be inserted by those who are experts in the field. Nevertheless such a biased introduction reduces the validity of articles in wikipedia for which I regularly pay yearly to keep up the good work. I am a doctor and a scientist (non homeopathic) from Cambridge and can assure you that this sentence as well as others like it are showing only one side of the story. I was a non believer and personally got cured of a medically incurable disease which definitely was not 'psycho somatic' as the signs were medical and my surgeon was astonished and has recorded this. The whole article needs to be reviewed and updated especially by a person who can input recent evidence for homeopathy. So please invite or accept invitations for edits. The words used below like 'nonsense. quakery' sham' are personal opinions quoted from unscientific places and has no place in wikipedia. There should be only evidence for and against without biased silly opinions> |
|
|
|
] (]) 09:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{notdone}} Please use this template for precise editing requests on matters where consensus has been achieved. ] (]) 09:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Those paras to be removed are (there are other such and please remove them too): |
|
|
|
|
|
<Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific. Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition; large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, suggesting that any positive feelings that follow treatment are only due to the placebo effect and normal recovery from illness.> |
|
|
|
|
|
<The continued practice of homeopathy, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense, quackery, and a sham.> |
|
|
|
|
|
<Assessments by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the British National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Swiss Federal Health Office have each concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, recommending against the practice receiving any further funding.> |
|
|
] (]) 13:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{notdone}} The content is good and in accord with the ]s. ] (]) 13:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Indeed, your argument for "fairness" is nothing but a laundry list of logical fallacies: argumentum ad antiquitatem, argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority (the old "I'm a doctor, so I know" business), false authority (experts of homeopathy carry no more weight on its validity than experts on unicorns carry on establishing the existence of the latter) the old "I used to be a skeptic, but now I know" gambit, and probably a few more. All of the best quality evidence supports the article as is. ] (]) 15:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: |
|
|
|
|
|
::I believe "quackery" and "a sham" should be removed, as it does not appear to be neutral and rather insulting. I know that it's pseudoscience, but... ] (]) 02:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It is a matter of pseudoscience, with no reliable evidence of efficacy, being sold as if it has medical benefit - that is the definition of quackery. ] (]) 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I think several reliable sources do not concur with this point of view: for instance : |
|
|
--] (]) 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Several problems there, Neb. 1) Our article states that "the scientific and medical communities" classify homeopathy as nonsense, quackery, and a sham. The references cited in your link come almost exclusively from sources such as "Homeopathy" and other alternative medicine rags. Those publications don't reflect the opinion of the scientific and medical communities - they primarily reflect the foregone conclusions of true believers. 2) More importantly, none of the references given in our article regarding the nonsense, sham and quackery statements link to the Shang study. The Shang study is simply ''one of many'' references offered which call into question the efficacy of homeopathy. It does not play a major role in our article and, as best as I can tell, is not referenced anywhere in the body of the article, but only in the lede. Finding potential flaws in the Shang study has nothing to do with the broad scientific opinion that homeopathy is nonsense, quackery, or a sham. It's a red herring. 3) I find it humorous that the people claiming to have found flaws in Shang's statistical methods rely on almost universally underpowered studies that look at completely heterogeneous manifestations of disease and treatment options to frame their counterpoint in attempts to establish that there is really any sort of debate here. For example, looking at some of Dullman's favorites which examine the effects of personalized homeopathy in treating childhood diarrhea in and , we find several possible pathogens and causes of diarrhea being "treated" with a whole list of homeopathic "treatments". They aren't ''testing'' anything in these papers; they do little more than present an aggregate of n = 1 interventions and wind up with barely significant results of dubious clinical value. The research in favor of homeopathy is crap - Shang's methods don't change that. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::::Besides your personal investigations and opinions about the meta analyses which support homeopathy's efficacy and they are not cited even if they are published in mainstream reliable sources--- there are important authors of several reviews on homeopathy who are cited in this article and they don;t agree that homeopathy is all placebo - Does an encyclopedia have to report these views ? Of course ---unless they want to pretend that every important author and researcher in mainstream literature li agrees with the line Homeopathy is placebo etc....