Talk:Alternative medicine (theories)

Puzzled for the need for this page

There exists a page on complementary and alternative medicine, which certainly includes alternative medicine. In many contexts, alternative, but not complementary, medicine is called a "whole system", which must be used to the exclusion of all else, with no opportunities for synergy. Complementary doesn't necessarily mean complementary to mainstream medicine; aromatherapy and massage, for example, seem to work better when used together.

Without a strong argument to the contrary, I urge this be merged into complementary and alternative medicine, which certainly should have a strong related articles section. There's considerable CZ feeling that we are better differentiated with a lesser number of highly linked articles, than a larger number of often orphaned articles. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Essay or encyclopedic article?

This article is an opinionated essay, the opinion expressed in it may, or may not, be of interest, but the article does not convey any factual encyclopedic information. --Paul Wormer 08:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Another encyclopedic problem

The article contains ideas that could link to other articles, and perhaps find synergy with other ideas. Instead, however, is isolated. The concepts are neither linked nor sourced.

There ar taxonomies of alternative medicine theories in complementary and alternative medicine and in National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine? Are they totally unacceptable to the authors? Actually, I see no structures under which various theories go, and I note the absence of the essentials of some nontraditional theories, be they biofields, mind-body interactions, manipulations, etc. There seem to be some philosophical concepts that raise questions but don't describe anything, which to me is the basic purpose of an encyclopedia. Howard C. Berkowitz 10:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I must qualify my earlier comment somewhat, there are indeed "encyclopedic facts", as for instance:

the onion was favoured by the Egyptians not only as a food, and used as a medicine, but also respected for reflecting their view of the universe's multi-layered structure."

but such kinds of facts are so much unconnected to the subject of the article and come so much out of the blue that they make the impression of being invented by the author(s). In an article about old Egyptian culture, written by somebody who obviously knew the subject, I would accept such a statement. But in the way it is presented here, such "facts" are very hard to believe in. What multi-layered structure of the universe did the Egyptians imagine? Did they really assume the cosmos looked like an onion? How do we know that? I've read quite a bit about the history of cosmology, but I've never heard this before; a reliable reference is in order.--Paul Wormer 11:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Another collaboration problem

but such kinds of facts are so much unconnected to the subject of the article and come so much out of the blue that they make the impression of being invented by the author(s).

This in neither respectful nor useful. Stick with constructive criticisms such as "a reliable reference is in order".

Professor Wormer, it is interesting to note that you claim "I've read quite a bit about the history of cosmology", but bring nothing to the article. Should I remind you that this encyclopedia is a collaborative project?

Howard, thanks for the input. This article is in its infancy. At the end of the day, the goal is to get approval, and we're all aware of what it means.

--Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 16:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As you say, CZ is a collaborative project. Given that, I can't help wonder why this article suddenly appeared, when there is a clearly relevant article, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), which indeed needs much work. I plan to be doing substantial editing very soon, as soon as I get an answer back on a collaborative question. Hopefully that will be today, which will include, in part, either adapting or cloning the taxonomy of CAM techniques in National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

"Alternative" and "complementary" medicine have related but distinct meanings; the titling of the other article CAM was a deliberate change. Is this article really meant to discuss alternative medicine alone, in isolation? If it is, then why is it not linked to that to which it is an alternative?

On the CAM talk page, there is an active discussion of theories, in which there was no question, by the main creator(s) of this article, that there were concerns about theories. The main page of the current article has absolutely no wikilinks to other articles, and indeed doesn't follow CZ formatting or flow conventions. There are many flat assertions that should be sourced, but there are exactly zero citations.

So, what is the problem that this article is trying to solve, which cannot be addressed as an extension and enhancement of existing work? Sorry, but what has happened here so far doesn't feel very collaborative. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

life and the universe

"Under this paradigm, it is believed (but not provable) that, by reducing life to its most fundamental components, by analyzing all its details, it will be possible to account for the observed universe."

Isn't this mixing up biology and physics? Why life? I would have thought matter would be more appropriate? Chris Day 20:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheldrake

"When he published in a book his analyses and hypotheses, the most respected journal, Nature, called his book "a book for burning" through the voice of John Maddox, the editor-in-chief. Rupert Sheldrake had proposed the notion of morphogenetic fields, a notion not unlike Plato's Ideas."

This implies that morphogenetic fields are some how heretical yet they are standard fare in biology, what makes Sheldrake's distinct? Chris Day 20:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just read some of his stuff, you mean morphic fields and morphic resonance. i don't understand why the self organising principles in biology cannot account for morphic resonance? Chris Day 20:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

More and more, I'm getting a sense that this article was created from the perspective that philosophical, social, and other paradigms than a bioscience one should be used for describing at least medicine, and, for that matter, all existence. Fine. If so, say it explicitly, and source it; there's a comment at homeopathy about "we must" consider alternatives.

This article does not seem to be about theories of alternative medicine. It seems to be about an alternate view of biology, and perhaps concepts at the level of cosmology and matter. It's certainly not limited to medicine, as it is now titled.

If a discussion of theories of alternative medicine specifically, accepting at least some bioscience context, is desired, that should be edited into complementary and alternative medicine. If a discussion of alternative health-positive techniques not using a bioscience context is desired, rename this article, because it's otherwise redefining "medicine". If a discussion of all existences, from some paradigm that I don't understand, is desired, the authors thereof should start out with a sufficiently clear title and introduction so that the reader can have some idea what is to be read. I have to agree that right now, this comes across as a rambling essay, completely isolated with no links or sources, but carrying a flavor of rejecting conventional ideas for the sake of rejecting. Perhaps the title should be phrased in philosophical terms, but it just doesn't seem to match the content.Howard C. Berkowitz 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that we'll address all those things when this page advances. Right now, it's Martin first draft, followed by mine. Thank you for your patience.

--Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 05:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Why put this out on a page if you don't want comments? There are times where I will put an article in mainspace that I'd really rather not have changed at first, because I may be testing some links or article merges that only work in mainspace. There are several articles where I'm variously working as a workgroup editor to help improve an article in a specialized area, which isn't going to gather a large audience. In another case, a couple of experienced people are helping a first-time author adjust to CZ conventions, and, while there were concerns at first, it's been highly interactive.

In this case, I'm rather puzzled. When I get comments that my draft is hard to follow, I consider them seriously, and at least respond. Indeed, there was a recent case where just such a situation arose, and, it turned out, part of the problem was assuming that several sections must be wrong because Wikipedia said otherwise -- even though the article cited primary sources. That finally took an editor ruling on fact.

So, I guess, progress away. Do let others know when they may question. Please do not thank me for my patience, as I really am not offering any. Now, I've had cases where someone started bold rewriting of my text as I was still typing it, and that was considered unreasonable by many. Commenting on the talk page, however, is quite within the rules and, I believe, customs of CZ. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)