Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Should this article be categorized as "pseudoscience"?

(NOTE: This is a note to explain the changes to the archived RfC. The RfC was closed by Robert McClenon in this dif, then, due to sockpuppeting !votes (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OccultZone/Archive), Robert retracted the close and deleted the sock !votes as he described here, and as can be seen in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC))

There is rough consensus against characterizing Ayurveda as pseudoscience, largely because it predates modern concepts of science by at least a millennium. There appears to be no consensus as to whether academic claims for the effectiveness of Ayurveda as pseudoscience. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC) As per question, should we categorize this subject to be pseudoscience? VandVictory (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC) *Oppose - Though Ayurveda predates science, there are no sources to indicate that it has been considered equivalent to scientific concepts. Furthermore, there is no demonstration also of information on the mainspace that would challenge scientific medical properties. VandVictory (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Delete !vote by sockpuppet.

• Support - While it is always tricky when some aspects of an article fit a category and others don't, in this case there are definitely proponents of Ayurveda who represent Ayurveda's theory of the body as accurately representing reality and who represent its treatments as being effective. That is pseudoscience and others have provided more than adequate sourcing for that (see here for one example). If ayurveda was discussed only as a pre-scientific traditional medicine with no validity today outside of specific treatments that have been empirically validated in clinical trials, we wouldn't need the pseudoscience discussion. But that is not the case. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose - Ayurveda is similar to historical and prehistorical traditional systems like Ancient Greek medicine, Traditional Korean medicine and others. None of them would be considered as pseudoscience. Ayurveda is still in use and researched, having over 8 million results, it would be easy to find 3 references for supporting the above motion, just like any other medicinal substance, although when you are really searching 'Ayruveda pseudoscience', hardly third or fourth search result would redirect you to self-published 2nd hand blogs or forums. Making it easier to acknowledge that such a consideration is not determinative in the final analysis. Noteswork (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Delete !vote by sockpuppet *Oppose Provided citations are highly questionable and based on speculations like "some consider it as pseudoscience", or they only include a flying mention. I remember finding dozens of reliable citations that would cite 5,000 BCE - 10,000 BCE as the dating of the Vedas. It is easy and arguable, but we cannot lend any weight to such UNDUE and controversial information. Minority view cannot be pushed beyond a certain limit, it will be added only where it belongs(e.g. Pseudoscience). Bladesmulti (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Delete !vote by sockpuppet.

• Oppose Certainly not pseudoscience. Noteswork and Bladesmulti have explained it well enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It is traditional medicine, and probably quite scientific by traditional standards. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose How can it be claimed pseudoscience when the the ingredients found and used in Ayurevda have been given prase by modern scientist of today? The use of (Arsenic) is a good example, British Scientist have stated just this week that it may in the future be used to treat breast cancer.[1] Jytdog i don't think this page can progress with you being a apart of it, I'm sorry if this seems harsh but that's just how i and a lot of others feel about the matter.92.236.96.38 (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Ayurveda is a health care system in current use with roots that are ancient-based. Its is not a science, pseudo or otherwise. Does it have aspects that could be considered in the light of Western science. Yes. These aspects could be considered in a separate section in the article, but an overall claim of pseudoscience is not appropriate. This isn't acceptable here, "Jytdog i dont think this page can progress with you being a apart of it,..." This in an RfC anyone can comment. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC))
• Support We go by the sources and not a personal opinion. No explanation for deleting the text was ever given.[2] David Semple; Roger Smyth (28 February 2013). Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry. OUP Oxford. pp. 20–. ISBN 978-0-19-101590-8. This source can be added to the article. The editors who oppose have not provided refs to support their opinion. It is pseudoscience according to the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ayurveda long pre-dates anything that could remotely be called 'science', and accordingly cannot be retroactively be classified in relation to something that didn't exist at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose... Proponents? There are some scientists who have an agenda to prove their theories to be scientific after plagiarizing other medical forms. It doesn't means that the medical form that was established during the Iron age would become pseudoscience after being plagiarized by some 21st century scientist... It is the involved scientist that would be considered as a pseudoscientist. We require expertise, I am very sure that no experts in Ayurveda or even alternative and traditional medicine would call it pseudoscience. నిజానికి (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Delete !vote by sockpuppet.

• Oppose Few reputed Universities across the world that offer gradutate and post-graduate courses in Ayurveda:

1. Savitribai Phule Pune University: course link
2. Bastyr University: course link
3. Middlesex University London: course link
4. Gujarat Ayurved University: course link

These universities should have library full of academic books on Ayurveda, here are three random picks:

1. Sajid, Abdul (1994). International handbook of medical education. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. p. 218. ISBN 0-313-28423-7.
2. Robson, Terry (2003). An introduction to complementary medicine. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. p. 15. ISBN 1-74114-054-4.
3. Hefferon, Kathleen (2012). Let thy food be thy medicine : plants and modern medicine. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-19-987397-5. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Numerous sources have been provided that support characterization as pseudoscience. Arguments in opposition seem like OR and have not provided any sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:: Academic sources discussing Ayurveda have been presented above. Do the above mentioned four Universities in America, Britain, and India give graduation degree in pseudoscience? --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, because it is pseudoscience. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Medical authorities in India, Sri Lanka and Nepal have given it legal status. Word Health Organization (WHO) has recognized it as an approved medical system in these countries. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It seems the oppose !voters have two diametrically opposed positions 1) it is not pseudoscience because it does not fall within the boundaries of what is considered scientific or unscientific and 2) it is not pseudoscience because it truly is scientific. No clear statements from reliable sources have been provided to support either contention. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please check the three academic reference with page numbers given above. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per MrBill3. If the article only discussed ancient practices under the guise of philosophy/religion/magic I'd say no. Modern day implementation apart from Hinduism is certainly pseudoscience. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I can neither support nor oppose the proposal. The problem is that it implies there is a material "either/or" for us to select from. However, there are at least two contexts here, one of which is the context of Ayurveda prior to modern evidence-based medicine, with mystical/religious associations apart from observations/practices of medical interest or merit. To call that science in the modern sense of the term would be a bit over-generous, but to call it pseudoscience would be unreasonable and to confuse the relevance or nature of pre-science, falsificatory science (and less naive versions of science) and pseudoscience, either naive or socially parasitic.

In another context there is the question of Ayurveda in the modern day; here there are several aspects. Unquestionably the term Ayurveda (like most traditional bodies of pre-scientific medical expedients) has been hijacked by the exploiters of suffering, and what they present as Ayurveda not only is pseudoscientific, but criminally fraudulent quackery. Many of their dupes and what I might call naively spontaneous dupes are not deliberately criminal, but either have swallowed the line of the quacks or have fallen into the trap of their own medical ignorance and their fancied expertise. One might sympathise of course, but that is no argument for regarding the field of application of Ayurveda in the context of evidence-based medicine, or of irrelevantly invoking its name to support quackery as anything better than pseudoscience in the present day.

Yet again, there is the question of those who fall into neither of the two preceding categories; they simply use Ayurveda either because of poverty or the traditional values and beliefs of their communities, and they are not equipped to evaluate its merits and demerits. Such people (and no doubt most of their doctors, gurus or whoever treats or counsels them in good faith) can hardly be characterised as either scientific or pseudoscientific; they simply are doing their best to achieve health and life by the best means they can conceive or access. Whether or how to criticise them for it is another question and may not be for the article to judge.

In summary: if the question is to be raised at all in the article, either of regarding Ayurveda as scientific or unscientific in any sense, it would be unrealistic and very likely unethical to do so without clarifying these points. JonRichfield (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Ayurveda is far older than any concept of western science. Therefore, I'd need to see quite impressive evidence to convince me that Ayurveda is pseudoscience. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support As JonRichfield discusses effectively, Ayurveda has elements of pseudoscience and others that are distinct, and we should not conflate those. That said, pseudoscience has become a significant aspect and applying this category to a relevant article is appropriate even when that category does not circumscribe the article. -- Scray (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just like Mozart's music has elements of heavy metal music and it should not be conflated. Let's get real, no ayurvedic or alternative medicine expert would agree, now if I am wrong you can link any of them if you know. నిజానికి (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your analogy (to Mozart and heavy metal) is entertaining but wildly inaccurate. Our Mozart article has no "heavy metal" section (for good reason) but this article has a "Research" section. Pseudoscience is an important aspect of Ayurveda. -- Scray (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Fairytale opinion doesn't matter. Problem is with your understanding of pseudoscience, there are some scientists who have an agenda to prove their theories to be scientific, but it means that they are pseudoscientists and their original theories, nothing to do with the Iron Age medicine that they have plagiarized. I had asked for sources and you have got none. నిజానికి (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support No WP:PAG compliant argument supports any other outcome. Pseudoscience is an important aspect of Ayurveda, and no amount of (innaccurate) ancient medical knowledge can change that. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

::For pseudoscientists it can be very important, but concept is older than any science. You got any source to prove your opinion? Sources on alternative and traditional medicines are preferred. నిజానికి (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is by definition pseudoscience. A method or system of methods which are claimed to hold some efficacy in treating an ailment, while being unverifiable, irreproduceable, and lacking in scientific method are blatantly pseudoscience and nothing but.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBay (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• That opinion sounds same as claiming Ayurveda to be "future science". నిజానికి (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose When the Ayurveda was developed, science didn't even exist, so it's hard to claim that ayurveda, in it's essence, is falsely presented as scientific. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Discusssion

