[WikiEN-l] Read what the homeopaths are writing

Sun Jul 3 22:33:26 UTC 2005

As I said, I'm perfectly happy with saying that most -- the vast
majority, perhaps, but I don't know -- of homeopathic practices and
beliefs are considered pseudoscientific. I'd add a little nuance that
some of the medical community have found some inspiration in its model
of symptoms, but that generally this is still incorporated into the
standard medical model (that is, just taking the "like helps like"
approach doesn't mean they are abandoning any other medical methods or
understandings). Which seems to be the state of things, as I
understand them.

Putting something like that in the homeopathy article -- or even the
pseudoscience article -- would be great and from a NPOV. But that sort
of nuance can't be accomodated through our categorization technology,
which is why I don't think we should be using categories for something
like this.

FF

On 7/3/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> Yes, I see. I suppose that's a fairly typical
> introduction to homeopathy. It sounds sort of
> plausible and somewhat interesting. Here's a
> sample pro-homeopathy article that starts like
> this:
[snip]