Talk:Christian Science/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Science, redux

The term science is either ambiguous, or used in multiple ways at the same time today, even on Wikipedia. Not only does Library Science not qualify as a science through the litmus of scientific method use, but there also exists Religious Science, Divine Science, and Jewish Science (none of which have been labelled pseudoscience). These last three are religions in the New Thought movement who assert a concept called Affirmative Prayer which is similar, if not identical, in concept and execution to Christian Science prayer. William James, in The Varieties of Religious Experience (certainly a reliable and verifiable source by Wikipedia standards) describes the benefits of such prayer, mentioning Christian Science specifically, despite its inability to heal disease. He also asserts that Christian Science is a religion, important in this discussion. Digitalican (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What makes the "science" part of Christian Science is that it makes specific claims about what it can do. When tested, it does not fulfill said claims. Had Christian Science acknowledged that the original statements are wrong, they would fall under the heading of science. Since they don't, the correct label is "pseudoscience". I don't know if the other "scienceses" makes similar testable predictions, but even if they do, it would not in itself make Christian Science a proper science. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"When tested, it does not fulfill said claims." Logically, this could indeed be a problem with Christian Science, or with the inability of scientific method to set up an experiment where the expectations of the experimenters did not influence the result, or with the fact that CS healing sometimes works and sometimes doesn't (because it depends inter alia on the mental state of the patient, which is difficult or impossible to measure). From personal experience--and this is admittedly "anecdotal" but it's my anecdote--I have relied on CS for most of my life without any medical intervention (except in the case of dental/optical work, compulsory medical examinations, and one other minor situation to do with an ear problem). I am in generally good health, and have sufficient experience of rapid healing after Christian Science treatment not to have any serious questions re its efficacy. (I've also saved a lot of money lol). However, I accept that it would be difficult or impossible for any of my experiences to feed into scientific experiments, not because they didn't happen (though logically it could indeed have been a remarkable chain of coincidences) but because the scientific method doesn't accommodate them. Consequently, I'm happy enough to admit that CS is not a science as science is presently defined. But it's not a pseudoscience either. It's a metaphysical system with (claimed) practical implications.GruessGott (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with CSists use the word "science", nor that they prefer to credit CS whenever they heal on their own. The only reason CS is a pseudoscience and should very clearly be labeled as such is because they make scientific claims about medicine. If they had not, I don't think anyone would care. Whether the claims rise from religious doctrine or something else is immaterial. Thimbleweed (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to read Scientific control. This is not something that is excluded from science a priori. For example, anecdotal evidence is generally excluded because it is uncontrolled (plus no statistical power, etc), not due to a precondition against anecdotal evidence within science. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thimbleweed: I don't know what you mean by the phrase "because they make scientific claims about medicine." As a (practical) metaphysical system whose teachings fall within the category of philosophical idealism, Christian Science teaches that, in the last analysis, everything (including medicine) works mentally, because everything is mental. The claim is metaphysical rather than scientific, in the modern sense of the term anyway. It offers a meta-analysis of how the world works, rather than a series of hypotheses to be tested. It needs to be assessed, in consequence, in philosophical terms of logicality, coherence, consistency, explanatory ability (etc.), rather than in scientific terms of susceptibility to experimental proof (or disproof). According to its own teaching, Christian Science could not fall within the category of the natural sciences, which in practical terms operate on the basis that there is a world "out there" to be measured, on which the consciousness of those making the measurements can have no appreciable effect. Strictly within its own terms and in terms of what it claims, Christian Science does not, could not, and would not want to, fall within the category of the natural sciences, insofar as the latter are materialistic in both ontological and epistemological terms. (The above is of course a simplistic analysis of the natural sciences, since it says nothing about modern physics from Heisenberg onwards, which, in some interpretations at least, problematize materialism in either ontological or epistemological terms, or both. BTW I'm putting this comment in parentheses to avoid invoking the mantra of "quantum mysticism")GruessGott (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the human fields of learning have largely abandonned empirical testing of hypotheses (namely, the scientific method) in favour of case studies; which are entirely anecdotal. Many of these fields call themselves sciences; social science, information science, management science, and so on. Should we brand all of these as pseudosciences as well? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

GruessGott, you are absolutely correct in CS not falling under natural science. Had they stuck to making claims about the afterlife or other metaphysical questions, no one would have have minded. The problem is that CS makes claims about the nature of deceases, and use the word "science" to add authority to their claims. When they do that, they will be judged by the same standards as others claiming things about e.g. gangrene using science. It really is that simple.

