Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 123:

:::::I'm not trying to shift anything. Of course TCM theory is probably bullshit. But we're writing an encyclopaedia here that wants to be better than the Britannica. Throwing around labels like "pseudoscience" is just angry, pubertal POV - Britannica would never do this, unless it's universally excepted. But we don't even have a source saying TCM is universally excepted to be pseudoscience. We only have a source saying "the most probable cause why there haven't been a lot of breakthroughs in isolating new efficient medicaments from TCM herbs is that TCM is largely just pseudoscience". That's not adequate sourcing to put "TCM is pseudoscience" in the lede. So sure, knock yourselves out and satisfy your anger. After all, WP maybe ''is'' [[WP:GREATWRONGS|a place to right big wrongs]] (like all those soccer moms going crazy about alternative medicine). Why not put "TCM is just pseudoscience" at the top of the lede? Why use a source for this at all, since we have so many smart people on WP agreeing on it? And within no time, WP will look exactly like all of us white male tech/science-friendly geeks like it. Great job. --[[User:Mallexikon|Mallexikon]] ([[User talk:Mallexikon|talk]]) 02:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

::::::You do realize that you lose a lot of credibility when you lay down the race card, don't you? If that's how you think, then you're going to have a very difficult time convincing other editors to work with you. Best idea is to step back and banish all such thoughts from your head. TCM, or any other bullshit, doesn't deserve a break because it's "not white". That's silly romantic era thinking of the "noble savage" sort that is actually highly insulting and condescending to non-westerners. And we don't need a source stating that "TCM is universally excepted to be pseudoscience". Consensus does not require unanimity. The source is correct: when a school of thought has been singularly unsuccessful in providing anything in the way of scientific validity for it's practices, it's a pretty safe bet that it's a pseudoscience. And I see nothing wrong at all in pointing that out here in WP. The source's conclusion is not as ambiguous as you seem to think. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Wow, the white/male/tech-friendly assumption really hit a nerve in you, did it? Let me put it this way: as long as you don't show me a source saying that TCM ''is'' generally accepted to be a pseudoscience, there'll be no consensus to include this here. The source we use right now is misused. It's being used correctly in the "drug research" section. It's not being used correctly in the lede. I guess it's time for [[WP:DR]]. --[[User:Mallexikon|Mallexikon]] ([[User talk:Mallexikon|talk]]) 04:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

== Protoscience ==