• Comment Can those editors above who oppose categorisation as pseudoscience please supply a policy based argument, and perhaps some evidence that there is a shred of scientific basis to any of the "theories/assertions" of Ayurveda. I don't think they can. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the opposite is necessary. Per WP editors must show reason to support adding content. Editors seem to be suggesting that while some aspects of Ayurveda may be pseudoscience and deserve mention in the article, Ayurveda is itself a health care system that predates Western science and that we cannot label retroactively. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC))

Sure it predates the scientific method, sure it is traditional, But traditional doesn't suddenly confer magical validity for any of its "so called" treatments. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't supported any kind of mention. If its added, then there will be chances to categorize it as well as add the other definitions. I wouldn't be supporting it, unless there is huge consensus among the experts of Ayurveda and traditional medicines that Ayurveda - is a pseudoscience. I was talking about the overall scope and have described my position on this issue. IMO, an opinion that is originated in 21st century about an Iron age medical form is just extraneous to common sense. నిజానికి (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How about actually addressing the point that Littleolive oil and I have raised? Why should Wikipedia label subject matter long predating science as pseudoscientific? That is simply absurd, and has no place in a historical account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A historical account? Have you read the article Andy? true believers want to say things like "well integrated into the Indian Health system." how historical is that? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the article. It clearly has flaws. That doesn't however justify pseudohistorical revisionism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So you agree it isn't purely "a historical account"? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere have I stated that it is purely an historical account. I have made it entirely clear that modern claims regarding efficacy of Ayurveda may be labelled as pseudoscientific. My objection is that the label is being applied to the entire subject - which to a great extent predates science, making the label absurd. Please address this issue directly, and explain why Wikipedia should be engaging in historical revisionism in such a manner, and stop erecting straw man arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by pseudohistorical revisionism. I didn't do an Arts degree. Plus you cant deny that you implied the article was a historical account, so I excuse my pseudostrawmanning. What we have to do then is to frame the article in a modern context, keep non-pseudoscientific history separate from the modern medical claims of true believers which obviously are pseudoscientific. Two articles, "History of Ayurveda" and "Ayurveda (alternative medicine)" one of which is categorised "pseudoscience"? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to create another article, and you think it can be justified, do so. Meanwhile, this article, as an overview of the entire subject matter will not make absurd claims that a topic predating science by 2000-odd years is pseudoscientific. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nor will quackery be allowed to go unremarked. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But doesn't means that you will need historical revisionism. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All the editors who oppose have no supporting evidence for their opinion. On Wikipedia we go by the sources not your personal opinion. See WP:BATTLE. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is plenty of supporting evidence in the article that Ayurveda long pre-dates anything that could remotely be called 'science', and accordingly cannot be retroactively be classified in relation to something that didn't exist at the time. Certainly, modern claims regarding specific aspects of Ayurveda may be pseudoscientific, but that doesn't justify an anachronistic attempt to label the entire subject as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And, what exactly is `science' supposed to be? Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Including sourced information that it is considered a pseudoscience is fine, and no one has demonstrated otherwise. I don't know if that means it fits being categorized as pseudoscience. Could someone please summarize current consensus on how the category is applied? --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What is 'considered pseudoscience' though? Vedic texts dating back to the 6th century BC, or modern claims regarding the effectiveness of treatments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Whatever they say, it needs to be clear in the article body. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, hardly 2 or 4 sources mention Ayurveda to be pseudoscience, although, based on flying mention or speculation like "some consider it as pseudoscience", it is added where it belongs, like Pseudoscience. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously possible to find sources that say that modern claims regarding the effectiveness of Ayurveda may be pseudoscientific. That isn't the issue under debate here however - what is being discussed is an attempt to retroactively apply this to the entire subject matter, which simply defies logic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the topic of pseudoscience being addressed in the article body. It should be and it's exclusion puts these discussions in a bad light.

