Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:41, 24 January 2016

Alternative medicine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Skepticism Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed Vatican ref on criticism

Pretty ironic that this article uses the vatican to debunk crystal healing. The sources were vatican published and not peer reviewed either so they're just as bad. I'm sure we can find better actual scientific sources instead of "Your magic is different from my magic and therefore invalid" Nefariousski (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Vatican was citing theology as if it were proof against crystal healing? Or is the "Your magic is different from my magic" line primarily derived from antipathy towards the Vatican? (Because given its position that evolution, among other science, is both entirely accurate and perfectly reconcilable with Biblical tradition, it is neither a settled point of logic, nor is it ever likely to be, the notion that the Catholic Church is somehow automatically incapable of reasoning scientifically, simply by virtue of it being a church.) 2602:30A:C000:9590:A120:4BCB:96E4:E755 (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If crystal healing is pseudoscientific

Then internet, tvs's, radios, mobile phones are all pseudoscientific seeing they use crystal technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.173.42 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying that smoking cures cancer, because smoke comes from the exhaust pipe of the car that takes the cancer surgeon to the hospital. --Westwind273 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

By your logic it could be argued that consuming mercury is an effective healing practice because it is used in lots of electrical products, including some TVs. The argument defies logic. 120.151.30.225 (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes to the opening line so that it includes the term "psuedoscientific". I think the opening paragraph need to accurately describe what this practice is ie. pseudoscience 120.151.30.225 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What do crystals heal?

Please someone, say what do these crystals heal. Seems a good question to ask, and with a reference that contains reputable evidence the answer could be incorporated into the article. A few specifics? I don't want to guess for example that if I have a cut on my finger, is there a crystal that is proven to heal it? It not that kind of healing then what? P0mbal (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

-I think you miss the point, cystals do not heal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.139.85 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that last remark. To describe crystal healing as "pseudoscience" is generous in the extreme. "Outright quackery" and "cynical exploitation of the feeble-minded" would be nearer the mark for my money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.68.95 (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Outright quackery" and "cynical exploitation of the feeble-minded", doesn't that also apply to religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.175.234 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No. No it doesn't. A person saying "I think this is a good way to live," is not exploiting anyone. A person saying "I think we should all pool our money to build a church together where we can have potlucks," is not exploiting anyone. A person saying "I think this religious text provides some good insights into human nature," is not exploiting anyone. A person doing those things together would be best characterized as expounding a religious belief system... and is not exploiting anyone. Your antipathy towards religious quacks does not make religion quackery. Rather, your illogic makes you a quack. 2602:30A:C000:9590:A120:4BCB:96E4:E755 (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I cut my finger on a crystal. --82.152.164.60 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

-In response, the article states that crystals are used to 'heal' a persons aura and chakras. The word 'heal', if one understands this practice, is truly a misnomer. There is no evidence to disprove that this therapy is not beneficial for humans, and plenty of evidence and situational testimony to show it may in fact contain some merit.

...just like sugar pills. 2602:30A:C000:9590:A120:4BCB:96E4:E755 (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There have in fact been double-blind, quadruple blind even, trials and tests documented by researchers at Athens state university, led by Joe H. Slate, PH.D., documented in a book entitled "Aura Energy - for Health Healing & Balance". The tests and studies first prove the existence of the Aura, the chakras, and their ability to be manipulated in such a way to show a positive result on subjects.

Furthermore, it has been suggested, "There is no evidence that anecdotal information is any less accurate then clinical information." http://www.townsendletter.com/Nov2009/hoffer1109.html

This article is referring to crystal therapy treatment of humans, while criticism only cites criticism towards treatment of animals. It's nearly erroneous to state without a real citation for criticism. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.180.29 (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

re charmstones

I've removed reference to charmstones since these are real artifacts of uncertain purpose. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclear

The paragraph

"When the stones are placed in the area of the chakras, the colour of the stones may correspond to the colour which is said to be associated with the corresponding chakra"

Seems to imply that the stones change color. I suspect that different colors are chosen to place on different areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content, changes that don't reflect cited sources etc

A series of edits has been made (and reverted) that removed sourced content, changed content in a manner that did not reflect the sources cited and removed tags without discussion and resolution. This is against policy. Discussion can be carried on here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, MrBill3. bobrayner (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrBill3, I think the items I tagged as buzzwords should be replaced with phrasing more easily understood by the casual reader. AadaamS (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

?

