Is a philosophical perspective on health possible?

[Matt Innis]

Thanks Larry, I think you've got a good grasp on the problem.  Can't wait to see what you're thinking.  I'll get a good night's sleep tonight to get ready for it! 

['docmartin' (Dr Martin Cohen)]

There has been a dispute about whether Paracelus popularised the 'like cures like' theory in medicine. I raised it there, and was backed by several authors and an editor. I was 'opposed' in the most personal terms by others. At present the issue is being referred to a Health editor - not a philosopher! - for a final verdict. Only now it can't be, because Larry  has stepped in making barely civil remarks like this on the matter here:

" Please just drop this suggestion; I don't want us to waste any time discussing it. --Larry Sanger 20:27, 29 December 2008 "

In email correspondence, initiated by Larry, I defended my argument in proper academic terms like this:

"my point or 'complaint' really - is that edits should be modifed like this to work rather than  'deleted' or 'banned' on the basis of some defect in the original phrasing. (Even if a claim misstates a fact,  normally it can be guessed what the intent was and 'corrected' too.)"

Larry's one line response - reminscent of Jimbo on Wikipedia - was this:

"Then do that, instead of complaining on and on, and insulting your fellow contributors, Martin."

That is hardly civil or conducive to serious discussion amongst colleagues.

Regarding the Alternative Medicine (Theories) page, I ask other Citizens to look at the matter for themeselves. Clearly I have tried to be civil and constructive in my work on this apage. The constables, again, have been consulted - by both sides - and as Larry knows (because I emailed him) have offered some cautions to me but also some support in my concerns.

Reagrding Larry's supposed complain about me 'assuming' too much editorial power(Howard's dictum aimed at me on the tak page there could be reused here! viz...  'The thing speaks...')

Quite clearly, the page was a collaborative effort between various disciplines and the title was a response to the 'ambushing' of the first version by Howard and other 'scientists' to present a monolithically scientific point of view. In starting the new page, Howard and I agreed to 'split' the approaches. The constable and the relevant Health editors were complimentary about the progress on the page.

The edits made over Christmas speak for themselves. They were incompatible with what I call 'a philosophical perspective' on these matters. That is not to say a perspective only by 'philosophers' but a particular approach to the topic not being allowed in other pages. Like 'Homeopathy' for example.

As to my role on CZ - well, it is very much an experiment for me at the moment. I thought the structure allowed subject editors some 'editorial say' over pages. Things like, what is the page going to be about. Larry says this control is reduced to the page name. Actually,  not even that is  possible - Howard revised the name of my page in minutes, against my wishes.

Now Larry says:

Topics are defined not by the declarations of (in this case) self-appointed editors, but by the word in the topic title.  And perhaps more to the point, we do not "set up" articles to "offer a different way to approach" any issues.  To do so is almost explicitly contrary to our neutrality policy.  Our articles are written in such a way that they can be collaborated on by everyone, and (in part for that reason) they cannot "offer" an "approach" with which anyone would disagree.  This is what our neutrality policy says, Martin, and as I have told others in the past, if you are finding you disagree with it, you should probably exclude yourself from the project.

This position is Wikipedian - and an absurdity. I have been told in no uncertain terms NOT to bring a philosophical questions and perspectives into articles - the case of Homeopathy and of 'Alternative Medicnie' just. Who did this explicity? Howard - and now Larry too. But a few lines later Larry says 'articles can be collaborated on by everyone'.

I'd like the Constables to consider their positions. I have followed procedures - certainly to the best of my ability. I raised issues of general interest and appropriateness to the Forum. Howard has withdrawn one page because it was an essay contrary to CZ policy, Paul appraently resigns after ( ?) being reprimanded by Constables for making false and offensive comments about my scholarship (well, one is sorry, but that is his decision)  - yet it is me who is sought out to be abused and warned off!

And  I have just been attacked in the most offensive and public way by Larry. I think Larry's contribution is high-handed and illustrates the dictum 'power corrupts' and 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

It is noncontroversial, in my personal opinion, that the Military Workgroup includes topics of psychological warfare (PW). In recent military-speak, they are now part of the topic of Information Operations, which is a superset. One of the things taught in PW courses is how to analyze such information that falls upon one.

Seriously, in the comments below, I hope some of them can be examined not only in response to criticism, but I think I've put in some useful general comments on how I prepare articles. Could someone suggest a perhaps CZ: page where it might be appropriate to collect various authors' experiences and opinions on things they have found useful in writing articles here?  Not extensive essays, but just a list of ideas. Dare I compare to Strunk & White?
[/quote]

Regarding the Alternative Medicine (Theories) page, I ask other Citizens to look at the matter for themeselves. Clearly I have tried to be civil and constructive in my work on this apage.