Again, can someone please summarize the consensus for applying the pseudoscience category? --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• University courses including graduate and post graduate courses certainly cover pseudoscientific subjects. Of particular note in the list of universities provided at least one offers degrees in naturopathy and has courses in homeopathy. Not exactly evidence something is not pseudoscience by association. Regardless published sources that challenge the categorization as pseudoscience or provide a contradictory characterization are what is needed. Please provide some quotes to clarify what is in the texts cited. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• MrBill academic references that discuss Ayurveda in comparison to other sciences and no where give a slightest hint that it is a pseudoscience have been presented above. Can you show me even one University course list that declare they are teaching pseudoscience? How are the various years old reputed Universities across the world(listed above) giving post-graduation degrees? Based on pseudoscience syllabus? Why does the Government of different country and WHO recognise their right to practise it? You are going overboard with a call for an exact phrase "Ayurveda is not pseudoscience". Yet another academic reference, from Oxford University Press, 2012 publishing (the latest you can get), the author is a scientist in Department of Cell Biology and Genetics, Cornell University in the book Let Thy Food Be Thy Medicine: Plants and Modern Medicine page 56: In India today, more than 100 colleges offer standardized degrees in traditional Ayurvedic medicine. In the United States, the National Institute of Ayurvedic Medicine, located in New York, carries out research based on Ayurvedic practices. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) of the National Institutes of Health devotes a portion of its annual budget to research on Ayurvedic medicine, in an effort to determine how this form of alternative medicine stands in the context of Western medical science. As a traditional medicine, many Ayurveda products have not been tested in rigorous scientific studies and clinical trials; however, a few that have been tested show promising results. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not looking for the exact phrase "ayurveda is not a pseudoscience". The reputed universities offering courses in a subject in no way substantiate it is not a pseudoscience. As I mentioned those universities also offer courses in homeopathy, so they do offer courses in pseudoscience. Of note is although graduate degrees are offered in India, they are not in the United States. The WHO recognizes that it occurs, it does not endorse it as scientific. The reasons various governments allow practices do not support a contention that something is not pseudoscientific. That study is/has been applied and there is no evidence that supports the theoretical underpinnings or the practices speaks more to it being a pseudoscience than not. Money has been spent studying UFOs, remote viewing and a host of other pseudoscientific things. What distinguishes something as not a pseudoscience is a robust body of evidence that supports it, general acceptance of a scientifically plausible theoretical framework and successful application of the scientific method to study the subject. A field which claims to be medicine, a part of science (and art), makes claims about curing illnesses or improving health but lacks studies demonstrating efficacy these are evidence that ayurveda is a pseudoscience. Please provide some quotes from the texts you state discuss ayurveda in comparison to other sciences. What other science lacks a robust body of scholarly work? What other science relies on discredited and discarded theoretical foundations such as astrology and five basic humors of the body? - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

California is in USA and London is in Britain. Check the University list above. Quote has been given. Other references also given with specific page numbers. I may not reprodce "comparisons" in their full here because of copyvio. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on the principles proposed by Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience, my opinion is that Ayurveda can be classified under either →3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. →4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.Prodigyhk (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There are some 2 and 3 attributes (maybe 1 as well), but it is up to the sources, not our original research. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources which support characterizing ayurveda as pseudoscience

Quotations previously posted with these sources have been removed as a copyvio objection was raised.

Extended content
References

- - MrBill3 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not even close to consider it as minority and you claim that it falls under general classification? It took you exactly 5 days to research, and only 2-3 base their opinion on speculation and one has only made a flying mention, while rest are have to do nothing with the classification as pseudoscience. Read Wikipedia:SYNTH and Wikipedia:OR. There are few ten-thousands of articles about Ayurveda, online, it is possible that couple of non-experts would be trying to right great wrongs, but again, historical revisionism has no acceptance. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A nonsensical close with strange conclusions. Are you also saying that the Flat Earth Theory is not pseudoscience? This result has nothing to do with policy, but just endorses some sort of "wisdom of the ancients" "its traditional so it must be real" superstition. Jimbo's "lunatic charlatans" have notched their belts on this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 04:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope - you don't get to rewrite history to label a system of beliefs that pre-date science by thousands of years as 'pseudoscience' - that is pseudohistorical revisionism, and utterly at odds with an encyclopaedia claiming to be based on academic scholarship. The failure to distinguish between Ayurveda as a historical entity and the actions of modern proponents (which may well be pseudoscientific) is the reason for this discussion reaching the conclusions it did. History isn't written backwards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

