3 ms·

If even just 1 out of 10 homeopathy topics/issues/articles/etc. turn out to be mostly true, then labelling it all as 'pseudoscientific' would seem pretty silly

If even just 1 out of 10 homeopathy topics/issues/articles/etc. turn out to be mostly true, then labelling it all as 'pseudoscientific' would seem pretty silly in hindsight? I'm not quite sure what the advantage is over labelling it 'disputed'.

nwiswell 3y ago
> turn out to be mostly true Nope, it was still pseudoscientific at the time, even if it gained scientific evidence later. Wikipedia is a purveyor of facts, not of judgments, but sometimes the two are inseparable. As long as it's a fact, it's ok if it's implicitly a judgment too.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
Just because something turns out to be true doesn't make it scientific. "Science" isn't a euphemism for correct, and "Pseudoscience" isn't an euphemism for wrong, even if many use them as such. You either followed the scientific process, or you didn't.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > Just because something turns out to be true doesn't make it scientific. Right, but how does that relate to pejorative labelling policies? i.e. If even just 20% of readers will misinterpret the label, then why go with the label instead of something like 'disputed' which has a mis-interpretation rate close to 0%?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    "Disputed" is frequently misinterpeted as something like "50/50". It would not accurately reflect the real situation in the homeopathy scenario.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      > "Disputed" is frequently misinterpeted as something like "50/50". What does 50/50 mean in this context? If you mean a 50% probability of the article ultimately proving to be mostly true, then that would genuinely be the case for some small fraction of homeopathy articles?
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        People tend to read "disputed" as "there's significant camps of reputable experts on each side" when the actual scenario is "there's a tiny loud minority opposing the generally accepted consensus". Like climate change, or creationists trying to claim evolution is disputed at a scientific level. It isn't, but they'll tout lists of "experts who doubt evolution" to try and make people think there's more doubt than there really is. (Leading to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve as response.)
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > People tend to read "disputed" as "there's significant camps of reputable experts on each side" when the actual scenario is "there's a tiny loud minority opposing the generally accepted consensus". Yes I understand, what I'm saying is that is genuinely true for some small fraction of articles. Obviously not anywhere close to 100%, but the amount of people who would actually read 'disputed' as anywhere close to 100% of articles have 'significant camps' is almost 0.
gs17 3y ago
I would still consider it "pseudoscientific", the problem is people assuming "pseudoscientific" means "not just wrong in process, but anything associated with it is inherently false". The core principle of "like treats like" is either falsified or unfalsifiable at this point.
Scarblac 3y ago
> If even just 1 out of 10 homeopathy topics/issues/articles/etc. turn out to be mostly true, then labelling it all as 'pseudoscientific' would seem pretty silly in hindsight That "if" is doing a lot of work there. Never has any effect of homeopathy been shown in double blind studies, and the proposed mechanism of classical honeopathy is absurd in all its parts.
kstrauser 3y ago
The article on pseudoscience[1] explains why something might be labeled as pseudoscience. There's not a universe where modern physics and chemistry can coexist with homeopathy. Either you can treat the flu by drinking water with zero likelihood[2] of containing a single anti-flu molecule, or you can have working CPUs. No world can have both. I don't want the world I live in to have policymakers who believe in something so inherently impossible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions: "10*(−400) -- Dilution of popular homeopathic flu preparation Oscillococcinum"
defrost 3y ago
That is the same risk faced by calling out telekinesis and telepathy as pseudoscience with a history of belief. Still, the advantage of an editable wikipedia is that when homeopathy has a repeatable significant trial result, when mind to mind messaging has the same, and when a mouse is levitated on demand the wiki articles can be updated to reflect the facts.
ahoka 3y ago
It’s a scam, so calling it simply pseudoscientific is quite light-handed.
Guvante 3y ago
Homeopathy is based on water memory wherein diluting the original material increases the effectiveness of the dosage. Even if this is true (no study has shown it is, many have shown there is no effect) why doesn't the mechanisms employed by homeopathic medicine match this theory? Many homeopathic medicines are available in pill form. Not water pills but sugar pills. What is the scientific basis for water memory that lines up with using sugar pills? Additionally dilution is expensive and not actually done by homeopathic medicine manufacturers. Instead unpurified water is ran through a container which is shoken and emptied completely. The assumption being that upon refilling the container a 1:100 dilution will be created. Once more I point out, what does this have to do with the proposed scientific basis? Even if there were a "method to the madness" with regards to Homeopathies "less than one molecule in all of Earth's water" dilutions: the reality of homeopathic medicine creation is they don't even use fresh water for each dosage often reusing the same water to save on fresh water costs. So the best you can say is while the psuedoscience might be pseudoscience and not just made up (note it is certainly made up) however the manufacturing industry is unable to even reach that low bar of psuedoscience. Instead the manufacturing here is simply abusing a whole in FDA regulation made by a questionable ruling by the Supreme Court. "As long as the magic words 'Not for the treatment of any disease' exists you can put any unregulated substance next to regulated medicine".