Yes, do look at it, although you'll probably need to go through the histories due to the deletions. Or, perhaps, this should be a task for the Editorial Council. Look at things  starting from a request to follow what apparently were not strict rules but guidelines, although claified by the author, on CZ Talk:How to use talk pages Part of the reason that the talk page on Alternate Medicine (theories) became so acrimonious, and where I may bear some either reading or writing skills, is that the sequence and indentation of remarks on the Alt.med.(theories) talk page became so hard to read to be unusable. I'd imagine this was especially difficult on people without English as a first language.

So, that was one of the reasons that I abandoned my general practice of discussing organization and factual matters on the talk page before changing the article. The other was that an editor was asserting that a discipline, philosophy, gave him authority over everything he declared was philosophy. I did start making thoroughy sourced counters in the article proper.

Now, here and there, I've written a few articles and contributed others. I've even Approved some. So, I might -- this is only a personal guess, of course -- have some relevant experience. I'm not, I hope, anal-retentive about citations, but I can think of very few cases where I've been asked for one where I didn't variously immediately supply it or a substitute, explain on what personal expertise I made a statement, or said "you're right, this should come out until better supported." That seems a workable approach different from Wikipedia's. There have been a few discussions about the content of references themselves, which I consider a Good Thing.

In starting the new page, Howard and I agreed to 'split' the approaches.

Source, please. My first statement about the page was that it was duplicative of other related pages and I asked for a rationale as to why it is necessary.

The edits made over Christmas speak for themselves. They were incompatible with what I call 'a philosophical perspective' on these matters. That is not to say a perspective only by 'philosophers' but a particular approach to the topic not being allowed in other pages. Like 'Homeopathy' for example.

I'd like the Constables to consider their positions. I have followed procedures - certainly to the best of my ability.

res ipsa loquitur.

Howard has withdrawn one page because it was an essay contrary to CZ policy

I'm honestly trying to understand what "essay" the commenter has in mind. The only thing that came to mind is an article, Phytotherapy. After suggestions were made that development should be done in sandboxes if things were not ready for comment, in my mind to set an example, I moved the material to a sandbox page. I encourage Citizens to look at that, which is the only thing that I've moved of late. Essay? There are ten citations on it now. part of the reason I moved it there is a friend brought me a foot-tall pile of reference books on the topic, some of which contradict one another, and I thought it might be useful to put in opposing views side-by-side in draft text, and then either properly synthesize, select one, or delete both.

A recent nmew article is integrative medicine. Again, please look at it, with particular attention to sourcing. Is this, also, an "essay"? Now,  I confess to two apparently mortal sins.

1. Two major sources, one from the U.S. and one from the U.K. government, were points of reference in the article.  I had asked, and forgotten to remove, a request for a couple of days time before edits were made to the main page, as I was dealing with many links. I'd write at least a stub on it. Sometimes, I changed the original link name for consistency with the name in an authoritative source (e.g., Medical Subject Headings uses spiritual therapies, not spiritual healing as had been in the table.
    There was active discussion, all along, on the talk page. Some started on the CAM page and userpages. Pat Palmer can verify this.

2. I made a statement, in the first paragraph of the Integrative Medicine article, about what I saw the scope of the article to be. Indeed, this was questioned in talk page discussion, and I answered, apparently successfully. I made a statement, in concrete terms, about what I saw as the scope of the article, and how it differed from other pages. In retrospect, I should have linked to some of those other articles right there, but I shall go do so once it can't be charged I was "tampering with evidence."

Homeopathy was a painful process, which, after a number of months, is reaching consensus and high quality. There was a delicate balance of people finally working together. I was in, as should have been reasonably obvious from talk page and rewrite, a delicate process of nearing completion.

It may not be philosophical, but none of the contributors, I think it is fair to say, had a great interest in bringing in a new topic, which, according to the experts and my own mite of medical history, was quite questionable. Editors made very specific rulings on the new content being erroneous, in error, and both, yet it kept being reopened.

As to my role on CZ - well, it is very much an experiment for me at the moment. I thought the structure allowed subject editors some 'editorial say' over pages. Things like, what is the page going to be about. Larry says this control is reduced to the page name. Actually,  not even that is  possible - Howard revised the name of my page in minutes, against my wishes.

Just as a general comment, most people with substantial experiences in the sciences and engineering are aware that experiments sometimes fail, and, on reflection, are not restarted since the original hypotheses might not be useful.

Name change? Forced? With the rack or bastinado, or merely the gun barrel poking out of your screen?  From what to what, with what discussion perhaps addressing ambiguity, and where does the move log show this. Personalizing again.

I have been told in no uncertain terms NOT to bring a philosophical questions and perspectives into articles - the case of Homeopathy and of 'Alternative Medicnie' just. Who did this explicity? Howard - and now Larry too. But a few lines later Larry says 'articles can be collaborated on by everyone'.