So you are calling all the editors who didn't agree that Ayurveda would be pseudoscience as "lunatic charlatans" now, Roxy the Dog? I don't find that very civil. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So the solution that is repeatedly ignored is simply to characterize the current practices as relying upon pseudoscience. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Never without at least 2 academic sources, heavily concerned with Ayurveda, otherwise it would still remain a unsourced original synthesis. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is really becoming a problematic discussion, and we are returning, slowly but surely, to the worst of times before the pseudoscience arbitration. The modern application of Ayurveda is clearly pseudoscience, no matter what its historical roots might be. Roxy's parallel is quite apt: continuing to believe in Ayurvedic principles is not much different from continuing to believe that the Earth is flat, even though both were quite reasonable beliefs at the time of their inception. There has to be a way to formulate this article that makes it clear that Ayurveda has no foundation in fact without indulging in AndyTheGrump's "pseudohistorical revisionism".—Kww(talk) 16:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Very different subjects. While flat earth theory has not enough notable status today, Ayurveda certainly has and its usage seems to be on rise rather than decline. I don't see any influence of flat earth theory or contribution in other concepts, but Ayurveda has. This kind of discussion always ends whenever I or someone else request relevant citations for these original ideas. Until now we have got none, that's why nothing has been done. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not different at all, and I see that your claims have been quite adequately addressed above. The problem is that this argument continues because of people's attempts to support this nonsense in Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 17:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really because a flying mention from a non-expert is likely useless to even talk about. If we are talking about the wikipedia, I would also say that it is not even new these days or limited with this page. Had the same kind of pseudohistorical revisionism on Exorcism some days ago (See Talk:Exorcism#Lead change). Bladesmulti (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's specifically the kind of reasoning that caused us such problems with homeopathy: people would claim that any source that wasn't a homeopathic expert was incapable of dismissing it as garbage, and the only people inclined to become experts in homeopathy were people that profited from portraying it as having legitimacy. Legitimate medical professionals aren't inclined to devote the time and effort necessary to become an "expert" in nonsense.—Kww(talk) 17:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Those as well who were aware of the development of science during the 18th century?(see 18th century#Scientists.2C researchers) The professionals, well known and researchers do have enough time and qualification to analyze the properties and effects of these concepts. That's just how we have used a number of professionals (e.g. Cancer research UK) as citations in this article.. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, homeopathy is total nonsense, but saying that "legitimate medical professionals" don't have enough time to delve into the topic is nothing else than purely your own opinion. Seriously, I don't think there is any difficulties to find a reliable source saying that homeopathy has no scientific basis? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, everyone on both sides, calm down and take a deep breath before you say something regrettable. You know what the consequences are likely to be otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm being quite calm, Boris, although I will admit to being frustrated. Our policies are being twisted again to allow pseudosciences to be portrayed as legitimate, and it's clear that we have enough admins supporting that effort that people that are doing so successfully. This is no different than the problems we had years ago with MartinPhi, and is leading to a nearly identical result here, and on Traditional Chinese Medicine, and on acupuncture. Are we going to have to go back to Arbcom to get a new decision that says that we are allowed to label pseudosciences as pseudosciences? Can't we stick with the old one and simply implement it?—Kww(talk) 17:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Stick to what the sources say and don't engage in original research in your zest to fight pseudoscience. That's all that is required. -A1candidate (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

We just had a discussion over the matter, and I see that things are going in circles now. I don't really understand the point of pushing the label of pseudoscience, especially when considering the obvious fact that Ayurveda (similarly to acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine) pre-date what we call as "science" by thousands of years. By being loyal to MEDRS when it comes to claims on medical efficiency, I can't really see what's the problem. I'd like to suggest that each editor pays particular attention to whatever medical claim is being made. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I do. The problem is the imbalance: there's no shortage of people that profit from tricking delusional and desperate people. That means there will always be people attempting to promote false cures on Wikipedia, while there are not so many that take the time to balance that out. The intent of the pseudoscience arbitration was to relevel the playing field. Instead, it has served only to increase the skill level of people that attempt to manipulate policy to further the promotion of pseudosciences.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The lede clearly says that "there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease". Taking a quick look at the current discussion, I don't see any editor disputing this statement. -A1candidate (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Following MEDRS on claims on medical efficiency takes care about that problem. False claims will not pass the scientific process. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Are we going to have to go back to Arbcom to get a new decision that says that we are allowed to label pseudosciences as pseudosciences?" There is nothing in this decision which prevents labelling pseudoscience as pseudoscience. What it does do however, is ensure that the label cannot be misapplied retroactively. It is impossible to be practice pseudoscience in a pre-scientific era, and accordingly one cannot describe an entire subject spanning well over two thousand years as such. Pseudoscience can only exist once there is a real science for it to imitate. I am somewhat baffled that people find this simple statement so difficult to understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Read back to my original question, Andy: I agree that it's possible to discuss Ayurveda as a mythological system, not as a pseudoscience. However, there's also clear application of Ayurveda as a pseudoscience: witness Deepak Chopra and the like. How do we structure things that allows a reasonable discussion of Ayurveda as a mythology in the historical case, and as a pseudoscience in modern context?—Kww(talk) 18:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

