Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 16

The Editorial Council has made a unanimous decision on December 17, 2010, to blank this draft article and to place a minimum of a one-year moratorium on any further edits to this article. The discussion concerning this decision may be found at [1]. The Talk page remains, but its present contents will be moved to an archive. The Approved Main Article also remains in place. This page is now protected by the Constabulary and no further edits can be made to it. After one year has passed, Citizens may ask the Editorial Council to reconsider their decision but there is no guarantee that they will do so.

The Secretary of the Editorial Council, Hayford Peirce 04:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Moratorium extended

The moratorium has been extended by another year. EC:D-2012-002. --Peter Schmitt 01:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Current talk page

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

<no subject>

I protest the fact that this article has not been approved by any homeopath. What is the idea in not allowing an expert in the field approve an article (since that was what Citizendium was created for in the first place)?—Ramanand Jhingade 13:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that some discussion should be provided of reputable views of homeopathy. For example, Dr. Weil who says: "Dr. Weil feels that homeopathy has value, even if it merely evokes a placebo response. If that response does indeed heal then it has great value - in other words, rather than discounting the placebo response, physicians should exploit it as a safe, effective way to treat disease." John R. Brews 15:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If I had known that Andrew Weil, a classmate of mine at Harvard '63, was going to turn into the semi-charlatan that he is, I would have kicked his ass into the Charles River. It was only recently, by the way, that I learned that it was *he* who ratted on Leary and Albert to the administration -- mainly because they weren't including him in their little LSD parties.... Hayford Peirce 01:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit I am a little disappointed. I was looking forward to seeing if we could keep things under control while we sought to improve this (and any) article. But, I do agree we probably don't have enough resources if things fall apart. D. Matt Innis 03:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said repeatedly at the EC discussions, I was against removing the moratorium purely for practical reasons rather than philosophical reasons -- we simply don't have enough Editors available to keep this article going if it ran into the same disputes that tied us all in knots for *years* while it was being edited. Hayford Peirce 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, deep down I know you're right. But I can't help but wonder how it will be any easier when we have more resources/contributers. It's sort of like that SOPA thing... D. Matt Innis 04:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I still like Britannica online's minimalist approach, not their particular wording, and the idea of giving the readers all the links they would need to expand their knowledge:

homeopathy, also spelled Homoeopathy, a system of therapeutics, notably popular in the 19th century, which was founded on the stated principle that “like cures like,” similia similibus curantur, and which prescribed for patients drugs or other treatments that would produce in healthy persons symptoms of the diseases being treated. This system of therapeutics based upon the “law of similars” was introduced in 1796 by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann. He claimed that a large dose of quinine, which had been widely used for the successful treatment of malaria, produced in him effects similar to the symptoms of malaria patients. He thus concluded that all diseases were best treated by drugs that produced in healthy persons effects similar to the symptoms of those diseases. He also undertook experiments with a variety of drugs in an effort to prove this. Hahnemann believed that large doses of drugs aggravate illness and that the efficacy of medicines thus increases with dilution. Accordingly, most homeopathists believed in the action of minute doses of medicine. To many patients and some physicians, homeopathy was a mild, welcome alternative to bleeding, purging, polypharmacy, and other heavy-handed therapies of the day. In the 20th century, however, homeopathy has been viewed with little favour and has been criticized for focusing on the symptoms rather than on the underlying causes of disease. Homeopathy still has some adherents, and there are a number of national and international societies, including the International Homoeopathic Medical League, headquartered in Bloemendaal, Neth.

Anthony.Sebastian 23:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Quibble

Could someone at least correct the spelling of infinitesimals? --Martin Wyatt 20:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if I can -- I'll give it ago. Hayford Peirce 21:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess it really is locked, even to me. I forget how the system works -- does a Constable have the power to go in and change it? I think so.... Hayford Peirce 21:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Finally. D. Matt Innis 01:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Categories

I question the placement of homeopathy within the Chemistry category. The Library of Congress subject headings catalogues it under "Health". In Dewey it is indexed under "Medicine & health". If anything homeopathy has more in common with a healing philosophy than chemistry - it is not a science, it is a belief. Placing it in the Chemistry category is giving it a false veneer of legitimacy. I would like to open up discussion on removing Chemistry from the metadata template. If there are no objections, I intend being bold and removing it. There is a moratorium on the article but none on the metadata template. Meg Ireland 11:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should not be listed under 'Chemistry'. I think it should be removed from the Health Sciences Workgroup as well, as occurred with Chiropractic. John Stephenson 11:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Chemistry should obviously be removed. I'd say we need a category for pseudoscience or vitalism or some such. Sandy Harris 12:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

We did have a category for healing arts, which after a heated debate, was removed. The problem was the articles that were in that group were migrated over to the Health Sciences category to appease editors from the deleted group. I think pseudoscience can be created as a sub-group. I'd like to see Citizendium workgroups though closely follow the Dewey system of 10 groups, with any further categories created match Dewey classification. Meg Ireland 05:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hear hear. I'd like to see a Pseudoscience subgroup. Ro Thorpe 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain. Pseudoscience may be too pejorative, hence controversial, and would lead to difficult judgment calls and endless debate. As I see it, it would certainly apply here but arguably not to chiropractic since some of the techniques there (though not all of the theories) are backed up by evidence. Some people claim it applies to climate change models, much of psychiatry or various economic theories.

What about epicycles or the luminiferous ether, certainly discredited now but once theories held by many respectable scientists? Arguably, homeopathy should be classed with them; it made sense at the time but not now.

I'd prefer a 'vitalist' tag, not just for reiki, homeopathy, chiropractic, ... but also aikido, tai chi, ..., perhaps some forms of yoga, even Star Wars and "the force". Not a workgroup or subgroup, but a category that can be applied in several areas. Sandy Harris 12:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, we should link to this Rational Wiki article: [2] or add something similar here and link to it. Sandy Harris 12:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm removing the Chemistry category. We can discuss the issue of what to do with the Health Sciences category further. Should it be removed as well or this article moved into a new workgroup? Meg Ireland 12:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)