[SharedKnowing] Episteme issue about Wikipedia appears
geniice at gmail.com
Mon Feb 16 11:24:34 CST 2009
2009/2/16 Larry Sanger <sanger at citizendium.org>:
> David, where is this coming from? Apparently you haven't actually read the
> CZ article on "Homeopathy." Here it is:
> It's actually an excellent article, remarkably balanced and neutral,
No it isn't. Still to avoid several pages lets take a single heading.
"Conflict with conventional medicine" perhaps that looks neutral to
you but if you actually knew much about the subject you would know it
isn't. See conflict with conventional medicine is how homeopaths try
and frame the debate. A far better description would be "conflict with
the current scientific understanding of the universe"
> approved by a distinguished professor of physiology who is definitely *not*
> a homeopath.
So? Does he actually know much about homeopathy? For example the
section on what Hahnemann got up to is the standard homeopath PR slush
but you wouldn't pick up the problems with that unless you knew a fair
bit about Hahnemann's actual work (and the actual side effects of
cinchona bark suffice to say they would not normally be what Hahnemann
> I myself have little personal sympathy for homeopathy. I
> don't know much about the subject, but as far as I can tell, the article is
> nearly a model of how a collaborative community can write a really
> excellent, informative article about a controversial topic.
Informative? Not really. See it entirely focuses on one version of
homeopathy. It ignores what is sometimes called practical homeopathy
in favor of what is basically semi-classical homeopathy. Now that is
understandable since Dana Ullman lives in the US.
> If you don't
> think this is a neutral article, I suspect you think "neutral" ought to mean
> "skeptical." They don't mean the same thing. I suspect some Wikipedians
> think they do; if so, they are confused.
Neutral involves presenting both sides. For example the section where
is starts going on about the memory of water completely fails to
mention from the POV of conventional physical chemistry the entire
section is complete rubbish.
>Finally, I never said experts were a panacea, David. You can't dismiss my
>entire article by implying that its main thesis is something that I don't
>even believe and have never said. My thesis was a lot more interesting.
>Maybe you should give it a read. You might learn something.
The problem is in this area experts are causing your problem. See once
we take out the homeopathy advocates you are left with about one
person who might fit your expert requirements and I think Edzard Ernst
is busy elsewhere.
More information about the SharedKnowing