Talk:Homeopathy/Definition

Probably for Dana--look at Definition subpage (copied from Talk:Homeopathy on 12/1/2009)

Could someone with homeopathic training check the Definition subpage? It's minor, but if I have learned some things here, I'm wondering if "disease" is the correct term of art. I'm not explaining that well, but the definition reads as if it was from a non-homeopathic physician describing homeopathy. "Syndrome", perhaps? Does "individualization" need to be there? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanx Howard. Here's my proposed change (the CAPS are what I am recommending that we add and the words in parenthesis are those that I recommend that we delete). Please note that I recommend that we refer to homeopathy as a "system of medicine" rather than as "Alternative medicine" because this latter term is so relative. To me, referring to acupuncture as an "alternative medicine" in its definition seems strange.

A SYSTEM OF (Alternative) medicine which asserts that substances known to cause IN OVERDOSE SPECIFIC SYNDROMES OF SYMPTOMS (particular symptoms) can also, in low and specially prepared doses, help to cure PEOPLE WHO ARE ILL WITH A SIMILAR SYNDROME OF SYMPTOMS (diseases that cause similar symptoms); most mainstream medical doctors and scientists, particularly those in the West, do not accept this. Dana Ullman 04:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"System of medicine" is fine. In the major CAM taxonomies, NCCAM and UK Parliament, "alternative" is generally synonymous, the NCCAM also referring to "whole systems" that are alternative to medicine. There are several definitions of "alternative" in different articles, but I think the idea of whole system/system of alternative medicine is important. Where things get especially complex are when techniques from systems of medicine are used as a complement to other systems, in a hopefully integrative way.

To take your example, acupuncture can either be a complementary discipline, or a subpart of the whole system of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the latter by classic definition rather than the hybrid "Three Roads" approach of the Chinese government. Acupuncture is more a technique than a system.

I definite agree with changing to "syndromes of symptoms". I am less sure about deleting "alternative" unless we have general consensus on its meaning. "Whole" is actually not bad, but it's more NCCAM's word. One of the CZ challenges is going to be consistent usage of traditional medicine, complementary, and alternative. Some traditional medicine is complementary, some alternative, and here and there has become mainstream. Even allopathic doesn't work cleanly, since in the U.S., "conventional medical schools" can come from a historical allopathic or osteopathic origin. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a non-expert, "system of medicine" sounds to me like it describes a form of conventional medicine. The definition ought to be in line with the approved article's use of "alternative medicine". John Stephenson 05:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Pls see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Definitions - we don't need additional 'comments'. It has to be short and concise.—Ramanand Jhingade 16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The most stable version, and the one agreed to by the healing arts editor, was this one. Let's use that. David Finn 00:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the definition is both here and on the main talk page

My guess would be that since it integrates with other discussion, the main talk page is preferable. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Length of this definition

Is there any other definition in CZ that is 66 words in length with 383 characters (as per my Wordperfect information checker)? I think not. Right now, this bloated, totally unreadable "definition" is *longer* than some stubs! Hayford Peirce 20:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. –Tom Morris 20:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, danke. How long will it stay fixed, I wonder? Remember to vote! Hayford Peirce 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excellent. Sandy Harris 02:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Pls see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Definitions - we don't need additional 'comments'. It has to be short and concise.—Ramanand Jhingade 15:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It still is concise and a number of people prior to your edit - which, by the way, was incorrectly marked as 'minor' when in fact it was a substantial deletion - had agreed to it. I notice you removed the information about how homeopathy is rejected by science. For these reasons, I have reverted your edit and referred it to the EC. John Stephenson 10:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)