Mullany, that "the human fields of learning have largely abandonned empirical testing of hypotheses" is an extraordinary claim and requires proof. At least within any field relevant to this discussion (i.e medicine) rigorous scientific testing is very much the accepted standard. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't find any of these defensible (or accurate) positions. I agree with IRWolfie and friends that Christian Science fails the litmus test of mainstream science as it is conducted today because it makes predictions about the real world which fail experimental tests. That is a matter of proven statistical fact. The pseudoscience appellation, however, requires more. Most (but certainly not all) religions (is anyone here arguing that Christian Science is not a religion?) predict real world effects from proper application of their methods. This ranges from praying for world peace, for the demise of political figures, for the defeat of nations in war or even for relief from plague. Some of these even include the term science in their names. The question to me is, does Christian Science explicitly claim to be a science in any sense beyond being a systemic approach to its own particular version of knowledge similar to Library Science or claiming that it's metaphysical methods work? Does it purposefully adopt the trappings of science to seem what it is not as does, for example, "The Law of Attraction". Is it, in that sense, "pseudoscience" or "fringe science" any more than any similar belief set?

The problem with this article as it is shaping up is that it is intemperate. It looks like no other tertiary source on Christian Science save those coming entirely out of the Skeptics corner or out of the Fundamentalist corner. It looks unencyclopedic. That, in itself, makes it a appear to be form of OR (though admittedly not WP:OR) and gives it the appearance of POV. Should the idea of Christian Science as pseudoscience be included? Absolutely. I would expect that is the mainstream scientific view. Is that the mainstream theologic view? Is that the mainstream philosophic view? It is certainly possible to find assertions of almost anything in secondary sources. (The use of an article on contrasting approaches to black social advancement from a social historian to prove that Christian Science considers itself a science is a bit flabbergasting and certainly disingenuous. Not encyclopedic.) The attempt to synthesize these various assertions into some kind of "mainstream" opinion is, I think, misbegotten. All of this does not make Wikipedia a better encylopedia. Digitalican (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts goes to the heart of the question of what goes into this article. I am by no means an expert on CS, but from my understanding the major defining trait of CS as opposed to other branches of Christianity, is it's emphasis on health issues. If so, I find the current weight on the medical claims is warranted. If the medical views is but a minor part of what typifies CS relative to other Christian groups, then the "pseudoscience" part should be scaled down accordingly. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See the article for where they explicitly claim to be a form of science. The claim that it has the trappings of science to give it extra legitimacy is hardly original, this is merely the clearest statement of it as it highlights the contrast between getting legitimacy by pretending to be a science whilst being opposed to science. (Oh look, here is a book of a Christian scientist, calling it science [1], I thought they didn't do it) IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that article says what you say it says. She says "Christian Science has none of the trappings of Christian theology"...which does not mean it claims to be a science. (I assume good faith and that your reference may not be to what you thought it was) Digitalican (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a conundrum here I don't know how to resolve within the context of Wikipedia policies and I would like constructive help rather than recitation of policy. I have read all of the Wikipedia policy pages that have been suggested to me, and more. I am not insensitive to the issues:

External views of Christian Science certainly focus on its relation to medicine. That is, and always has been, it's most salient characteristic to the general public. "Christian Scientists don't go to doctors" (not true, but that's the conventional wisdom.) That aspect may, in fact, be the dominant characteristic of religion and, if so, should be weighted as such -- but not to the exclusion of all else. At its heart Christian Science is a religion and -- it is my position -- needs to be treated in that context rather than in the context of a pretender to science. To the extent, and only to the extent and in the context of, Christian Science portraying itself as a scientific alternative to Medical Science, can it be called pseudoscience. Within that context I think categorizing it as such is entirely legitimate. What I need is a way, without referring to secondary sources published within the community of the Christian Science Church, to explicate -- without advocacy -- why Christian Scientists believe what they do and what they think. That tempers the article and makes it more informative in an encyclopedic sense.

