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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Request for comment: Is faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
"The term 'pseudoscience' shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories"– faith healing is already included in the List of esoteric healing articles which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 21:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, psychokinesis, faith healing, clairvoyance or ufology are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously. As Hansson (2008, 2009) observes, we are thus faced with the paradoxical situation that most of us seem to recognize a pseudoscience when we encounter one, yet when it comes to formulating criteria for the characterization of science and pseudoscience, respectively, we are told that no such demarcation is possible.
"The term 'pseudoscience' shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories"– faith healing is already included in the List of esoteric healing articles which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 21:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"does not permit us to say that 'it's definitely pseudoscience'"and it does not permit us to say the opposite, i.e. that it's definitely not pseudoscience. From this podcast (by coincidence posted last week) in which Massimo Pigliucci (Mahner's chapter that I quote is in Pigliucci's book) and Nigel Warburton discuss the the demarcation problem, we know that in philosophy there is are cluster concepts or family resemblance concepts, for example Ludwig Wittgenstein used the analogy of the definition of a game based on a target image, i.e. you look at and say "that is a game", "that is a game", "that is not a game", etc.; and then you come up with situations that you are not sure of, because it has some characteristics of a game but not enough to fully qualify it as a game. Pigliucci gives evolutionary psychology's status as a science as an application of family resemblance. In a cluster framework, the sentence can be read that faith healing has a family resemblance to both pseudoscience concepts and concepts that "lack of epistemic warrant to be taken seriously". – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 17:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"The term 'pseudoscience' shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories". Citing Pseudoscience and the paranormal by Terence Hines, Martin Mahner wrote that "Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, psychokinesis, faith healing, clairvoyance, or ufology are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously" ( here). Raimo Tuomela thought that "examples of pseudoscience as the theory of biorhythms, astrology, dianetics, creationism, faith healing may seem too obvious examples of pseudoscience for academic readers" ( here and a few pages later here). Faith healing is pseudoscience and should be included in Category:Pseudoscience. It is based on pre-scientific ideas and follows procedures. Faith healing is dangerous when it used as a substitute for science based medicine and benign when it used as a supplement for science based medicine. Non-fraudulent faith healing employs a pre-scientific method analogous to a scientific method: there are presuppositions, that something supernatural exists, that the supernatural affects the natural, etc.; there is observation that something is perceived as not normal; there is a protocol followed, i.e. some type of ritual, prayer, etc.; there is observation for perceived change; there is a followup protocol, i.e. some type of ritual, prayer, etc.; there are hypotheses for negative results, e.g. lack of faith. Fraudulent faith healing (of the type by some televangelists like Peter Popoff in the article) employs active deception and intentional psychological manipulation in addition to some type of ritual, prayer, etc. The term paranormal is less than a century old and, from what I have read in the past, was used to reframe the spiritualists activities in a more positive way after over a half-century of exposed fraud. Nevertheless, if faith healing is defined in a paranormal sense it is still pseudoscience by definition. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 14:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC) modified 21:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"that academic study is almost entirely uninterested in pseudoscience". There is a demarcation problem because of this participation bias; it is clear to me that there is a scientific claim of physical causality in all faith healing. I think the claim of physical causality is WP:defining. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 16:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@ BoBoMisiu: I disagree that it's WP:BLUE (I also tend to subscribe to WP:NOTBLUE). I'm not even looking at perjorative or not. Pseudoscience is a subset of bullshit. Faith healing is bullshit. For bullshit to be pseudoscience it needs to explain its effects in scientific terms adding a veneer of credible bullshit to the incredible bullshit. Faith healing doesn't do that. It explains its bullshit with God/The supernatural. That's not pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.- Oxford Dictionary
a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific- Merriam Webster
Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact.- Your Dictionary
a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science- Collins Complete
A pseudoscience is a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms- Chem1.com
A pseudoscience is a set of ideas put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.- Skeptic's Dictionary
That additional criteria of masquerading in the clothes of science is important because otherwise pseudoscience just deflates in meaning to "Bullshit that isn't true" SPACKlick ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
"personal perception [...], anecdote [...], and linguistics [...]but that the claims are about measurable physical change. I agree that they are
"not claims that are backed up by the scientific method"as you wrote. But, faith healing is not just claiming that