I've never been told not to bring computer questions and perspectives into recipes. I've never been told not to bring engineering questions and perspective into Music.

[Larry Sanger]

In response to Martin, let me clarify my views one more time.  I want to focus on creating a new system that will make it easier for us all both to raise and to settle disputes in a way that has more of a chance, than the present system, of being fair.  But first I would like to add to the present discussion.

There has been a dispute about whether Paracelus popularised the 'like cures like' theory in medicine. I raised it there, and was backed by several authors and an editor. I was 'opposed' in the most personal terms by others. At present the issue is being referred to a Health editor - not a philosopher! - for a final verdict. Only now it can't be, because Larry  has stepped in making barely civil remarks like this on the matter here:

" Please just drop this suggestion; I don't want us to waste any time discussing it. --Larry Sanger 20:27, 29 December 2008 "

Martin, I'm not sure, but you seem to have misunderstood.  The "suggestion" was that homeopathy be managed by the Philosophy Workgroup.  That, I was saying, is simply a non-starter--as others seem to agree, it doesn't even bear discussion--although I have explained in some detail why the suggestion is thus dismissable.

Reagrding Larry's supposed complain about me 'assuming' too much editorial power(Howard's dictum aimed at me on the tak page there could be reused here! viz...  'The thing speaks...')

Well, I think it is absurd to suggest that "Homeopathy" should be put in the care of the Philosophy Workgroup.  I assume that the editors for these pages agree with me, or at least don't disagree, on this.  Your doing this for "homeopathy" and an article titled "alternative medicine (theories)" was literally an assumption of editorial authority on your part.

Quite clearly, the page was a collaborative effort between various disciplines and the title was a response to the 'ambushing' of the first version by Howard and other 'scientists' to present a monolithically scientific point of view. In starting the new page, Howard and I agreed to 'split' the approaches. The constable and the relevant Health editors were complimentary about the progress on the page.

I'm not sure that that is what you and Howard agreed to.  I doubt that it would help anything to try to work that out.  In any case, as I explained earlier and as Howard now seems to agree, you are not permitted to start a new article that "takes a different approach," in the sense of describing just one of many various approaches to the topic of theories of alternative medicine.  CZ articles do not "take approaches"; they are neutral.  This means that we have to work together within the same article to report on--not propound, but merely describe--a variety of approaches to the same topic.  Having viewed your article, I understand why others reacted to it strongly: it was, just as others described it, an "essay," one full no doubt of much useful information, but also written from a definite point of view and replete with all sorts of editorial (i.e., non-neutral) remarks, many of which one suspects were "original research."  The dialectic as presented in your article was highly favorable to alternative medicine.

To exacerbate matters, you declared, as (erstwhile) editor of the article, "It [the article] is not concerned with scientific debates. Please do not rehearse them here. Nor is it concerned with detailed historical developments in medical treatments, so do not bring that discussion here either."  Surely you understood that this implied that scientific criticism of theories of alternative medicine would be off-topic.  But even if you were the most qualified person in the world to speak on this topic, you would not be permitted in our system to make such a declaration, because it completely flies in the face of our neutrality policy.  I think you were assuming that as long as there were two competing articles, each taking a different "approach," the requirements of neutrality would be satisfied.  But that's not correct.  That is not our system.

By the way, throughout your writings about this stuff you have repeatedly claimed that our articles "Homeopathy" and "Complementary and alternative medicine" are written with a scientific approach and biased against homeopathy and alternative medicine.  I disagree.  If you believe that they are biased, then you ought to explain in some detail why you think so.  Our editors have gone to great (some might say superhuman) lengths to ensure that "Homeopathy," at least, is a neutral, balanced article, not one written from a "scientific point of view."  A scientific point of view is well represented and explained, of course, but that is because that is after all the mainstream point of view.  But the fact that that view is included does not mean that the text explaining the views of homeopathy (etc.) are not sympathetic to homeopathy.  Again, if you think not, then it won't do simply to say, "This article is biased and we need a supplementary one for my views."  Instead, since this is a collaborative project, you need to step up and explain how the article might be made more neutral.  For example, if you think a certain section spends too much time criticizing a view without first making it clear what the view is and why people hold it, then that's something that both I and our editors (which I think are very reasonable) would be interested to hear.  The more specific the complaint and the recommendation, the better.  I personally would not suggest that we have done the best possible job explaining the appeal of homeopathy, which we really should do.  There's always room for improvement.  But I would not simply dismiss the whole effort, either.

The edits made over Christmas ... were incompatible with what I call 'a philosophical perspective' on these matters. That is not to say a perspective only by 'philosophers' but a particular approach to the topic not being allowed in other pages. Like 'Homeopathy' for example.

