Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 21

message: With regards to this sentence in the lead:
:Homeopaths contend that this process of serial dilutions, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, called potentization, removes any negative side-effects of the treatment and retains therapeutic powers...
What if we rewrote it as such?:
:According to homeopathic theory, this process of serial dilutions, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, called potentization, removes any negative side-effects of the treatment and retains therapeutic powers...
That gets rid of at least one use of "contend" anyhow. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the word theory is ambiguous and only correct if you mean to use it in the loosest sense of the word, I'd suggest "homeopathic ideas" or just "according to homeopaths". Tim Vickers 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure if I agree or understand what you mean by the use of theory being ambiguous. My thought is that regardless of Homeopathy being science or pseudoscience, that the usage of the word theory is correct. Despite that feeling, I am okay with your suggest of just "according to homeopaths". -- Levine2112 discuss 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I'm fine with that option. Read the article on theories to see what I meant - the word has several meanings. Tim Vickers 22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By replacing "contends" with "according to homeopathic theory", I think Levine is going in the right direction. The use of the word theory can be misunderstood, but Tim's suggestions should help. -- Fyslee / talk 05:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion #1 

message: My widely unpopular edit was changing the following sentence:
:Homeopathy is a vitalist therapy, which homeopaths contend acts by treating imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. "
to:
:Homeopathy is a vitalist therapy aimed at treating imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. "
But I guess that was regard as not critical enough at it was reverted back. David D. (Talk) 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is much better but I never like the word "aimed" used in that sense. It's a personal feeling, but it sounds kind of country bumpkin-ish to me. However, that being said, your idea is right on. It takes out the contentiousness but leaves in the theoretical ambiguity. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main point is to remove the negative homeopaths contend. Anything suitable that substitutes for aimed and keep the meaning intact is fine with me. David D. (Talk) 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I get your point, I agree that it's superfluous. The word is overused throughout, and has a negative tone. I think the substance is good, but the language is excessive. Cool Hand Luke 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we're on the same wavelength.  Articles should be enjoyable to read, even if you are an opponent of the theories discussed. David D. (Talk) 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion #2 

message: Just a quote from H Walach's "Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy" in the British Homoeopathic journal Volume 89, Issue 3, July 2000, Pages 127-140. 
...With this story the eminent scholar of Jewish mysticism Gershom Scholem ends his work `The Jewish mysticism'.1 It describes the fading of the Chassidic tradition and introduces the image of dilution, in this case the dilution of magic rituals: although the original ritual is diluted and only the story of it remains, it is effective. The same is true for homeopathy, as those believe who have their own experience. Although the original substance is diluted, it is still in some way `present' and effective. This presence, I will contend in this paper, is a magical, not a causal presence, like the one described in the text by Scholem. Magical presence and effects are wrought by signs, not by causes. In this sense, homeopathy is effective in a non-local way: it acts by magically activating connectedness. It uses a system of signs to bring about this action. I propose to use Jung's model of synchronicity, or, in more general terms, a general model of acausal effects, in order to understand this action. I will turn to explain how the scientifically obscene word `magic' can be understood in an inoffensive way. Then Jung's concept of synchronicity will be elucidated and set into a wider frame of a possible general class of acausal effects. At last homeopathy will be exemplified as one phenomenon falling under this category. Before I set out, I will make plausible why such an approach is called for by interpreting the empirical database for homeopathy. I will use some concepts at the beginning loosely and clarify them in due course.
Adam Cuerden talk 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the point people are trying to make is that there isn't any need to be afraid of Homeopathy- and that's what the extreme negativity indicates.  The reader knows this.  The reader will be much more sympathetic to Homeopathy if we keep on bashing it.  And the harder we bash it, but more sympathetic the reader will be.  Because guess what?  Most people are turned off by allopathic medicine.  That's why alternatives are so popular.  Adam, you and the other bashers here are doing more to promote Homeopathy than any promoter of the therapy. You are promoting Homeopathy.  Learn the psychology.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, ye cannae be serious. Tim Vickers 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I swear. I'll send you the PDF if you want. Adam Cuerden talk 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet its one of these hoax papers like the Sokal affair. Tim Vickers 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cite the author 4 times in the article on the pro-homeopathy side. If it is, it's one the Faculty of Homeopaths like. Adam Cuerden talk 00:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We can't cite this guy, this is just gibberish. Tim Vickers 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's one of the people that did studies that showed homeopathy has an effect. Adam Cuerden talk 04:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But come on, this is just crazy - the text makes no sense whatsoever. We can't cite this junk to show anything apart from saying that the man's ideas are insane. Tim Vickers 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This says something about the so-called "reliability" (in the normal, non-wiki sense) of the sources that find positive results. Could we use it as an example of what types of sources find positive results? (A whole new section with several examples.) That might involve some details about what kinds of zany ideas he holds.... Nope. That would get us too far afield into (truthful) OR and POV editorializing. We shouldn't do that here, but it could be tempting on a website...;-) -- Fyslee / talk 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in the British Homeopathic journal 