"something happened"but that something happened (i.e. ritual, prayer, etc.) that caused something else to happen (e.g. you do not have polio). They make a scientific claim of causality, i.e. a link between events where one event causes the other event. They are not claims of correlation but cause. While it is very reasonable to assume that the scientific claim of causality will objectively fail the scrutiny of of the scientific method, the claim and the falsification of the claim are separate types of events. There is no progress in faith healing, there is no repeatability, there is no real design of experiments, there is no refinement of measurement techniques, there is generally no testing at all, there is only blatant claims of causality and claims of produced physical change and hypotheses about lack of faith; from that, faith healing is pseudoscience and not science but faith healing makes a scientific claim of causality and a resultant claim of physical change. I agree that it is bullshit. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 21:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
"a way of thinking"it is also the application of that thinking. I think every field of science "use[s] techniques that measure physical change" and those techniques involve instruments. If it is physical it is measurable, if it is measurable it can be tested using the scientific method, if it fails scrutiny using the scientific method it is not science. Could you explain how using my example of you have polio and if you are the target of faith healing and from that you do not have polio could be an observable and measurable claim but not a scientific claim. You sound like you know the routine – can you label events as non-scientific, if the events claim to be observable and measurable, without testing them. Rhetorically, is there way to describe that an event claimed to be observable and measurable is not within the set of all observable and measurable science – I don't think so, until that claim is tested. Over time more and more of these statements are rightly refuted and build the belief based on that evidence that predicts future faith healing claims will likely not pass the scrutiny of the scientific method. There are cases that do have observable and measurable physical change but the claim of causality is a tested false cause, i.e. something other than ritual, prayer, etc. caused that physical change. Would you label the claim of causality as non-scientific if the cause was tested to be the placebo effect or a more nebulous social conditioning? – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 01:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
" but if you say that it's X meters long, then you are still not making a scientific claim". – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 15:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"make a statement of fact", are you talking about the legal concept? For Wittgenstein, terms like fact and game lack essential meaning. Can you give an example that involves a claim of physical change that is not scientific? – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"claimed mechanism of operation is faith"not that the mechanism is faith. The claim of faith healing is a claim of physical change on Earth to real people and not a claim on a fantasy planet to fantasy characters in a science fiction movie. Defining what the claims of faith healing are is encyclopedic but knocking down a straw man of pre-science aether or a straw man of fantasy-science midichlorians is not – talking about either straw man in a 21st century context that we live in would be nonsensical. Listing what you believe are synonymous terms for faith neither detracts from nor adds to the term faith. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 17:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is
|
---|
|
Either make reference to these definitions and show how faith healing fits them or give alternate definitions with support as to why we should use them. Without one of those two you're blustering past the point of disagreement. SPACKlick ( talk) 10:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
"The term 'pseudoscience' shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories."I don't think you or anyone on this talk page is claiming that faith healing is not an type of esoteric healing. Separating faith healing from alternative medicine and in turn pseudoscience, in my opinion, would be pushing some kind of woo. The conversation on this page is frozen by uninformed sceptic fear of giving something credibility – that is not what is happening by providing a broad interpretation. It is a logical fallacy to push the beliefs that either faith healing is not alternative medicine or that alternative medicine is not pseudoscience. Your use of definitions does not connect to the discussion on this page. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 13:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The conversation on this page is frozen by uninformed sceptic fear of giving something credibility1) way to WP:AGF and 2) The fear of giving something credibility would incentivise the application the label not its removal. You seem to be wanting to use pseudoscience as a label and a category to simply mean Wrong, False, Fringe or BS. However that's not how words or categories work. They have meanings and define things, this word has a meaning as shown above, that does not comport with faith healing. Faith healing doesn't lie about how scientific it is, it doesn't pretend to be science so it's not pseudoscience it's just BS. SPACKlick ( talk) 14:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
faith healing employs a pre-scientific method analogous to a scientific method:
there are presuppositions, that something supernatural exists, that the supernatural affects the natural, etc.;
there is observation that something is perceived as not normal;
there is a protocol followed, i.e. some type of ritual, prayer, etc.;
there is observation for perceived change;
there is a followup protocol, i.e. some type of ritual, prayer, etc.;
there are hypotheses for negative results, e.g. lack of faith.
"Faith healing starts with a claim of physical fact, i.e. that faith healing caused physical change,"
"a scientific claim of causality, i.e. a link between events where one event causes the other event."