As a philosopher, I fail to see what is especially "philosophical" about the approach in the earlier article.  You have never explained this, but only assumed that it had some clear meaning.  I have been waiting for some explanation about what you mean by a "philosophical" approach to homeopathy or alternative medicine generally.  I personally would disagree that a "philosophical" approach need be contrasted with a scientific approach.  I would say that there are philosophical aspects of or issues about these topics, but (1) an aspect (e.g., does alternative medicine reach standards of scientific evidence as described by theories of scientific confirmation advanced by philosophers of science?) seems different from an approach (??), and (2) I see no reason not to treat the philosophical issues--if they have actually been discussed in the literature!--in the main article(s).  If our discussion of the philosophical aspects/issues proves to go on too long, we might prise out a lot of that information in a separate article.  That's how that has worked.

I disagree with an approach according to which one party takes what others find to be "controversial aspects" of a topic to a different page.  We should not choose our page topics in order to settle idiosyncratic editorial disputes.

I should say that I do somewhat understand the whole rather vague business about some philosophers being holistic, treating things in terms of their forms, and so forth.  I don't think anybody is opposed to our reporting those purported historical connections, assuming that some scholarship has actually drawn the connections you note.  For instance, your mentions of Descartes and Hobbes seemed very speculative to me, and I was waiting for the name of an intellectual historian who had drawn the connections as you had done.

As to my role on CZ - well, it is very much an experiment for me at the moment. I thought the structure allowed subject editors some 'editorial say' over pages. Things like, what is the page going to be about. Larry says this control is reduced to the page name. Actually,  not even that is  possible - Howard revised the name of my page in minutes, against my wishes.

What is at issue here is what sort of say editors shall have.  They can determine the scope of an article, yes (our policy documents actually say this, I believe).  But obviously, they cannot artificially limit or expand the scope beyond what another reasonable editor might regard as the natural scope of an article.  So, to get back to the case in hand, you cannot say that on our "alternative medicine (theories)" page that this or that can or cannot be included if it is not reasonably clear from the name of the article that that is what the article should (or should not) include.

Now Larry says:

Topics are defined not by the declarations of (in this case) self-appointed editors, but by the word in the topic title.  And perhaps more to the point, we do not "set up" articles to "offer a different way to approach" any issues.  To do so is almost explicitly contrary to our neutrality policy.  Our articles are written in such a way that they can be collaborated on by everyone, and (in part for that reason) they cannot "offer" an "approach" with which anyone would disagree.  This is what our neutrality policy says, Martin, and as I have told others in the past, if you are finding you disagree with it, you should probably exclude yourself from the project.

This position is Wikipedian - and an absurdity. I have been told in no uncertain terms NOT to bring a philosophical questions and perspectives into articles - the case of Homeopathy and of 'Alternative Medicnie' just. Who did this explicity? Howard - and now Larry too. But a few lines later Larry says 'articles can be collaborated on by everyone'.

I said many things in the paragraph you quoted.  I'm not sure what position you're accusing of being Wikipedian and absurd, so I can't respond to that.

You are absolutely mistaken when you say you have been told not to bring philosophical questions and perspectives into articles.  I explicitly welcomed it in the post you are replying to, and I reiterate it.  So I don't know what you mean.  If I had to guess at what you mean, I would say that you have added mention of Paracelsus to "Homeopathy" and of Hippocrates and various philosophical figures to "Alternative medicine (theories)" only to have these deleted.  But it is hasty to conclude that we are opposed to philosophical questions and perspectives in articles.  Paracelsus and Hippocrates, first, aren't first and foremost philosophical figures.  As to the others, the philosophers were removed along with everything else, not because they were philosophers but because the whole article was a biased essay.  Also, if Howard said such a thing, then why should you care?  He's just another author on these topics, albeit a knowledgable one, and so he's not in a position to dictate what questions and perspectives may be included (certainly not in a way that you have tried to do).

Also, if you are saying that, by excluding the Philosophy Workgroup from management of the articles we're discussing, I am declaring that philosophical questions and perspectives are not welcome in these articles, you are wrong (obviously, I think!).  To say that would be to imply that, for example, for the article about Descartes, for instance, excluding the History Workgroup from management of the biography would imply that historical questions and perspectives are not welcome.  Of course they are--if they are sufficiently relevant to the topic.  I personally wouldn't be at all surprised if philosophers had important and relevant things to say about alternative medicine and related topics in the history of ideas.

I'd like the Constables to consider their positions. I have followed procedures - certainly to the best of my ability. I raised issues of general interest and appropriateness to the Forum. Howard has withdrawn one page because it was an essay contrary to CZ policy, Paul appraently resigns after ( ?) being reprimanded by Constables for making false and offensive comments about my scholarship (well, one is sorry, but that is his decision)  - yet it is me who is sought out to be abused and warned off!

And  I have just been attacked in the most offensive and public way by Larry. I think Larry's contribution is high-handed and illustrates the dictum 'power corrupts' and 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

Well, obviously, others have a very different view of the situation.  And those others, I would add, have a much better idea of how CZ operates than you have.