Why are "chakra" and "energy grid" marked as buzzwords? Wouldn't it be better to note (like an encyclopedia would) that proponents of energy healing are unclear on what specifically they mean by terms like these? Labeling these terms as buzzwords and calling them 'designed to impress or confuse' is little more than intellectual name-calling, and is ultimately just a rhetorical tactic devoid of actual logical substance; if a crystal-healing practitioner labelled the "pseudoscience" moniker with the tag "buzzword," what would be your defense?

Instead of resorting to labels that just perpetuate terminology-wars, encyclopedias are supposed to describe relationships and illuminate concepts. Accordingly, I am going to illuminate the concepts "chakra" and "energy grid" and reveal their lack of proper scientific well-definition, after which I will eliminate the rhetorical-intellectual name-calling (to avoid giving crystal healers any ideas about how they should fight rhetorically as a way to compensate for their inferior evidence). 2602:30A:C000:9590:A120:4BCB:96E4:E755 (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think these changes have improved the article and the points made above are valid. I didn't object to the tags as I felt further illumination was required. To my view that has been provided adequately and with a NPOV. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to improve the article. BTW I think your point on "pseudoscience" as a buzzword is worth serious consideration. Does it concisely convey a well understood meaning accurately applied or is it a condescending label applied with limited support or illumination? Obviously something to be considered on a case by case basis. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my objection to using terms such as chakra is that first of all, it's not an English word to begin with. If I were to write an article about bœuf bourguignon I wouldn't try to use the phrase "bœuf bourguignon" throughout the article, I would refer to the dish because in Misplaced Pages we should use plain English, WP:UPE. IN this case, instead of writing "place crystals according to chakra" I would prefer "the practicioner places crystals on parts of the body". That's what factually happens. My defence for the word pseudoscience would involve using simpler English, like unscientific. My understanding is that we shold avoid jargon that only experts in the field understand, I think this is a good place to apply this. Thanks for raising the issue. So I don't think it helps much to give a more precise definition of what practicioners (or believers) mean by chakra and then using the word throughout the article. All instance of the word ought to be replaced by something in English, then of course a sentence or paragraph of the article can deal with a brief summary of what is meant by the term chakra. There's already a main article about chakra. AadaamS (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Magnetocardiography

Some practicioners refer to the electromagnetic fields created by the heart and brain in the context of crystal healing. I don't want to do the work of making this info encyclopedic myself, but it should be a part of this article :)

And then we could link to http://en.wikipedia.org/Magnetocardiography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.197.67 (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources first (and that might be rather a problem), but if you "don't want to do the work ..." - aw well. Vsmith (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Appologetics

This repeatedly restored edit upends the mainstream opinion presented in this article on the fringe idea discussed. "Crystal healing" is a fringe theory which departs significantly from mainstream science and has little or no scientific support. As a result, "chakras" are "so-called", the "energy grid" is "purported" and "scientific investigations have not validated claims that chakras or energy grids actually exist".

Efforts to promote and defend the practice have no place here. Misplaced Pages exists to present the proponents' fringe, pseudoscientific claims as fringe pseudoscience and the relevant scientific/academic consensus as science. - SummerPhD 02:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for page protection. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word Pseudoscience in the first line

I think the use of the word pseudoscience right off the bat here is highly emotive. https://en.wikipedia.org/Pseudoscience#Criticism_of_the_term

Your average person on the street does not know this word or its meaning, and it is a word used by those of a skeptical inclination primarily. I have found myself checking the definition of the word from different sources as it seems quite broad and I am not sure what this word is trying to communicate a lot of the time.

I cannot see how this "definitive" label is useful in the first sentence can be justified whatsoever. I believe it can be used later in the article, even in the homeopathy wikipedia entry it is the 2nd sentence AND also explains what "pseudoscience" is, as "a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific." In the acupuncture entry pseudoscience is the last line of the 1st paragraph.

I think crystal healers (I saw one 15 years ago and believe the man was completely deluded btw), have no inclination to be scientific whatsoever. It is excruciatingly clear however that crystal healers present claims which cannot be scientifically validated.

Although "crystal healing" may be a convenient scapegoat for "alternative medicine" by skeptics, a search for "crystal healers in your local community on google will likely only come up with a handful of people and they will often be utilising other modalities as well.

Probrooks (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles