Talk:Faith healing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hey folks can somebody tell me

How to make the link of this same article to it's spanish and other lenguages in the spanish edition I translated but I don't know how to stablish the linguistic or idiomatic links, thanks,for do it. 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Irrelevant Annecdote

I removed the bit about "A recent article in Time Magazine." This was not verifyable, not cited, and not in the correct section.

18:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content

A large number of studies performed by parapsychologists have claimed that the growth of plants may be accelerated when they are irrigated with water by healers or when they are grown from seeds that are held by healers.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48] Healers have also claimed to produce effects on the activity levels of enzymes.[49][50][51][52] The criticism of these parapsychological experiments involving healers is that they may be due to experimenter dishonesty and that the results have not been replicated by the scientific community.

The references:

• Grad, B. (1963). A telekinetic effect on plant growth. International Journal of Parapsychology, 5, 117–133.
• Grad, B. (1964). A telekinetic effect on plant growth. II. Experiments involving treatment of saline in stoppered bottles. International Journal of Parapsychology, 6, 473–498.
• MacDonald, R. G., Hickman, J. L., & Dakin, H. S. (1977). Preliminary physical measurements of psychophysiological effects associated with three alleged psychic healers. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in parapsychology, 1976 (pp. 74–76). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
• Saklani, A. (1990). Psychokinetic effects on plant growth: Further studies. In L. A. Henkel & J. Palmer (Eds.), Research in parapsychology, 1989 (pp. 37–41). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
• Solfvin, G. F. (1982). Studies of the effects of mental healing and expectations on the growth of corn seedlings. European Journal of Parapsychology, 4, 284–324.
• Scofield, A. M., & Hodges, R. D. (1991). Demonstration of a healing effect in the laboratory using a simple plant. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 57, 321–343.
• Roney-Dougal, S. M., & Solfvin, G. F. (2004). Field study of an enhancement effect on lettuce seeds: Working in adverse conditions. Paper presented at the 47th annual convention of the Parapsychological Association. Vienna University, Germany.
• Smith, M. J. (1968). Paranormal effects on enzyme activity. Journal of Parapsychology, 32, 281 (Abstract).
• Smith, M. J. (1972). Paranormal effects on enzyme activity through laying on of hands. Human Dimensions, 1(2), 15–19.
• Edge, H. L. (1980b). The effect of laying-on-of-hands on an enzyme: An attempted replication. In W. G. Roll (Ed.), Research in parapsychology, 1979 (pp. 137–139). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
• Bunnel, T. (1999). The effect of “healing with intent” on pepsin enzyme activity, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 13, 139-148.
• Flamm, B. L. (2004). The Columbia University “miracle” study: flawed and fraud. Skeptical Inquirer, 28(5), 25-30).
• Flamm, B. L. (2005). The bizarre Columbia University ‘miricle’ saga continues. Skeptical Inquirer, 29(2), 52-53.

All related to faith healing experiments on organisms. I agree the weight is wrong, but please help out on how atleast this can be mentioned on the article. Cheers. GreenUniverse (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Parapsychology

I recently reverted an addition to this article of a ‎"parapsychology" section. Firstly, ‎parapsychology is not equivalent to faith healing and secondly the "International Journal of Parapsychology" is not a reliable source for scientific claims, especially claims medical in nature, per WP:MEDRS. Since it's a fringe "journal" that makes incredibly fringe claims, this addition gives WP:UNDUE weight to a pseudoscience. SÆdon^talk 23:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I just commented on this, so I merged your section into mine. Yes I know it is pseudoscience, but these experiments have been done (I am not saying they have been confirmed by science becuase they have not been, but they are relevent to the history of healing), is there anyway they can be put on the article? Mainstream peer-reviews will not cover faith healing. GreenUniverse (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

According to faith healers they can also speed up the healing of wounds in mice. Once again we have a parapsychology reference but this would not be acceptable ie Grad, B., Cadoret, R. J. & Paul, G. I. (1961). The influence of an unorthodox method of treatment of wound healing in mice. International Journal of Parapsychology, 3(2), 5–24. But here we have a book reference: Grad, B. (1977). Laboratory evidence of “laying-on-of hands.” In N. M. Regush (Ed.), Frontiers of healing (pp. 203–213). New York: Avon Books.

