Talk:Scientific method

From Wiki4CAM

With respect, the text on this article is pure drivel. It does not do this website credit.

Orac 14:31, 20 August 2008 (CDT)

The scientific method seems to not support many CAM remedies. As we know that the CAM remedies do work we need to have an article which talks about the scientific method, its shortcomings, and explains why it is sometimes not appropriate to use it it to verify CAM remedies. This would seem to be both obvious and very important, indeed fundamental, to the site. Rather than deleting stubs which people don't like I would have thought that a better response would be to improve them.--Tolerance 04:49, 21 August 2008 (CDT)

---

I would cautiously agree. But I do seem to recall a section of this website that claims that given the opportunity (whatever conditions that may have entailed), that CAM remedies or some CAM remedies (do not recall the exact context) would be able to be proven in a scientific way. I believe the whole problem here is: How do we know the CAM remedies work? The scientific method, as I understand it, is meant to be an impartial way of studying the world around us.

It has been demonstrated that some pages can be put up and even survive for a while, such as Tree Therapy, Flame Detox and Nullopathy. I would suspect there are a few more cleaver ones lying around here somewhere. Obviously if you have read these, they sound ludicrous to the trained mind. But they are written in such a way that is better than some of the legitimate articles. One possible reason why they were caught is because they are not known and are essentially invented for the purposes of this website.

I do not try to judge any of the remedies on this site, but there is a certain need for honesty and with that comes legitimacy. Often, I believe that this is demonstrated on wikipedia with some of its science articles and I believe that this can be achieved here with good writers. If one thing above all else must be avoided, it is an article that is its only source. Installation of the citation ability is a great progress here. Is there a way of judging the quality of the sources, especially good are academic ones.

Orac 21:29, 21 August 2008 (CDT)

---

A few points occur to regarding this potential article and the comments above.

• The first thing to do is properly define the scientific method.
• If there are CAM remedies which cannot be studied using the scientific method, we should say which ones - or which types - and why.
• Two of Wikipedia's (WP) main elements are: 1. Everything should be sourced. 2. A neutral point of view. (POV). For various reasons, it is not clear that either of these should necessarily be appropriate here.--Bob M 04:54, 22 August 2008 (CDT)

---

Without knowing what the various reasons are, I shall speak anyways. The first that you speak of is due to the avoidance of original research. If you are to create a credible website, you have to have some basis for the credibility. For example, wikipedia sources everything from outside, or at least that is the policy. A peer reviewed article is reviewed by others knowledgeable in the field. Somebody just writing something or making something up would make homeopathy no different than tree therapy.

The second that you speak of may be a challenging one to discuss. I believe a concept like 'balance of credibility' may be useful here. Science has its focus on verifiability, that is where its credibility comes from. I am not sure if CAM has a mechanism that is as good to establish this, as of yet.

I suppose the crux here is this: How to establish that CAM is anything beyond simple faith. There are statements on this website like, 'we know this works', but it doesn't explain how we know.

Orac 13:11, 22 August 2008 (CDT)

I think the question 'how you know that it works?' is the reason this wiki was needed. The guidelines that I have read here do not mention anywhere that only those facts will be documented which have been proven by science. It said somewhere that the existing knowledge base will be documented. And existing knowledge does not mean scientific (huh!) knowledge. It can encompass historical, anecdotal and clinical knowledge gathered by the CAM practitioners over many centuries. Many CAM therapies are hundreds or even thousands of years old. One should not discredit that important information base in the name of science. CamFan 01:14, 23 August 2008 (CDT)