"While it is very reasonable to assume that the scientific claim of causality will objectively fail the scrutiny of of the scientific method, the claim and the falsification of the claim are separate types of events."Long before the scientific method was used people explained the physical world the best way they knew how. They had other methods that today are well understood as erroneous interpretation of their observation and seen by many today as nonsense. Some of those pre-scientific methods were useful for understanding their environment and their bodies. search for:"faith cure" pseudoscience shows that a century ago the terms were used to even describe psychotherapy ( in a letter here). I wonder if a debate about the categorization of psychotherapy will exist in the 22nd century or if progress will make it a moot point. Mario Bunge wrote that "There are many fields of knowledge but they can be grouped into ten genera: ordinary knowledge, prescientific technics, pseudoscience, basic science, applied science, technology, the humanities, the sociopolitical ideologies, the arts, and religion" ( here). Some of these frameworks are incompatible, i.e. Bunge wrote that faith healing is incompatible with medicine ( here), and that "Mutability is an essential mark of mathematics, science and technology, just as stasis is one of ideology and pseudoscience" ( here). Bunge classifies research fields by twelve conditions into nonscientific, semiscience or protoscience, emerging or developing science, and pseudoscientific – "The difference between science and protoscience is a matter of degree, that between science and pseudoscience is one of kind. The difference between protoscience and pseudoscience parallels that between error and deception" ( here) and he gave examples in a later book. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 18:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
"the claim of faith healing is a claim of physical change; for example, if you have polio and if you are the target of faith healing and from that you do not have polio. That sequence from you have polio to you do not have polio is a claim of measurable physical change."I do not discuss faith healers or any agency. I never
"claimed that faith healers allege that they can produce a physical change by asking a divine being or magical force to make such a change upon request", as you wrote.
"claim that faith healing uses experiments, tests hypotheses, or does anything else that would actually be similar to the scientific method". I have provided the salient statements that can be included in the article itself. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Do you accept the above definitions of psuedoscience as accurate or mostly accurate?"
"Do you accept that faith healing is presented and accepted by adherents as religious/spiritual/faith based rather than presented as a result of scientific inquiry?"
"Do you agree that religious/spiritual/faith based beliefs don't fit or nearly fit the above definitions of pseudoscience."
"cannot run a test to compare faith healing with modern medical treatment", Bunge wrote that faith healing is incompatible with medicine. The comparison
"that 'faith healing' always works or performs 'better than' medical methods"would most likely show the opposite. But the argument is an improper disjunctive syllogism, a kind of logical fallacy. Also, you are assigning an external spiritual agency to the term faith, that assumption restricts faith to some metaphysical, in other words purely speculative, type of understanding. I read that faith is internal, i.e. a person has faith about something. Nevertheless, faith healing claims not only a metaphysical change but a physical change. Spontaneous remission is documented. The placebo effect is a physical response of a person. A century ago psychotherapy was described as "faith cure" but today it is not. An atheist a century ago or today in my opinion would not assign any spiritual agency to either spontaneous remission, the placebo effect or to psychotherapy for example. The example that a person's lack of experience of the
"roundness from the pov of the moon"doesn't take into account that the roundness is demonstrated by empirical data, e.g. see the Earthrise photo. A conspiracy prone individual might decide to reject the authenticity of that photo but it is almost universally accepted as empirical knowledge that Earth is basically round. I think you are wrong when you say that
"'logical proof' automatically removes something from any belief system"since it is not reasonable to think that a belief system would reject a constituant belief if that constituant belief is logically verified. As far as breaching a wall, I have cited reputable scientists and philosophers that do identify faith healing as pseudoscience. Most of the other reasoning I see on this talk page is either anecdotal or the bad company fallacy (charlatans are claiming faith healing, therefore, faith healing must be wrong). – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 20:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
"that prayer uses the scientific method", that is a straw man. What I am saying is that faith healing is pseudoscience as do academic experts on the subject. As I have written previously, the defining characteristic of faith healing is the claim that faith healing causes physical change in a person. As I written previously, a
"claim of physical change is a claim of something measurable. Things that are claimed to be measurable can be verified or falsified by actual measurement."Faith healing claims may be explainable by science just as the placebo effect is explainable. For many, faith healing is a religious practise – found in shamanism, spiritism, wicca, hinduism, islam, christianity, and probably most other religions – which claims to cause physical change. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 14:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
."To be sure, some conceptual frameworks are mutually compatible with one another. For example, the conceptual frameworks of the plumber and the engineer, of the realist novelist and the sociologist, and of the scientific philosopher and the basic scientist are mutually complementary and even partially overlapping. But others are not. For instance, magic is incompatible with technology, faith healing with medicine, existentialism with logic, psychoanalysis with experimental psychology, and science with ideological or religious dogma. Not only do certain fields compete with others, but some of them are superior to their rivals. For example, magic, religion and pseudoscience are inferior to science and technology as modes of knowledge and guides to action because they do not involve research and do not possess error-correction mechanisms such as analysis and experiment"
