User:Silly rabbit/Homeopathy proposal

The following post was made at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal: "A principled scientist should learn how to explain science. It would be just as wrong to withdraw from editing WP as to withdraw from teaching science courses to nonscientists. There is no need to 'label' pseudoscience, just to explain it. Anyone who claims to be an expert should be able to give an object description of even the most absurd theory. an objective description will make it plain to everyone but the convinced anti-science POV. There is no need to resort to labels to explain things to a unprejudiced reader. (and no hope at all that a label convince the prejudiced to look at things more scientifically). Homeopathy (for example), explained in any straightforward way, is obvious nonsense, and I do not see what is gained by trying to say it is pseudoscience--it will only give the impression that the scientist is the bigot. Those who resort to opprobrium always give an impression that it is they who are prejudiced. The thing to do with the ignorant is to teach them, and those who want to defend science have the obligation to learn how to do it patiently. DGG (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)" In addition to the above, we also know the following statements of fact: For references for some of the above statements, please see Society of Homoepaths and Ben Goldcare, Lancet author, journalist and medical doctor, and the various references throughout this talk page and its archives. From the above, I suggest the following means to go forward: I am certain that some pro-science people will prefer that a harder stance is taken on the scientific claims, but for those I offer the olive branch of the increased 'belief' aspects and the downplay of homeopathy's own claims to 'science', coupled with the focus upon the ethical aspects. I am equally certain that some pro-homeopathy-is-science people will disapprove, but equally they receive less prominent criticism based off the weight of scientific evidence, and I remind them that most sources at least mention a spiritual connection if not focus upon one  (mentions 'vital life force', but otherwise tries to be scientific in style). In reading around to support my previous paragraphs, I encountered numerous homeopathic organisations that claimed to be a 'science' and did not document beyond passing mentions any form of spiritual aspect. As such, I am not likely to support again the suggestions I am making here. If desired, the 'science' aspect may be detailed more, but this will have to be coupled with the scientific community's responses and patently obvious flaws being noted. If you do not agree to all the article and lead suggestions, please discuss this so that we may sensibly move forward. Most importantly, can we please get agreement on all the above statements of fact aside from the 'spiritual' aspects. All the rest of the statements are strongly supported by all the evidence. LinaMishima (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is significant evidence for the use of the term pseudoscience
 * In general, the weight of evidence is that there is little to no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo
 * Some reasonable studies do exist that suggest homeopathy has or might have an effect beyond placebo
 * The method of action of homeopathy if it does work is not plausable within the current understanding of science
 * Various homeopathic organisations claim to be 'scientific'
 * Most homeopathic organisations, despite claims of science, also talk about 'healing energies', 'disharmony' and other, less-scientific and more spiritual concepts (NB: discovered to be more correctly 'some' than 'most'. This point may be disputed/ignored)
 * Homeopathy does work as a placebo and this is a good thing
 * Homeopathy exists as a CAM, has a strong and interesting history, and has a place in modern culture
 * Homeopathy currently is criticised for the poor ethics of certain homeopaths
 * 1) No pseudoscience category or infobox DGG's comment included above is a sound one, and explains why these are not needed. Also, see the next point.
 * 2) Mention in the lead of critics calling homeopathy pseudoscience We have plenty of references for this, and so a mention at least in passing is warranted.
 * 3) Lead focuses on the history, cultural and ethical issues These are the least controversial issues and arguably the most interesting.
 * 4) Lead should mention some of the 'spiritual' elements The 'disharmony' approach and similar are common enough to form an important part of understanding homeopathy.
 * 5) Lead should mention but downplay the method of homoepathic preparation It is this preparation that is the direct cause of all the fuss. Various homeopaths seem to have differed on the 'strengths' advised. There is not really much to state on this topic anyway.
 * 6) Lead should mention, following homeopathic preparation, that science cannot justify it The logical place to criticise the method of action is where the method of action is forced via the preparation process.
 * 7) Lead should mention briefly the positive studies There has been positive studies, we should acknowledge this fact.
 * 8) Lead should then strongly highlight the weight of evidence against any effect The weight of evidence is against any effect, this is clear.
 * 9) Lead should clearly highlight the major ethical issues A lot of sceptics highlight the ethical problems as their major concern
 * 10) Article should concentrate upon the history and cultural aspects of homeopathy since these are the least controversial, the least changing, and the easiest for an encyclopaedia to document
 * 11) Article should detail clearly the 'spiritual' aspects As stated previously, it appears that 'disharmony', 'life energy' and other terms actually seem quite common. The more clearly we detail these, the less homeopathy in general appears like a science (which means the pseudoscience tag is harder to apply, and science-based sceptics will care more about the ethics than the methods).
 * 12) (something here about preparation, method of action, efficacy and lack of evidence) This point has yet to be formed fully. Aside from the detail in preparation needed to explain the modern process of homeopathy, this should not be focused upon in detail. Similarly to the lead, positive studies must be detailed, however the vast weight of evidence against any efficacy over and above placebo must then be made explicitly clear.
 * 13) Article should discuss the non-disputed benefits of homeopathy Believe it or not, there are some non-disputed benefits of homeopathy which even sceptics will agree with. Increased patient contact time, greater communication and strengthened placebo response are all well documented. These factors allow alternative medicine to provide excellent support for chronic conditions and diseases.
 * 14) Article should go into detail regarding the current ethical controversies surrounding homeopathy There are homeopaths out there who advocate homeopathy alone as a defence against malaria and discourage their clients from seeing doctors and taking regular medication. Other homeopaths argue that AIDS can be treated effectively with homeopathy alone and discourage the use of highly effective anti-retroviral treatements. Less serious issues include discouraging the use of regular medication, not referring clients to doctors for certain complaints, and so on.