I categorically reject Dr. Cynthia Shrager (see the article) as a legitimate source documenting Christian Sciences assertions that it is a science (in the modern sense.) She is not an expert on Christian Science, science, medicine or pseudoscience and the quote is taken from an incidental aside in the article. Whatever we do here, I would like it to reflect a more scholarly approach to research, not simply cherry-picking quotes obtained through search engine of your choice. It isn't just verifiability and reliability to be used as yardsticks, it's also relevance and expertise. These too need to be considered in supporting Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Digitalican (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no dichotomy in something being pseudoscience and a religion. It will receive scientific treatment and theological treatment in it's respective sections. And before you start with the "Science didn't exist back then", here is text from 1897 making the same argument that it is mistaken for calling itself science [2] IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I'm only asking that those differences be separated out. In other words, what I want is something like "With respect to modern medical science, Christian Science is a pseudoscience." That's accurate and not weaseling. I would also ask (and help with) finding legitimate sources for this assertion. Digitalican (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What you want to do is add extra commentary that the sources don't have. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but that restraint is what makes the article more encyclopedic. You and I disagree and that's not going to change, but we can work together to build an article which is both informative and reflects divirgent points of view. Digitalican (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Citing Sources in Text

This is a comment on a recent editorial difference of opinion. It's surely crucial to mention the sources in the article itself, not just to cite the comment as if it were "fact". For example, two equally authoritative sources might disagree. In that case one would need to cite them both, noting the disagreement, right?GruessGott (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As has already been discussed, no. We don't things which can be regarded as facts. This isn't a postmodernist paper. There are things which are uncontroversially regarded as simple statements of facts from the sources and written in the wikipedia tone. "The sun is not the moon" is a fact, "I believe the sun is the moon" is an opinion. By saying "John says the sun is not the moon", you are casting doubt on the sun not being the moon. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, Wolfie, you are confusing two kinds of statements. In the literature that I'm familiar with, there is a crucial distinction between "first order" statements and "second order" statements. A statement like "I have a pen in my hand" is a first order statement. It is uncontroversially true (ignoring some issues that I won't go into) because I can prove it by displaying the pen. Similarly, "the sun is not the moon" is a first order statement because we can validate it empirically through simple observation (though there may be occasions when we may mistake the one for the other; in which case, what we thought was the sun might, in fact, turn out to be the moon--nevertheless, it is true to say something like "the object to which the term 'sun' refers is a distinct object from the object to which the term "moon" refers" assuming we are agreed on what an "object" is, and on the relationship between the word "object" and whatever it may, or may not, refer to.) Anyway, these kinds of statements are quite different from statements such as "The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct" or "we live in one of a multitude of parallel worlds" or "scientific materialism is correct" or "the nineteenth century was a highly civilized era" or of "God exists/does not exist" or whatever. To make the point more specifically, it would not be appropriate to say that the CI interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct (unless one proposed to demonstrate how it was correct, in which case that would be OR, surely). It would, however, be correct to say that it is the predominant contemporary consensus as to how QM should be interpreted, (assuming that that is the case, which I believe it is at the moment).GruessGott (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you talking about quantum mechanics? It's a secondary source statement of fact, this isn't your research paper so stop treating it like it is. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, could I suggest you acquaint yourself with the *fact* that the term "fact" is deeply problematic in contemporary academic discourse? But I'll compress what I was trying to say (admittedly in a long-winded way) as follows. To say that "the sun is not the moon" is a different kind of statement from the statement "The CI interpretation of QM is correct" (or from the statement "Christian Science is a pseudoscience"). The first fact is simple, obvious, and more-or-less universally agreed. The latter "facts" are none of these thingsGruessGott (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may: When two authorities say the opposite, and where it would be WP:OR to favour the one over the other, both should be cited and the scientific disagreement shown. Where a small minority maintain a position in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus, the minority view can be mentioned where relevant, but giving it equal weight goes against WP:FRINGE. In this case, giving CS equal weight in cases regarding natural science (medicine), would go against WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP and WP:ADVOCACY, i.e. it's not done. Thimbleweed (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems about right. Agreed. But one would still mention the fact that it's the consensus, or the overwhelming consensus, or whatever. (Not that its a "fact" like the fact that the sun is not the moon.)GruessGott (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like special pleading. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it does--to you.GruessGott (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In regard to your message on the Revision History page IRWolfie, I only see one poster resisting a consensus on this. And that's you.GruessGott (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe personal attacks are uncalled for. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Thimbleweed, but this whole discussion has had a history of personal attacks, derision and innuendo from the beginning -- on both sides (I am not free of guilt in this respect, but have since calmed down.) I deeply respect Wikipedia's spirit of cooperation and collaboration which has yet to be evidenced here. I'm seriously hoping that those of you from the Fringe Theories noticeboard can add some new perspective to this. Digitalican (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reminder on etiquette, Thimbleweed. You are, of course, right. I apologize if I've stepped on anyone's toes--or paws ;-) At this point, unfortunately, I'm going to have to clear off the editing page and this discussion, because my commitments in RL are pressing at the moment, and I've been spending too much time discussing things on these pages, interesting though the discussion has often been. Whatever our differences, you all seem to be highly intelligent and well-informed people, and you are all committed to your viewpoints, as am I, and that's fair enough. So I wish everyone "auf Wiedersehen" until the next time--and it won't be for a while unfortunately--that I wish you "Gruess Gott." All the best--GruessGott (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Es tut mir leid, GruessGott. We haven't always agreed, but it's been fun and a pleasure dealing with you. :) Digitalican (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring...