I just looked the book up its a new age book. Dam doesn't appear to be anything sadly outside of paranormal sources. I do not have access to the skeptical inquirer journals, would those count? GreenUniverse (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We might have a case however for this Bernard Grad character. Seems to be covered by quite a few books. Link GreenUniverse (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the first addition because it was obviously based on a non-RS just by the journal name alone, but I am not familiar with the word of Grad. I trust you know the neutrality and sourcing guidelines so if you think the source is ok then I'll take you on your word. I only say this because I am short of time and can't go though the gbooks stuff at the moment. SÆdon^talk 00:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see your section, thanks for merging them. I don't think any of the sources can be considered reliable if they haven't received comment from WP:SECONDARY sources outside of the "movement" (if that's the right word). You or I could run experiments and make them look good, so we have to trust experts in a field when considering the importance of something, and if, as you say, faith healing isn't covered by the mainstream then our hands are tied. However, I don't think that's correct, there appears to be a Cochrane review as well some other mainstream stuff, it just doesn't find any positive results. I think skeptical enquirer could be used, of course depends on what it's being used for, is there a particular issue you're thinking of? I can try to track something down. SÆdon^talk 00:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Your right, it was sloppy for me to add all those sources on the article as they need mainstream or reliable coverage to back them up and to cover them properly, but on this issue there really isnt any regarding plants, they all come from paranormal sources or in new age books, so its my mistake, I don't think we can do anything there for this article. I think the only thing trying to track down is the work on mice by Grad, it seems to be covered in many books. The man may be considered a crank Link, but his work on mice seems to be covered in some mainstream books that should be acceptable. GreenUniverse (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Refs, Religious primary tag, OR tag, Single source tag, Ref improve tag, Expand section tag

I have formatted the references uniformly, providing links, doi's, isbn's etc. I tried to find working links and links that don't require a subscription where possible. I have split the notes, references and bibliography into three sections. Some of the refs may need to be verified for correct page numbers in particular, Bosworth, Nolen, Gaffin and Randi.

The New Testament section seems to be almost entirely WP:OR and relies on religious texts and OR/WP:SYNTHESIS. I am sure there has been some scholarly exploration of faith healing in the New Testament. It needs to be used to rework this section.

Likewise the Christian Science section very thin on analytical sources.

The translations and reference to seven names of God needs sourcing also. The whole first paragraph of the Overview section needs support from sources.

The research section is decidedly WP:UNDUE it has only one source and has much more detail than a single study warrants. Perhaps is should be merged into the Scientific investigations section with substantial redaction.

The Reckless Homicide Convictions section needs to be renamed and substantially expanded to include other legal cases/convictions related to faith healing.

I have added tags to reflect much of this. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive talk page?

Almost all of the material on this talk page is more than 6 months old, and those conversations are stale. Can this long talk page be archived? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's happening again - the purportedly helpful commenting. Expiration date for this comment: August 2015. Mea (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Christian Science section deleted then restored

I agree with the previous post. Anyone who understands Christian Science knows that it is not a "faith cure." The Christian Science section in this article had many errors of fact, with missing and incorrect cross-references. It has been deleted. Bblandford (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the removed section and added some references. Although the section reads much like OR based on primary sources, there are multiple reliable secondary sources that identify Christian Science practices as a form of faith healing. I added a few. Here's another with some analysis that could be used to replace the OR.

• Hickey, Kenneth S.; Lyckholm, Laurie (2004). "Child welfare versus parental autonomy: medical ethics, the law, and faith-based healing" (PDF). Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 25 (4): 265–76. doi:10.1007/s11017-004-3137-7. PMID 15637946.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest Christian Science might be better classified as "Spiritual Healing." The term "Faith Healing" suggests that the patient must have both belief in the theology, and faith in its healing efficacy, and that is not always the case in my experience. q.v. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures page 139 lines 28-3. Bblandford (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As above, multiple reliable sources use "faith healing" to describe CS practices so it clearly belongs in this article. On WP we follow the sources not an editor's idea of what is "suggested" or their personal experience. Some better explanation could certainly be provided. As above much of the section on CS seems to be OR. Feel free to propose better content with appropriate sources. The sources I have lightly perused seem to refer to CS as clearly at one end of a spectrum of faith healing. A more concise better explanation of CS beliefs/practices should be provided with discussion of them as "faith healing" as represented in the sources per due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The is the most slanted article I have ever seen on Wikipedia.

Purportedly there are many other articles where commonly known facts are stricken for lack of a citation. I have seen any glimmer of wit or imagination suppressed. For those reasons I will continue to check this article to amaze myself. Also note basic grammar dictates using an adjective to modify a noun. Mea (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you for speaking out. Bblandford (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There are many facts that are stricken because of citation, and indeed, imagination and wit are not something found on Wikipedia. The reasons for that are because Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. If this was a work of literature the rules would be entirely different. However, because it is an encyclopedia, it needs to state facts. Specifically facts that can be verified by sourced material, so unsourced material is commonly removed. Wikipedia's goal is not to represent fact, but to represent sources that are stating things as fact. This allows the reader to gather their own understanding. I agree that some articles show a biased opinion based on references cited, however you have to realize that this is the nature of this type of project. Also, many adjectives are used to describe their descriptor in one view or another. Usually this is not something that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Indeed, even in literature agents are often leery of too many adjectives (especially -ly words). Wikipedia has created its own guidelines that it follows for such things which may not conform to standard literature practices. But these are the rules that it follows to operate the way that it does. Most of these points can be found in the policies pages linked from the welcome page at WP:WEL.