True. I don't really get what's the problem here. If one is worried about impostorly claims on medical efficiency, my three pieces of advice are: 1) MEDRS, 2) MEDRS, and 3) MEDRS. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Atharvaveda, Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, Bower Manuscript and many other texts have undisputed historicity. Except Deepak Chopra, there are many others who have practiced Ayurveda. Chopra has his own medical concept, it is just very much influenced by Ayurveda as well as few other medical(modern ones) concepts. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 'mythology' is an appropriate description - 'pre-science' Ayurveda involved practice as well as theory. As for structure, a chronological approach that only applies criticism (i.e, the pseudoscience label) where it is legitimate is what is needed. If Deepak Chopra (or whoever) has been criticised for presenting Ayurveda as 'scientific', cite the criticism, and present the argument which explains why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The article currently presents the subject in such a way as not to give appropriate weight to the current medical/scientific/academic consensus on the subject. Ayurveda is clearly being promoted as a scientific medical treatment system by a large number of proponents in a wide variety of venues including official regulatory bodies on medical treatments. The mainstream scientific consensus is clearly that Ayurveda is pseudoscience. This should be clear and prominent per policy. The discussion of what Ayurveda has been in the past has been framed, positioned and detailed in such a way as to obscure that. Notably in the first section, "the science of eight components" is discussed, where is the scientific, academic evaluation of this science and it's components? Likewise in the second section "Principles and terminology" where is the scientific evaluation of the five classical elements and Ayurveda's seven basic tissues. This content is presented without the current medical knowledge on these subjects presented prominently and clearly as due which policy requires. Diagnosis presented without the scientific evaluation of Ayurvedic methods accuracy or validity in diagnosing illness. Treatment "To maintain health, a Sattvic diet can be prescribed to the patient." Where is the MEDRS support for a Sattvic diet maintaining health. This is a treatment and claimed health benefit with NO MEDRS support or sources providing discussion. Again, "dinacharya stresses the importance of natural cycles (waking, sleeping, working, meditation etc.) for a healthy living." Is there MEDRS support for dinacharya's version of natural cycles, much less they are efficacious "for a healthy living". Panchakarma supported by "some experts" what is the current medical consensus on "cleansing"? I'm pretty sure there are more than "some" experts who have evaluated cleansing and don't support it based on MEDRS level research. The article is rife with pseudoscience and biomedical information that is not supported by appropriate references. Policy is clear that any biomedical information presented must represent the current medical understanding. The only way much of the content of this article can stand is by creating a separate "History of Ayurveda" article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream consensus? Well not even least minority has supported such pseudohistorical revisionism. Other than that, you don't need MEDSRS for the translated terms or those concepts that have been evolved after these components. The listed citations are actually reliable for that information and they are from the academics. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Ayurvedic believes, yes. Can't see any case for MEDRS on this one. Maybe rephrasing the sentence would fix the problem? E.g. "According to [...] a Sattvic diet can be described to the patient in order to maintain health" etc. etc.

Again, "dinacharya stresses the importance of natural cycles (waking, sleeping, working, meditation etc.) for a healthy living."

Again, if that's what Ayurveda believes, then we should report it. Can't see any problem with this one either. If the article would state, for example, that "Ayurveda has been found useful in treatment of cancer", then it'd naturally require some real hard MEDRS compliant evidence to support this claim. Just reporting about the Ayurvedic believes does not make the case, though. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes mainstream academic consensus. What is the mainstream academic consensus on the five classical elements? It is well established on by some "least minority" but an overwhelming majority. There is no "pseudohistorical revisionism" in requiring that a discussion of diagnoses and treatments contain current medical knowledge on these diagnoses and treatments. As I said if you want to consider an article on the history of Ayurveda write it as a separate article. The current subject involves the application of theories for the diagnosis and treatment of biomedical conditions. As an in use medical practice it must be discussed in terms of accurate biomedical information. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not even the least minority(even 3 irrelevant authors) would claim that Ayurveda is pseudoscience, because claiming it as one is a blatant pseudohistorical revisionism since it has further influenced these other concepts. Yes the mainstream consensus on five classical elements is what really presented, unless you have got some other source that dispute these information you can present them any time. We cannot write like "1st element is so and so but pseudoscientific", that would be POV and original synthesis until you find a reliable source. It has been already mentioned that these Ayurvedic properties have been used since the historical times, however there is no scientific evidence that they can cure any disease. Nor any of us will ever know about the changes that you want to bring until you actually talk about them. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't just an article about current medical practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree partly with MrBill3 here. Whenever a claim on medical efficiency is presented (e.g. "Ayurveda is beneficial in treatment of cancer"), a MEDRS compliant source must be presented. Otherwise, Ayurveda is free from the pseudoscience label for some obvious reasons, and the whole article doesn't have to follow MEDRS. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the context and weight of this article presents these things as if they are real. They certainly are historically real components of Ayurveda, but that's not a reason to present them as if they have a foundation. The problem with the chronological approach is that it allows the article to go on for a long time discussing the myths, and presents the fact that it is ineffective and sometimes toxic as nearly a small footnote at the end. It would be much better to present Ayurveda as it currently stands first and foremost, and carefully treat the underlying "prescientific" (my, what a polite word for "mythological") claims as historical.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Objection to improper closure

Robert McClenon, your closure hasn't closed the discussion. This matter is definitely not settled and this needs to be reopened. (A controversial closure should have been done by an admin anyway.)

