[WikiEN-l] Yet another post on homeopathy as pseudo-science (hey, it beats the other topic going on here...)

Sat Jul 2 19:06:35 UTC 2005

> The Apollo moon landing article is mostly about
> what is most widely considered by *relevant authorities*
> to be true -- it doesn't matter if 60% of the world
> population doesn't believe it happened that way if 99%
> of scientists do, in my opinion, as this sort of knowledge
> is firmly within the domain of scientists to provide the
> best answers on. So they get the "unmarked" POV.

Well put.

> [I]t would be best if someone with authority
> (cough cough, Jimbo) would put out a decree saying,
> "Wikipedia should strive for NPOV as much as
> possible, but if there are questions as to which
> direction to lean in terms of very subtle unmarked
> POV, it should lean towards the POV of the relevant
> scientific community."

Seconded. You have a flair for understatement.

> The need to have some meaning indicates we will
> have to perhaps sometimes have some statements
> which are less neutral than others.

Beautifully put - I think I'll quote this statement
on my user page if you don't mind :)

> [T]he question of whether certain aspects of homeopathy (not the
> diluting part, but the other "like helps like" part) is unclear.

As long as you end with diluting your solution so there's
not a single molecule left of the original substance the
other aspects of your methodology are fairly irrelevant to
the efficacy of the results.

I will have to admit that a small part of the homeopathic
"remedies" you can buy are not so diluted. And again, a
small part of *those* may include some active ingredients.

So, some people start with active ingredients, don't dilute
them out of existence and still call it homeopathy - presumably
to make use of homeopathy's "good name". I'd argue that it isn't
really homeopathy but I'll admit that it confuses the issue. The
"like helps like" theory, as it is applied by homeopaths, is
pseudoscience. Perhaps not quite as egregious an example as
"water can remember stuff you put in it", but still pseudoscience.

I still maintain that classifying homeopathy as pseudo-science
makes Wikipedia a more useful encyclopædia. (Marginally of course.)

Regards,
Haukur