Also, Bblandford: Thanks for your edits moving the document to a more neutral point of view. Dromidaon (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Faith healing is purported ie: claimed, asserted not simply believed. The advocates of faith healing make claims not merely hold beliefs thus the correct term is purported. "Purported healing" is far more accurate than therapy as therapy has a clear implication of benefit. Insertion of "by it's critics" is not appropriate in an encyclopedia the reference citation provides the needed attribution and the description of the authors as "critics" of faith healing is OR. We don't describe each of the proponents, believers or advocates as such we don't describe those who assess and categorize faith healing as critics unless there are reliable independent sources which do so. "outside the boundaries of conventional medicine" is also OR and not an accurate reflection of what is in the sources. This is the reason I have reverted the recent series of edits as they have now been contested please provide policy based rationale supported by RS before restoring them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Purported is a non-neutral word. It carries with it the indication that the claim is false, which not everyone can agree with, and which Wikipedia cannot state. The definition from the Oxford Dictionary is "Appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess".[1] Perhaps the better word here is simply "claimed", which is defined as "State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof".[2] This is a word that both sides agree with, both those who claim it and those who claim it does not exist.

In addition, the classification of Faith Healing cannot be agreed with by all parties. I recommend changing the sentence "Faith healing is classified as an example of paranormal magical thinking" to "To many, faith healing is classified as an example of paranormal magical thinking." We have references at the end of the sentence to indicate the "who". This is a statement that both sides agree with. Dromidaon (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Dromidaon. Faith healing - if you include spiritual healing, Reiki, 'healing' (qv NFSH in the UK), and traditional (ie tribal) medecine - is practised by millions of people all round the world, many of whom have no access to conventional medicine. So it is not just a belief of an insignificant minority. Bblandford (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a better opening would be "Faith healing is the generic term used for prayer, meditation, incantations or rituals for therapeutic purposes, either as a substitute for, or in conjunction with, conventional medical treatment." I think that is pretty neutral. What do you think? Bblandford (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think your statement reads better than the existing lead, and that it is neutral in tone, however not everyone believes that it is used for therapeutic purposes. Many people believe in literal, miraculous healing, and the current lead describes this better. If we could include this in your sentence without making one massive run on sentence, then I would be all for it.

In the mean time, I have updated the article with the suggestions I recommended earlier, given that we have waited a sufficient amount of time for those with thoughts on the matter to chime in. It appears we have reached a consensus. Dromidaon (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well done. I would also suggest we collect together all the critical paragraphs of this article together, and put them under the section labelled "Criticism". This will leave the differing approaches desribed in the main body of the article without bias, and acceptable to the respective adherents and their healers. Bblandford (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal in direct contradiction of the core policy WP:NPOV which states, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents." and "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." It is also in contradiction of the policy What Wikipedia is not. WP does not base article content or structure to be "acceptable to the respective adherents and their healers". WP is an encyclopedia that presents the facts about the subjects it covers as due based on reliable sources. Again I would insist that purported is the appropriate term for claimed healing that is not substantiated in reliable sources. It is not merely claimed the claims have been evaluated and analyzed by reputable sources and found wanting to say the least. What many people believe is not the basis for factual content or factual descriptions, the published reliable sources are what WP uses. WP does not whitewash the published facts or evaluations of the mainstream scientific and academic community to avoid offending it presents these prominently and proportionately as represented in published reliable sources. This is core policy and it is what WP is, an encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources do not say "to many"

The insertion of the qualifier "to many" to the sentence "Faith healing is classified as an example of paranormal magical thinking." is an addition of an editorial comment that is not present in the sources. This is original research/editorial commentary not supported by published sources. The onus for including such a comment is on the editor who wishes to include it and the requirement is to provide a source which supports the comment. Challenged content should not be restored until policy based consensus has been reached. The interpretation of NPOV given to support this insertion is flawed. WP does not say "to many" unless the sources do, adding editorial qualifiers that do not reflect the sources is original research. Before restoring such content again, provide a source which supports the statement that is of proportionate prominence and quality as the textbook cited. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