It's true that in ancient times, the scientific method wasn't even known, so those true believers who object are right in a certain sense, but a sense which is no longer relevant, because we now have the scientific method, and we also see such prescientific methods promoted now, often with claims of proven efficacy, and those are indeed scientific claims.

Therefore we judge Ayurveda in its current context as pseudoscientific, because that's what it is right now, and when it persists in making scientifically unproven claims, we can boldly declare it to also be quackery.

For medical and scientific purposes, its ancient origins are rather irrelevant. That's a historical and sociological matter. If a method is effective, it becomes accepted by mainstream/scientific medicine, and it is no longer considered "alternative" or "traditional" medicine, but is simply called "medicine".

If methods are ineffective, but make big claims, they are quackery, and likely pseudoscience. Ayurveda and TCM are both pseudoscientific and quackery, and they should be abandoned. Their continued use is unethical and often dangerous. Even though that is the case, pharmaceutical companies should still investigate any methods and substances for possible usefulness. Pearls can be found in dung heaps.

I object to this wrong closure. The closing premise and many of the arguments are wrong. Ayurveda is currently pseudoscience, regardless of its ancient status. It currently claims scientific efficacy and legitimacy, so it is eligible for status as a pseudoscience, and plenty of notable mainstream RS make that evaluation plain. We are required by NPOV to use them. As long as those sources exist and are not used, this will not go away, because our policies and guidelines won't allow it to go away.-- Brangifer (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We believe in relevant and reliable scholarly/academic data. Not Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT stuffed opinion. Wait I mean, for thousands of years and even now, Ayurveda has helped in developing so many medicine, just now in 2014-15(on a wikipedia talk(page)) it has gained the status of pseudoscience, how come? At the same time it has been adequately rejected by the majority. You have not cited even a single reliable citation, that's why there's no credibility in your speculations. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever in the closure that prevents a (properly sourced) assertion that current claims made regarding the efficacy of Ayurveda are pseudoscientific. What has been decided, is that we cannot apply the term retroactively, in what amounts to historical revisionism at minimum, to label the entire subject pseudoscientific. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump. I can easily concur to Robert McClenon here: "...it was only pseudo-science to the extent that scientific claims were made, and that its roots were in religion rather than science, and were not pseudo-science because they preceded the concept of modern science". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Ayurveda#Sources_which_support_characterizing_ayurveda_as_pseudoscience for lots of sources. QuackGuru (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Only one page that speculated in a single sentence, completely irrelevant. Rest were clueless and innocent about your misinterpretation. By claiming that they are ancient but no more efficient so they are pseudoscience would lead us to claim that Hippocrates was a pseudoscientist. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment withdrawn. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you honestly think a comment like that deserves a response? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because it was not pseudoscience before science existed it does not mean it cannot be pseudoscience now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have de-activated the admin help template: closure review was requested at WP:AN, and should be discussed at that venue. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Andy; that's a sensible and practical way to handle it. However, it's not "claims of efficacy" that make something pseudoscience; it's dressing it up in scientific language when you're not actually doing science that makes it pseudoscience. If I give you a Vitamin C pill, tell you that it's effective for curing scurvy, and tell you that the mechanism of action involves cold fusion inside your mitochondria, then that is pseudoscience even though the pill works. The opposite of "good science" is "bad science", not "pseudoscience". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's greyer than you make it out to be, WhatamIdoing. It can be easily argued that claiming something is medicine is a scientific claim. I'm not sure that I embrace that, but I can't reject it wholeheartedly, either.—Kww(talk) 05:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It "can easily be argued" that water isn't wet, too, but it's not a very widely made claim, despite actually being true in some cases. I agree that the demarcation problem is complicated enough to keep a team of philosophers busy for their entire lives, but that's exactly the problem that I'm seeing in multiple discussions: we have anti-quack warriors who are far too quick to label non-Western ideologies and religious beliefs as "pseudoscience", even when it's complicated. (And, yes, only non-Western ideas: one of them told me that it's impossible for Humorism to be pseudoscience, because that thoroughly discredited garbage the supposedly the basis of modern science. We definitely have a double standard going here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see that discussion, WhatamIdoing. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone argue that because no one practiced humorism anymore it couldn't be called pseudoscience, but I'm willing to bet that if I were to start treating my neighbors with humoral theory those "anti-quack warriors" would happily call it pseudoscience as a result.—Kww(talk) 23:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The close was "There is rough consensus against characterizing Ayurveda as pseudoscience, largely because it predates modern concepts of science by at least a millennium. There appears to be no consensus as to whether academic claims for the effectiveness of Ayurveda as pseudoscience."