(Are you really ready to discuss the math in the studies you refer to?) --] (]) 02:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Neb46545 after looking through the last article you referenced I fail to see how you can convey such as a hole hearted endorsement of homeopathy. I am always surprised that even true believers in homeopathy can not design a study and come up with a result that is more than just vaguely positive. Do you know of any '''quality''' study(s) that show an unequivocally positive result?] (]) 03:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::There are several "studies" that report unequivocally positive ''results''; the problem is that they are poorly designed, underpowered, report misleading details about their experiments (Benveniste), or haven't been replicated by reliable labs. Listing them here (as we have seen several editors more than willing to do) won't accomplish anything since they can't be incorporated into our article. ] (]) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I should probably have been a little clearer. Quality = Randomized double blind placebo control studies with enough power/participants to be of statistical significance. And a well-defined pre-stated objective i.e. not a finishing expedition. ] (]) 14:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Even this misses the crux of the problem. Let's suppose, hypothetically, that there were such a study—that is, a perfectly designed, well-blinded randomized controlled trial with adequate statistical power, testing a single pre-specific primary endpoint, which found that homeopathy was significantly more effective than placebo with p <0.05. What is the likelihood that this study result is a false-positive, despite its perfect design? |
|
|
::::::::::* A) 5% |
|
|
::::::::::* B) Somewhere around 99.999% |
|
|
::::::::::(Hint: the answer is B. If you perform randomized controlled trials of therapies that lack any sort of prior probability of effectiveness, then all you're doing ''at best'' is identifying statistical noise. Of course, the existing clinical trials of homeopathy are generally not well-designed, so even that is being overly optimistic). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Don't forget the relevant XKCD: . ](]) 03:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I agree. A ] should also be a requirement of any quality study. Thanks for the cartoon! ] (]) 13:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::This is not a matter of opinion - your linked article raising questions about Shang's analysis does not offset the mainstream scientific assessment of homeopathy and has no bearing whatsoever on the statement in question. This is just more of the same demand for undue weight. Yes, there are reviews out there that come to the conclusion that homeopathy works, but they are using the same pool of data that the likes of Linde have incorporated into analyses finding that quality matters. The fact that Linde and others have pointed out this flaw with the data supplants any positive results using the same data. the long and short of it is that positive results disappear when quality is controlled for. As for the math in the Jacobs papers, this is not the place for it, but I will point out that the authors themselves admit that they were underpowered in the Nicaragua trial and that the results reported in the Nepal trial (probability of having diarrhea after 5 days) had no standard deviation reported and were different than the stated primary assessment objective of the paper (days until resolution of diarrhea), so it's impossible to carry out any power calculations. ] (]) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
@''']''' what you are writing makes no sense in mathematical logic ----even if one conducts any number of trials on homeopathy because "any sort of prior probability of effectiveness " is ...lacking then the positive results should be statistical noise ? This is a logical fallacy - who is the judge and the general criteria and definition for "prior probability of effectiveness" ? Science disproves revises itself quite often and this is not a controversial statement. So it would be easier for all the researchers to say - including the anti homeopathy crusaders - whatever we find will be statistical noise - therefore homeopathy does not work -- that would be a great scientific statement. ---- On topic now - you are comparing individualized homeopathy where the censored reliable reviews show an effect and non individualized homeopathy where they do not . A neutral editor reports all results equally since they are reported in first rate journals - no matter if you disagree with the outcome or methods. Unless you write a polemic and you are just using only the sources who agree with your point of view. --] (]) 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is not a forum and not the place to have Bayesian analysis explained to you. The lack of any plausible mechanism means that statistically significant results can just as easily be interpreted as being due to one study group being labeled "A" in a ledger and the other group being labeled "B" (or any other real, imagined, or wholly mundane differences between the groups that appears beforehand or as an artifact of the study). I can give you some bullshit magical explanation of why writing down these letters will affect the outcome of the study in question, or how invisible fairies are responsible for the outcome, and these explanations for any observed statistical difference would be just as sound as the notion that the difference is due to diluting and shaking. It is much more likely due to statistical noise or unrecorded methodological flaws (Benveniste). |
|
|
:Do you have any specific changes that you want to suggest for our article that can be referenced to WP:MEDRS compliant secondary sources? Keep in mind that Linde and others have pointed out that the positive results reported in those reviews already identified and discussed here are due to their inclusion of garbage primary studies. When quality is controlled for, the effect disappears. Quite simply, the information that you want to include in our article does not exist, as any review which finds a positive effect from homeopathy is superseded by those analyses which point out the glaring flaw of including low quality studies. ] (]) 17:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ping|EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin'}} On the topic of statistical sophistication, I came across in the ''International Journal of High Dilution Research'' (to which, of course, I subscribe). It illustrates a nearly complete ignorance of basic statistical concepts among recently graduated homeopaths. (Of the 74 surveyed homeopaths, a whopping 8% were able to correctly interpret a ''p'' value, while none—0%—were able to correctly interpret an unadjusted odds ratio or a ], both of which are very basic biostatistical tools). This finding was published in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal dedicated to promoting homeopathy, which makes it all the more interesting. It does explain a lot of the circular conversations on these talk pages, I suppose. (If you want to take the statistical-knowledge test yourself, it's —but no peeking at the answers ahead of time!) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{ping|MastCell}} I wanted to test myself, but your link to the test actually took me to the paper, unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible! -] ] 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ping|Roxy the dog}} Ooops! I thought that link went directly to the exam, but you're right, it circles back to the ''JAMA'' paper. To find the actual exam, go to the , then go to the box on the right of the article text and click on "Supplemental Content" (next to the paperclip icon). That will take you to the stats test. Good luck (and remember, even if you guess randomly you should get ~25% of the questions right, which is significantly higher than the homeopath's performance). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Summary section of the article does not provide a balanced view of the controversy related to the topic == |
|
|
|
|
|
The summary section makes a sweeping comment - "large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, suggesting that any positive feelings that follow treatment are only due to the placebo effect and normal recovery from illness" |
|
|
|
|
|
However, later in the article there is mention of an FDA ruling which says - "The FDA cited the growth of sales of over the counter homeopathic medicines, $2.7 billion as of 2007, many labeled as "natural, safe, and effective." As per the article further ] the matter is still subjudice. |
|
|
|
|
|
In this context, the summary is not fairly representing the issue of controversy around Homeopathy. The line in the summary quoted above should be followed by an additional disclaimer that "On April 20–21, 2015, the FDA held a hearing on homeopathic product regulation and the matter is currently being discussed." <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:You can't be serious. "Many labeled as 'natural, safe, and effective'". You're comparing the findings of meta-analyses of clinical trials with the marketing claims of homeopathy distributors and claiming this presents some kind of controversy? One statement comes from reliable sources, the other is a marketing phrase. That the FDA has dragged its feet on regulating homeopathy is rather irrelevant. ] (]) 09:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with Kulkarnininikhil that the intro as currently written is not a neutral representation of the article text. ] (]) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The article is neutral in keeping with WP:NPOV. Neutral does not mean "equal time", nor is it meant to reflect popular opinion. The bulk of scientific evidence paints homeopathy as a fringe belief. ] (]) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Is homeopathy considered to be a fringe belief in India? ] (]) 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::How does the above comment help to improve the article? -] ] 17:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Is creationism considered a fringe belief in Louisiana? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Because, if homeopathy is not considered to be a fringe practice in India, one of the biggest and most populated countries in the world, then it undermines the blanket statement that homeopathy is considered to be a fringe practice. So, again, is homeopathy considered to be a fringe practice in India? ] (]) 17:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I've said this to you before, your poor understanding of sourcing, and PAG, belies your experience here. Why bother? -] ] 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You appear to be evading the question...Is homeopathy considered a "fringe belief" in India? Yes or no? ] (]) 21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You appear to be missing the point - the popular acceptance of something has no bearing on the reality of its value. Properly designed and analyzed experiments (science) establishes value/validity. The scientific method is not different in India, nor is the pool of data, so science says it's a fringe belief in India the same as anywhere else. You are offering an argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy, meaning that your argument does nothing to establish your conclusion. ] (]) 21:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: See the comment , and the source it cites which states that as of 2014 "Only 5 to 7 percent usage of ‘other’ including AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga or Naturopathy Unani, Siddha and homoeopathy) was reported both in rural and urban area." But in any case, the criterion for whether the topic is regarded as fringe here is how the medical and scientific consensus regards it. ] (]) 22:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Dullman has also recently tried the . Funny thing is, the life expectancy in India is currently 66 years, while that in the U.S. is 79 years. points out that there has recently been an increase of life expectancy in India of 5 years and that it is due primarily to the introduction of modern public health interventions. So one has to wonder, is it the reliance on things such as homeopathy that is responsible for the still low overall expectancy in India? It seems pretty clear that supplanting such nonsense with real medicine has a demonstrable and profound beneficial effect. ] (]) 22:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I agree the real question is not what the general public of India believes but whatever or not their views should given priority over established science. --] (]) |
|
|