MrBill3, I reverted your change which removed the "To many" before your comment was posted. I think we need to come to a consensus on what needs to be stated before changing it. The fact is that there are many who do not classify faith healing as "paranormal magical thinking", even thought the source cited does. I assume this would be a common understanding, however I can certainly find sources that disagree with that statement if needed. Since the sentence is not a direct quote, adding the "To many" seems appropriate to make the article more neutral in tone. This seems like the best compromise to both me and Bblanford, however not to you. Therefore I would like to get some additional authors input. In the mean time I will find the sources you have requested. Dromidaon (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do bring sources when presenting facts. Also note the policy No original research particularly regarding quality of sources and synthesis. It states, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Adding "to many" is analysis not stated by the sources. My re-removal was before my post here and was based on a failure to adhere to core policy. I appreciate your collegial work on this talk page. Please read the WP:NPOV policy carefully. I understand your argument is based on "Impartial tone" but I think it is an over reach. The emphasis of the policy is clearly that viewpoints in published reliable sources be represented fairly and proportionately. Note the extensive discussion of due weight and the explanation of bias in sources. See also the Verifiability policy which states, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". The verifiability policy also provides guidance on evaluating the quality of sources and an explanation that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Where biomedical information the WP:MEDRS guideline is also applicable. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read the paper by Michael Martin of Boston University, he mentions dowsing, Bermuda triangle and several other pseudosciences before he covers faith healing in two brief paragraphs. He addresses the methodology of verification of its claims, rather than criticising its practice. I have not read his views anywhere else. Perhaps it would be more accurate to state: " to "To Michael Martin of BU ..." ;) Bblandford (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a follow up, I have not had much time to spend on researching this subject. In the time that I have had, here is what I have found:

• Paranormal literally means "beyond normal", generally meaning "not scientifically explainable".([3]) It is usually used to describe things like ghosts, UFOs, and psychics. For the most part, faith healing would match this description.
• Michael Martin's paper mentions faith healing in one place, in which he does classify it as Paranormal.
• Magical thinking is classified as "a conviction that thinking is equivalent to doing"([4]) and "a belief that merely thinking about an event in the external world can cause it to occur".([5]). This seems to be in contradiction to some of the cited sources in this article. For example, both the Catholic and Latter-day saints sections both have references that indicate that faith healing should include action in addition to faith([6],[7])
• Magical thinking is a definition to diagnose mental disorders, but excludes grounded religious beliefs. According to psychologist Lisa Fritscher "it is important to note that magical thinking must be considered in context. For example, a belief in the paranormal could be seen as magical thinking. However, many religious and cultural traditions believe in the existence of spirits, demons and other entities. A person from such a background should not be diagnosed with magical thinking based solely on a belief in such entities. ... It is not magical thinking to put forth a theory, provided that the person expresses understanding that the theory is not necessarily 'rational' by today's scientific logic."([8])
• Several other journals seem to reflect the same rational definition, that magical thinking is defined on context. ([9], [10]).
• Other journals lump it all into the same category, assuming that any religious belief is considered irrational. It appears there are some who consider it one way, and some who consider it another.
• The cited article on Magical Thinking doesn't appear to address faith healing. I can only see the abstract. I have to assume that it does, but from the abstract it appears to address "the atypical group expressing beliefs in more personal responsibility, a stronger belief in a fully-determined universe, a greater belief in reincarnation, and a lower differentiation score." Does anyone have access to this article to confirm that it addresses faith healing?

Therefore I purpose that we reword the sentence to something along these lines: "Faith healing can be classified as a paranormal event, and, in some cases, as magical thinking." Thoughts? Dromidaon (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I like your suggestion, Dromidaon, but let's keep in mind that whilst scepticism about faith healing may be widespread, it is not the majority view - at least in the US: "According to a [2005] Newsweek Poll, 72 percent of Americans ... say they believe that praying to God can cure someone, even if science says the person doesn’t stand a chance". Perhaps we should include that reference?

On the speciics, is faith healing paranormal? Yes - as "normal" means "in accordance with generally accepted laws of material science." Is it pseudo-scientific? - probably not, as most faith healers do not claim to be using scientific principles. Is it magic? Not quite sure what that means - maybe "superstitious" is better? How about: "Faith healing is regarded by most people as a paranormal phenomenon (insert refs), or, in some cases, as sheer superstition. Nevertheless ..." (insert quote above).