The part "largely because it predates modern concepts of science by at least a millennium." is irrelevant to Ayurveda as of today. This page is not titled the "History of ayurveda". The effectiveness of Ayurveda and pseudoscience are also unrelated. Certain things can be effective while the topic is still pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. You've got a rough consensus not to use that particular (and somewhat dubious) characterization for this whole field. Some Ayurvedic practitioners doubtless fall into that category; others don't. Not labeling entire subject as "pseudoscience" (or anything else, for that matter) on the basis of the current actions of a fraction of supporters is valid reasoning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Closure Review

I have requested closure review at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as a closure review goes, it's unnecessary. You can unilaterally undo it. That's the quick and easy way to solve the problem. The obviousness of the lack of real closure should make this a WP:SNOW decision.

No fault is assumed here. At the time it may have seemed proper, but it is the following discussion which reveals the necessity of undoing the closure. To avoid misunderstanding, I have stricken a couple words. It is the current maintenance of the closure which would be wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyedits and other changes

So I thought I would copyedit the article so the tag could be removed, and it turned into a full-day project. I hope that at least the article turns out better for it!

There are a lot of individual changes, mostly grammar, concision, and style, but of course I'm happy to explain the rationale for anything that gets challenged. (Apologies for the complicated diff, since some paragraph splicing was also involved.) There are also a few sentences here and there that I removed as OR, adjusted to better reflect the sources, etc. In a few cases that I wasn't quite sure of, I either made my best estimate for the meaning or added a {{clarify}} tag.

Since I'd gotten through the article anyways, I also copied a bunch of material into the lead since it didn't seem to be a good summary of the article content. I'm sure the lead has been contentious (and probably other parts of the article as well), so it should go without saying that anyone should feel free to invoke BRD on any of the changes I've made. :-) Please let me know if there are any questions/concerns. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I would cut some of the brief description about the origins from the lead. It is not like Buddhist tradition had influence on Ayurveda as Ayurveda was established before, I would mention that the adherents of Buddhism, Jainism incorporated in the field of Ayurveda. A few alternative terms have to be placed back. You have changed Dravyaguna sangraha (11th century) by Cakrapanidatta, among others, to and Dravyaguna sangraha (11th century) by Cakrapanidatta. There are texts from 12th - 15th centuries as well that were translated into foreign languages. I have not mentioned all, that's why I would insert and others in the end. I will change some more that is included under the history. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Blades! I'm not sure what you mean in the first part of your comment - are you saying we should replace the Buddhism/Ayurveda statement with a statement that its original roots are Hindu and it was later influenced by Buddhism and Jainism (or that Buddhism and Jainism were influenced by Ayurveda)? I'd have no problem with that, or with removing the sentence entirely, if that's what you mean by cutting some of the description of origins. I think this could be a good source for the connection to Jainism.

I removed "among others" because it's redundant with "include," which implies that the list is incomplete. Another option could be to restore "among others" and replace "include" with "are." Sunrise (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Title Paragraph Should Describe Main Ideas

Title paragraph should give main ideas concerned with the topic, not ancillary statistical information that does not support the topic. Vernekar8 (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The concern over toxic metals occupies a significant portion of the article and is hardly "ancillary". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree - the lede must summarize the body. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Accept Vernekar8 and Alexbrn. It is only FDA of USA that reports about toxicity of Ayurvedic medicines. (However, the report is itself silent which medicine formulation contained toxic metals and which websites on internet has been used for testing.) BUT, the subtopic use of toxic metals has 5 paragraphs, repeating the same things over and over. ALL the references used to show the presence of toxicity in the whole article, actually cites FDA's report ONLY. The article gives a message to reader for not using Ayurvedic medicine, which is wrong. I believe Wikipedia articles must be neutral. DON'T MISLEAD READER. I even don't think the subtopic Efficacy is necessary. This article resembles like a blog. AT LEAST, CHANGE THE TITLE PARAGRAPHS. Read https://ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/आयुर्वेद or https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/आयुर्वेद to get an idea on how the article must have been written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove the section that contains scientific viewpoints. That's... convenient for advocates. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's exactly what you'll get if John's sanctions are not lifted. Supporters of Ayurveda will whitewash the page, as mainstream editors are no longer watching. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)