"Bunge is discussing the philosophical underpinnings"of classification and categorization of knowledge. He writes faith healing is incompatible with medicine. The rest of what you write is a red herring because there is variety in faith healing praxis in various cultures around the world, while I agree with you that
"a patient may well choose to engage in both conventional medicine and faith healing [...] just like a stage magician may use technology", they are just the methods and techniques. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 14:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It is pseudoscience according to RS. [1] [2] [3] [4] and User:AlbinoFerret has no specific objection to the new evidecne. [5] QuackGuru ( talk) 19:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any specific objection to the reliability of the sources? [8] [9] [10] [11] QuackGuru ( talk) 19:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
User:AlbinoFerret and no other editor has made any specific objection to the new sources based on policy. If any of the sources are unreliable please show not assert how they are unreliable. If the sources are moot for discussing the close then the close is moot for discussing the new sources. Correct me if I am wrong. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
"a true subset of pseudoscience"does not take into account the heuristic fuzziness of a 21st century understanding in which a subset has no distinct pseudoscience boundaries but only clustering around sets of demarcation concepts. The classification
"wholly pseudoscience"is not the fuzzy clustering around sets of pseudoscience demarcation concepts. The family resemblance of faith healing is not binary black or white but clusters of gray. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 16:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@ QuackGuru: I am not sure how to add the term pseudoscience without it looking contrived. Adding a quote may be the way or maybe including the term pseudoscience in a separate sentence. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 15:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@ SPACKlick: it is very appropriate to call faith healing pseudoscience – reliable sources do show that, just the editor consensus is based on a model outmoded for about 30 years of what is pseudoscience. Unfortunately the consensus will only change when editors with an understanding of the philosophical problem will contribute. The elephant in the room is the logical disconnect of the RFC – a claim of any physical change is categorically not a metaphysical claim but entails the ability to measure and verify the veracity of the claim. The responders to the RFC did not address the logical disconnect but repeated what was outmoded over a quarter-century ago. — BoBoMisiu 18:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
That's your interpretation of the meaning of the term pseudoscience, not mine, and not the consensus of editors and not the consensus of RS's. The fact that faith healing makes claims about physical reality doesn't make it a pseudoscience. We've been over this. The arguments are presented above. Pseudoscience is stuff that tries to look like science but isn't. A magic rock that keeps tigers away isn't pseudoscience, it's unscientific. Same with a lot of faith healing (not all of it I'll grant you). SPACKlick ( talk) 18:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Many writers on pseudoscience have emphasized that pseudoscience is non-science posing as science. [...] These and many other authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996):
- it is not scientific, and
- its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.
[...]An immediate problem with the definition based on (1) and (2) is that it is too wide. There are phenomena that satisfy both criteria but are not commonly called pseudoscientific.
Around 1930, the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle developed various verificationist approaches to science. The basic idea was that a scientific statement could be distinguished from a metaphysical statement by being at least in principle possible to verify. This standpoint was associated with the view that the meaning of a proposition is its method of verification [...]. This proposal has often been included in accounts of the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. However, this is not historically quite accurate since the verificationist proposals had the aim of solving a distinctly different demarcation problem, namely that between science and metaphysics.
This explains why fraud in science is not usually regarded as pseudoscientific. Such practices are not in general associated with a deviant or unorthodox doctrine. To the contrary, the fraudulent scientist is anxious that her results be in conformity with the predictions of established scientific theories." See also section 3.4 of that article. In any case, as can be seen from that article, the variety of sources above and the general usage, while it is hard to define precisely the boundary between pseudoscience and bad science, Faith healing isn't at that boundary but on the other end where pseudoscience meets non-science. SPACKlick ( talk) 02:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@ QuackGuru: faith healing is not science. The disagreement is about whether the various techniques in the aggregate are a category of pseudoscience. While Cogan gives examples, his conclusion of cause and effect is demonstrably wrong. It does not cause "people to refuse science-based medical treatment." – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 18:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
No specific objection was made so I went ahead and added the text with attribution to the book. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a review of the close in the above RFC found here AlbinoFerret 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Request for comment: Is faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
"The term 'pseudoscience' shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories"– faith healing is already included in the List of esoteric healing articles which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 21:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, psychokinesis, faith healing, clairvoyance or ufology are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously. As Hansson (2008, 2009) observes, we are thus faced with the paradoxical situation that most of us seem to recognize a pseudoscience when we encounter one, yet when it comes to formulating criteria for the characterization of science and pseudoscience, respectively, we are told that no such demarcation is possible.
