Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Simplified first lede paragraph fixes problems with sentences in existing lede

Resolved

The first lede paragraph has some innaccuracies, ambiguities, uses not plain English unnecessarily, and has unnecessarily compound sentences. Some of the problems are large, some small. A few small changes listed below can fix these.

Here is the existing lede. The sentences of the first lede paragraph are numbered. Problems with the sentence are listed in parentheses after each sentence.

• (1) definition - Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners use highly diluted preparations. (Very bad “definition; no one could read this and go away thinking they know the definition of homeopathy)
• (2) Homeopathy was first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. (It BEGAN to be proposed then, with the law of similars)
• (3) It is based on an ipse dixit[4] axiom[5] which he called the law of similars, which states that a substance which causes certain symptoms in healthy individuals can cure patients who already exhibit similar symptoms. (Uses not plain English “ipse dixit axiom"; other homeopathic principles are also ipse dixit axioms and this is can be stated in a cover all principles remark; Unnecessarily compound sentence; not ipse dixit at first, since no authority and reputation yet built)
• (4) Homeopathic “remedies” are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term succussion, after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect. (Contains not plain English “serial dilution"; Unnecessarily compound sentence)
• (5) Homeopaths call this process potentization. (Ambiguous pronoun "this" - "this process" could refer to entire previous sentence, or just to the dilution.)
• (6) Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.
• (7) Apart from the symptoms, homeopaths use aspects of the patient's physical and psychological state in recommending “remedies”.
• (8) Homeopathic reference books known as repertories are then consulted, and a “remedy” is selected based on the totality of symptoms.

This following slight modifications to the above fix the problems or improves the existing lede as listed in the parentheses after each sentence–

• (1) definition - Homeopathy is an alternative medicine which treats a patient with a “remedy” that, when undiluted and given to healthy people, causes symptoms similar to that of the patient's illness, with a belief that the "remedy" becomes more potent with each step in a ritual dilution process, even when diluted so much that no molecule of the original substance remains, which is often the case. (Good definition – Has term "remedy" as seen in stores: Has similars belief, potentization belief, and what homeopathy really is, 30% devoted to debunking per WP:consensus on how much for debunking)
• (2) 'In 1796, German physician Hahnemann stated the first of his principles of homeopathy. (accurately describes that the principles of homeopathy only began to be proposed in 1796)
• (3) The principles were not verified, but were to be accepted on Hahnemann’s word. (Replaces not plain English “ipse dixit axiom”, states all principles are ipse dixit, not just similars)
• (4) The first principle is “the law of similars” which says that if a substance causes a healthy person to exhibit symptoms similar to those of an illness, then the substance can be used as a cure for a person who already exhibits the symptoms. (more simple law of similars definition)
• (5) Hahnemann believed that at each step of the dilution, the “remedy” must be shaken by forcefully striking it on an elastic body, which he called “succussion”. (isolated definition of succussion)
• (6) 'The principle of “potentization” is that a remedy is made more potent with each step of the dilution process.' (very simple definition of potentization)
• (7) Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.
• (8) Apart from the symptoms, homeopaths use aspects of the patient's physical and psychological state, then counsult homeopathic reference books known as "repertories", and a “remedy” is selected. (slightly shortens two sentences into one)

HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) Once again, this introduces the mistaken idea that rmedies are made from someting that causes the symptoms - it is the remedy itself that is supposed to cause the symptoms. The second part of the sentence is also not quite right - remedies that cause similar symptoms are given "under the belief that" this will cure the patient. The dilutions involve a seperate principle, so this sentence conflates two concepts.

Changed above per recommendations. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(2) There was nothing wrong with the second sentence - it did not say that all the principles were stated in 1796, but that Hahnemann first proposed homoeopathy in 1796. The comment about molecules doesn't explain why the dilutions were proposed, it just gives an excuse for Hahnemann being wrong. The actual reason they were introducued was because Hahnemann realised that giving his patients large doses of substances that caused their symptoms tended to poison them. This comment also gives rise to potential misunderstanding as it conflated the day 1796 with the dilutions - they weren't introduced until much later (possible the early 1820s).