Incidentally I think the Michael Martin paper MrBill3 quotes, previously available in full, free of charge, has become so popular that the publisher of the journal in which it appears has now put it on a pay-to-view basis, all but the first two pages. The power of Wiki, eh?Bblandford (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Here's a good question: Do we even need the sentence in the article? We have already categorized faith healing in the first sentence as "supernatural or spiritual". Yes, it's sourced, but does it really benefit the article at all? It seems to me that it may just be one way someone can throw in another classification to suit someone's stance on the subject. Dromidaon (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think yes the sentence is required as an explicit explanation of the mainstream academic/scientific consensus on the subject as required per NPOV/FRINGE etc. Lacking the kind of strong sources required for a WP:REDFLAG claim the assertion that the phenomenon actually occurs or that events occurring in reality are attributable to the belief is not appropriate. Your proposed sentence includes/implies such by describing it as an event. It also contains vagueness in "can be" rather than "is". Again there is an implication/assertion that this actually occurs by saying "in some cases". The suggestion that some adherents suggest action in addition does not delete the substance of the belief that thinking causes effect, this is the fundamental aspect of faith healing, adjuvants do not remove the assertion of effect of primary treatments. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Being the fact that it is classified as paranormal is an assertion that the event occurs. The paranormal article literal starts with "Paranormal events are". I don't think that we need to avoid the assertion that the event occurs as long as it is clear that it also may not occur. We point out in the article that there are plenty of views for both sides. I also disagree that this is the academic/scientific consensus, at least on the magical thinking classification. In the references I provided it appears that some of the academic/scientific field omits religious belief in faith healing based on the context. Also, in the description I provided the "in some cases" was meant as "in some cases of classification" or "in some cases of belief", not "in some cases of occurrences". We could add the additional text to clarify it, but I thought it was unnecessary. Either way, it appears to me that we are unable to reach a compromise that everyone can agree with on our own. I am going to go ahead and request an RFC on this. Perhaps with additional editors looking at it we can find an acceptable compromise. Dromidaon (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we are fairly close to something acceptable. Your reply is cogent and supports your proposed edit (an you have provided references). I think the RfC is a good idea getting some other editors to weigh in my help support your proposal, find another or provide another perspective to consider. I appreciate your collegial engagement here on talk and look forward to see what others have to say. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

New Testament healings

What would other editors think of restoring the New Testament healings, deleted en bloc a few weeks ago?

A previous editor called this "The most slanted article I have ever seen on Wikipedia," with some justification, and some corrections have since been made. But many would agree there is a lot more that needs to be done before we can claim that the article truly has a WP:NPOV.

In any commercial encyclopaedia, any article is written by an expert in that field. In Wikipedia, however, there is nothing to prevent an editor from composing or editing an article on a subject to which he is vehemently opposed, and using it as a kind of coathook on which to hang all sorts of references to opposing views. This is surely contrary to the spirit and ethics of Wikipedia. This, sadly, is what has happened in this case. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a source of information, not a soap-box! WP:SOAP.

Of course faith healing has, throughout history, been controversial; we needn't expect it to be any less controversial now. Faith healing cannot be explained within the confines of conventional materially scientific wisdom. But that doesn't mean it didn't and doesn't happen! We editors have much work to do improving this article, to be fair to the readers, and to allow faith healing to be presented in a light which leaves them to make up their own minds as to whether to go down this path or not.

In the case of the section on Christian faith healing, the discussion on Jesus' work was insightful and helpful, well written and well referenced. Any Christian would accept the validity of those healings, not only as historical fact, and as an explanation of the phenomenal spread of Christianity, but also as a model for his or her own healing practice today.

The section should be restored. Bblandford (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

Classification of Faith Healing

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Dromidaon has proposed what seems likely to be an acceptable form of words, with no dissent in a bit over a week. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the classification of Faith Healing remain as "paranormal magical thinking" or should it be expanded to clarify other views of classification? Dromidaon (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We are having trouble coming to a compromise to describe the classification of Faith Healing. We have one editor who believes it is fine the way that it is, and two who believe that it needs to be changed. However we seem to be unable to reach an acceptable consensus on our own. We are hoping to get some additional editors input on the matter to see if we can find an acceptable compromise.

