Jump to content

Talk:Ayurveda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 42.109.145.95 (talk) at 07:43, 7 December 2020 (→Need edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies [...] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1] [2] [3] [4]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines .
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need edit

I am giving my unbiased view about Ayurveda. I am a Software Engineer (BTech in Information Technology) from Kerala, India, my mother is a Zoology teacher, my Sister is a microbiologist and my father is a pensioner. No one has endorsed me to talk in favor of Ayurveda. Just like 90% of Indian house holds, Ayurveda and its ingredients are commonly used in my house ever since I was born. And my parents and their grand parents have transferred that knowledge for generations and all the Indians families are using these home grown herbs, spices and ingredients which were actually contributions of Ayurveda for our health and well being so that these are all deep rooted in our culture and tradition. And that is my only relationship with Ayurveda. Being an Engineer and a student of Science, I have this curiosity to learn. I have understood the deep rooted Science behind Ayurveda in our Food, Tradition and our Health Care.

Ayurveda is not a Pseudo Science at all. It is a far Superior Science, 100% Evidence Based, with Human trails completed even 5000 years ago, the whole Indian population of 1.3 Billion has tried and tested it and are its beneficiaries and the medicines and herbs and these are very widely used and even used daily in every house hold in India for centuries.

The editor does not have any kind of knowledge about Ayurveda and its huge vast proven medicines. Human trails are considered the most advanced form of evidence in any scientific approach. More than 90% of the population of India prefers Ayurveda over modern medicine because of this. Actually we are afraid to take modern medicine because it lacks the required scientific evidence. These so called modern medicines are all developed recently and most of the modern medicines have adverse side effects. These medicines only have a track record of few 100 years compared to 5000 years of that of Ayurveda. These are mere chemical combinations and its adverse effects can only be noted after centuries of its use over generations. We don't know how these medicines will effect us genetically, we are not able to say that now. Its just a modern medicine.

We, as the population of India, are not uneducated Goons like the editor thinks. We have the rationale to think of ourselves, and learn from our experience and that is more scientific way/approach than disabling or handicapping the free thinkers and people who have evidence to submit. This article is biased and backed by Modern Medical Lobby and US Pharmaceutical Giants. Editing this article was blocked just to satisfy the Ego of the editor. He is actually a blunder and works against the basic scientific approach.

Just visit any Government Ayurvedic Medical Colleges or even Govt Ayurvedic Hospitals in Kerala. You can see any number of Cancer patients (3rd and 4th stage and severe cases), Patients with Chronic Liver cirrhosis who were recommended for Liver Transplantation by Multi Specialty Modern Hospitals, all in the Ayurvedic Hospital beds getting treatment and getting cured on a daily basis. Visit the Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Thripunithura, Kerala, you can see cancer patients who went through numerous Chemo and Radiation sections at different Modern Multi Specialty Hospitals and lost all their hopes and visited Ayurvedic Hospital as a final resort and got completely cured from Cancer.

See the ray of hope in their eyes. See how they are getting cured. Just ask them how they are feeling now, and what was it before. Can you prove to them that Ayurveda is a Pseudo Science? Ask them to show their old Medical Reports, current Medical Reports and see for yourself. Most of the critically ill patients who visit the Government Ayurvedic Hospitals are people whom Modern Hospitals deemed as incurable, and left to die within 3-6 months period. These people are getting treated and cured at Government Ayurvedic Hospitals across Kerala and for decades, these process is still going on. A Liver transplantation at a Modern Hospital Costs 3 to 4 Million Rupees (40,669 USD) in Kerala. Ayurveda is the only Medical Stream that has cure for Liver Cirrhosis and these patients gets cured by taking Ayurvedic medicines that costs just a few hundred rupees and so widely available in the market.

Because these were not patented by the forefathers of Ayurveda, and not kept as a secret. Because these are not advertised and marketed or Publicized. These are not paid news because the Hospitals, nor the pharmaceutical companies can take undue benefit from it because these medicines and sources are open sourced just like Wikipedia. With all the possible medicinal combinations, and all the diseases and manifestations already defined in the century old encyclopedias known by the name of Charaka Samhita and Susrutha Samhita and its derivatives works and thesis by Pathanjali and many other ancient physicians, the new Scientific Community of Ayurvedic Practioners and Researchers have nothing to add to it. Because of this, no one can obtain a patent for Ayurvedic Medicine, and no one can make money from it. That is why no one will fund for a large scale research to test the efficiency of Ayurvedic Drugs as no companies could license the product. That is the only reason for the slow growth of Ayurveda compared to Modern Medicine.

