Talk:A note for skeptics
You have a typo, but I guess this article is protected so I can't fix it: "request the non-believes in CAM" is missing an "r". Also, I would recommend that "meta" articles like this go in the "wiki4CAM" namespace. Human 03:37, 14 August 2008 (CDT)
State your POV, but extend an invitation
As it stands right now there are multiple places on this site that tell skeptics that we are not even welcome to sign up. I violated that principle because I think I can be helpful to you, and because I want to demonstrate to you that it is worthwhile to at least let us in the door and be allowed to participate at some level. It might be worthwhile to even extend an invitation to skeptics to sign up but set the ground rules. This wiki as a point-of-view. State that your articles are going have that POV and there is nothing that will change that. But allow discussions to occur on the talk about about improvements for articles. A respectful opposing viewpoint is useful to avoid group think, and it can point out areas that really do need improvement. If all you have is a choir I think you might have problems. If someone comes to a talk page and asks "wow that's an extraordinary claim, whats your source? what resources did you use to construct it? what evidence is there?" by listening and responding it makes the articles better.
The skeptic community is probably going to join up this site in various ways anyway. Why not establish ground rules that allow open participation without violating the spirit of the site. Big signs saying "your kind are not welcome go use that water fountain over there" are probably not the best way to deal with the situation. Tmtoulouse 11:35, 14 August 2008 (CDT)
- We woudn't mind extending an invitation to skeptics ...if all of them were like you! But unfortunately a large number of them do not want to discuss CAM, they just want to ridicule and sabotage. Most (not all) of the anti-CAM skeptics feel that they known science well enough. The truth is that most of them are half-baked - they have never read 'philosophy of science', don't even known who Khun, Polayni and Popper were. They feel that EBM is the ultimate extension of science but have never studied in detail the limitations of EBM. They call CAM a system of beliefs and they counter it with their own set of beliefs about science. The arguments with such people never ends because a healthy discussion is not what they want. You have yourself witnessed the activity of vandals here in 2 days.
- I have said in the article that basically we are not against scientific enquiry. But as of now, not everything related to CAM can be scientifically validated. The demand by skeptics that every statement should be supported by a scientific evidence is not possible at present. CAM community feels that EBM does not suit perfectly to many CAM modalities. Plus there has been little large-scale research on CAM so far. We can cite references for most statements. But what is the guarantee about the quality of citations. Even wikipedia is filled with citations (made for the sake of citing) which do not have a reliable or scientific source.
- I have another concern at present. As of now we have limited number of editors. If we make this wiki a free-for-all, it would be like opening the flood gates. Will make the administration very difficult. Our primary focus at present is to ensure the involvement of the CAM community and to build the initial content.
- Having said that, if we do get a request from someone who does not practice CAM but can help us make this wiki better as regards security, administration, quality of content and organization, without disturbing the CAM articles, we will be happy to have them here. Such requests can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Lastly, once this wiki becomes a bit more stable and mature, I will definitely implement your suggestion and prepare the ground rules. DoctorB 21:17, 14 August 2008 (CDT)