The discussion is mostly found in the above section, with some of it originating in the section above that. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks! Dromidaon (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Text proposed "Faith healing can be classified as a paranormal event, and, in some cases, as magical thinking." I have copied the text proposed from the above section. After some discussion I find it close to acceptable. My objection remains it appears we are saying in WP's voice that faith healing is an event, whereas it is a belief or practice. I don't think the mainstream academic position reflects that the event or phenomenon of healing through the practice occurs. How can it be clarified that we are talking about a belief/practice not an outcome? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MrBill3 for explaining your thoughts. That actually helps me understand where you are coming from. What if we change the statement to something like this: "Faith healing can be classified as a belief in a paranormal event, and, in some cases, that belief can be classified as magical thinking." That seems long to me, but really helps to clarify that we are discussing the belief and not an event. Dromidaon (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I almost want to make the sentence longer to prevent changes by editors who would take issue with categorizing it as paranormal. Something like this: "Faith healing can be classified as a belief in a spiritual or paranormal event, and, in some cases, that belief can be classified as magical thinking." Then we could remove the last sentence in the first paragraph as it would be redundant. This might prevent editors from changing the sentence in the future. Just a thought. Dromidaon (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. Faith itself is a form of belief; you could define faith healing as a process initiated on the basis of this belief. Bblandford (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Came here via an an automated discussion notification on my talk page. Here's my immediate thought: why not use "supernatural" as opposed to "paranormal", as faith healing is usually ascribed to a divine higher power, as opposed to "ghosts" or other types of spirit concepts suggested by the use of the word paranormal... Roberticus talk 13:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Technically, successful Faith Healing should be classified as the Placebo effect and mistakenly successful would be the post hoc fallacy. This source, Great Expectations: The Evolutionary Psychology of Faith-Healing and the Placebo Effect should probably be part of this article (edit: added). Supernatural, paranormal, spiritual, and magical thinking all seem to be synonyms for how delusional people view faith healing. Of course I could just be unaware of the unique details of each term. Perhaps a clear definition of terms will help. Sources ought to help with the definitions of terms and, by extension, the classification of faith healing. Hope this helped. OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 06:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I all right to change the line as purposed? I could find a reference for the supernatural as Roberticus proposed, however I can update the line leaving paranormal with the existing reference for the time being. OnlyInYourMind already added their suggestion. MrBill3, do you have anything else you would like to see changed with the line? Dromidaon (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Support my previous implied definition of paranormal was pretty poor ("very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world" not ghosts) while my concept of supernatural was better ("unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc."). It seems that the belief itself is supernatural by definition (faith healing) but the actual effect is a paranormal one (could potentially be explained as placebo effect or similar phenomenon), as stated by adjacent reference. So I think the change is a good one in context, as the supernatural belief aspect is already mentioned earlier in the lead --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberticus (talk • contribs)

Support (with "supernatural" or "spiritual" phrasing) The phrasing explains what people who believe in Faith Healing believe it to be, that is, a supernatural event. I think including "supernatural" and "paranormal" leads to the least disputable version, and I also think it's a very good WP:NPOV summary of the belief. All that said, I think the lead, as is, bends over backward way too far to encompass every possible variation of faith healing. The proposed phrasing (including supernatural) captures the majority of that information much more concisely. Arathald (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I take this back. Per Adamfinmo, below, we need to be looking at what the sources say, not on what we think is the most accurate description of faith healing. Arathald (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't see much discussion about what the reliable sources say. While I personally have an ideological opinion on the subject I would like to see those involve in the discussion throw around some more citations instead of gut feeling about what "editors who would take issue with categorizing it as paranormal" might say. The only views that matter are those in the sources. --Adam in MO Talk 03:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Very good point. It seems a lot of editors are making an ideological or gut decision on what they view faith healing as. How do the (neutral) sources describe it? We've gone way too far down the rabbit hole of WP:OR or possibly WP:SYNTH, and we should probably stop that. Arathald (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The opening paragraph uses "supernatural," which seems appropriate and uncontroversial. The sentence about magical thinking seems misplaced. Rather than the lead, I suggest that it be placed under "Scientific investigation" insofar as it reflect a technical term by scholars of religion (and culture). The rest of that paragraph also seems too detailed and almost tendentious for the lead, why isn't it under Criticism? It does not read as a summary of the Criticism section, which would be suitable for the lede IMO. In addition, "paranormal" may be a suitable term, assuming it's found in reliable sources. But paranormal refers to the reported / purported events, I gather, and not to the magical thinking. So the phrase "paranormal magical thinking" doesn't work. "Magical thinking" does not need a qualifier like paranormal or supernatural, afaik. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that is correct When it comes to classifying the belief in "faith healing," you may accurately describe the belief as "paranormal magical thinking" yes. What you are describing is a belief, not a real phenomena which actually works, so yes, the proposed text is acceptable, legitimate, and accurate. If "faith healing" actually worked, then the text would not be appropriate. Obviously it's a delusional occult belief, ergo the proposed text is suitable for Wikpedia, yes. BiologistBabe (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BiologistBabe, will you clarify for me, are you agreeing with the proposed change, or are you agreeing with the existing wording?

So currently, the proposed text with sources would be "Faith healing can be classified as a belief in a spiritual or paranormal event, and, in some cases, that belief can be classified as magical thinking.

I will try and dedicate some time this weekend to research sources that categorize faith healing. I have been pressed for time recently, so this has not taken priority. If we are going to include the wording with "spiritual" or "supernatural", then I would like to find reliable resources that categorize it as such. Dromidaon (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks for everyones input on this. Here is what I have found that may help clarify the definition of faith healing. The book "Out of the Ordinary: Folklore and the supernatural" published by the Utah State University Press classifies faith healing as both supernatural and spiritual and could be used to match both conditions. It’s probably the most straight forward reference that I have found other than the ones referenced.

So I would propose the text as such: "Faith healing can be classified as a belief in a spiritual, supernatural, or paranormal event, and, in some cases, that belief can be classified as magical thinking."

References

Let me know what your thoughts are so that we can clear this thing off the list. Dromidaon (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dromidaon, I think your proposal looks pretty good, and it seems to cover all of the concepts that were discussed.

Also, I want to add that I thought the distinction above between "event" and "practice" (which I took to mean something like "My leg was broken and suddenly it's not" vs "I prayed about healing, and my prayer really happened even though my leg is still broken") was an interesting one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pseudoscience inclusion

Why User:Bblandford continues to remove any mention of pseudoscience? It is has been backed by the reliable sources, and since it is alternative medicine of such category, it is pseudoscience. None of the above discussion was about pseudoscience. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

it seems your correct (per WP RS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that should be re-added.--McSly (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes belongs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Faith healing does not appear in the list of pseudo-sciences in the WP entry, for the good reason that no-one has yet proposed it to be one. If someone disagrees, there is a paragraph entitled Criticism which is the appropriate place for it.

Also the bald statement "Faith healing is a pseudoscience" (small p!) is at best an unhelpful besmirching of a serious article. On the other hand if someone adds (under Criticism): "XYZ believes faith healing to be a pseudo-science because ... (+ a reference)", that is something that adds intelligent content to an article, and it will not be reverted by me. Bblandford (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The 2 sources you removed here look perfectly fine to me to back up the pseudo-science claim. Do you mind sharing why you deleted them?--McSly (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

McSly, I'm guessing that you didn't do more than glance at those sources. They might be okay (not great) if they really backed up the claim. The first says that faith healing is "on the border between paranormal and quackery", and the second says that faith healing is an example of paranormal activities. It's not enough to merely get the words "pseudoscience" and "faith healing" on the same page of a book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually looked at the sources (although clearly I could have missed things). The first source ("Critical Thinking: Step by Step") says "Faith healing is probably the most dangerous pseudoscience" (first line of the second paragraph), so there is that. --McSly

Yes, but that source also contradicts itself by saying that it's paranormal and quackery instead just five sentences earlier. That source additionally says that pseudoscience is "'pretend' or 'fake' science" (p 205) and then says that paranormal ideas is a sub-type of pseudoscience—even though paranormal is not any kind of science at all. The same page additionally names two religions (satanism and witchcraft) and theological ideas (e.g., Millenarianism) as pseudoscience. If we don't reject it as confused, then we have to reject it as WP:UNDUE for its unusual claims that religions are fake science and its tiny-minority POV that a reasonable definition of pseudoscience is any "unjustified statements" (the title of Chapter 14). In short, this is not a good source for making claims about whether prayer is science (fake or real) rather than religion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure this is a real contradiction. After all, our own article on paranormal says that "The paranormal can best be thought of as a subset of pseudoscience." And the "Supernatural healing" category is a sub-category of pseudo-science. So, It's not like we are breaking new ground here. But fair enough, I'm ok with not having it spelled out in the article. --McSly (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure... in a quotation from a member of Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. That's not the same thing as his view being the mainstream viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not pseudoscience according to this source, rather it belongs to both the quackery and religion categories. Count Iblis (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Count Iblis, only with better sources than a blog.  :-)

I find these conversations a bit frustrating, because it seems that some editors have a memory impairment when it comes to these words. So once again, in the hope that someone is actually paying attention, rather than trying to spam their favorite insulting word into every possible article: Pseudoscience means that something purports to use the scientific method, but does not. If you don't purport to use science, then your method cannot be pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is not a fancy way to spell ineffective. Instead, that word means that you're telling lies about your methodology. There is absolutely nothing about "faith healing" that purports to use the scientific method. Therefore, it cannot be pseudoscientific. This is a religious practice, not a telling-lies-about-science practice.

As for the sources cited, the first says that faith healing actually works in a few instances, and the second clearly and repeatedly says that faith healing is paranormal.

