Talk:Health science: Difference between revisions
imported>DavidGoodman (bias) |
imported>Nancy Sculerati MD (chiropracter and alternative medicine) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Yes, David. To call traditional healing arts "health science" is an oxymoron and confuses everything, leading to articles - such as the one I edited, in which little to no real information is given.That article actually had a couple of lines dedicated to the fact that some of the disciplines that were covered were NOT " science ". Instead, "Healing Arts" and "Health Care" articles can give Chinese Traditional Medicine and other very important healing arts their due, and "Health Science" can actually cover the Allied Health Sciences which, alone, is an enormous subject. I'm just getting started on it. Regards, [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 06:05, 2 November 2006 (CST) | Yes, David. To call traditional healing arts "health science" is an oxymoron and confuses everything, leading to articles - such as the one I edited, in which little to no real information is given.That article actually had a couple of lines dedicated to the fact that some of the disciplines that were covered were NOT " science ". Instead, "Healing Arts" and "Health Care" articles can give Chinese Traditional Medicine and other very important healing arts their due, and "Health Science" can actually cover the Allied Health Sciences which, alone, is an enormous subject. I'm just getting started on it. Regards, [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 06:05, 2 November 2006 (CST) | ||
:I use the recently added sentence on chiropractics as an example of non-neutrality. I share NS's presumed bias that it is relatively worthless as therapy and absurd as science. I would not present it as a sole example here in the initial part of an article. Somewhere in this article there should be a relatively non-specific presentation of alternative health sciences, with reference to the good articles now being written on each. The evidence for the status should there be presented, so the reader may judge. | :I use the recently added sentence on chiropractics as an example of non-neutrality. I share NS's presumed bias that it is relatively worthless as therapy and absurd as science. I would not present it as a sole example here in the initial part of an article. Somewhere in this article there should be a relatively non-specific presentation of alternative health sciences, with reference to the good articles now being written on each. The evidence for the status should there be presented, so the reader may judge. | ||
== chiropracter and alternative medicine == | |||
actually, I think a lot of the therapy actually works well for backs - but that the theory is not biology. That's the point I was trying to make, a chiropracter is often very effecting at relieving back pain, still that's not health science. I referenced it to the CZ article by the same name because I think that it's excellent, and, from what I've read of it - appropriately neutral. But as I write, or perhaps if you would care to add, more - i will try to make that clearer and try also to avoid an appearance of "picking" on any one field. Actually, at some point in the article I might -to truly present a neutral point of view, that some of health science is indisputably science, but yet does not translate neatly into effective therapy. Perhaps under research, giving sickle cell anemia as an example. In other words, some therapies are helpful even if we do not have a scientific explanation for why, and in some cases, we have a near perfect scientific explanation for a disease - yet no ready cure or effective remedy. Thanks, Nancy |
Revision as of 20:13, 15 November 2006
are you sure you want to make the distinction between healing arts and health sciences, Everything is referred to by "ABC science" and if this is the universal way people call things,.... David Goodman Yes, David. To call traditional healing arts "health science" is an oxymoron and confuses everything, leading to articles - such as the one I edited, in which little to no real information is given.That article actually had a couple of lines dedicated to the fact that some of the disciplines that were covered were NOT " science ". Instead, "Healing Arts" and "Health Care" articles can give Chinese Traditional Medicine and other very important healing arts their due, and "Health Science" can actually cover the Allied Health Sciences which, alone, is an enormous subject. I'm just getting started on it. Regards, Nancy Sculerati MD 06:05, 2 November 2006 (CST)
- I use the recently added sentence on chiropractics as an example of non-neutrality. I share NS's presumed bias that it is relatively worthless as therapy and absurd as science. I would not present it as a sole example here in the initial part of an article. Somewhere in this article there should be a relatively non-specific presentation of alternative health sciences, with reference to the good articles now being written on each. The evidence for the status should there be presented, so the reader may judge.
chiropracter and alternative medicine
actually, I think a lot of the therapy actually works well for backs - but that the theory is not biology. That's the point I was trying to make, a chiropracter is often very effecting at relieving back pain, still that's not health science. I referenced it to the CZ article by the same name because I think that it's excellent, and, from what I've read of it - appropriately neutral. But as I write, or perhaps if you would care to add, more - i will try to make that clearer and try also to avoid an appearance of "picking" on any one field. Actually, at some point in the article I might -to truly present a neutral point of view, that some of health science is indisputably science, but yet does not translate neatly into effective therapy. Perhaps under research, giving sickle cell anemia as an example. In other words, some therapies are helpful even if we do not have a scientific explanation for why, and in some cases, we have a near perfect scientific explanation for a disease - yet no ready cure or effective remedy. Thanks, Nancy