[WikiEN-l] Re: Pseudoscience category - GSPOV

Tue Jun 28 13:22:36 UTC 2005

On 6/28/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> 
> I think rejecting this particular useful category
> on grounds of the NPOV-policy is a bit too much.

In what way is it useful? That has not yet been explained to me.

> As for the "alternative medicine" category then I
> suppose "medicine that has not been proven to work"
> or some such would be more accurate. I for one would
> actually prefer "quack medicine" since "alternative"
> has some undeserved positive connotations and implies
> that quackery is somehow a viable alternative to actual
> medicine.

I encourage everyone who take part in this debate, to study the
category tree in and around the category "Pseudoscience". Actually,
there is one Category "Quackery" and another one called "Alternative
medicine". Quackery is a sub-category to Alternative medicine, but
while Quackery is also a sub-category to Pseudoscience Alternative
medicine is a sub-category to Medicine.

Quackery and alternative medicine is not the same. In Great Britain,
healers etc. are often welcomed to work in the hospitals. That is
alternative medicine/complementary medicin, choose what term you like
best. The German ex-med-doctor (forgot his name) who claim that cancer
is pure psychological and cancer patients should leave the normal
health care and go to him for some kind of therapy, is a definity
quack.

As I said before, I see the Pseudoscience category as a "scrap bin"
for those who don't want to take the time to distinguish one thing
from the other.

/Habj