This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 12:23, 16 July 2021 (This article is much better than C-class.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:23, 16 July 2021 by ජපස (talk | contribs) (This article is much better than C-class.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vitalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Alternative Medicine sidebar
I don't know what's common practice but putting an incidental sidebar (with a bad reputation) at the very top can be a bad first impression overriding the body of articles. The Bertrand Russel quote, "... we must either succeed in producing living matter artificially, or we must find the reasons why this is impossible" establishes there is science/philosophy here even today, and that dismissing it looks like premature triumphalism, which is maybe the overriding tone of this article as it stands --184.21.192.44 (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- So, you want one sentence by Russell and your own conclusions from it to be the ultimate arbiter. But that that is not how Misplaced Pages works. Our arbiter is the totality of reliable sources, and they regard vitalism as a relic which is only taken seriously by quacks and religious nuts nowadays. Alternative medicine is its place now, whether you like it or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. It's a philosophical postulate, or scientific hypothesis, which would be relevant to science if there were any practical way to demonstrate anything about it (like so many things) one way or other ... or if it would make any difference, much like the question of free will. The only interesting thing about it is whether or not it would work to build an animal with no living materials, from scratch, and see if it comes to life or not. Whether such a creature is conscious can't be found out because there's no objective criteria, but whether or not it can be made is an open question until technology reaches that point, and it would remain a baffling conundrum if it turned out to be beyond the reach of technology, but you can't simply pronounce something is the case because "you want it to be the case" without any evidence. That's not how science or philosophy works, which is what that BR quote is about --75.106.108.191 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- After two sentences, I got too bored to continue reading. But I forced myself, and should not have, because it got even more boring.
- Misplaced Pages is not interested in your thoughts, only in reliable sources that actually talk about the subject of the article. Read WP:SOAPBOX, then WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. It's a philosophical postulate, or scientific hypothesis, which would be relevant to science if there were any practical way to demonstrate anything about it (like so many things) one way or other ... or if it would make any difference, much like the question of free will. The only interesting thing about it is whether or not it would work to build an animal with no living materials, from scratch, and see if it comes to life or not. Whether such a creature is conscious can't be found out because there's no objective criteria, but whether or not it can be made is an open question until technology reaches that point, and it would remain a baffling conundrum if it turned out to be beyond the reach of technology, but you can't simply pronounce something is the case because "you want it to be the case" without any evidence. That's not how science or philosophy works, which is what that BR quote is about --75.106.108.191 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Misplaced Pages, once wrote:
- "Misplaced Pages’s policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Misplaced Pages will cover it appropriately.
- What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t. "
So yes, we are biased.
We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against young earth creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change.
References
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Astrology". Archive 13, section "Bias against astrology"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Alchemy". Archive 2, section "naturalistic_bias_in_article"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Numerology". Archive 1, section "There's_more_work_to_be_done"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Homeopathy". Archive 60, section "Wikipedia_Bias"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Acupuncture". Archive 13, section "Strong_Bias_towards_Skeptic_Researchers"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Energy_(esotericism)". Archive 1, section "Bias"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Conspiracy_theory". Archive 12, section "Sequence_of_sections_and_bias"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Vaccine_hesitancy". Archive 5, section "Clearly_a_bias_attack_article"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Magnet_therapy". Archive 1, section "Contradiction_and_bias"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Crop_circle". Archive 9, section "Bower_and_Chorley_Bias_Destroyed_by_Mathematician"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Laundry ball". Archive 17
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Ayurveda". Archive 15, section "Suggestion_to_Shed_Biases"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Torsion_field_(pseudoscience)". Archive 1, section "stop_f****_supressing_science_with_your_bias_bull****"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Young_Earth_creationism". Archive 3, section "Biased_Article_(part_2)"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Holocaust_denial". Archive 12, section "Blatant_bias_on_this_page"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Scientific_racism". Archive 1, section "THIS_is_propaganda"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Global_warming_conspiracy_theory". Archive 3, section "Problems_with_the_article"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Flood_geology". Archive 4, section "Obvious_bias"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Quackery". Archive 1, section "POV_#2"
- Talk page of Misplaced Pages article "Ancient_astronauts". Archive 4, section "Pseudoscience"
-Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- Low-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class history of science articles
- Mid-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- B-Class Biology articles
- High-importance Biology articles
- WikiProject Biology articles
- B-Class Chiropractic articles
- Mid-importance Chiropractic articles
- WikiProject Chiropractic articles
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure