![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Please see Talk:Medical Scientism/Delete for a discussion of whether this article should be deleted.
If this entry appears oddly slanted and opaque, review the userpage User:Mr-Natural-Health for revealing context. Wetman 05:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You science people now have another opportunity to defend your position. -- Mr-Natural-Health 07:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A lot of the stuff from old versions of the article has been added to Evidence-based medicine. - David Gerard 12:32, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
My apologies for marking my last revert as minor. I t was not intentional. theresa knott 14:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Here is the stuff I deleted: Medical Scientism is the belief that there is one and only one method of science that applies to medical research and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the conduct of medical research. Scientism is the religion of reductionist scientific materialism. The mantra of medical scientism is randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals.
Medical scientism is the position held by the scientific community.
The established theory of medical scientism, or of the scientific community, is automatically assumed to be backed by science, while any other competing theory, such as from alternative medicine, has to show evidence to support their position. Medical Scientism is a term that has a similar meaning to Evidence-Based Medicine. But, whereas evidence-based medicine encourages research, medical scientism has a stifling influence on the progress of medicine.
Medical Scientism is a pejorative expression used by some in the alternative medicine movement to describe scientific or evidence-based medicine, particularly the belief that all treatments should be subject to randomized clinical trials and double-blind, peer reviewed studies published in respectable journals. Its implication is presumably that a non-science-based form of medical knowledge is both possible and preferable.
Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. A culture of medical scientism is developing whereby clinicians seen not to be assessing the validity of their assumptions and actions by evidence-based medicine criteria are deemed to lack credibility by their peers. Professional judgement according to evidence-based medicine is categorized as the lowest form of evidence, even superseded by methodologically flawed clinical research evidence. The issues raised are whether the evidence-based medicine evidence criteria are solely capable of legitimizing clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence necessary and equally valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.
The question being considered here is how do physicians know what is an effective medical treatment? Or, how do physicians apply good science without turning it into junk science? In other words, how many different ways are there to conduct valid medical research? Medical scientism answers: There is only one acceptable way -- randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals.
According, to the scientific community there are no other acceptable alternatives. Any other kind of research, is simply not not considered valid according to medical scientism. Research not published in a handfull of prestigious respectable journals is discounted as not being valid. Case-studies likewise are not considered to have any value. Nor, is the clinical judgement of a physician considered to have any evidentiary value.
The science community argues that it is impossible to use testimonials, hearsay and mystical arguments as proof, because observer bias distorts recollection. The only way to counter observer bias is to run a double blind experiment, where neither the patient nor the practitioner knows whether the real treatment is being given or if a placebo has been administered.
Those who believe that there is more than one way to do medical research can point to a number of different general arguments.
I'm sorry to delete such a lot in one fowl swoop but it's far too POV. If it stays in the article will be deleted, which in is on ones interest. Plus reverting more than three times is against policy, so those who are against having POV rants can voice their objections here instead.
I cannot improve the article without editing it! -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You cannot improve an article that you cannot edit. This is plain common sense. This talk page is uneditble!!! -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Lets start with the first paragraph of the overview section. Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. A culture of medical scientism is developing whereby clinicians seen not to be assessing the validity of their assumptions and actions by evidence-based medicine criteria are deemed to lack credibility by their peers. Professional judgement according to evidence-based medicine is categorized as the lowest form of evidence, even superseded by methodologically flawed clinical research evidence. The issues raised are whether the evidence-based medicine evidence criteria are solely capable of legitimizing clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence necessary and equally valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.
The second sentence " A culture of .... " is POV. Who says that a culture is developing?
So is the third sentence "professional judgement ..." This is just your opinion.
The third sentence is poorly written - I can't really make out whay you are trying to say.
The first and last sentences - I happy with ~
Now what say you ? theresa knott 16:48, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Here is my re-write:
Now what? The article cannot be edited!!! -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:21, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Here is my rewrite of the paragraph:Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. The value of anecdotal evidence is ranked very lowly. The issue being raised is whether the new scientific criteria of evidence-based medicine is solely capable of legitimizing all clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.
Do you like ? Can you live with it? theresa knott 17:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
YES -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If using the word 'culture' is POV than why is your use of 'scientific' not POV? Are you saying that your POV is better than my POV? Are you not proving my point that the so called established position of the scientific community is automatically assumed to be correct, while my use of culture is automatically assumed to be wrong? -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The mantra of medical scientism is randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals. Epidemiological research is not the randomized clinical trials and double-blind stuff that drug research is made of.
If any one element of this mantra is missing, then that published research study is classified as being invalid research. This kind of decision is made quite arbitrarily by the medical scientism people. And, their mantra clearly renders the vast majority of all published health research invalid and virtual quackery by implication.
The primary treatment method of medicine is medication. And, their mantra is clearly designed for drug testing. So, forcing a drug testing paradigm upon other kinds of health research is patently absurd. Unfortunately, people like RK don't see it that way.
This phenomenon of medical scientism is quite real because it dominates all science newsgroups, mailing lists and of course the health related articles in Wikipedia.-- Mr-Natural-Health 21:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The one way, or the highway, definition of 'scientism' is in the dictionary! There is actually one real dictionary that uses the correct definition. I use this dictionary definition on my web site because it particularly applies to the anti-science phenomena of medical scientism. The actual definition is as follows.
I shall repeat. My definition of scientism is actually in the dictionary. While I am sure that it is valid in other areas of science, it is particularly valid in the area of medicine. Hence, my usage of the perfectly valid phrase: medical scientism.
You cannot develop an article with an actual dictionary definition, when you cannot edit the article. -- Mr-Natural-Health
In a second dictionary definition:
This definition supports the above precise definition of scientism. -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In my concluding comment:
-- Mr-Natural-Health 03:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
All the above reinforces my view that this article ought to be deleted, or at most confined to the one-paragraph article that I sugegsted last night (my time), and also that Mr NH has no interest in creating an acceptable Wikipedia article. Adam 04:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's a pity you are too stupid to see the damage that your idiotic behaviour here is doing to the cause you claim to be upholding. You merely reinforce the view that "alternative medicine" is the belief of fools. Adam 04:34, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If Nudity, SEX, Hollywood, and 100's of other bizarre articles belongs in Wikipedia then an objective presentation of the phenomena of Medical Scientism deserves to be included, too.
The present stub is full of POV.
If I lose, I still win!
You know Adam as well as I do that my next edit / or original article will be even more traumatic to the Medical Scientism people. So, stay tuned in.
PS: I do not believe in Alternative Medicine. Nor, do I promote it. I just love playing with the Medical Scientism people.
-- Mr-Natural-Health 05:07, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that you are a troll. I look forward to deleting your next article too. Adam 05:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"I just love playing with the Medical Scientism people." Straight from the troll's mouth. We, on the other hand, are busy building an encyclopedia. -- snoyes 05:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia deserves an objective presentation of the phenomena of Medical Scientism. And, it will be addressed one way or the other. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:24, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Medical Scientism can be addressed in a lot of different articles, either directly or indirectly. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:39, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Alternative medicine comes to mind. Ha, ... Hah, ... Ha! Hmn, some people have suggested Scientism. I am already working on that angle. Then there is research. How about the scientific method? There is always the philosophy of knowledge.
So, much to do and so little time. While others destroy Alternative medicine I will work on improving Medicine. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
For the benefit of the brain-dead medical scientism people (who obviously exist only in my own mind), I should clarify a few of my previous comments.
First, there happens to be a major difference between a talk page and an article. In case, you don't already know, POV belongs on talk pages. So, there should be no surprise that I am still using the word 'mantra.' In the article, I could refer to the 'one-and-only-one way' of medical scientism. Mantra, however, painfully highlights the overt stupidity of medical scientism.
Second, there is no secret that my only interest is in Natural Health. Much to the shock of the imaginary medical scientism people natural health is a natural philosophy, soundly grounded in science, just like conventional medicine is.
If my living a drug free lifestyle of excellent nutrition, plenty of healthy exercise, and a good night's sleep classifies me as a Quack, so be it. I take that classification as a badge of honor.
Third, the imaginary medical scientism people are in fact advocating a lifestyle of drug dependency. In short, they want everybody to be a druggie! The primary treatment method of medicine (as opposed to surgery) is medication. So, much to the shock of the imaginary medical scientism people you cannot advocate conventional medicine without advocating the use of prescription medication. If your life long drug use doesn't kill you, a visit to your friendly hospital surely will.
And, last but not least, my playing with the imaginary medical scientism people is a natural byproduct of my editing activities. Every word that comes out my mouth much to the shock of these imaginary medical scientism people reinforces the fact that you guys are fundamentally W-R-O-N-G. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This looks like an excellent candidate for redirection to scientism. Jamesday 18:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
After googling for this name, it seems like "Medical Scientism" isn't a very widely used term. But the topic, criticisms of western medical science, definitely exists and deserves an article somewhere as it is currently attacked from many directions. MNH:s opinion exist and is legitimate, although probably not expressed as cathegorical. BL 08:19, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
The issue here is not whether there can or cannot be an article called Medical Scientism. The expression exists, there are things to be said about it, so there can be an article about it. That's the easy part. The hard part is Mr NH cannot be the person to write such an article, or any other on present evidence, because he is only interested in setting out his opinions about science and medicine. Until he agrees to stop doing so, or better still leaves Wikipedia altogether, no article on this subject can exist. The problem, Mr NH, is not the subject, it is you. Adam 10:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Try reading paragraph #1. With my limited intelligence, I understand that this dicusssion started with this concept.
A wiseman once wrote: "100% deletion of text is Anti-Wikipedia. And, I agree completely.
Per my comments in Page History, it was my expectation from the start that you guys would work to improve the article rather than delete the text 100%.
It is indisputable that I added text, while all you guys did was delete the text 100%. And, prevented the one quy who was adding text from improving the article. You guys are playing dirty. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:13, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I turned up another definition of Medical Scientism from a fairly reliable source (emphasis mine):
And on the next page:
This is somewhat different from both Natty's definition and the supposed alternative healer's definition that's currently in the article. This article, and some supplementary material I dug up, might be worthwhile for a new version (or at least a section of Scientism) that isn't blatantly slanted agenda-pushing. (Natty H will have to either reform his ways or be . . . dealt with . . . before any such rewrite can go through, though.) — No-One Jones (talk) 23:05, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Mr NH's comments above show that he still doesn't have the faintest understanding of why everyone else finds his behaviour here so stupid and objectionable. The problem as I said before is not Mr NH's ideas (silly though I think they are) but his complete lack of interest in writing an encyclopaedia article instead of a rant. I suggest that Mirv have a go at a fuller and more nuanced article than the short one I wrote, and we can discuss it here. It can then be placed as the new article and protected against further nonsense from Mr NH. Adam 12:46, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Stolen from Talk:Medical Scientism/Delete
Holders of two doctorates in medicine need not lose time with baby sitting. But they do it, for the sake of "quality" : ) For Wiki is recently heading towards the general direction of insignificance, thanks to the tyranny of dyslexic cranks. Look at the level of debate with empowered ignarrogants, perpetrators of cut-and-paste culture, paragons of kakocracy : )
I don't care what you degrees or education are, you're full of **** all the same. I shall aide Theresa in her battle against your ignorance. -
Lord Kenneth 12:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) : )
Sincerely,
irismeister 09:12, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)
Editor of 13,000+ pages in three months - and growing with each new baby-sitting assignment :)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Please see Talk:Medical Scientism/Delete for a discussion of whether this article should be deleted.
If this entry appears oddly slanted and opaque, review the userpage User:Mr-Natural-Health for revealing context. Wetman 05:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You science people now have another opportunity to defend your position. -- Mr-Natural-Health 07:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A lot of the stuff from old versions of the article has been added to Evidence-based medicine. - David Gerard 12:32, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
My apologies for marking my last revert as minor. I t was not intentional. theresa knott 14:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Here is the stuff I deleted: Medical Scientism is the belief that there is one and only one method of science that applies to medical research and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the conduct of medical research. Scientism is the religion of reductionist scientific materialism. The mantra of medical scientism is randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals.
Medical scientism is the position held by the scientific community.
The established theory of medical scientism, or of the scientific community, is automatically assumed to be backed by science, while any other competing theory, such as from alternative medicine, has to show evidence to support their position. Medical Scientism is a term that has a similar meaning to Evidence-Based Medicine. But, whereas evidence-based medicine encourages research, medical scientism has a stifling influence on the progress of medicine.
Medical Scientism is a pejorative expression used by some in the alternative medicine movement to describe scientific or evidence-based medicine, particularly the belief that all treatments should be subject to randomized clinical trials and double-blind, peer reviewed studies published in respectable journals. Its implication is presumably that a non-science-based form of medical knowledge is both possible and preferable.
Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. A culture of medical scientism is developing whereby clinicians seen not to be assessing the validity of their assumptions and actions by evidence-based medicine criteria are deemed to lack credibility by their peers. Professional judgement according to evidence-based medicine is categorized as the lowest form of evidence, even superseded by methodologically flawed clinical research evidence. The issues raised are whether the evidence-based medicine evidence criteria are solely capable of legitimizing clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence necessary and equally valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.
The question being considered here is how do physicians know what is an effective medical treatment? Or, how do physicians apply good science without turning it into junk science? In other words, how many different ways are there to conduct valid medical research? Medical scientism answers: There is only one acceptable way -- randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals.
According, to the scientific community there are no other acceptable alternatives. Any other kind of research, is simply not not considered valid according to medical scientism. Research not published in a handfull of prestigious respectable journals is discounted as not being valid. Case-studies likewise are not considered to have any value. Nor, is the clinical judgement of a physician considered to have any evidentiary value.
The science community argues that it is impossible to use testimonials, hearsay and mystical arguments as proof, because observer bias distorts recollection. The only way to counter observer bias is to run a double blind experiment, where neither the patient nor the practitioner knows whether the real treatment is being given or if a placebo has been administered.
Those who believe that there is more than one way to do medical research can point to a number of different general arguments.
I'm sorry to delete such a lot in one fowl swoop but it's far too POV. If it stays in the article will be deleted, which in is on ones interest. Plus reverting more than three times is against policy, so those who are against having POV rants can voice their objections here instead.
I cannot improve the article without editing it! -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You cannot improve an article that you cannot edit. This is plain common sense. This talk page is uneditble!!! -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Lets start with the first paragraph of the overview section. Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. A culture of medical scientism is developing whereby clinicians seen not to be assessing the validity of their assumptions and actions by evidence-based medicine criteria are deemed to lack credibility by their peers. Professional judgement according to evidence-based medicine is categorized as the lowest form of evidence, even superseded by methodologically flawed clinical research evidence. The issues raised are whether the evidence-based medicine evidence criteria are solely capable of legitimizing clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence necessary and equally valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.
The second sentence " A culture of .... " is POV. Who says that a culture is developing?
So is the third sentence "professional judgement ..." This is just your opinion.
The third sentence is poorly written - I can't really make out whay you are trying to say.