message: We need to summarise the article. How about three paragraphs following the sections of the article.
#History and General Philosophy
#:Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a controversial form of complementary and alternative medicine first used in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann.[1] Building on this work, later homeopaths such as James Tyler Kent expanded the practices of homeopathy: although Hahnemann's most famous textbook The Organon of the Healing Art remains in wide use today. The legal status of homeopathy varies from country to country, but homeopathic remedies are not tested and regulated under the same laws as conventional drugs. Usage is also variable and ranges from only 2% of people in Britain and the United States using homeopathy in any one year,[4][5] to India, where homeopathy now forms part of traditional medicine and is used by approximately 15% of the population.[]
#Development of remedies and Treatments
#:Homeopathic remedies are based on substances that, in undiluted form, cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat. These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects but retains therapeutic powers - even past the point where no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.[3] Hahnemann proposed that this process aroused and enhanced "spirit-like medicinal powers held within a drug".[4] Sets of remedies used in homeopathy are recorded in homeopathic materia medica, with practitioners selecting treatments according to consultations that try to produce a picture of both the physical and psychological state of the patient.
#Medical and scientific analysis and criticism
#:The ideas of homeopathy seem scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.[5][6] Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies.[9][10][11][12]  Meta-analyses of many clinical trials have shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and that studies that suggest genuine homeopathic effects have generally been flawed in design.[14][15][16][17] This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, have caused, in the words of a recent medical review, "...homeopathy to be regarded as placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[13] Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, with a few homeopaths even advising patients to avoid standard medical procedures such as vaccination and anti-malarial drugs.[18][19][20][21][22]
Please comment below. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any further comments and suggestions for improvement, or are people generally happy with this current draft? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for lead

message: Please comment here:
suggestion
Researsh on the memory of water has found no or very little evidence to explain how homeopathy might work.  Add more references 
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.247.46 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discussion of lead paragraph 1 

message: Not happy with the non-neutral term 'homeopathic belief;' we did have contend before, which is MUCH more NPOV. can we restore that? thank you. Not happy with the phrase 'Hahnemann wrote' maybe he proposed or documented a belief? just a few ideas. Peter morrell 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adopted suggestions, replaced "contend" with "believe" as per discussion in section above. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Amusingly enough, diff it was removed because people thought it was pejorative and carried a negative implication! Tim Vickers (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, I'm surprised you'd think contend is more NPOV.  That sounds like a very defensive word in that context. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really, I could say that Margaret Thatcher aimed to fly to the moon on a broomstick, but that would not imply that it could happen. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree, this seems to suggest hope rather than fact. Besides, it could be considered to work some of the time due to placebo effect.  It all depends on your definition of work. This is vague enough that it should suit all. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That was a bit wordy, I've condensed it a bit.
* "Hahnemann proposed" - why not just "said"? Adam Cuerden talk 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We could say "wrote", but proposed seems to describe it more succinctly than "hypothesised" Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Proposed is better than said.  Although I could go with wrote. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, that is better than my wording. Added Tim Vickers (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on section 2 

message: Not happy with the word spiritual in the bit about consultation. Maybe 'psychological or psycho-social condition of the patient' would be more accurate. Spiritual is too woolly and New Age for a start and also what does it refer to? it is inaccurate. Homeopaths have no more idea than the rest of us what this term means. It has no intrinsic meaning within homeopathy. It kind of suggest religious belief which plays no part in homeopathy or in homeopathic consultation. just a few thoughts. thanks Peter morrell 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do homeopaths do a spiritual consult, or is it just psychological? If so, that's the word for what it is.  It's not the same as psychological or psycho-social, which look at functioning of the psyche but not at, let's say, one's meta-analysis of the psyche: perceived meaning of life, role of one's ethics, and metaphysical beliefs, if any. If homeopaths give a spiritual evaluation, then that's the word for what they give, I'd say. Friarslantern (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: They talk to the patient and LISTEN to a complete overview of their medical conditions and their likes and dislikes, and their mental habits, inclinations and moods, sleep pattern, menstrual patterns if any, personality...quite frankly this is NOT spiritual. How does that sound? It's quite simply the wrong word. Peter morrell 17:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that what you describe isn't exactly the spiritual.  They might call it constitutional, which could be the most fitting word here, I dunno, but it's meaning is obscure to many.... Friarslantern (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Psychological" seems fine, good suggestion Peter. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you make a psychological assessment without being a psychologist or psychiatrist?  They're based on science.  I'd accept something like "holistic" assessment, which fits with the whole pseudoscience of this practice, while accurately describing what this practice thinks it's doing.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: you don't get it yet; NO assessment is made at all, no judgement, no evaluation, no comment! just collect the symptoms of every aspect build a full picture mental and physical, and find the most similar remedy. I would suggest you might study the subject a litle first? I don't edit articles on biochemistry because they're slightly beyond my specialism. Same applies. thank you Peter morrell 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, what to you think the rewording "...consultations that try to produce a picture of both the physical and psychological state of the patient."? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: or "...consultations that try to produce a picture of the patient's character and constitution." Well, at least these contain the meaning of what we're getting at.... don't know if they're colloquial enough not to disrupt the style & flow here. Friarslantern (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like "character" since that always carries the implication of "moral character" - ie he is a man of character. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...a picture of the patient's personality and physical makeup." Friarslantern (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Personality doesn't include important aspects such as how they are feeling - stress, anxiety etc. "Physical makeup" is a little strange as well, to the chemist in me it recalls elemental analysis, but also sounds like you might be counting limbs and measuring BMI. What exactly is your concern about how it it currently phrased? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm fine with it :-) .... I was working from Peter's problems with it. And there should be no problem with using "psychological" -- the legal distinction that homeopaths are not licensed to evaluate psychology is just that, a legal distinction, not a relevant distinction for an encyclopedia that (I hope) aims to be colloquial. Friarslantern (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Proposing that we give equal weight to a publication in "The Lancet" versus a publication in the obscure Swiss alternative medicine journal "Forschende Komplementärmedizin" is simply absurd. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual vs. pscyhological 

message: Please comment here:
This is a basic homeopathic objection, which was not included before. 
Homeopaths argue that Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored. 
They say that The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology. 
"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.247.46 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discussion of lead paragraph 3 

message: Refers to this Lancet article:
 helpfully copied byt the author here
Adam Cuerden talk 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian article 

message: While Ezine Articles is not a RS (and blacklisted as a source here), there still may be some interesting stuff here:
* Chiropractic is Responsible for the Rebirth of Homeopathy in America
: The history of homeopathy begins with the discoveries of its founder Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), a German physician. Hahnemann's first comments about the general applicability of the law of similars came in ...
: http://Ezine Articles.com/?Chiropractic-is-Responsible-for-the-Rebirth-of-Homeopathy-in-America&id=346168 (space in hyperlink needs to be removed for it to function)
Other sources (HIV/AIDS and homeopathy):
* Homeopathy under attack
: InTheNews.co.uk - London,UK
:The decision to host a symposium about homeopathy's role in the treatmentof HIV/Aids has provoked a fierce attack from a leading academic. ...
: http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/finance/pharmaceutical/homeopathy-under-attack-$1167450.htm
* Homeopathy to treat HIV/AIDS criticised by British doctors
: Newstrack India - Delhi,India By NI Wire Nov 17: 
: A proposed Homeopathy's function in the treatment ofHIV/AIDS has become an object of remonstration. The seminar was to beorganised by ...
: http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/1527
The last one includes statements made by Indian doctors which should result in delicensure and criminal prosecution for endangering lives. They are dangerous deceptions and untrue. Any research that supports their claims must be seriously flawed. -- Fyslee / talk 16:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know... is the preponderance of evidence really that great, or are you going with your scientific instinct here?  This article can't be too bad -- note the text of the final paragraph!!! Look a little familiar? Friarslantern (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose that does show that what we are doing is important. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy articles in the news 

message: Ok, I make no claim to be a great writer, so please tweak what I just added, but this article absolutely does not have NPOV.  The NIH has on their site a list of studies  that did show that some homeopathic remedies have statistically significant difference--Yet the very page that shows that at the NIH was referenced in this article as *only* showing that some studies are not valid.  True, the NIH site has those invalidations...but it lists the ones that showed significance as well.  That should be reflected in the opening paragraphs of this article.  So, again, my lame attempt to point that out obviously needs rewording, but at least some balance of that fact makes it a bit more NPOV I hope.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somewherepurple (talk • contribs) 03:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is in relation to this edit and this link. NCCAM is itself said to be less-than-neutral, but putting that aside I still think the edit's language goes too far. Most studies show no statistically-significant link. Even NCCAM is unafraid to say homeopathy is controversial "largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics)." (emphasis added) Cool Hand Luke 07:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You're trying to use altmed journals to say that science supports homeopathy. That's not the same as using a skeptical site to say "Homeopathy has been criticised for..." Adam Cuerden talk 14:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my own field of medicine, reputable journals - such as the British Medical Journal - have often printed articles which have been heavily criticised for unbalanced statistics, unacceptable conclusions, and biased study conditions. Statisticians regularly slate the medical community for publishing poor quality. But as these are allopathic and accepted, it hardly merits attention. Because they are "normal", these studies stand. Think of the "butter is good - no! Butter is bad" debates etc etc. When you then discount journals because you do not like their stance, then you compound the errors. I would reconsider your basic premise, if I were you, Adam. docboat (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there are reputable journals and unreputable journals, and, combined with the nature of the statistical test used to check whether something is better than placebo, there's bound to be some studies that say it's better than placebo. Combine this with publication bias, and there really is no call for using single studies that show very small effects to try and claim that homeopathy is supported. Adam Cuerden talk 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the fact is that there are studies which show an effect, and it is simply not on that these are discounted on the basis of your personal bias. Can you agree on that point? docboat (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: While we editors should keep factors like statistics and publication bias in mind, we are in no position to quantitatively evaluate them to conclude whether the sum of the studies is inconsistent with a homeopathic effect, inconsistent with only a placebo effect, or consistent with both (i.e. undecided). That's what the metastudies are for, and we should only report their conclusions, sticking as closely as possible to their language. Since there are several metastudies published, we can try to sort them according to reputability of the journals. If we can't come to a consensus on that point we could use impact factors. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but Peter is arguing that non-metaanalysis single studies should be given equal weight... Adam Cuerden talk 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd rather not get started quoting from individual studies, there are just too many of them. Can't we instead use the summaries from the metastudies, which describe the studies as a whole? --Art Carlson (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NIH / NCCAM

