Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:41, 10 January 2009

Archives

4/20 - 9/21 2006

2

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Treatment techniques

The Talk:Chiropractic#Treatment techniques section needs an expert on the subject. I hope you are interested in helping out in reaching WP:GA status for chiropractic. This is possible with the help of an expert. QuackGuru (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hiya, at the pseudosciences list, I realize that it's a hot topic, but unless there's a strong consensus to do so on the talkpage, it's probably not a good idea to be removing sourced information like this. You may wish to modify the information, but the citations themselves should probably be left in place. Thanks, --Elonka 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, good to see you're still here. I respect what you are trying to do. Sorry to get involved, I'll leave it up to you. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, was on vacation for awhile (Caribbean cruise, it was great!), and just got back last night. I'm still wading through my watchlist, and trying to sort out where I can best help. Do feel free to keep engaging at the pseudoscience list, I'm not trying to scare you off.  :) All I'm asking is that you leave the citations in place, and perhaps try to modify the information from those citations. For example, perhaps create a new subsection on that page for certain entries, or rewrite them a bit? I'm not sure, I'm just trying to help avoid the "A reverts B, C reverts A, D reverts C, etc." edit wars.  ;) Thanks for understanding, --Elonka 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And you are doing a wonderful job as usual. I am sure that you will eventually get a good grip on it, but I'm afraid I don't have the kind of time it takes to deal with QuackGuru's loving little soul. If the bar for the inclusion criteria ever sinks so low as to include chiropractic, a profession that sees 10% of the US population in any one year, then it is too vague to clear the NPOV criteria for lists. If you raise that bar then it fails WP:PSCI, no matter what any quasi-reliable source says. Just doing my part.

Did you do the Eastern cruise or the Western cruise? I've done both and loved each of them. I wanna go baaaackk!!! Though I was concerned about your situation last year, glad to see you fought through it.

Thanks for your kindness. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see two people whom I highly respect. Elonka, that might surprise you, chiroskeptic that I am, but Dematt is a man of integrity. Even when we disagree, and we do at times, we do it agreeably ;-) He has been the major factor in the expansion of the chiropractic article from a pitiful state to what it is today. A great Wikipedian!

I am uneasy about the current dispute, since I'm somewhat split over the issue. The heading states that we can include the opinions of skeptics, but they are being kept out. The inclusion criteria are right in the heading, but PSCI is being applied. The problem is, we aren't placing it in the Category, just documenting that skeptics consider it to be pseudoscientific.

OTOH, I also have qualms about including "chiropractic" as a whole, since it's a mixed bag. The parts of chiropractic that are generally considered pseudoscientific are three things:

• Vertebral subluxation (VS) and
• Innate Intelligence, with its Vitalism.

VS is still the philosophical (no VS, no excuse for the existence of the profession) and legal foundation of the profession (no treatment of subluxation, no payment from Medicare!), and that is problematic for chiropractic and its reputation in the scientific and skeptical community, since it's a pseudoscientific construct without anatomical basis. Only chiropractors (mostly straights) believe in it. Many are openly against it, but it would be suicidal of the profession to openly reject it.

Ideally we should include those three concepts, and state that the first two are elements of chiropractic, and include vitalism by itself, since it is an element of many forms of alternative medicine, not just chiropractic.

I'm tired of the wikilawyering that panders to the fringe, instead of fighting for an NPOV version that will allow inclusion. Changing the article's title will solve that problem. People can choose one side or the other. Either they will exploit the current title to support keeping fringe ideas out, or they will support an NPOV title to allow inclusion. BTW, these elements of chiropractic that should be mentioned aren't "Questionable science", but clearly PS. They are in the first two of the four WP:PSCI criteria.

One things is certain, no matter what we do, and no matter how well sourced, and even if DD Palmer himself appeared and admitted he had been one of the greatest quacks of all time, Levine2112 will appear and make sure that the word chiropractic is not allowed to stay on the page, even if he has to use socks and meatpuppets. There will never be peace there if the word is mentioned. The edit history has shown that to be the case. Only tight admin control and sanctions can prevent that. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fyslee, thanks for the kudos. I know you are doing your best to be as neutral as you can and I do appreciate that, but you have to remember that pseudoscience is a pejorative and is a serious accusation. You can't create a list with 'the skeptical inquirer' as inclusion criteria as one of the accusers and expect it to ever be NPOV. That is why we require things like this type of inclusion criteria. So if you really want to work toward NPOV and credibility for wikipedia, work to correct the inclusion criteria and the rest will take care of itself.

By the way, vitalism is not pseudoscience. All healers were vitalists until the early 20th century. Now when vitalists inject a spiritual being into the picture, it becomes religious, but that is not pseudoscience by definition. The new vitalists have migrated to emergence - and that is all materalistic and uses organization as an explanation for the development of intelligence when reductionist concepts can no longer answer the questions of life. One of our very own past wikipedians User:Gleng is one of those, and actually has finished research on the first model of how an emergent system might work showing how oxytocin will not result in lactation without suckling because the hypothalimus must receive the nerve stimulation from the alveoli before it will be primed to release the oxytocin. There is no way to have understood these processes in the days of DD Palmer, so yes they gave them spiritual elements. All people believed that. Innate intelligence has little scientific meaning today and I don't know any chiropractors that use the term (not saying there aren'a ny out ther), but can be thought of as a metaphor for those body functions that are controlled by the brain, which are most all as far as anyone knows. The degree that chiropractic has any affect on those functions is being studied. Is it going to show that 'chiropractic cures all ills' - No. And no-one says so. If you find any chiropractic organization that says so, let me know. Now are there chiropractors that think they can cure all ills - YES, and they drive us all crazy, but that does not mean that they are pseudoscientists, only crazy.

Thanks for lending me your ear. -- Dēmatt (chat) 06:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Dematt!!

Welcome back!!!! ... and thanks for the barnstar! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to The Other Place (tm) :-). BTW, can you get the necessary people over at the Other-Other Place to edit their Vit C article to make it more readible. It's long winded gibberish at the moment, almost like it's been run through Bablefish or something :-(. Ta Shot info (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)