::::::::::: ] is right: "the popular acceptance of something has no bearing on the reality of its value." At Misplaced Pages, when dealing with scientifically falsifiable matters, the term "]" is unrelated to any degree of statistical minority or majority acceptance or rejection in the general populace. It refers exclusively to acceptance or rejection by the mainstream scientific community. If a clear majority of the scientific community reject an idea, then believers are considered on the "fringe", even if a large majority of the general populace are also believers. Scientists hold the ] when it comes to verifiable facts. This also applies to ], where a clear majority of American Republicans deny the overwhelming scientific consensus supporting anthropogenic climate change/global warming. That majority are ALL "fringe", just as ALL believers in homeopathy are "fringe", even if they are a majority in India (which may be the case there). -- ] (]) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Bull, that isn't true. If the majority of the world disagrees with a few scientists, and the sources reflect that, then that view carries here in WP. We crowdsource. This isn't "SciencePedia". ] (]) 18:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Right, the ''argumentum ad populum''. Fifty million smokers can't be wrong! That said, I don't know where you got your facts; recent data suggest that the vast majority of Indians rely on conventional medicine rather than homeopathy (see from ], for instance). Do you have some sources saying otherwise that you'd like to discuss? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::{{reply|Cla68}} this is unequivocally, completely, and crucially wrong. We specifically do '''not''' ], we represent what the experts have published in ]. Having 51% of the population's support is ] in determining what exists in the scientific mainstream. To quote our NPOV policy, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." ] (]) 20:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::While the popularity and prevalence of a belief may be of general interest, homeopathy makes specific claims of intervention "A" causing outcome "B". Such claims can not be addressed by popular belief, but are most appropriately assessed through the scientific method. The popularity of homeopathy is already touched on in the article and . The popularity of homeopathy has no bearing on the rest of the article, which is dedicated to presenting evidence which establishes the reality of the situation - i.e. it is possible for a lot of people to believe in patently absurd nonsense. ] (]) 20:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Misplaced Pages ] right? Either popular or scientific. It's against our policy. What it does is influence the weight that the article gives it. If 2 billion people in the world believe in Christian creationism but 10,000 scientists believe in Darwinism (and I'm skewing the numbers a little, I know), then our articles should reflect that weight. If you don't like it that the majority of the world haven't accepted everything that scientists necessarily accept, then you need to start your own wiki- "ScienceWiki". This is Misplaced Pages, and it goes by the wisdom of the crowd. ] (]) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::That is simply not correct. Check VQuakr's post above for applicable WP rules. Our article mentions popular opinion and then commits itself to presenting evidence. BTW, think about what you are suggesting - there is no compelling evidence that homeopathy works (after 200 years), therefore we should report popular opinion. The structure of our article does not need to change; you may, however, want to look at your beliefs if an appeal to popularity is the best you can do, as is being admitted by your proposal here. ] (]) 21:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::You are completely misunderstanding the NPOV policy. This is not a democracy. ] (]) 21:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ever heard the expression, "Judge people by their actions, not their words"? That applies here. A few of you here are saying the crowdsourcing and wisdom of the masses doesn't apply to articles like this, but your actions completely bely that. You all watch this article like hawks and quickly revert any changes that doesn't meet your approval. If two or more people object to the present content, you quickly pile in and object. Obviously, you know that Misplaced Pages's content ''is'' decided by the masses. That's how Misplaced Pages was originally designed, and how it still operates. If a local consensus develops to change it, it gets changed, because having the numbers means you can out revert-war those who are fewer in number. Same thing with the sourcing. If 500 million people like homeopathy and 5,000 don't (even if they're scientists), the only way this article expresses the view of the 5,000 is if more editors here support those 5,000 than those against. ] (]) 21:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sections of this article sound like opinions than facts == |
|
|
|
|
|
One line I am quoting is - "The use of quantum entanglement to explain homeopathy's purported effects is "patent nonsense", as entanglement is a delicate state which rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second". While the fact stated in his sentence is that "entanglement is a delicate state which rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second" - use of the terms "patent nonsense" and the formation of the sentence makes it appear as if the author is representing their opinion of the matter than stating the fact. The language of this article is very biased and does not live up to the Five pillars of Misplaced Pages principles mainly: "Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view" <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:The neutral point of view is the point of view taken by reliable sources. If reliable sources describe it as patent nonsense, well, there you go. Now "patent nonsense" is obviously opinion, which is why we put it in quotes. But that is the ''prevailing opinion'', so it's worth mentioning regardless. Neutral most certainly does not mean sugar coating the views of reliable sources and handling the subject with kid gloves. ] (]) 09:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Someguy, in my opinion you are incorrectly interpreting WP's NPOV policy. The "prevailing opinion" can be stated in a neutral voice in a WP article so that it does not come off as being in WP's voice. ] (]) 15:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The statement is referenced to an external source, making it clear that it is not in "WP's voice". ] (]) 15:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Where a "prevailing opinion" is held by the vast majority of experts, it is appropriate for us to state it in Misplaced Pages's voice. ](]) 23:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: While that might make the True Believers a little less insane about this article, it would not really be an improvement since the prevailing opinion is based on reality whereas homeopathy is based on fantasy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:07, 5 February 2016 (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)