This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Faith healing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
What the source says: "we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like...faith healing...are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously."
What the Wikipedia article says: "Virtually all scientists and philosophers dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience."
One of these things is not like the other. We simply cannot take a source that says faith healing is either red or blue, and then use it to support a statement that it's red, red, red! Doing so would be a violation of WP:NOR.
How can we re-write this to accurately reflect the cited source? ("Lacking an epistemic warrant" means something approximately like "no reasonable person would expect that to work".) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
My impression is that the other article is about the same topic as this one but has weight issues. Most of its important material could easily be merged in the existing section of this article about the same topic. There's also of course the eternal "christian science" issue (which claims to be science but is not), so if not merged perhaps a rename discussion would result (i.e. "Christian science (faith healing)"). Input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 23:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a late response, but I realize today that my merge request was hasty and unrealistic. While Christian Science would have been a better target, there already also was an older merge proposition about it (that I didn't start, but that also failed). I've also read more about the topic since and even part of my proposition's text was misinformed. Thanks to those who participated, — Paleo Neonate – 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose removing the "Religious Text Primary" tag from the "New Testament" section on the grounds that the section does not currently do anything that the related policy is intended to prevent.
If someone wrote in a Wikipedia article that "The world was created by the Dao giving birth to the One, which gave birth to the Two, which gave birth to the Three, which created the universe" and cited chapter 42 of the Daodejing as the source for that claim, then of course the "Religious Text Primary" tag would apply to that, because there are much more reliable scientific, secondary, sources that give other explanations of how the universe came into existence.
However, if someone wrote, "The Daoist text Daodejing states that the world was created...(etc.)," then the tag would not apply, because it is an objective fact, undeniable by anyone of any religion or no religion, that the Daodejing does actually state that claim about the origin of the universe. It is no more controversial than saying "Mark Twain wrote such-and-such" and citing one of his novels as the source to support that claim. No religious belief of any kind is necessary to accept either the claim about the Daodejing or the claim about Mark Twain.
The claims about the Christian scriptures that are made in this section appear to be of that second type. The current wording of the article doesn't say that "Jesus supernaturally healed someone"; the claims are that "the New Testament says such-and-such," a literary (not religious or scientific) claim that can be accepted by any person of any faith or none. Therefore the tag in question would seem not to be appropriate. Bruce Tindall ( talk) 18:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I was considering removing the section on "Miracles for Sale" as it doesn't seem to add that much to the article and seems somewhat irrelevant? It definitely would belong in a different section if we were to keep it, perhaps merged into "Fraud." There's not enough there to warrant its own section. OrangeYoshi99 ( talk) 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Since there's been some edit warring over the pseudoscience language lately, this is just a reminder that we had an RfC on this followed by this. There was a lot of consensus building that went into that content, especially the "virtually all scientists . . ." language that is supposed to remain in the lead to illustrate the scientific consensus, and should not be edit warred out. KoA ( talk) 03:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Faith healing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
What the source says: "we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like...faith healing...are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously."
What the Wikipedia article says: "Virtually all scientists and philosophers dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience."
One of these things is not like the other. We simply cannot take a source that says faith healing is either red or blue, and then use it to support a statement that it's red, red, red! Doing so would be a violation of WP:NOR.
How can we re-write this to accurately reflect the cited source? ("Lacking an epistemic warrant" means something approximately like "no reasonable person would expect that to work".) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
My impression is that the other article is about the same topic as this one but has weight issues. Most of its important material could easily be merged in the existing section of this article about the same topic. There's also of course the eternal "christian science" issue (which claims to be science but is not), so if not merged perhaps a rename discussion would result (i.e. "Christian science (faith healing)"). Input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 23:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a late response, but I realize today that my merge request was hasty and unrealistic. While Christian Science would have been a better target, there already also was an older merge proposition about it (that I didn't start, but that also failed). I've also read more about the topic since and even part of my proposition's text was misinformed. Thanks to those who participated, — Paleo Neonate – 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose removing the "Religious Text Primary" tag from the "New Testament" section on the grounds that the section does not currently do anything that the related policy is intended to prevent.
If someone wrote in a Wikipedia article that "The world was created by the Dao giving birth to the One, which gave birth to the Two, which gave birth to the Three, which created the universe" and cited chapter 42 of the Daodejing as the source for that claim, then of course the "Religious Text Primary" tag would apply to that, because there are much more reliable scientific, secondary, sources that give other explanations of how the universe came into existence.
However, if someone wrote, "The Daoist text Daodejing states that the world was created...(etc.)," then the tag would not apply, because it is an objective fact, undeniable by anyone of any religion or no religion, that the Daodejing does actually state that claim about the origin of the universe. It is no more controversial than saying "Mark Twain wrote such-and-such" and citing one of his novels as the source to support that claim. No religious belief of any kind is necessary to accept either the claim about the Daodejing or the claim about Mark Twain.
The claims about the Christian scriptures that are made in this section appear to be of that second type. The current wording of the article doesn't say that "Jesus supernaturally healed someone"; the claims are that "the New Testament says such-and-such," a literary (not religious or scientific) claim that can be accepted by any person of any faith or none. Therefore the tag in question would seem not to be appropriate. Bruce Tindall ( talk) 18:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I was considering removing the section on "Miracles for Sale" as it doesn't seem to add that much to the article and seems somewhat irrelevant? It definitely would belong in a different section if we were to keep it, perhaps merged into "Fraud." There's not enough there to warrant its own section. OrangeYoshi99 ( talk) 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Since there's been some edit warring over the pseudoscience language lately, this is just a reminder that we had an RfC on this followed by this. There was a lot of consensus building that went into that content, especially the "virtually all scientists . . ." language that is supposed to remain in the lead to illustrate the scientific consensus, and should not be edit warred out. KoA ( talk) 03:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)