[Paul Wormer]

[...], Paul appraently resigns after ( ?) being reprimanded by Constables for making false and offensive comments about my scholarship (well, one is sorry, but that is his decision)  - yet it is me who is sought out to be abused and warned off!

I resigned not because of the reason that Martin mentions in this quote.  For  some time already I felt a dislike of the style of the article, or, more precisely, of Martin's style of exposition. I lost my temper a bit when I saw the text box on Democritus and then I  used the words "utter nonsense". I shouldn't have used these words and apologize for them. However, this qualification was about  text written by somebody outside CZ, so I don't understand why Martin says that I made offensive comments about his scholarship;  I made offensive comments about the scholarship of the person plagiarized by Martin.  I don't blame the constable, who did his job and deleted the text,  but this deletion opened my eyes to a clear and distinct difference of opinion about the presentation of knowledge within CZ articles.  And I came to the conclusion that as long as Martin's style prevailed that I could better withdraw from CZ.

As I see it, Martin likes to paint broad vistas and to carry along his readers with surprising comparisons and metaphors that  arouse admiration for the eruditeness of the author. Questions like is it true? and how do I know that? disturb the flow of the argumentation, distract the reader and make the article less captivating.  I certainly can appreciate this style in essays, blogs and books, but not in a general encyclopedia.

I know that some "citizens" have problems with  the content and the juxtaposition of the two kinds of healing in this article, but I know so little about medicine, healing, etc.,  that I don't  even have come as far as  this  objection. For me as a 'scientist' (why the quotes Martin?) it is important that an article  can be "replicated", i.e., all statements that can lead to questions (facts not known to the general educated public) are sourced in some way. In the same way as an experiment described in a scientific article  can be  replicated, at least in principle, I understand that not everybody has access to the right equipment  or, in the case of a CZ article,  to the right books and journals.

I wish  all readers a happy 2009!

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

[...], Paul appraently resigns after ( ?) being reprimanded by Constables for making false and offensive comments about my scholarship (well, one is sorry, but that is his decision)  - yet it is me who is sought out to be abused and warned off!

I resigned not because of the reason that Martin mentions in this quote.  For  some time already I felt a dislike of the style of the article, or, more precisely, of Martin's style of exposition. ...  I don't blame the constable, who did his job and deleted the text,  but this deletion opened my eyes to a clear and distinct difference of opinion about the presentation of knowledge within CZ articles.  And I came to the conclusion that as long as Martin's style prevailed that I could better withdraw from CZ.

As I see it, Martin likes to paint broad vistas and to carry along his readers with surprising comparisons and metaphors that  arouse admiration for the eruditeness of the author. Questions like is it true? and how do I know that? disturb the flow of the argumentation, distract the reader and make the article less captivating.  I certainly can appreciate this style in essays, blogs and books, but not in a general encyclopedia.

Paul, that's very well put: a good deal of my problem with the presentation was the style. The style isn't wrong, but more inappropriate. For example, if one looked at the reviews of some of my books, people tend either to love them or hate them. When I write an engineering book, yes, I do ask rhetorical questions. Usually in some type of text box or sidebar, which works better on a printed page than on a webpage (see developing article on Usability), I will tell stories, examples of really incompetent managers, etc. that illustrate a point. Here, I have put such stories on signed article pages, which might be something that Mr. Cohen might wish to explore as a technique.

As an aside, I was needlessly strong about some comments about not being interested in a particular historian with respect to 19th century medicine -- I was not clear, and I will explain that on alt med theories. Pierre-Alain, I'm sorry if I seemed harsh; I do feel very strongly about one part, but I made it too broad. Corrections will be there very soon.

...For me as a 'scientist' (why the quotes Martin?) it is important that an article  can be "replicated", i.e., all statements that can lead to questions (facts not known to the general educated public) are sourced in some way. In the same way as an experiment described in a scientific article  can be  replicated, at least in principle, I understand that not everybody has access to the right equipment  or, in the case of a CZ article,  to the right books and journals.
I wish  all readers a happy 2009!

A happy year to you as well. I had some of the same problems. In some cases, it was a matter of vague secondary sourcing, in commercial books or websites from alt med evangelists, to readily available primary sources such as the World Health Organization or Centers for Disease Control. When I searched for the topic on those organizations' sites, not having enough information to find the exact source, I did find articles, which I cited specifically, that came to different conclusions.

With that, coupled to the rhetorical style, I found myself having a low tolerance to statements, about the history of 19th and 20th century medicine, to which I was able to offer abundant counterexamples.  I no longer found I was reading an encyclopedic article, but a very partisan attack. The irony, which I will explain further on the alt med theories talk page, is that some of the arguments made about 19th century medicine were not necessarily wrong, in the context of the time. For 1810 or so, Hahnemann made some reasonable improvements compared to conventional medicine of the day.  Well into the 20th century, however, a great many medical paradigms change, but the change wasn't acknowledged. Instead, there was a discussion of philosophical issues such as hijacking the Enlightenment. Now, perhaps it was hijacked -- but what had that to do with alt med theories (I emphasize theories plural)?