nwiswell 3y ago

> turn out to be mostly true Nope, it was still pseudoscientific at the time, even if it gained scientific evidence later. Wikipedia is a purveyor of facts, not of judgments, but sometimes the two are inseparable. As long as it's a fact, it's ok if it's implicitly a judgment too.

xboxnolifes 3y ago

Just because something turns out to be true doesn't make it scientific. "Science" isn't a euphemism for correct, and "Pseudoscience" isn't an euphemism for wrong, even if many use them as such. You either followed the scientific process, or you didn't.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
> Just because something turns out to be true doesn't make it scientific. Right, but how does that relate to pejorative labelling policies? i.e. If even just 20% of readers will misinterpret the label, then why go with the label instead of something like 'disputed' which has a mis-interpretation rate close to 0%?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  "Disputed" is frequently misinterpeted as something like "50/50". It would not accurately reflect the real situation in the homeopathy scenario.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    > "Disputed" is frequently misinterpeted as something like "50/50". What does 50/50 mean in this context? If you mean a 50% probability of the article ultimately proving to be mostly true, then that would genuinely be the case for some small fraction of homeopathy articles?
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      People tend to read "disputed" as "there's significant camps of reputable experts on each side" when the actual scenario is "there's a tiny loud minority opposing the generally accepted consensus". Like climate change, or creationists trying to claim evolution is disputed at a scientific level. It isn't, but they'll tout lists of "experts who doubt evolution" to try and make people think there's more doubt than there really is. (Leading to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve as response.)
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > People tend to read "disputed" as "there's significant camps of reputable experts on each side" when the actual scenario is "there's a tiny loud minority opposing the generally accepted consensus". Yes I understand, what I'm saying is that is genuinely true for some small fraction of articles. Obviously not anywhere close to 100%, but the amount of people who would actually read 'disputed' as anywhere close to 100% of articles have 'significant camps' is almost 0.

gs17 3y ago

I would still consider it "pseudoscientific", the problem is people assuming "pseudoscientific" means "not just wrong in process, but anything associated with it is inherently false". The core principle of "like treats like" is either falsified or unfalsifiable at this point.

Scarblac 3y ago

> If even just 1 out of 10 homeopathy topics/issues/articles/etc. turn out to be mostly true, then labelling it all as 'pseudoscientific' would seem pretty silly in hindsight That "if" is doing a lot of work there. Never has any effect of homeopathy been shown in double blind studies, and the proposed mechanism of classical honeopathy is absurd in all its parts.

kstrauser 3y ago

The article on pseudoscience[1] explains why something might be labeled as pseudoscience. There's not a universe where modern physics and chemistry can coexist with homeopathy. Either you can treat the flu by drinking water with zero likelihood[2] of containing a single anti-flu molecule, or you can have working CPUs. No world can have both. I don't want the world I live in to have policymakers who believe in something so inherently impossible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions: "10*(−400) -- Dilution of popular homeopathic flu preparation Oscillococcinum"

defrost 3y ago

That is the same risk faced by calling out telekinesis and telepathy as pseudoscience with a history of belief. Still, the advantage of an editable wikipedia is that when homeopathy has a repeatable significant trial result, when mind to mind messaging has the same, and when a mouse is levitated on demand the wiki articles can be updated to reflect the facts.

ahoka 3y ago

It’s a scam, so calling it simply pseudoscientific is quite light-handed.

Guvante 3y ago

Homeopathy is based on water memory wherein diluting the original material increases the effectiveness of the dosage. Even if this is true (no study has shown it is, many have shown there is no effect) why doesn't the mechanisms employed by homeopathic medicine match this theory? Many homeopathic medicines are available in pill form. Not water pills but sugar pills. What is the scientific basis for water memory that lines up with using sugar pills? Additionally dilution is expensive and not actually done by homeopathic medicine manufacturers. Instead unpurified water is ran through a container which is shoken and emptied completely. The assumption being that upon refilling the container a 1:100 dilution will be created. Once more I point out, what does this have to do with the proposed scientific basis? Even if there were a "method to the madness" with regards to Homeopathies "less than one molecule in all of Earth's water" dilutions: the reality of homeopathic medicine creation is they don't even use fresh water for each dosage often reusing the same water to save on fresh water costs. So the best you can say is while the psuedoscience might be pseudoscience and not just made up (note it is certainly made up) however the manufacturing industry is unable to even reach that low bar of psuedoscience. Instead the manufacturing here is simply abusing a whole in FDA regulation made by a questionable ruling by the Supreme Court. "As long as the magic words 'Not for the treatment of any disease' exists you can put any unregulated substance next to regulated medicine".