message: This is one of the most common criticisms of homeopathy, so surely it should appear in the article? Adam Cuerden talk 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, none of these are very prominent or reliable sources, compared with the high-impact peer-reviewed journals used to source the other statements in this section of the lead. Surely if we just confine ourselves to reporting what the best journals in the scientific mainstream say about homeopathy, we make the statements in the lead more authoritative? Tim Vickers 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we did, yes, but we don't: All that statistical information about usage isn't from major journals, and we also use a university source. Adam Cuerden talk 04:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What's going on here? I simply don't understand the objection in the edit summary, since notability is far from always a requirement for references, while verifiability and reliability are. Those happen to be good sources and are a good addition to that part of the lead. (Keep in mind that Adam's edit summary isn't part of the edit.) The edit itself is quite dry and a matter of fact statement about existing skeptical opinions, backed up by references. I just don't get it, and I haven't even been enjoying a glass of wine! -- Fyslee / talk 06:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The notability requirement is not on the reference, it is on the statement. If there's reason to believe that homeopathy is commonly seen as being magic then I'm fine with the refs, but I don't think there is. To my knowledge it is generally portrayed as being (pseudo)scientific in nature. Furthermore, the statement in question is mentioned only in passing in the article body. No need to stuff it into the intro too. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this isn't a criticism I have seen in the mainstream scientific literature. Has this statement been made in any papers that have been published in reputable scientific journals? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are raising the bar for inclusion of this type of information to an unreasonable level. Scientific information should preferably be backed up with good scientific references, while critical opinions are more commonly found in skeptical literature, newspaper articles, journal aricles (like "Time Magazine"), V & RS websites, etc.. The sources must still be from V & RS, but don't necessarily have to meet the notability requirements for other types of information or the quality requirements for the nitty gritty details involved in specific scientific claims. Let's keep these distinctions in mind, otherwise we are creating a straw man situation. -- Fyslee / talk 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If critical information in the lead is restricted to the scientific mainstream, then this also excludes the stranger publications in fringe journals on such topics as quantum entanglement of people and water memory. There can be no justification in insisting on good-quality sources for scientific discussion of possible mechanisms of such topics unless we are equally stringent on other scientific topics, such as if homopathy is magical thinking. However, if this is indeed a common criticism, then it should be noted in the meta-analyses and academic reviews that we cite in the reminder of this section. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. don't believe this was intended to be raising the bar so much as an innocent inquiry. That said, the bar for inclusion in an article seeking FA status should certainly be higher than "this was mentioned in an acceptable resource", insofar as it pertains to non-notable information. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tim, I guess I'm not expressing myself very well, but I strongly disagree with you on this one. You are using an apples and oranges situation here which has often been used as a straw man argument by fringe editors to shoot down perfectly good opinions from good sources, opinions which are rarely if ever uttered in actual scientific research articles. They do what you are doing, and requiring that such statements (even in articles unrelated to science) be sourced only from double blind research, which is an obvious fallacy and generally nearly impossible. Research is research, and opinion is opinion. They still require backing from V & RS, just different types of sources. I am still nonplussed to see you using an argument that fringe editors often use. -- Fyslee / talk 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think this is the case. Why not try explaining what the problem is, rather than trying to tar an editor by association with unspecified "fringe editors"? Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tim is far from fringe. He is a scientist and I was just surprised to see him using an argument I have seen used by fringe editors. That's all. This plays into their hands and they can use it as justification for more attempts to use invalid arguments to demand sourcing that is clearly not of the right type for subjects not to be found in such literature, i.e. skeptical opinions and dialogue in scientific research studies where the facts discussed are more likely to be about the molecular composition of whatever, rather than the personal opinions of the researcher regarding the wars in the trenches between science and nonsense. Such opinions are found coming from scientists who are writing in skeptical journals, interviews in the press, and on various skeptical websites. Two different types of information coming from two different types of sources, all from scientists who consider homeopathy to be nonsense and highly improbable, and all from sources that in their own right are considered to be V & RS. We use apple judges to judge apples, and orange judges to judge oranges, and the two don't always meet very often. -- Fyslee / talk 09:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't object to this criticism being included, but I haven't seen enough evidence that this is a notable enough criticism for it to be included in the lead. We have a good number of reliable, reputable sources on this topic, if they do not mention "magical thinking" as one of the major criticisms, then it probably isn't something we need to put in the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  magical thinking 

message: Para 3 of the intro is massively over-referenced. There's no requirement to add inline refs to the summary as well as to the article body statements. We certainly don't need twenty-three references in the lead. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns. My personal preference - and it's just mine! - is that WP:LEAD's contain no references at all, keeping them clean and easier to read. Since the lead must reflect well-referenced article content, there is no requirement at present that the lead include a single reference, since the lead refers to article content that is already referenced. If anything in the lead doesn't do that, then it should be removed (preferably to the talk page), the article brought into conformity with that information, and then the item may possibly be added back into the lead. This is all a matter of taste since there is no rule against having references in the lead. I just think it makes the lead look cluttered. IMHO. If editors here (preferably a significant number) decide to follow a reference-free-lead format, then we can do it and in the future refer new editors to that decision as binding. Unfortunately, the nature of Wikipedia being what it is, if a new consensus at a later time changes that decision, it will all have been a waste of time, but then 90% of what happens here is wasted time because there is not attempt to protect good content or even Featured Articles. If you want to start an RfC here proposing a "Reference-free-lead" format, you will have my vote. -- Fyslee / talk 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I'd certainly agree with removing all the intro ref tags (they should all be duplicated in-article anyway). As for consensus changing: this seems to work in general on Wikipedia. It's much less effort to defend an existing, well-discussed position than to change it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference stuffing in intro 

