Difference between revisions of "User talk:Chunbum Park/Sub/Homeopathy research"

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
(Many of your questions make perfect sense)
(Many of your questions make perfect sense: walking a fine line)
 
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 16:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC))
 
([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 16:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC))
 +
 +
::Be careful not to move "vital force" into the "spiritual realm".  It would be an oversimplification to lump everything we don't understand or are very complex into religious experiences.  These things can potentially be explained on the molecular level.  Just as schizophrenia was once considered a "possession by demons", "vital force" will likely end up as a metaphor for the net chemical and physiological responses that we call "life" and "experience".  DNA builds chemicals into structures such as the brain that then uses nerves and neurotransmitters to organize information in such a way that it begins to "experience" what we call "life" - something that is more than physical.  So much so that the words used to describe those structures no longer satisfy us.  The brain becomes the "mind", the heart relates to "love" and becomes part of the "soul".  Everything that we touch and "feel" is integrated into our "being" neurologically as memories.  Those memories will affect how we interpret the next experience and stimulate the release of just the right amounts of neurotransmitters that will allow us to appropriately (hopefully) respond to that experience.  Some of those neurotransitters allow us to experience fear, anxiety, love, wellbeing, etc..  These were all once considered spiritual experiences, but are just as likely the result of millions of years of evolution and can be broken down into neurophysiology.  While I am sure there are homeopaths that consider vital force to be wholly spiritual, I am quite sure that most think they are having a material affect - whether the result of the memory of water or some other element that science "has not proven yet".  Just as evidenced based medicine strives to find those things that work efficiently regardless of mechanism, I don't think we need to place much emphasis on how it works.  If scientific reasoning begins to prove that people that pray live longer, would it be good doctoring to tell people to quit praying?  The homeopath thinks that the people that they treat live longer and healthier lives.  One thing for sure, if their patients were living longer, it might not be so much what they are doing right, but what conventional medicine is doing wrong... either way, this is where we need to be looking. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 03:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:08, 22 November 2008

Many of your questions make perfect sense

We can find a way to discuss specifics, but I agree that many of the things you call awkward are, indeed, awkward. They were often attempts to make compromises with the advocates of homeopathy, preserving some of their specialized terminology.

For example, I cannot define "wisdom of the body" or "vital force", but these are axiomatic for homeopaths, and, as I understand the neutrality policy, they do get to use them. I would prefer to see them described as axiomatic, and that they are not consistent with any medical concept of which I am aware. Larry does have a view, with which I don't fully agree or perhaps don't understand, of "sympathetically" presenting positions.

Let me know if I can clarify why I did anything. As you know from the talk page, I'm incredibly frustrated with the article, but perhaps a new viewpoint can help. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think that the Homeopathy article has unfortunately taken a similar path to that of many Wikipedia articles under dispute. Controversy, debate, and edit warring often mess up articles in Wikipedia with unhelpful compromises that may or may not satisfy the disputants involved. At the end of the day, these compromises just end up worsening the quality of the article.
A lot of the awkward edits were I think truly unnecessary but they were put nonetheless to promote the practice of homeopathy. For example, it's wrong to attempt to imply that homeopathic practices improve the immune system with the following quote: "life energy," sometimes called a "vital force," which today is commonly referred to as a person's immune and defense system Effects and the inner mechanisms of a person's immune system can be measured, monitored, and explained at the molecular level. I'd think that the "vital force" is a spiritual energy that is separate from the biological functions of the physical body.


Another example: are generally not essential for selecting a homeopathic remedy, but may be used for medical disease diagnosis It is possible that the use of the phrase "medical disease diagnosis" was an attempt to compare (make equal) homeopathy to scientific medicine. The original text was superior: [X rays, ... imaging, etc.] may be used to determine the need for more conventional approaches. Is "medical disease diagnosis" in homeopathy itself or is it for seeking possible alternatives in conventional medical treatment?
Even if those terms are "axiomatic," they should be explained or described, and the authors must refrain from constantly introducing new terms that may be ambiguous; rather they should repeat words that were already used and explained.

(Chunbum Park 16:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

Be careful not to move "vital force" into the "spiritual realm". It would be an oversimplification to lump everything we don't understand or are very complex into religious experiences. These things can potentially be explained on the molecular level. Just as schizophrenia was once considered a "possession by demons", "vital force" will likely end up as a metaphor for the net chemical and physiological responses that we call "life" and "experience". DNA builds chemicals into structures such as the brain that then uses nerves and neurotransmitters to organize information in such a way that it begins to "experience" what we call "life" - something that is more than physical. So much so that the words used to describe those structures no longer satisfy us. The brain becomes the "mind", the heart relates to "love" and becomes part of the "soul". Everything that we touch and "feel" is integrated into our "being" neurologically as memories. Those memories will affect how we interpret the next experience and stimulate the release of just the right amounts of neurotransmitters that will allow us to appropriately (hopefully) respond to that experience. Some of those neurotransitters allow us to experience fear, anxiety, love, wellbeing, etc.. These were all once considered spiritual experiences, but are just as likely the result of millions of years of evolution and can be broken down into neurophysiology. While I am sure there are homeopaths that consider vital force to be wholly spiritual, I am quite sure that most think they are having a material affect - whether the result of the memory of water or some other element that science "has not proven yet". Just as evidenced based medicine strives to find those things that work efficiently regardless of mechanism, I don't think we need to place much emphasis on how it works. If scientific reasoning begins to prove that people that pray live longer, would it be good doctoring to tell people to quit praying? The homeopath thinks that the people that they treat live longer and healthier lives. One thing for sure, if their patients were living longer, it might not be so much what they are doing right, but what conventional medicine is doing wrong... either way, this is where we need to be looking. D. Matt Innis 03:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)