User talk:Herbxue/ForFun

Quotes from Ludwigs on Acu Talk:

I'm going to need some time to review this discussion, but let me make a couple of points clear: Scientifically speaking, the placebo effect is simply a catch-all term for any effect which is not due to the treatment under study. In that sense, equating acupuncture with a placebo is literally nonsensical. That's more a wording issue than anything else - it would be fine to suggest that acupuncture is no better than a placebo (i.e., not measurably different than random effects), but please do not suggest that acupuncture is a placebo.

Acupuncture predates modern medical science by a good millennium, and should get a modicum of respect for what it does do well. Modern medical science did not invent splits or casts, antacids, aspirin for fevers, applying ice to bruises and sprains, bed-rest, stitches, liniments, or a host of minor medical procedures that are still commonly used by GP's in even the most advanced nations, and wikipedia does not discredit those despite the fact that they were not developed under rigorous trials. Acupuncture is never going to sit up there with chemotherapy or anti-virals in terms of sophistication, obviously, but going to an acupuncturist for some minor ailment no less effective than going to a GP for the same issue.

Please keep in mind that the better part of a billion people still rely on acupuncture for their conventional treatment. I don't suggest that it's better than equivalent modern treatments, but if it didn't work at all it would have ceased to exist long before the West came into regular contact with Asia. --Ludwigs2 04:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC) ____________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbxue (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

WLU: I'm not exactly sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with my point. I agree with you that placebo has a specific meaning and we want to keep our discussion within those boundaries. Remember, however, that the placebo effect is a form of null hypothesis, not an active hypothesis in its own right. Saying that some treatment is not statistically different than a placebo means only that there is no reason to believe that the theory works in the way in which it was tested. The common complaint on this page, however, is that modern tests are testing the wrong thing, and so the results, while valid, are effectively meaningless. We can go back and forth over that point endlessly and we will get absolutely nowhere (in fact, we have gone over that point endlessly and gotten absolutely nowhere, right?). The proper way to handle this on Wikipedia, IMO, is to stop trying to assert the truth or falsehood of the medical results, and simply report what they say without (1) presenting them as a definitive condemnation of acupuncture and without (2) minimizing their importance as scientific research. If we can manage to do that, then all of this talk page back-and-forth will disappear because we will have satisfied due diligence for science without appearing like we're trying to debunk the topic. All of the conflict here is because of the efforts of one side or another to present a convincing refutation of the perspective of the other sides, and that is what we need to stop _______________________________________________________

Two points:

This is not a medical encyclopedia, and this is not solely and specifically a medical article. your 'best sources' argument doesn't really hold up under NPOV, though obviously good medical sources need to be included. You cannot simultaneously suggest that you are sick of discussion and that I should open a new section for discussion of changes. If you don't want to discuss, I can make changes to the article for you to review and edit; if you do want to discuss, then begin by discussing what I said above, because that will be the thrust of my revisions, to "stop trying to assert the truth or falsehood of the medical results, and simply report what they say without (1) presenting them as a definitive condemnation of acupuncture and without (2) minimizing their importance as scientific research." it's easiest and most natural for me to simply edit the article there and discuss the changes I've made in talk here, assuming you are up for that. I'm simply trying to avoid conflictual situations, which means (a) proper discussion first, or (b) proper discussion after. up to you which. -Ludwigs 2 04:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC) P.s. Ronz. This is wp:FOC and wp:CON, and wp:DR isn't yet necessary. _____________________________________________________

I have in fact made a policy-based argument which you have - unfortunately - failed to acknowledge (and yes, I expect you to know policy as well; we're all experienced editors here). I will explain precisely how the logic you used above fails wikipedia policy, just so it's clear:

1.The logic implicitly asserts that 'medicine' is a solid and uniform entity comprised entirely of 'modern medicine'. That assertion violates wp:V and wp:SYN: there's no way that one can credibly assert that 'modern medicine' is the only medicine via sources. 'Medicine' is a broad, vague, multi-cultural and multi-faceted concept.

2.As a consequence of that error, the logic subsumes acupuncture entirely under modern medicine, when in fact acupuncture is a separate construct which (while it overlaps modern medicine in some places) is independently derived and carries incommensurate presumptions and ideals. This is a violation of wp:NPOV: it effectively takes sides in a real-world dispute between acupuncture and modern medicine (a dispute, incidentally, which is nowhere near as hostile in the real world as it is on wikipedia), and asserts one side as the victor. It does not matter that the assessment is most likely correct: that can only be reflected by sources, and cannot be reflected in such a way as to make inferences or conclusions that sources do not and cannot justifiably make.

3.As a consequence of that error, the logic forces a violation of wp:RS and wp:NPOV by insisting that only 'modern medical' sources are reliable. This precludes any possibility of a balanced, neutral article because it literally and actively denies one side of a real-world debate any voice in the debate.

In short, the logic starts from the premise that 'modern medicine' is 'true' and everything else is 'false', and uses that unfortunate premise in a self-fulfilling way to ensure that article content gives the impression that 'modern medicine' is 'true' and everything else is 'false'. Once one recognizes that bad premise, and discards the idea that 'medicine' is a uniform entity comprised entirely of 'modern medicine', then the logic falls apart. At that point we can have a little 'policy reset' party which will ultimately allow us to write a balanced and neutral article. But you have to see that bad premise first. Do you understand my perspective now? _______________________________________________________

My only concern with the placebo issue is where people try to use 'placebo' in an assertive sense, suggesting that acupuncture is somehow only a placebo. That is scientifically meaningless, and ends up being little more than defamatory rhetoric. correct use of the placebo concept does not bother me at all. I'm more concerned, however, with the argumentative statements that I find in the article. just for an example, paragraph 2 of the lead reads like a series of jabs in a boxing match, and then you get absurdities like the last two sentences:

A 2011 review of review articles concluded that, except for neck pain, acupuncture was of doubtful efficacy in the treatment of pain and accompanied by small but serious risks and adverse effects including death, particularly when performed by untrained practitioners. There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles.

What this means, of course, is that acupuncture is safe: 'untrained practitioners' in any medical field can kill you - is modern medicine bad because an untrained practitioner doesn't know how correctly stitch a wound or remove an appendix? argumentative moments like this make the article look very bad

__________________________________________________________________

Jess - I don't believe you read my last post. No one is suggesting removing the placebo language, but rather simply removing synthesis that misuses the placebo language. Further, I gave a specific example of the kind of change I was going to make, which we could discuss if you want to. And even more to the point, all I've really been trying to discover here is whether editors would rather discuss changes first, or whether I should simply edit and discuss the changes after.

The talk page is for discussing potential article changes. However, you're the fourth or fifth editor I've encountered here who has seen fit to dwell on the frustrations of the talk page rather than on the article or topic. I understand that there is a great deal of frustration floating around this talk page; can we all simply take that as a given, step back from it in AGF, and refocus on the article itself?

___________________________________________________________________________

Noformation: In fact, as I pointed out, the point about medicine being multi-cultural and multi-faceted is entirely relevant, because making the assumption that it isn't introduces a strong and inappropriate bias on the article. I'm not suggesting that modern medicine is not appropriate on the article; I'm simply saying that trying to force acupuncture to be viewed solely through the lens of modern medicine violates wp:NPOV and wp:V. I don't have an objection to medical sources, properly used, and believe they are a great asset to a proper description of the topic. I object to the improper use of medical sources in order to induce a judgement or bias. I hope that distinction is both clear and agreeable to you.

__________________________________________________________

Cochrane Reviews

 * We should change the sentence to reflect the reality, as demonstrated in numerous Cochrane reviews, that the current state of the research is not the simplified statement you just made but rather a mixed bag of some promising (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005288.html), (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006568.html), (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005052.html), (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17893311?dopt=Abstract), (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003444.html), some that demonstrate lack of significant effect (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006791.html), (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004882.html), (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/es/ab006454.html), and many that conclude there have not been sufficient RCT's to make any conclusions whatsoever (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006224.html), (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006414.html). I did not see any claims of irrefutable efficacy, but some that conclude that "Acupuncture should be considered a treatment option" (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001218.html) due to increasing trend towards stronger evidence of efficacy, or that "the available evidence suggests that acupuncture could be a valuable option" (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab007587.html). Nowhere in these reviews did I see language such as "there is no difference between TCM and placebo" though there are those in which acupuncture and placebo are the same. Most just say "inconclusive" due to lack of studies. This is a reflection of where the research is at - mixed and inconclusive - so the lede should not give the impression that there is consensus about a lack of efficacy or lack of differentiation from placebo. Herbxue (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

______________________________