message: Wow – still heady from my first edit on this main page. Orange, I reverted your reverts to this original sentence which began The ideas of homeopathy appear to be scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge., changed back to The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. and which I changed to The vast majority of scientists regard the ideas of homeopathy as scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.
Now then, let us look closely at the facts. Do 100% of scientists regards homeopathy as scientifically implausible? No. 100% of scientists do not regard homeopathy as scientifically implausible, but the vast majority do. So my change is accurate. Can you accept that? But you justified your revert on this statement: This "vast majority" thing shows up way too often. Now it may not be to your taste, but reverting an accurate statement requires more than just a sense of “it has been said too often”, don't you agree? 
You went on to say: This "vast majority" thing shows up way too often. It's not like scientists take votes. And they don't have "opinions." If you, like me, have been to medical and scientific meetings, you would hear plenty of opinions – science thrives on opinions – and as for voting, well there are plenty of examples where votes are taken and a consensus looked for. Statistical reference volumes will tell you precisely why the opinions and prejudices of the observer will confuse and confound a statistical analysis. But again, I assume you know all this. 
What I find confusing is how you can call the wording I chose “POV”? The wording I chose is IMHO both NPOV and accurate – certainly more accurate that imputing to all scientists an opinion that not all scientists hold true. Can you agree on that? docboat (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any references on what percentage of scientists regard homeopathy as implausible? If not, we can't make any statement on this in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not - but how many % would constitute "vast" in the first place? 1%? 25%? Both would fit. Your wording is also good. docboat (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Peter, actually your use of steel ships and aeroplanes not flying as "implausible" scientifically is just not correct.  Though I am not an physicist, I do understand the physics that allow a steel boat to float (simply, it displaces water that weighs more than the steel), and a plane flies, because of the differential air pressure above and below the wing.  Neither are implausible, except to non-scientists.  Not only do I believe most or a vast majority of scientists find Homeopathy implausible, I would bet pretty much 100% do (similar to the number of scientists who accept that the theory of Evolution describes how  human beings have an opposable thumb.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vast majority is correct in this situation. I can see why some would not want the term to be used though. Homeopathy is often dressed up in white coats to give a sensible impression. Phloem (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, this god of the gaps kinda stuff is all nice and philosophical, but there is nothing even remotely controversial about the fact that the vast majority of scientists reject the purported mechanism of homeopathy. I like how NCCAM put it: homeopathy's "key concepts do not follow the laws of science." Cool Hand Luke 07:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting how we're talking specifically about homeopathy being scientifically implausible, but Peter insists on interpreting the matter with regard to "experiential knowledge and expectation," whatever that means. Anyway I don't see how it's implausible that steel ships could float. Some old Greek guy even figured out the quantitative principle a couple thousand years or so ago. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What utter anti-scientific garbage. Electricity is "implausible" from "the direct experience of folks with little or no prior expectation". This is an encyclopaedia, not a guidebook for the 21st Century written for people thawed out from the last ice age. In a medical article, the term "implausible" should be taken to mean "considered implausible by the contemporary academic mainstream" in all cases. The sentence should read "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible", and even the "scientifically" qualifier is of disputable importance. Pulling punches is counterproductive here. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that anti-scientific would be accurate in this situation. Garbage is a reasonable label if it were to describe whether something should be included in or excluded from a science category. It would probably sound offensive to someone who believed in homeopathy though. I think it would be sensible to avoid such language as homeopathy is within a belief field rather than an evidence or reality field. I think this should be a guideline for communicating with all proponents of any religion or belief based following. Phloem (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly, thank you Phloem, well said! Friarslantern (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and as such gives much more WP:WEIGHT to the contemporary experts in the fields of medicine and science who are fairly clear in their disputes with this pseudoscience. There is no reason to pussyfoot around this. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  WP is a mainstream encyclopedia: not an encyclopedia strictly from a scientific point of view.  Part of homeopathic theory is metaphysical (vitalism - the magical part), and part of it claims scientific backing. Just so we're clear about the pussyfooting going on here. Friarslantern (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the quotation marks from "scientifically implausible." My thinking is there are two good reasons for this: 1) It's such a small, generic juxtaposition of words that it doesn't have to be marked as a quote and wouldn't be considered as plagiarism otherwise. 2) Putting quotation marks around the terms may lead the reader to infer a bias - that the author does not take scientific plausibility seriously. — NRen2k5 14:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vast majority