User talk:JzG/Archive 91

Alternative cancer treatments
About this: Did you read the article, or are you guessing about its contents based on a single sentence in its very short abstract? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement appeared to come from the abstract, and the abstract does not back up this interpretation. The irony of course is that they believe treatments should be based on understanding of physiology, and virtually all the alternative treatments are actually based on either outright fantasy or a wilful misuderstanding of physiology! In any case, the sentence should reflect what the abstract says, since to do otherwise would be to accord different weight to elements of the statement than that applied by the authors themselves. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the paper a long time ago. As far as I can remember, the statement is actually backed up by that paper.  And IMO the sentence should reflect the paper, not just the abstract.  (If we were citing only the abstract, then the citation really ought to indicate that it was just the abstract being cited, and not the whole paper.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement as phrased is in conflict with the abstract, and serves to boost an incorrect belief. Guy (Help!) 07:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how following a reliable source has anything to do with "incorrect beliefs": either it matches the source (not "the abstract"), or it doesn't.

The original sentence made these three claims:


 * They are impressed by physiological and other scientific-sounding information,
 * They prefer a healthcare model that promises to treat the patient as an integrated, whole person, and
 * They are loyal to their alternative healthcare providers.

You have reduced it to these two:


 * They are loyal to their alternative healthcare providers, and
 * They believe that "treatment should concentrate on the whole person".

I assume that your concern about "in conflict with the abstract" is about the one that you removed entirely. The short abstract has barely half a sentence related to this: "...greater knowledge of the physiology of the body." The article itself says rather more. I'm not sure how you decide that this phrase is "in conflict with" the point, especially since you haven't actually read the source, and I don't understand how this could "boost an incorrect belief". I don't even know what this incorrect belief is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is one of those situations where a sympathetic phrase in an opinion survey is being positioned against scientific fact and the normal statement of scientific uncertainty. It's a WP:FRINGE claim. I don't thik I have to define the term special pleading, at least not for you. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this response. Do you think that the original text in the article is too sympathetic to AltMed users?  Do you think that it's too unsympathetic to AltMed users?
 * Is it FRINGEy to say that what's in the paper (and not just this one paper, either), namely that most AltMed users want to hear that their treatments of choice have an allegedly scientific or physiological basis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)