The first and last sentences - I happy with ~
Now what say you ? theresa knott 16:48, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Here is my re-write:
Now what? The article cannot be edited!!! -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:21, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Here is my rewrite of the paragraph:Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. The value of anecdotal evidence is ranked very lowly. The issue being raised is whether the new scientific criteria of evidence-based medicine is solely capable of legitimizing all clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.
Do you like ? Can you live with it? theresa knott 17:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
YES -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If using the word 'culture' is POV than why is your use of 'scientific' not POV? Are you saying that your POV is better than my POV? Are you not proving my point that the so called established position of the scientific community is automatically assumed to be correct, while my use of culture is automatically assumed to be wrong? -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The mantra of medical scientism is randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals. Epidemiological research is not the randomized clinical trials and double-blind stuff that drug research is made of.
If any one element of this mantra is missing, then that published research study is classified as being invalid research. This kind of decision is made quite arbitrarily by the medical scientism people. And, their mantra clearly renders the vast majority of all published health research invalid and virtual quackery by implication.
The primary treatment method of medicine is medication. And, their mantra is clearly designed for drug testing. So, forcing a drug testing paradigm upon other kinds of health research is patently absurd. Unfortunately, people like RK don't see it that way.
This phenomenon of medical scientism is quite real because it dominates all science newsgroups, mailing lists and of course the health related articles in Wikipedia.-- Mr-Natural-Health 21:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The one way, or the highway, definition of 'scientism' is in the dictionary! There is actually one real dictionary that uses the correct definition. I use this dictionary definition on my web site because it particularly applies to the anti-science phenomena of medical scientism. The actual definition is as follows.
I shall repeat. My definition of scientism is actually in the dictionary. While I am sure that it is valid in other areas of science, it is particularly valid in the area of medicine. Hence, my usage of the perfectly valid phrase: medical scientism.
You cannot develop an article with an actual dictionary definition, when you cannot edit the article. -- Mr-Natural-Health
In a second dictionary definition:
This definition supports the above precise definition of scientism. -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In my concluding comment:
-- Mr-Natural-Health 03:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
All the above reinforces my view that this article ought to be deleted, or at most confined to the one-paragraph article that I sugegsted last night (my time), and also that Mr NH has no interest in creating an acceptable Wikipedia article. Adam 04:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's a pity you are too stupid to see the damage that your idiotic behaviour here is doing to the cause you claim to be upholding. You merely reinforce the view that "alternative medicine" is the belief of fools. Adam 04:34, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If Nudity, SEX, Hollywood, and 100's of other bizarre articles belongs in Wikipedia then an objective presentation of the phenomena of Medical Scientism deserves to be included, too.
The present stub is full of POV.
If I lose, I still win!
You know Adam as well as I do that my next edit / or original article will be even more traumatic to the Medical Scientism people. So, stay tuned in.
PS: I do not believe in Alternative Medicine. Nor, do I promote it. I just love playing with the Medical Scientism people.
-- Mr-Natural-Health 05:07, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that you are a troll. I look forward to deleting your next article too. Adam 05:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"I just love playing with the Medical Scientism people." Straight from the troll's mouth. We, on the other hand, are busy building an encyclopedia. -- snoyes 05:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia deserves an objective presentation of the phenomena of Medical Scientism. And, it will be addressed one way or the other. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:24, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Medical Scientism can be addressed in a lot of different articles, either directly or indirectly. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:39, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Alternative medicine comes to mind. Ha, ... Hah, ... Ha! Hmn, some people have suggested Scientism. I am already working on that angle. Then there is research. How about the scientific method? There is always the philosophy of knowledge.
So, much to do and so little time. While others destroy Alternative medicine I will work on improving Medicine. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
For the benefit of the brain-dead medical scientism people (who obviously exist only in my own mind), I should clarify a few of my previous comments.
First, there happens to be a major difference between a talk page and an article. In case, you don't already know, POV belongs on talk pages. So, there should be no surprise that I am still using the word 'mantra.' In the article, I could refer to the 'one-and-only-one way' of medical scientism. Mantra, however, painfully highlights the overt stupidity of medical scientism.
Second, there is no secret that my only interest is in Natural Health. Much to the shock of the imaginary medical scientism people natural health is a natural philosophy, soundly grounded in science, just like conventional medicine is.
If my living a drug free lifestyle of excellent nutrition, plenty of healthy exercise, and a good night's sleep classifies me as a Quack, so be it. I take that classification as a badge of honor.
Third, the imaginary medical scientism people are in fact advocating a lifestyle of drug dependency. In short, they want everybody to be a druggie! The primary treatment method of medicine (as opposed to surgery) is medication. So, much to the shock of the imaginary medical scientism people you cannot advocate conventional medicine without advocating the use of prescription medication. If your life long drug use doesn't kill you, a visit to your friendly hospital surely will.
And, last but not least, my playing with the imaginary medical scientism people is a natural byproduct of my editing activities. Every word that comes out my mouth much to the shock of these imaginary medical scientism people reinforces the fact that you guys are fundamentally W-R-O-N-G. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This looks like an excellent candidate for redirection to scientism. Jamesday 18:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
After googling for this name, it seems like "Medical Scientism" isn't a very widely used term. But the topic, criticisms of western medical science, definitely exists and deserves an article somewhere as it is currently attacked from many directions. MNH:s opinion exist and is legitimate, although probably not expressed as cathegorical. BL 08:19, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
The issue here is not whether there can or cannot be an article called Medical Scientism. The expression exists, there are things to be said about it, so there can be an article about it. That's the easy part. The hard part is Mr NH cannot be the person to write such an article, or any other on present evidence, because he is only interested in setting out his opinions about science and medicine. Until he agrees to stop doing so, or better still leaves Wikipedia altogether, no article on this subject can exist. The problem, Mr NH, is not the subject, it is you. Adam 10:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Try reading paragraph #1. With my limited intelligence, I understand that this dicusssion started with this concept.
A wiseman once wrote: "100% deletion of text is Anti-Wikipedia. And, I agree completely.
Per my comments in Page History, it was my expectation from the start that you guys would work to improve the article rather than delete the text 100%.
It is indisputable that I added text, while all you guys did was delete the text 100%. And, prevented the one quy who was adding text from improving the article. You guys are playing dirty. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:13, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I turned up another definition of Medical Scientism from a fairly reliable source (emphasis mine):
And on the next page:
This is somewhat different from both Natty's definition and the supposed alternative healer's definition that's currently in the article. This article, and some supplementary material I dug up, might be worthwhile for a new version (or at least a section of Scientism) that isn't blatantly slanted agenda-pushing. (Natty H will have to either reform his ways or be . . . dealt with . . . before any such rewrite can go through, though.) — No-One Jones (talk) 23:05, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Mr NH's comments above show that he still doesn't have the faintest understanding of why everyone else finds his behaviour here so stupid and objectionable. The problem as I said before is not Mr NH's ideas (silly though I think they are) but his complete lack of interest in writing an encyclopaedia article instead of a rant. I suggest that Mirv have a go at a fuller and more nuanced article than the short one I wrote, and we can discuss it here. It can then be placed as the new article and protected against further nonsense from Mr NH. Adam 12:46, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Stolen from Talk:Medical Scientism/Delete
Holders of two doctorates in medicine need not lose time with baby sitting. But they do it, for the sake of "quality" : ) For Wiki is recently heading towards the general direction of insignificance, thanks to the tyranny of dyslexic cranks. Look at the level of debate with empowered ignarrogants, perpetrators of cut-and-paste culture, paragons of kakocracy : )
I don't care what you degrees or education are, you're full of **** all the same. I shall aide Theresa in her battle against your ignorance. -
Lord Kenneth 12:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) : )
Sincerely,
irismeister 09:12, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)
Editor of 13,000+ pages in three months - and growing with each new baby-sitting assignment :)