Where I became strongly irritated was that my counterexamples were ruled irrelevant, which in my belief, is that they undermined the desired conclusion. I believe it is possible to talk about alt med theories, although I don't think one article can work; there are concepts common to some but not all forms of alt med, and it is quite possible to expound on the theories in articles on the discipline; this is even true in medicine if you compare approaches to certain kinds of heart disease.

It was also mechanically difficult to discuss these on the talk page, due to one individual's idiosyncratic means of responding to posts, which made it extremely hard to follow the stream of argument.

Paul, I feel as if I should have spoken up earlier; it took me some time to realize your specific concerns, and I share some -- perhaps not all.  I might have found a way to rephrase them.

It was especially hard to try to calm the issues in that particular venue, for several reasons: responding on the talk page had become very difficult; the writing style, while elegant for certain contexts, simply did not work well for the responses in collaborative editing; the talk boxes took material out of the single text stream of the editor and made it very hard to respond to a point spread between the main text and the boxes.

[Matt Innis]

However, this qualification was about  text written by somebody outside CZ, so I don't understand why Martin says that I made offensive comments about his scholarship;  I made offensive comments about the scholarship of the person .... 

Well, I'll be darned... if I would have read it that way, I surely would not have deleted that text.  It was deleted because I thought your were saying Martin had written 'utter nonsense', which, of course, would fall into our professionalism policy.  Interesting.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

However, this qualification was about  text written by somebody outside CZ, so I don't understand why Martin says that I made offensive comments about his scholarship;  I made offensive comments about the scholarship of the person .... 

Well, I'll be darned... if I would have read it that way, I surely would not have deleted that text.  It was deleted because I thought your were saying Martin had written 'utter nonsense', which, of course, would fall into our professionalism policy.  Interesting.

I'm not trying to speak for Paul, but I know some my aggravation was with the sources being quoted; I was not happy they were chosen, but what was there, from Burton Goldberg, a very commercial alt med evangelist, was being used as the source for unidentifiable statements from the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control, and New England Journal of Medicine.

Since there was no way to identify the specific source of the numbers quoted by Goldberg and used to support what I believed questionable assertions, I searched those three primary sources myself, and inserted, into the main article (the talk page had failed) perhaps extended quotes from articles/papers that contradicted Goldberg's view.

I don't want to speak for Paul, but a good deal of my annoyance was that sourcing seemed extremely selective to support a preconclusion, selective from a source available only in a not readily available hard copy, and that seemed inconsistent with my experience with the primary documents.

Sourcing, I recognize, is content, outside Constable authority, but what were we to do?  There was no health sciences or healing arts editor available to question, and the response to questioning seemed hostile. If there was anyone with credentials in medical literature, I can make some fairly solid claims based on work with medical decision support systems.  These were certainly not matters of philosophy, but of imprecise terminology and inadequate statistical inference.

Note that these all came in the context of alt med attacking conventional med, which really has little to do with alt med theories. Again, that was content and aggravating. One other questionable quote had more to do with alt med, as it mentioned finding prehistoric herbs, but still, does that address any contemporary theory of alt med?

[Matt Innis]

Sourcing, I recognize, is content, outside Constable authority, but what were we to do?  There was no health sciences or healing arts editor available to question, and the response to questioning seemed hostile. If there was anyone with credentials in medical literature, I can make some fairly solid claims based on work with medical decision support systems.  These were certainly not matters of philosophy, but of imprecise terminology and inadequate statistical inference.

..., but what were we to do? 

The idea is to take it up the 'content' ladder.  In other words, the workgroup, then the Editorial Committee and EIC.  The Editorial committee is suppose to be forming the Editorial Appeals committee, but it hasn't happened.  If we don't want the EIC to make these determinations on his/her own, then it is our responsibility to work to create the Editorial Appeals committee.  Martin, in the usual philosopher 'make you think about it' button pushing style, has just helped us get to the next level.  We could have put the article on hold and all gone to the 'Original research' page and hammered out the challenge and found a solution that satisfied all of us and no-one would have had to feel stepped on -- and we might well have created something that would prevent future problems.  Instead, we fell into name calling and accusations that made it necessary for a constable to come down on one side of the issue and the EIC to come down on the other.  At least that is my 'post mortem'.

[Larry Sanger]

I am mortified by the thought that I would not be on the same side as you on any issue, Matt.   

