A comment in this question is suggesting that "alternative" and "holistic" treatment should be given equal validity compared to peer reviewed and medically established treatment.

Is it in a "skeptics" best interest to give such validity to non-scientific material?

| |

Assess each claim on its own merits.

Don't worry how other people classify it (as holistic, alternative, mainstream, etc.).

We should hold every claim to the same standard.

| |

No one is suggesting that. You are misinterpreting my comment. For any kind of "cure" that is suggested, one of these cases is correct:

  1. we scientifically know it doesn't work; we should say "it doesn't work" and provide evidence
  2. we don't know scientifically if it works; we should say "we don't know if it works" and abstain from stating our opinion
  3. we know scientifically it does work; we should say "it works" and provide evidence

In your answer you are stating that alleged "cures" we know nothing about, scientifically, don't work. That is logically, and skeptically, incorrect. We don't know whether they work because we haven't tested them scientifically. Simply assuming flat out they don't work because of their source is a display of bias.

Every scientific discovery that was made is something that shouldn't have worked that did (or vice versa). Skepticism is about what we can validate with evidence, not for assuming stuff to be true or false in lack of it.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .