Is a philosophical perspective on health possible?

[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. 

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.

This looks like a very constructive proposal.

I'll gather my findings in the bibliography subpage of the AM(T) page. My comments will appear both on the bibliography subpage and on its talk page, depending on the nature of the comments.

[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. 

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.

This looks like a very constructive proposal.

I'll gather my findings in the bibliography subpage of the AM(T) page. My comments will appear both on the bibliography subpage and on its talk page, depending on the nature of the comments.

Good luck.  Try to make sure the people who write those books and articles are philosophers, not doctors and sociologists and alternative medicine practitioners who are pretending to do philosophy.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

While I dislike cross-threading on the Forums, this is a perfect example of the sort of thing Hayford and I, in different ways, were considering a morass. To me, it appears a decision was made, on a rather esoteric subject, yet time continues to be spent on esoterica rather than trying to reach critical mass in content.

[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. 

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.

This looks like a very constructive proposal.

I'll gather my findings in the bibliography subpage of the AM(T) page. My comments will appear both on the bibliography subpage and on its talk page, depending on the nature of the comments.

Good luck.  Try to make sure the people who write those books and articles are philosophers, not doctors and sociologists and alternative medicine practitioners who are pretending to do philosophy.

Sure. Thanks.
See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine_%28theories%29/Bibliography
ps. Could someone fix the subpage template?

['docmartin' (Dr Martin Cohen)]

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. 

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.

This looks like a very constructive proposal.
...

It doesn't look very constructive to me. Quie the opposite in fact.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

It doesn't look very constructive to me. Quite the opposite in fact.

May I suggest something that might be helpful to me and to ohers?  What 5-10 articles here do you think are done well?

[Larry Sanger]

Howard, please close your quotes!

[tonyroberts09]

I would recommend archiving this entire article (not deleting it, because some authors have put significant effort into it, but allowing it to recede into the background and allowing others--OTHERS!!! not the same authors--to start a different kind of article.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I would recommend archiving this entire article (not deleting it, because some authors have put significant effort into it, but allowing it to recede into the background and allowing others--OTHERS!!! not the same authors--to start a different kind of article.

If it can be done without starting new flames, I'd recommend that a summary of issues -- not necessarily all answered -- be written as an article. Given present workgroups, the core articles of Health Sciences, Healing Arts, and Philosophy should have a link to the summary page; I'd suggest that links from History and Anthropology, at least, be made.

There are companion issues of whether/how to take Historical and Anthropological views on Health.

Indeed, a question arises: should all discipline-specific histories be in the History workgroup (e.g., history of antibiotics, history of networking technologies)?

[Hayford Peirce]

Hi, Tony,

Welcome aboard!  To conform to our rules for participants in these Forums, would you kindly go to the little tab in the middle of the page that says Profile, then scroll on down to the bottom of the screen and where it says Signature, put in something more or less like:

My CZ user page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Your_CZName

This will enable your profile to be easily viewed by anyone who reads one of your messages here in the Forums. And thereby enables us, up to a point, at least, to make some sort of initial judgment about how much credence/deference/respect/belief/etc./etc. to give to anything you happen to post....

Thanks!

Hayford

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Howard, please close your quotes!

I had to look a bit before I realized it was an unbalanced right bracket, not an unbalanced / quote command.

You did make it sound like a zipper malfunction.