Maybe...instead...of continuing this slow-moving edit war...people should discuss what's going on here...may...be...zzzzzzzzzzzz. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If people wish, they can ask for a second opinion at WP:FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment here because I have a theory - the mentioning of James Randi as a Sceptic is an obvious attempt to bypass the fact the vast majority of scientific analysis of CS classes it as Pseudo-science. Using Randi is deceptive because although he is someone commonly involved with critical analysis of stuff like this, he is generally classed as a Sceptic rather than a scientist. Wholly inappropriate. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As a scientist myself, I have a problem with the continued suggestion that the 'scientific community' would find CS to be a pseudoscience: as though this is some kind of 'universal truth' and scientists who don't go along with this hypothesis are somehow not proper scientists. In fact, science seldom deals in universal truths, or it would hardly be continuously and skeptically trying to disprove its theories and replacing them with others. People contributing are in fact masquerading as scientists and spokespersons for the pseudopersonality 'the scientific community', when they really have very little claim to the name 'scientist' themselves and have few (if any) publications in credible scientific literature. Of course the opinion that CS is a pseudoscience is a valid opinion; but as pointed out by Τασουλα, it is only the opinion of some skeptics, and this should be stated in the article. The reader then has the option of going with the skeptics or formulating some other opinion: an entirely academically acceptable process. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be obvious that CS in itself is not a pseudoscience. It is of course a religion (or a sect or a cult, depending on how one define these), and religions are by their nature not sciences, pseudo- or otherwise. The views of the CS can on the other hand be classified as pseudoscience, as long as the CS claims these views represent actual, verifiable facts. I think we would be hard pressed to find people in the medical community that would support any of the CS faith healing claims as scientific. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

On the whole, I agree with this point of view, although we would not be hard-pressed to find doctors who refer patients to CS for treatment. From time to time, medical doctors recommend 'alternative' cures when they can offer the patient nothing more; as for instance once a patient is found to be terminally ill. They may recommend special diets, acupuncture, etc. etc., and so much so that such treatments are even mentioned in the Merck Manual of Medical Information (see 2003 edition, pp 1704-1707). A lot of what they mention could be classed as pseudoscience, and it does not include CS. However, I can vouch for the fact that some doctors have recommended Christian Science treatment in similar vein, and may actually have copies of Science and Health in their waiting rooms. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends a bit on where you are I suppose. In my neck of the world (I'm not American) referring patients to CS or any other religious group is unheard of. I think it would get you fired as a doctor if you did such a thing. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I grew up in South Africa and now live in New Zealand. I have family in both Australia and the UK. In all these countries as well as the US, doctors may recommend a recourse to alternatives, including prayer, after they are sure they can help a patient no further. May I ask where you are located? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Theology

In response to [3] (this should have gone on my talk page which you can find here: User_talk:IRWolfie- not my editor review page. The comment was:

"The trouble with the article on Christian Science is that it gives little idea to the reader as to what Christian Science is really about, what it's theology is, what it's Christology is, what it's eschatology is, what it's view of atonement really is, how the word "science" is used in Christian Science (this alone would eliminate the need to call it a pseudoscience). It seems to me that in the case of religion, since "faith" is a departure from standard material reasoning, some basic reliable primary sources should be tolerated in order to give the reader an accurate idea of what Christian Science actually says. I placed the tenets under the theology section because they explain exactly what Christian Scientists actually believe. It seems to me that this could be tolerated in order to be fair to the reader. The article is so unbalanced the way it is, and seems to give only the negative opinions. Is it proper or fair to the reader to only reference negative sources? Does it raise the standard of Wikipedia to use the rules of Wikipedia to prevent any clear idea of the subject of the article to come forth when people are willing to make edits to contribute to the fairness and balance, and frankly, intelligence of the article? I would be willing to make edits, and to use secondary reliable sources, but I have to make sure that you do not have an ax to grind, because I don't want to waste my time. But honestly, this article is one of the worst things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I truly believe it lowers the standard of Wikipedia in it's present form because it mostly reads as an attack on Christian Science instead of an enlightened explanation. My opinion is that if you tell the truth about something, it will stand on it's own merits, or fall by it's own demerits. But that opportunity is not being given here."

This is something you can freely write about in the theology section. Just make sure to use reliable secondary sources to source the material. This is an encyclopedia, write a good summary of Christian Science theology and source it to some secondary sources. Try to avoid copying and pasting large lists of tenents etc from primary sources, because it's missing the kind of analysis that secondary sources can give and it has the potential for original research which isn't what we want on wikipedia. I did request help from wikiproject christianity in trying to flesh out the theology section with reliable secondary sources. The first three paragraphs are not critical of christian science. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The article as it stands is seriously flawed (that's putting it politely). It was a reasonably informative and well-balanced article until a couple of months ago. BTW, it's not true that a Wikipedia article cannot have primary sources - there is nothing in the policies that prohibits them (though they say, rightly, that they should be used with care.)89.100.155.6 (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources should be used with care, not as the basis for an entire article. The article as it stands now is much closer to the actual secondary sources than the previous wording. The article is as it is now is actually in a fairly decent state, though the theology section falls short. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The article gives a staccato impression. It features passages with no apparent connection to the preceding text. In parts, it is theologically inaccurate. It is one-sided and dogmatic. It is singularly uninformative about Christian Science itself, as distinct from what its enemies think it is. It contains errors of syntax. There are citation deficiencies. It might pass as a first year undergraduate term paper (just about). And I didn't even get as far as the section on the Church of Christ Scientist.89.100.155.6 (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is also my impression. However, if you are a Christian Scientist, perhaps you can explain something to me: why do you think that so few Christian Scientists are participating in the editing discussion? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There are not many Christian Scientists, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest improving the theology section with secondary sources; unless you cite specifics the section can't be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As much as I find CS comical, I have to say that its primary book is a primary source, when it comes to direct religious quotations? That's about as far as I can see it going - anything else would need neutral, well-rounded sources.--Τασουλα (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

CS has few secondary sources when it comes to details of its theology, except what has been written by obviously biased anti-sources. One secondary source is Beasley's 'The cross and the crown' written at the time that CS was emerging. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If something is not covered by recent reliable independent secondary sources, it probably means that it is not particularly noteworthy, at least to people outside the movement. Beasley may be problematic, both because it is dated and because he was a Christian Scientist himself. I'd have to take a closer look to see whether he is reliable or not. Take a look at this addendum to Schoepflin's book and see if you can find anything unbiased and up to date: [4]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to verify whether Beasley ever became a Christian Scientist or not. However, his book is obviously in favour of the religion. I have also uncovered a number of recent secondary sources which outline the teachings of CS. When I find time, I'll do something about it. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I was primarily concerned about the age of the source. I don't know about Christian Science, but there have been significant changes in other religious movements since 1952, such as with the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II, among others. I hope that Schoepflins's bibliography helps. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read the blurb and ordered the book. It certainly looks like an interesting reference.Michael J. Mullany (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. Happy reading! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now acquired and read the book. Many thanks for the recommendation. It indeed provides very fair views on Christian Science and its place in modern US society; and evidently by an historian; not a person steeped in CS doctrine. It certainly is a recent secondary source. What I particularly liked was its bold impartiality but that it refrains from using provocative or emotive terms. It does not brand CS as a pseudoscience because this flies in the face of what it claims: a resurgence of interest and belief in spiritual healing. If this is true, then readers who believe in spiritual healing (whether CS or not) are likely to reject our CS article as 'not the truth'. I still vote that we should qualify the pseudoscience statement. After all, the Roman Catholic practice of miracle verification before declaring a dead person a saint, is pseudoscience for similar reasons. However, so as not to put off billions of readers interested in Roman Catholicism, I would avoid the use of the term in that article also. What do you think? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that rejecting medical treatment for "spiritual science" healing is pseudoscience. Also it's choice of name was to take from the respect for science. It's not really comparable to the concept of miracles, which does not involve rejecting science or medicine generally, but rather purporting that specific cases of healing that they were unwilling or unable to find an explanation for was caused by God intervening. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"Pseudo-science" issue.

