User talk:Rosezl

On the page about Alternative Medicine, it says that it has been disproven that energy fields around the body exist. There is no reference for this. I'm curious how this was disproven.Rosezl (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is your talk page. You need to ask the question on Talk:Alternative medicine. Railfan23 (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. This is a little confusing so far.Rosezl (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Railfan23 I found this posted on the Talk:Alternative medicine Yes. We are biased.

In the section above an editor says that he wants "allow the various competing viewpoints to speak for themselves". presumably he is talking about some "competing viewpoint" other than the viewpoint shared by most scientists and philosophers -- that quantum mysticism is pseudoscience and quackery.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing 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 Wikipedia 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.[3][4]"

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 homeopathic medicine. We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture. We are biased towards quantum entanglement, and biased against quantum mysticism. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. 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 Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

So, I can't fight Wikipedia's bias all by myself. If Wikipedia thinks that the only way anything can be of value is by the scientific method, then their understanding of what is real is very limited. This statement should be posted on every Wikipedia page. So people know what kind of information they are getting. I'm a recipient of miraculous healing from "alternative" medicine. But just because the scientific method can't measure it now, doesn't meant it won't be able to measure it later. St Augustine said, "Miracles happen not in contradiction to nature, but in contradiction to what we know about nature." Ok, I have to figure out how to do a citation. But here is where you guys state it in your own Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_theory_of_miracles Whatever. Like I said, with all of that written, I'm not going to try and fight the lot of you by myself. Do what you want. I'm sure it's best for the planet. I didn't realize it would be so ... blatantly narrow minded. Probably, I will just leave Wikipedia alone from now on. I have mistrusted it for a while now because of this bias. And it's bias in portraying the Catholic Church as well. Rosezl (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)