"The term 'pseudoscience' shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories"– faith healing is already included in the List of esoteric healing articles which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 21:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"does not permit us to say that 'it's definitely pseudoscience'"and it does not permit us to say the opposite, i.e. that it's definitely not pseudoscience. From this podcast (by coincidence posted last week) in which Massimo Pigliucci (Mahner's chapter that I quote is in Pigliucci's book) and Nigel Warburton discuss the the demarcation problem, we know that in philosophy there is are cluster concepts or family resemblance concepts, for example Ludwig Wittgenstein used the analogy of the definition of a game based on a target image, i.e. you look at and say "that is a game", "that is a game", "that is not a game", etc.; and then you come up with situations that you are not sure of, because it has some characteristics of a game but not enough to fully qualify it as a game. Pigliucci gives evolutionary psychology's status as a science as an application of family resemblance. In a cluster framework, the sentence can be read that faith healing has a family resemblance to both pseudoscience concepts and concepts that "lack of epistemic warrant to be taken seriously". – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 17:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"The term 'pseudoscience' shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories". Citing Pseudoscience and the paranormal by Terence Hines, Martin Mahner wrote that "Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, psychokinesis, faith healing, clairvoyance, or ufology are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously" ( here). Raimo Tuomela thought that "examples of pseudoscience as the theory of biorhythms, astrology, dianetics, creationism, faith healing may seem too obvious examples of pseudoscience for academic readers" ( here and a few pages later here). Faith healing is pseudoscience and should be included in Category:Pseudoscience. It is based on pre-scientific ideas and follows procedures. Faith healing is dangerous when it used as a substitute for science based medicine and benign when it used as a supplement for science based medicine. Non-fraudulent faith healing employs a pre-scientific method analogous to a scientific method: there are presuppositions, that something supernatural exists, that the supernatural affects the natural, etc.; there is observation that something is perceived as not normal; there is a protocol followed, i.e. some type of ritual, prayer, etc.; there is observation for perceived change; there is a followup protocol, i.e. some type of ritual, prayer, etc.; there are hypotheses for negative results, e.g. lack of faith. Fraudulent faith healing (of the type by some televangelists like Peter Popoff in the article) employs active deception and intentional psychological manipulation in addition to some type of ritual, prayer, etc. The term paranormal is less than a century old and, from what I have read in the past, was used to reframe the spiritualists activities in a more positive way after over a half-century of exposed fraud. Nevertheless, if faith healing is defined in a paranormal sense it is still pseudoscience by definition. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 14:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC) modified 21:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"that academic study is almost entirely uninterested in pseudoscience". There is a demarcation problem because of this participation bias; it is clear to me that there is a scientific claim of physical causality in all faith healing. I think the claim of physical causality is WP:defining. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 16:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@ BoBoMisiu: I disagree that it's WP:BLUE (I also tend to subscribe to WP:NOTBLUE). I'm not even looking at perjorative or not. Pseudoscience is a subset of bullshit. Faith healing is bullshit. For bullshit to be pseudoscience it needs to explain its effects in scientific terms adding a veneer of credible bullshit to the incredible bullshit. Faith healing doesn't do that. It explains its bullshit with God/The supernatural. That's not pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.- Oxford Dictionary
a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific- Merriam Webster
Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact.- Your Dictionary
a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science- Collins Complete
A pseudoscience is a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms- Chem1.com
A pseudoscience is a set of ideas put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.- Skeptic's Dictionary
That additional criteria of masquerading in the clothes of science is important because otherwise pseudoscience just deflates in meaning to "Bullshit that isn't true" SPACKlick ( talk) 20:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
"personal perception [...], anecdote [...], and linguistics [...]but that the claims are about measurable physical change. I agree that they are
"not claims that are backed up by the scientific method"as you wrote. But, faith healing is not just claiming that