The WP policies clearly state that when describing something as "pseudo" there should be in-text attribution when in doubt. Clearly, from the discussion in the Talk section, there is no consensus as to whether CS should, or should not, be described as a pseudoscience. Consequently there should be an in-text attribution for the assertion. The assertion needs to be qualified in accordance with WP policies89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any mainstream sources opinions in reliable mainstream sources that would give us reason to doubt the statement? That fringe proponents doubt it is irrelevant. Otherwise, saying that the opinion that CS is peudoscience is the opinion of "mainstream commentators" is a banal tautology. Sorry, looks like your trying to downplay the mainstream view and give equal footing to a self-serving fringe view, which would violate WP:GEVAL. Do you have relaible mainstram opinions in reliable independent mainstream sources that demonstrate that the opinion that CS is not PS is a significant view within the mainstream community, and not a fringe view itself? What fringe proponents think about themselves is irrelevant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"[L]ooks like your trying to downplay the mainstream view and give equal footing to a self-serving fringe view..." I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. A mainstream view, by definition, cannot have something that is on equal footing to it, as otherwise there would be two mainstream views.89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant part of the guidelines is: WP:FRINGE/PS: "Theories which

have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no dispute about the "categorization" of CS as "pseudoscience." The qualifier proposed simply denotes that it's the mainstream viewpoint, not a universally-agreed fact.89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite. The medical claims of the CS is more or less universally seen as pseudoscience by the medical community. There really shouldn't be any doubts there. Text can always be improved, but the two resent reverted edits did not. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

[NB Thimbleweed's comment referred to IRWorlfie's, not to mine]. This seems like OR on your part, Thimbleweed. Christian Science is the name of a religion. It does not claim to be a science in the sense of today's natural sciences. It's no more a pseudoscience than is library science, domestic science, or economics. There seems to be an entirely unwarranted attempt here to force things into the straitjacket of the methodologies of the natural sciences. (Actually, it's possible that economics is indeed a pseudoscience according to natural science descriptors, but see how long such a definition would last on the Wikipedia page! Let's face it guys, this is about numbers, not "truth".)89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no OR in the article in relation to this. This is what the sources say. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Small comment: IP's comment that economics would be a pseudoscience is derailing. The CS is not making statements of economics, but it does about a natural science (medicine). In medical science "the straitjacket of the methodologies of the natural sciences" as IP puts it, reign supreme. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if medicine is a natural science in the same way as (eg) biology or physics. (For one thing, the medical title "Doctor" is simply a courtesy title, as physicians do not normally do a PhD. And many physicians will tell you that medicine is more an art than a science.) In any case, the main purpose of Christian Science is moral healing rather than physical healing, as anyone who was familiar with the writings of its founder would tell you. The point about economics is that, like the other social sciences, it doesn't follow the methodology of the natural sciences. So to follow the logic of the argument that is going on here, any discipline or branch of learning that has a claim to being scientific but doesn't follow the methodology of the natural sciences, should be categorized as a pseudo-science. Why is Christian Science being singled out, since (like library science or domestic science) it is neither a natural science, nor has it any claim to be one?89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. I'm not going to waste my time explaining the details behind why it is a pseudoscience, I'm fairly sure I've already done that earlier on this page, and because this isn't a forum. The sources call it pseudoscience matter of factly, so we call it pseudoscience. This satisfies WP:FRINGE, that is all. See False equivalence while you are here. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Discussing the matter further is fruitless. We have enough reliable sources to justify the sentence, and quibbling definitions of science belongs on some forum, not here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)