What exactly is the issue that we are on opposite sides of?  I'm not actually opposed to our having some such article as Martin wrote (if it is rewritten to be less like a personal essay and more in keeping with our Neutrality Policy).  But it seems to me that, as usual, there are many interrelated issues here.  Getting to the bottom of them unfortunately requires producing huge amounts of dull text, with much tedious parsing and clarification and arguing, such as I wrote in the last couple of days.

Still, out of all the various issues, if I had to put my finger on the biggest one, it is that Martin assumed authority as editor of the "Alternative medicine (theories)" article and then proceeded to declare in effect that scientific criticism of theories of alternative medicine, advanced in the article, would be deemed off-topic.  This was an attempt to change the rules of the game in mid-play.  That bothered me, at least, most of all.  I'll let others speak for themselves.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I am mortified by the thought that I would not be on the same side as you on any issue, Matt.   

What exactly is the issue that we are on opposite sides of?  I'm not actually opposed to our having some such article as Martin wrote (if it is rewritten to be less like a personal essay and more in keeping with our Neutrality Policy).  But it seems to me that, as usual, there are many interrelated issues here.  Getting to the bottom of them unfortunately requires producing huge amounts of dull text, with much tedious parsing and clarification and arguing, such as I wrote in the last couple of days.

Still, out of all the various issues, if I had to put my finger on the biggest one, it is that Martin assumed authority as editor of the "Alternative medicine (theories)" article and then proceeded to declare in effect that scientific criticism of theories of alternative medicine, advanced in the article, would be deemed off-topic.  This was an attempt to change the rules of the game in mid-play.  That bothered me, at least, most of all.  I'll let others speak for themselves.

From my perspective, it was that by  his rules, which seemed ever-changing, that it was perfectly alright for him to use secondary sources such as Burton Goldberg or Roberta Bivins, citing, without context, numbers from CDC or WHO or NEJM. Now, I'd note that from the web pages of both of these, they, especially Goldberg, are strongly anti-science.  There are times where I'll cite something like "J. Smith, "article title", New England Journal of Medicine, quoted by M. Smith, Book About Subject, p. 95", but I don't consider "Smith says the NEJM (no author or title) says there were 495283 deaths between 1969 and 1999 due to prescription drugs" to be an adequate citation.  If it was from the NEJM, there would be supplementary information such as total patients treated, confidence limits, and more statistics in general.

Mr. Cohen indicated that general sourcing was quite adequate and he did not want to hear challenges. So, I spent perhaps 15 minutes, and found specific, online, CDC and WHO and NEJM articles from which I quoted quite contradictory information.

So no, from my observation, it was a total unwillingness to give better citations when requested; he asserted that His Editorship allowed him to be the Decider of what was adequate, and also announced I was off topic. How can countering his secondary quote with a sourced primary reference be off topic?

Again, the article and title were mismatched. There was a lot about how medicine,especially in the 19th century, had gone philosophically gaga; there was a lot about how bad science was, but not much about alt med theories. With the discussions of miasms, it was just plain wrong. Indeed, not only was I able to come up with two articles contradicting one assertion about John Snow, I found, in the exact URL they were using, two paragraphs above the quote, something that contradicted the point being made (all these were from the Department of Epidemiology at USC School of Public Health).

The rules weren't even. It was apparently all right to cherry-pick secondhand statements about the failings of science, but countering them was ruled off limits, and what I thought were perfectly reasonable requests for sourcing denied with prejudice (i.e., don't bring them up again).

Larry, you made it very clear that Homeopathy would not be managed by Philosophy. It was hard for me to take seriously putting alt med theories under Philosophy.  Now, sometimes there can be a close call---should radar be under engineering and military, physiics and military, or all three?  This didn't seem close, and I'm afraid I didn't take the assertion of editorial authority, especially very controlling editorial authority, very seriously.  I'm sorry, but I consider at least two occasions of trying to get articles under the control of a marginally related group, so one can exercise editorial control, makes me question sincerity.

[Matt Innis]

I am mortified by the thought that I would not be on the same side as you on any issue, Matt.   

HAHA!  No, No...  The issue is 'their' issue.  But our individual actions effectively impacted their issue differently.  Because I was a constable and the issue was about content, the people who were 'whistle-blowing' got the {{civility}} and {{nocomplaints}} templates because they were getting, shall we say, rowdy - which I would assume one side would take as a confirmation that they were on the right track.  But, as EIC, you were able to make an editorial related ruling by deciding that philosophy could not be a workgroup.  That essentially came down on the other side of the issue.  This, of course, quieted the rowdy ones and solved my problem.  Ultimately, though, it didn't have to get that out of shape, had they been able to click on a template that would let them know the proper way to react to their concern.

[Pierre-Alain Gouanvic]

Still, out of all the various issues, if I had to put my finger on the biggest one, it is that Martin assumed authority as editor of the "Alternative medicine (theories)" article and then proceeded to declare in effect that scientific criticism of theories of alternative medicine, advanced in the article, would be deemed off-topic.  This was an attempt to change the rules of the game in mid-play.  That bothered me, at least, most of all.  I'll let others speak for themselves.