"something happened"but that something happened (i.e. ritual, prayer, etc.) that caused something else to happen (e.g. you do not have polio). They make a scientific claim of causality, i.e. a link between events where one event causes the other event. They are not claims of correlation but cause. While it is very reasonable to assume that the scientific claim of causality will objectively fail the scrutiny of of the scientific method, the claim and the falsification of the claim are separate types of events. There is no progress in faith healing, there is no repeatability, there is no real design of experiments, there is no refinement of measurement techniques, there is generally no testing at all, there is only blatant claims of causality and claims of produced physical change and hypotheses about lack of faith; from that, faith healing is pseudoscience and not science but faith healing makes a scientific claim of causality and a resultant claim of physical change. I agree that it is bullshit. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 21:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
"a way of thinking"it is also the application of that thinking. I think every field of science "use[s] techniques that measure physical change" and those techniques involve instruments. If it is physical it is measurable, if it is measurable it can be tested using the scientific method, if it fails scrutiny using the scientific method it is not science. Could you explain how using my example of you have polio and if you are the target of faith healing and from that you do not have polio could be an observable and measurable claim but not a scientific claim. You sound like you know the routine – can you label events as non-scientific, if the events claim to be observable and measurable, without testing them. Rhetorically, is there way to describe that an event claimed to be observable and measurable is not within the set of all observable and measurable science – I don't think so, until that claim is tested. Over time more and more of these statements are rightly refuted and build the belief based on that evidence that predicts future faith healing claims will likely not pass the scrutiny of the scientific method. There are cases that do have observable and measurable physical change but the claim of causality is a tested false cause, i.e. something other than ritual, prayer, etc. caused that physical change. Would you label the claim of causality as non-scientific if the cause was tested to be the placebo effect or a more nebulous social conditioning? – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 01:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
" but if you say that it's X meters long, then you are still not making a scientific claim". – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 15:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"make a statement of fact", are you talking about the legal concept? For Wittgenstein, terms like fact and game lack essential meaning. Can you give an example that involves a claim of physical change that is not scientific? – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"claimed mechanism of operation is faith"not that the mechanism is faith. The claim of faith healing is a claim of physical change on Earth to real people and not a claim on a fantasy planet to fantasy characters in a science fiction movie. Defining what the claims of faith healing are is encyclopedic but knocking down a straw man of pre-science aether or a straw man of fantasy-science midichlorians is not – talking about either straw man in a 21st century context that we live in would be nonsensical. Listing what you believe are synonymous terms for faith neither detracts from nor adds to the term faith. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 17:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is
|
---|
|
Either make reference to these definitions and show how faith healing fits them or give alternate definitions with support as to why we should use them. Without one of those two you're blustering past the point of disagreement. SPACKlick ( talk) 10:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
"The term 'pseudoscience' shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories."I don't think you or anyone on this talk page is claiming that faith healing is not an type of esoteric healing. Separating faith healing from alternative medicine and in turn pseudoscience, in my opinion, would be pushing some kind of woo. The conversation on this page is frozen by uninformed sceptic fear of giving something credibility – that is not what is happening by providing a broad interpretation. It is a logical fallacy to push the beliefs that either faith healing is not alternative medicine or that alternative medicine is not pseudoscience. Your use of definitions does not connect to the discussion on this page. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 13:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The conversation on this page is frozen by uninformed sceptic fear of giving something credibility1) way to WP:AGF and 2) The fear of giving something credibility would incentivise the application the label not its removal. You seem to be wanting to use pseudoscience as a label and a category to simply mean Wrong, False, Fringe or BS. However that's not how words or categories work. They have meanings and define things, this word has a meaning as shown above, that does not comport with faith healing. Faith healing doesn't lie about how scientific it is, it doesn't pretend to be science so it's not pseudoscience it's just BS. SPACKlick ( talk) 14:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
faith healing employs a pre-scientific method analogous to a scientific method:
there are presuppositions, that something supernatural exists, that the supernatural affects the natural, etc.;
there is observation that something is perceived as not normal;
there is a protocol followed, i.e. some type of ritual, prayer, etc.;
there is observation for perceived change;
there is a followup protocol, i.e. some type of ritual, prayer, etc.;
there are hypotheses for negative results, e.g. lack of faith.
"Faith healing starts with a claim of physical fact, i.e. that faith healing caused physical change,"
"a scientific claim of causality, i.e. a link between events where one event causes the other event."