So just think, are you doing any good for Humanity by closing your eyes from truth and telling that its dark over here.

It is true that Ayurveda is not backed with Billion Dollar worth of Investments, Research, Marketing, Advertising, Patents and stuffs, equipment's, and Hospitals that run for money and US backings.

But instead, Ayureda is a free open source system of Medicines, that have well documented 1000 year old research papers, findings, detailed methods of medicine preparation, medicinal combinations, purity testing, disease classification, epidemiology, well explained treatment methodology at par with any modern medicines and Ayurvedic Physicians in India(BAMS Doctors) are equivalent MBBS Doctors in India.

The medicines of Ayurveda are actually well tested and documented and researched and peer reviewed by our forefathers and backed with 1000's of years of continuous Human Trail, and so widely and deeply rooted with every Indian house hold. Because, the people who formulated Ayurvedic medicines and combinations, didn't want the medicines to remain a secret and so they introduced the medicines to every house holds. These medicines when used as prescribed for the prescribed duration has no side effects at all because my Grand Father who died at the age of 107 years got his cancer cured with Ayurveda and himself is a proof for me.

The editor is trying to satisfy his ego, thinking that he is trying to save humanity. How foolish he is, he doesn't know how deep rooted Ayurveda is and how we ourselves have seen, experienced. I am from Kerala and we have a population of about 35 million people. More than 90% of people of Kerala prefer to choose 5000 year tried and tested Ayurveda over the 200 year old modern medicine for primary medical needs. We have more than 300 Government Ayurvedic Medical Colleges in India that teaches Ayurveda.

I request Wikipedia and its contributors to stop the biased views and say idoitic and stupid blunders to the whole population and stop using your platform for promoting US sponsored Modern Medicine.

The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific Mr justinthoms (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr justinthoms you haven't indicated what you want to change. GirthSummit (blether) 17:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I just saw your edit at CitationBot's talk page - you think this content needs to be changed. I'm afraid that we recently had an extensive discussion about this, and after much deliberation a consensus emerged to the effect that we have to say this prominently in the lead of the article to describe the subject accurately. Therefore, you will not be able to change it at this time. Best GirthSummit (blether) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I almost feel apologetic for bringing this up again

The last RfC was closed thus: "Future discussion of this should probably focus on how Ayurveda should be described as pseudoscience rather than whether it should be described as pseudoscience." I do not contest the pseudoscience label - I support fully the conclusion that Ayurveda practitioners are quacks and that the modern practice of A. is pseudoscientific. However, consider my suggestion for changing the second sentence of the lead:

"The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific." -> "The theories and practices of Ayurveda are outdated and wrong in several cases,(add cites here) and the continued modern practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.(add the IMA cites etc. here)"

I understand fully if my suggestion is rejected. But yeah, I think 'theory' and 'practice' need to be pluralised. Awaiting responses. Regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 12:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think that that suggestion is either slightly better or slightly worse that what is there now, so I am waiting for other opinions. Please don't feel that reasonable suggestions will be criticized.
If everyone like the suggested version better, do you prefer "The theories and practices of Ayurveda are" or "The theory and practice of Ayurveda is"?
Re: "wrong in several cases" are there cases where Ayurveda isn't wrong? As an example of what I am talking about, some forms of alt-med pseudoscience essentially say things like "buy our expensive magic pills, and also eat healthy an exercise regularly", so they aren't 100% wrong. Others say "you can stop exercising and eat whatever you want with our expensive magic pills!". The first claim is partially wrong, the second is 100% wrong. Does Ayurveda contain any good health advice? Do we have a citation saying so? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good start and certainly a reasonable suggestion. I don't have time to go looking for it now but when that big discussion came up a few months back, I was reading a few less negatively critical sources which pointed out that Ayurveda can have real medical benefits by participants being actively involved in their own health: sort of the effect in Guy's first example above, that people more interested in their own health will tend to make healthier choices (like eating healthier and exercising, and keeping regular professional appointments) which lead to more positive outcomes. But the sources were quick to point out that correlation is not causation: you could say this about just about any alternative medicine. If a good MEDRS source could be found, we could add something like "While some participants may experience health benefits through general wellness,[source(s)] the theories and practices of Ayurveda are outdated and may be harmful in some cases,[more sources] and the continued modern practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.[preexisting sources]" Also I realize "wellness" is also problematic but I'm out of time to think of a better term for the concept here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if the history section could be improved. In the 11th century it wasn't pseudoscientific. Even in the 19th century it may have been more advanced in certain respects. Perhaps a moment in the post-colonial era can be identified when its revival really took off. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree to a large extent with much of what has been raised above. For a topic to be pseudoscientific, it should be advancing theories and practices that make claims that appear to employ the scientific method, but have no basis in scientific fact. Ayurveda fits that in the modern setting, but predates our current concepts of the scientific method (as do many other pseudoscientific topics like astrology and acupuncture), which is part of the objections we see raised to the bald statement in the second sentence. I'm not suggesting that we have to go into detail – that's for the body of the article – but it's probably worth aiming to be as accurate as we can, while remaining succinct. It's noteworthy that Ayurveda does contain some useful theory and practice, after all it would be strange if the system had lasted so long if it had nothing of value to offer. It's likely that the attempts to view illness holistically and the emphasis on hygiene, for example, are of practical value, so I'd be inclined to explore the wording to see if we can briefly encapsulate the ideas that Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI puts forward. Maybe we could try something like The theories and practices of Ayurveda are outdated and generally lack scientific basis, and the continued modern practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. with the detail of "generally" and meaning of "pseudoscientific" being left to the body of the article. --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree. We can include nuance when using the term pseudoscience otherwise the reader is not given any real information. As editors we may have a tendency to use the term without explanation but readers don't have our experience or background in understanding what is meant here on Wikipedia. As well, we may be weaponizing the term when we use it without any explanation.
Stolen from the lead second paragraph, but something like this along with some of what Rexx is suggesting above. Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, but [some] modern practices of Ayurveda are outdated and considered to be pseudoscientific. "Some" is a tricky word we probably shouldn't use, but not sure how to word some, but not all. Not attached as usual just thoughts. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: In any case we need to have good sources for whatever it says, and it needs to be clear that the modern practice is pseudoscientific, per WP:GEVAL. Likewise, there should be no positivity given to alt-med buzzwords which could be seen as watering down scientific consensus. I honestly think it's fine as is as well. Crossroads -talk- 04:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please define alt medicine buzzword in this context. I'm not sure what you mean. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, not attached in anyway to my version. I kept looking at it wondering how to incorporate Rexx's points with what we have now. If anyone has something better-my version isn't great-than what I wrote please add it here. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalaripayattu

This is the talk page for discussing our Ayurveda article, not conflicts on other articles.

Religious fanatics are taking ownership at Kalaripayattu and not allowing any edits deviating from their agenda. The worst part is it is pending-changes protected and they all are confirmed accounts who can make changes without scrutiny. None of them give proper explanation for reverting, and sometimes blatantly reverts multiple edits (edited with proper edit summary) without explanation. Two of them have COI as evident from their usernames (Kalari). Their main business is promoting their POV and highlighting Hinduism part, though Kalaripayattu do have rituals based on Hinduism, the art itself is not a "Hindu art", it just happened to have originated when only Hindu "religion" was prevalent in Kerala. It is a martial art practised by all religious communities, many of the masters are Muslims, the Christians even have a folk dance derived from Kalaripayattu. Some Hindu extremists are "making statements" by projecting Hinduism on an otherwise communally harmonious martial art. BTW, I am also a Hindu, but this is too much.

The first time my edit got reverted (see history here onward), I never thought it was religious agenda, but now it's becoming clearer, as User:Kalariwarrior changed "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mythology" (source says former), and User:Kalari Poothara's recent Hinduism promotion in lead, and as Outlander07 is now trying to re-insert Hinduism claims (not in the source) in lead which I had removed; he had also removed a sourced mention about a Hindu lower-caste community – Thiyya. There are multiple legends on the creator - Parashurama, Shiva, Agasthya; they want Parashurama, not only that, they don't want to attribute it as "legend" (I agree with [5]). I suspect Outlander07 and Kalariwarrior to be the same person, all three are incompetent in editing. The article requires serious cleanup for sourcing and NPOV. Should I report this activity to WP:ANI, or somewhere else, or what? Gayuon (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start by bringing up your concerns at WP:NPOVN. If the consensus is that you are right (I haven't looked at the page and thus don't know whether or not you are the problem) then go to ANI, and in the ANI report post a link to the NPOVN discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayurveda&oldid=992821143"