-Yes, nothing is wrong with second sentence, but it could be modified to ipse dixit all principles at once, then list the principle in sentences that follow. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I remove the "molecules" from (2) above (just like Hahnemann).HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Have I fixed the conflation above? HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(3) Using the word "proved" might be a problem because of the special meaning attached to the word "proving" by homoeopaths. And Hahnemann had very little reputation or authority when he proposed homoeopathy (he had given up practice of medicine, and was working as a translator), so this doesn't explain why the preinciples came to be accepted.

- Changed proved to verified, but maybe you could suggest another word or phrase? Maybe "not based on using a scientific method"?

If he did not yet have authority or reputation, then this is an incorrect use of "ipse dixit" (although it is in the source cited, which also then misuses the expression). Do you have a suggestion how to im"prove" it? Maybe "not based on the scientific method"? I fixed it above, but it still says "ipse dixit" in the article body (from the source), and the source can no longer be fixed as it is over a hundred years old. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(4) This isn't too bad, but "basic principle" is probably better than "first principle".

(5) Again, not too bad, but it is the succussion, not the dilution, that is said to make the remedies more potent, and the "water or alcohol" probably doesn't need to be specifically mentioned in the lead.

I will have to check into the succussion not dilution that makes it more potent. I got my info from various University lecture notes, and sites by skeptics who I trust, who seem to think that its all in (or out of) the dilution. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If the dilution is not important, just the shaking by forceful striking on an elastic body, then why not just strike forever? I avoided the question by stating the dilution process is important, including both dilution and forceful striking in the process. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(6) The "or it may not work" is probably unneccessary. Rather than "Hahnemann believed", it would be better just to describe in as neutral and factual terms as possible how the remedies are made - we're just trying to give a basic description of what homoeopathy is in this paragraph. This sentence could easily be merged with the previous one to say something like, "Homeopathic remedie” are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term succussion, after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect."

Modified above. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(7) No - the specific dilution is not significant enough to be worth mentioning in the lead, and "classical" homoeopaths (the most "traditional" of practitioners) don't observe this.

Modified above. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(8) Homoeopaths don't really "examine" the patient's physical condition - the consultation involves a discussion of the patient's symptoms and feelings rather than a physical examination.

Anyway, I see that you have once again gone ahead and made major changes to the lead without waiting for comment here. I fear that they will need to be reverted again. Brunton (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The changes are minor as you can check by the comparison on the history page, and are all consistent with your comments. Originally, they wer just small modifications of what was there, but I changed these back consistent with your comments.HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time here. I made the changes you suggested and commented on your edits under each. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What is so difficult about the concept of WP:CONSENSUS that it can't be followed? Phrase a new version, post it on the talk, then leave it untouched for a few days and let other editors comment on it/modify it. If everyone agrees on it, put it in the article. If not, go to the next round, incorporate suggestions from the comments, then leave this version for others to comment/modify. If there's a consensus to use the new wording, the majority of editors will agree that it is better and you can put it in the article, until then it stays out.
The way things are going here right now, there is no consensus and none can form because an unfinished proposal is put in the article and has to be modified again and again; I don't even know if what I comment on will still be on this page by the time I hit ‘safe’. This is not a productive way of working towards a consensus. --Six words (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this, here's why:
The first sentence is now long winded, doesn't explain what a remedy is and is less readable than the previous version. It cites no sources and again misstates the law of similars (that you don't name the law doesn't mean you don't use it – it's the basic principle of homeopathy) because homeopathy isn't centered on treating the illness/its symptoms but the “totality of symptoms” a customer describes.
Sentence number two is in no way better than the previous wording – if we were talking about any other kind of invention, we wouldn't hesitate to say something was invented in a specific year just because it was later improved/modified.
Number three speaks of „principles“ when the previous sentence only mentioned one, making it a lot more ambiguous than Homeopaths call this process potentization. is; the sources are simply taken from „ipse dixit“ and „axiom“. The second source explicitly states that Hahnemann based his axiom on „[a] small number of particular facts, badly observed and badly interpreted [...]“.
The rest is just the original sentences broken up into two sentences or combined into one, not really better than before. --Six words (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In particular, as far as the first sentence is concerned, although it is desirable to have a single sentence definition, if this is difficult to achieve it is far better to have a couple of short sentences that give a clear explanation than a single long-winded one. I also agree with Six words's comment above about how to work towards consensus. Brunton (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