"While it is very reasonable to assume that the scientific claim of causality will objectively fail the scrutiny of of the scientific method, the claim and the falsification of the claim are separate types of events."Long before the scientific method was used people explained the physical world the best way they knew how. They had other methods that today are well understood as erroneous interpretation of their observation and seen by many today as nonsense. Some of those pre-scientific methods were useful for understanding their environment and their bodies. search for:"faith cure" pseudoscience shows that a century ago the terms were used to even describe psychotherapy ( in a letter here). I wonder if a debate about the categorization of psychotherapy will exist in the 22nd century or if progress will make it a moot point. Mario Bunge wrote that "There are many fields of knowledge but they can be grouped into ten genera: ordinary knowledge, prescientific technics, pseudoscience, basic science, applied science, technology, the humanities, the sociopolitical ideologies, the arts, and religion" ( here). Some of these frameworks are incompatible, i.e. Bunge wrote that faith healing is incompatible with medicine ( here), and that "Mutability is an essential mark of mathematics, science and technology, just as stasis is one of ideology and pseudoscience" ( here). Bunge classifies research fields by twelve conditions into nonscientific, semiscience or protoscience, emerging or developing science, and pseudoscientific – "The difference between science and protoscience is a matter of degree, that between science and pseudoscience is one of kind. The difference between protoscience and pseudoscience parallels that between error and deception" ( here) and he gave examples in a later book. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 18:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
"the claim of faith healing is a claim of physical change; for example, if you have polio and if you are the target of faith healing and from that you do not have polio. That sequence from you have polio to you do not have polio is a claim of measurable physical change."I do not discuss faith healers or any agency. I never
"claimed that faith healers allege that they can produce a physical change by asking a divine being or magical force to make such a change upon request", as you wrote.
"claim that faith healing uses experiments, tests hypotheses, or does anything else that would actually be similar to the scientific method". I have provided the salient statements that can be included in the article itself. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Do you accept the above definitions of psuedoscience as accurate or mostly accurate?"
"Do you accept that faith healing is presented and accepted by adherents as religious/spiritual/faith based rather than presented as a result of scientific inquiry?"
"Do you agree that religious/spiritual/faith based beliefs don't fit or nearly fit the above definitions of pseudoscience."
"cannot run a test to compare faith healing with modern medical treatment", Bunge wrote that faith healing is incompatible with medicine. The comparison
"that 'faith healing' always works or performs 'better than' medical methods"would most likely show the opposite. But the argument is an improper disjunctive syllogism, a kind of logical fallacy. Also, you are assigning an external spiritual agency to the term faith, that assumption restricts faith to some metaphysical, in other words purely speculative, type of understanding. I read that faith is internal, i.e. a person has faith about something. Nevertheless, faith healing claims not only a metaphysical change but a physical change. Spontaneous remission is documented. The placebo effect is a physical response of a person. A century ago psychotherapy was described as "faith cure" but today it is not. An atheist a century ago or today in my opinion would not assign any spiritual agency to either spontaneous remission, the placebo effect or to psychotherapy for example. The example that a person's lack of experience of the
"roundness from the pov of the moon"doesn't take into account that the roundness is demonstrated by empirical data, e.g. see the Earthrise photo. A conspiracy prone individual might decide to reject the authenticity of that photo but it is almost universally accepted as empirical knowledge that Earth is basically round. I think you are wrong when you say that
"'logical proof' automatically removes something from any belief system"since it is not reasonable to think that a belief system would reject a constituant belief if that constituant belief is logically verified. As far as breaching a wall, I have cited reputable scientists and philosophers that do identify faith healing as pseudoscience. Most of the other reasoning I see on this talk page is either anecdotal or the bad company fallacy (charlatans are claiming faith healing, therefore, faith healing must be wrong). – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 20:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
"that prayer uses the scientific method", that is a straw man. What I am saying is that faith healing is pseudoscience as do academic experts on the subject. As I have written previously, the defining characteristic of faith healing is the claim that faith healing causes physical change in a person. As I written previously, a
"claim of physical change is a claim of something measurable. Things that are claimed to be measurable can be verified or falsified by actual measurement."Faith healing claims may be explainable by science just as the placebo effect is explainable. For many, faith healing is a religious practise – found in shamanism, spiritism, wicca, hinduism, islam, christianity, and probably most other religions – which claims to cause physical change. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 14:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
."To be sure, some conceptual frameworks are mutually compatible with one another. For example, the conceptual frameworks of the plumber and the engineer, of the realist novelist and the sociologist, and of the scientific philosopher and the basic scientist are mutually complementary and even partially overlapping. But others are not. For instance, magic is incompatible with technology, faith healing with medicine, existentialism with logic, psychoanalysis with experimental psychology, and science with ideological or religious dogma. Not only do certain fields compete with others, but some of them are superior to their rivals. For example, magic, religion and pseudoscience are inferior to science and technology as modes of knowledge and guides to action because they do not involve research and do not possess error-correction mechanisms such as analysis and experiment"