Well, Martin was, and I hope will be again, co-editor with Gareth. As I said earlier, it was an alliance.

Gareth and I had scientific arguments, and Martin helped to sort it out, helping my miasma/public health to stay in the article in a lightweight version, he also gently pointed out that I did not have to be so bold with the structure/biochemistry worldview, so i retracted and went into the meat of the idealism / materialism debate. As I said earlier, I hope that Martin will come back to rule on this founding debate of Western philosophy so that we can get  a precious founding article that will help with all other CAM articles.

I don't think that you cleaned a mess. 

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Still, out of all the various issues, if I had to put my finger on the biggest one, it is that Martin assumed authority as editor of the "Alternative medicine (theories)" article and then proceeded to declare in effect that scientific criticism of theories of alternative medicine, advanced in the article, would be deemed off-topic.  This was an attempt to change the rules of the game in mid-play.  That bothered me, at least, most of all.  I'll let others speak for themselves.

Well, Martin was, and I hope will be again, co-editor with Gareth. As I said earlier, it was an alliance.

Gareth and I had scientific arguments, and Martin helped to sort it out, helping my miasma/public health to stay in the article in a lightweight version, he also gently pointed out that I did not have to be so bold with the structure/biochemistry worldview, so i retracted and went into the meat of the idealism / materialism debate. As I said earlier, I hope that Martin will come back to rule on this founding debate of Western philosophy so that we can get  a precious founding article that will help with all other CAM articles.

I don't think that you cleaned a mess. 

I don't think idealism and materialism, or even debates about Western philosophy, have much to do with the theories of alt med. We seem to mean quite different things when we say "alt med", and the approach here seems to wander off into areas that are not part of current healthcare policy, decisions about choices in healthcare, and lots of other areas.

Even the idea that there is a general theory to CAM is highly questionable. You seem to be phrasing a lot of things as axiomatic, which are not.

I am very concerned that it will be a mess, and it will suck up resources that could be spent on turning out authoritative articles that attract a significant audience.

Is it so much to ask that CZ, at least internally, have a consistent usage of AM, CM, CAM, and integrative medicine?  Is it so much to ask that the "allopathy" theme, looking at the etymology of the word, be dropped as having very little to do with current medical thinking?

[Larry Sanger]

Still, out of all the various issues, if I had to put my finger on the biggest one, it is that Martin assumed authority as editor of the "Alternative medicine (theories)" article and then proceeded to declare in effect that scientific criticism of theories of alternative medicine, advanced in the article, would be deemed off-topic.  This was an attempt to change the rules of the game in mid-play.  That bothered me, at least, most of all.  I'll let others speak for themselves.

Well, Martin was, and I hope will be again, co-editor with Gareth. As I said earlier, it was an alliance.

Gareth and I had scientific arguments, and Martin helped to sort it out, helping my miasma/public health to stay in the article in a lightweight version, he also gently pointed out that I did not have to be so bold with the structure/biochemistry worldview, so i retracted and went into the meat of the idealism / materialism debate. As I said earlier, I hope that Martin will come back to rule on this founding debate of Western philosophy so that we can get  a precious founding article that will help with all other CAM articles.

I don't think that you cleaned a mess. 

Pierre-Alain, whether Gareth and Martin had an "alliance" is ultimately not relevant to deciding whether the Philosophy Workgroup should manage the article in question.  Ultimately, this is about whether the Philosophy Workgroup should have the care of an article titled "Alternative medicine (theories)," and which was about the history of the ideas behind alternative medicine.  The experts on these subjects are, first and foremost, people in the Health Sciences and Healing Arts workgroups.  If we have to choose a third discipline (there can only be three) that deals with all aspects of the theories or thinking behind alternative medicine, I think it is definitely not the Philosophy Workgroup, because philosophers per se rarely deal with this stuff.  Having read Martin's article, the questions he raises appear to be more of a matter for sociology of ideas, anthropology of medicine, and history of ideas--not philosophy.  Again, I am aware that there are books written that concern the "philosophy" of virtually everything, but this does not mean that philosophers are the relevant experts about virtually everything.  Notice that I say this as a Ph.D. philosopher.

If Martin, or you, want to argue otherwise, you're welcome to do so.  The relevant evidence would take the form of a large body of peer-reviewed philosophy articles and books that concern philosophical questions about the theories behind alternative medicine.  The mere existence of such a body wouldn't be sufficient, either; it would also have to be established that philosophers do more, or at least more significant, research into the various possible aspects these theories than do sociologists, anthropologists, or historians.  I'm open to being persuaded by actual evidence.

In any event, Martin may continue to work on the article, as an author, and enjoy any "alliance" he might have had with Gareth in that capacity.