After reverting before on the grounds that "dilution not required", Sixwords then reverts now, inserting that homeopathy is defined by "highly diluted". That is hypoocricy. Arguing here is like arguing with a pseudoscientist, no matter what happens, you stick to wording you want, ture or fase. No excuse was given for reverting to not plain English from plain English. Homeopathy was not proposed in 1796, it was proposed at the time all of its axioms were complete, which is the meaning of axioms. A filed is proposed OVER the time of developmet of axioms, if it is so based. "Proposed" is not even the correct word for ipse dixit axioms, they are "stated". Homeopathy is not based on AN ipse dixit axiom, it is based on ipse dixit principles. I incorporated all of the extiensively nit picking suggestions of both Brunton and Six words, but apparently no matter what happnes, you want to stick to the original false, or ambiguous, or not plain English, etc. It is a waste of time discussing your "dilutions not requires" when you require dilutions. The "definition" just reverted to is false. I am not going to spend more time discussing with editors who will never change their mind no matter what happnens, which characterizes pseduoscience and religeous dogmatists. This is is characteristic of bad faith. All of my edits, and my extenisive modifications responding to nitpicking by the two of you is a waste of time when you are discussing in bad faith.

• arguing "Dilution is not required", and reverting to "uses highly dilute" is classic bad faith.
• reverting a sentence to a roughly equivalent one, based on the replaced sentence being "in no way any better", then arging to replace the third sentence based on what was just put in, and then serially arguning to replace the others like dominos, is a typical of the "bad faith" strategy of "setting up a straw man", as the expression "bad faith" is used in logic.
• Nit picking about something not being strictly true or clear, and making suggestions to make it strictly true or clear, then replacing one's own suggestions with overtly false or ambiguous assetions is bad faith.
• Stating that CONSENSUS is needed, then arguing that the CONSENSUS MOS is not required, inorder to revert plain English with not plain English expressions such as "ipse dixit axiom" at the outset of the lede, is bad faith.HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• This [1] is not a "major change" to the article requiring consensus when not controversial. Other than fixing the content of the first false lede sentence with a definition, it makes stylistic changes, and slight changes to make false sentences become true sentences.

Responding to bad faith positions is a waste of time. My edits were made in good faith, incorporating ALL of the extensive comments made on this page. Two editors here are not discussing and editing in good faith.

HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

HkFnsNGA, you should try to read more carefully. I said dilution is not needed to make something that causes symptoms in the healthy a “remedy” for the ill. I never disputed the fact that homeopaths mostly use higly diluted remedies, so I cannot detect any “hypocrisy” in my actions. Again you inserted your preferred version of the lede without getting consensus first (by the way - please point me to where I said consensus wasn't needed). --Six words (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You set up a bad faith straw man argument as I outliined above, which you in no way responded to, as with my other points. You also said dilution is not necessary, then inserted a false statement (which is not a definition) that ONLY contained "highly diluted". I did not see a consensus for your false non-definition sentence in the archives. There is consensus on MOS, which you have above written does not have to be followed. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the words "highly dilute" in the lead were discussed a little over six months ago. Consensus was very much with "highly dilute". You seem to be seriously misunderstanding Six words's argument here. There has been no suggestion that dilution is not characteristic of homoeopathy. Throwing around accusations of bad faith doesn't help your position.

I've removed the words "when diluted" from your opening sentence for now, since this wae once again a misstatement of the basic principle of homoeopathy, conflating two different concepts. Of course, this gave us another problem, so I had to add a couple more words. I've also removed some non NPOV material from the end of the first sentence. Unfortunately it still doesn't read too well. It also introduces unneccessary repetition into the lead. Brunton (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)