"Bunge is discussing the philosophical underpinnings"of classification and categorization of knowledge. He writes faith healing is incompatible with medicine. The rest of what you write is a red herring because there is variety in faith healing praxis in various cultures around the world, while I agree with you that
"a patient may well choose to engage in both conventional medicine and faith healing [...] just like a stage magician may use technology", they are just the methods and techniques. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 14:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It is pseudoscience according to RS. [1] [2] [3] [4] and User:AlbinoFerret has no specific objection to the new evidecne. [5] QuackGuru ( talk) 19:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any specific objection to the reliability of the sources? [8] [9] [10] [11] QuackGuru ( talk) 19:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
User:AlbinoFerret and no other editor has made any specific objection to the new sources based on policy. If any of the sources are unreliable please show not assert how they are unreliable. If the sources are moot for discussing the close then the close is moot for discussing the new sources. Correct me if I am wrong. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
"a true subset of pseudoscience"does not take into account the heuristic fuzziness of a 21st century understanding in which a subset has no distinct pseudoscience boundaries but only clustering around sets of demarcation concepts. The classification
"wholly pseudoscience"is not the fuzzy clustering around sets of pseudoscience demarcation concepts. The family resemblance of faith healing is not binary black or white but clusters of gray. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 16:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@ QuackGuru: I am not sure how to add the term pseudoscience without it looking contrived. Adding a quote may be the way or maybe including the term pseudoscience in a separate sentence. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 15:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@ SPACKlick: it is very appropriate to call faith healing pseudoscience – reliable sources do show that, just the editor consensus is based on a model outmoded for about 30 years of what is pseudoscience. Unfortunately the consensus will only change when editors with an understanding of the philosophical problem will contribute. The elephant in the room is the logical disconnect of the RFC – a claim of any physical change is categorically not a metaphysical claim but entails the ability to measure and verify the veracity of the claim. The responders to the RFC did not address the logical disconnect but repeated what was outmoded over a quarter-century ago. — BoBoMisiu 18:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
That's your interpretation of the meaning of the term pseudoscience, not mine, and not the consensus of editors and not the consensus of RS's. The fact that faith healing makes claims about physical reality doesn't make it a pseudoscience. We've been over this. The arguments are presented above. Pseudoscience is stuff that tries to look like science but isn't. A magic rock that keeps tigers away isn't pseudoscience, it's unscientific. Same with a lot of faith healing (not all of it I'll grant you). SPACKlick ( talk) 18:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Many writers on pseudoscience have emphasized that pseudoscience is non-science posing as science. [...] These and many other authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996):
- it is not scientific, and
- its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.
[...]An immediate problem with the definition based on (1) and (2) is that it is too wide. There are phenomena that satisfy both criteria but are not commonly called pseudoscientific.
Around 1930, the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle developed various verificationist approaches to science. The basic idea was that a scientific statement could be distinguished from a metaphysical statement by being at least in principle possible to verify. This standpoint was associated with the view that the meaning of a proposition is its method of verification [...]. This proposal has often been included in accounts of the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. However, this is not historically quite accurate since the verificationist proposals had the aim of solving a distinctly different demarcation problem, namely that between science and metaphysics.
This explains why fraud in science is not usually regarded as pseudoscientific. Such practices are not in general associated with a deviant or unorthodox doctrine. To the contrary, the fraudulent scientist is anxious that her results be in conformity with the predictions of established scientific theories." See also section 3.4 of that article. In any case, as can be seen from that article, the variety of sources above and the general usage, while it is hard to define precisely the boundary between pseudoscience and bad science, Faith healing isn't at that boundary but on the other end where pseudoscience meets non-science. SPACKlick ( talk) 02:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@ QuackGuru: faith healing is not science. The disagreement is about whether the various techniques in the aggregate are a category of pseudoscience. While Cogan gives examples, his conclusion of cause and effect is demonstrably wrong. It does not cause "people to refuse science-based medical treatment." – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 18:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
No specific objection was made so I went ahead and added the text with attribution to the book. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a review of the close in the above RFC found here AlbinoFerret 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)