There are many sources that classify this as paranormal, including some that explicitly say that "paranormal" is the typical classification. We should not include material that is stated to be wrong by expert sources merely because our favorite word is used by a small minority of sloppy writers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Point is with the pseudoscience label, there is some explanation that it is not pseudoscience but we are forgetting that even Traditional Chinese medicine is also categorized as pseudoscience on here, thus I don't see how Faith Healing should be kept out from label. Consensus above is to save the previous version, who is going to revert? Raymond3023 (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be a judgement call, but it is a judgement call based in the criterion explained by WhatamIdoing that false scientific claims are made. And that judgement must be published in multiple reliable sources preferably written by different authors from different research groups (so that we can be confident that it is a widely held scientifically based opinion, but in some cases there may be a lack of interest in the field, we then have to base it on fewer good sources than we would ideally want to have), it cannot be done here by us. Chinese medicine may well have morphed into pseudoscience as judged by reliable sources, or it may be that Wikipedians editing there have made an improper judgement. Count Iblis (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not pseudoscience per WhatamIdoing and the definition in the article. This reminds me of the attempt to label Exorcism as pseudoscience a while back. The bottom line is that if no claim to employ the scientific method is made then it's not pseudoscience. There are some people who broadly view religious belief in almost any form as pseudoscience but the community has consistently rejected that proposition. This is reflected by the fact that Creationism, i.e. the belief that God created the world in six 24hr days, is not in itself considered pseudoscience. On the other hand Creation science also sometimes called "Young Earth science" is, because it attempts to advance that belief by claiming scientific proof. It appears that what we have here is an attempt to redefine the term pseudoscience to include most forms of religious belief that run contrary to what currently accepted science holds. We have been down this road before and the community has consistently rejected such attempts. All of which said, there might be specific instances when faith healing could be considered pseudo-scientific. But this would only occur in the event that a practitioner or apologist was makeing specific claims that the act or its results was backed by science. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• not pseudoscience I have to agree with AO on this one. I just don't see how "God will (sometimes) perform miracles for those who pray for them" is even vaguely like a claim to be scientific. Mangoe (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Intercessory prayer is not the same thing as faith healing. jps (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Some faith healing is pseudoscience. There is too much binary thinking in these discussions. I think this is because either something is in the category or it is out. But it is clear that there are examples of faith healing which are properly pseudoscience in the sense that they claim scientific backing for their claims. In particular, many faith healers will claim verification of their craft through scientific or medical authorities. It is also true that simply as defined, it is clear that one could use faith healing techniques without appealing to pseudoscience, but categorization does not need to be all-or-nothing. Since there are examples of faith healers who promote pseudoscience, the category is relevant enough to the topic for inclusion. Note that simply categorizing an article in Category:Pseudoscience is not the same thing as writing a sentence, "This article is about pseudoscience." jps (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Pseudoscience. Faith healing itself is merely bullshit, but the study of faith healing by believers (e.g. the Jan 2015 paper in Explore, [11]) are canonical pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Not pseudoscience any more than any other religious/spiritual/philosophical topic that professes certain beliefs. Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific. Some faith healing claims may be pseudoscientific, but this subject as a whole is not. - MrX 13:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Not Pseudoscience - I think there is WP guidance saying (a) not say 'is' in the voice of Wikipedia, and (b) not show this vague pejorative unless the cite explicitly says it. Mainly I think just follow the cites and the predominant or prominent uses isn't usually this one. Bblandford had a decent neutral phrasing above, one that might also handle the international and wider forms too -- Christian Science, Buddhism, tribal cures, new age beliefs, magic (i.e. wiccan), etcetera. It might bin with Alternative and Supportive practices rather than medicine too. Markbassett (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We are having the time again when editor opinions are being taken over the reliable sources. Easily I find long commentaries without presenting sources to be nothing interesting compared to a short comment by User:JzG. So what we are going to do now? Are there any sources rejecting the notion of it being pseudoscience? Raymond3023 (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Raymond3023 - Mm not sure what your first line says, but I'm OK with being taken over by reliable sources ;-). JzG seemed to be mentioning that a minority subset exists, which I think we can expect with almost any topic ;-) again. However, the article is not about the subset or theories behind it, it's about what is faith healing and the major items within it. So instead of googling for topic + odd word to find the oddballs, just google the topic to find the overall main points and events, or google topic + some typical responsible site and get some good tips. Most seem to say it's a spiritual or cultural practice, and after that is a lot of sidenotes and subsets which we can hope to mention in due weight. Markbassett (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"::::::That means it is unscientific too and it can be mentioned as well. But again.. what about pseudoscience generalization? Raymond3023 (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)"

Poor explanation of Catholic understanding

The following failed verification. It looks like it suffered through edit warring.

Among the best-known accounts by Catholics of faith healings are those attributed to the miraculous intercession of the apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary known as Our Lady of Lourdes at the grotto of Lourdes in France and the remissions of life-threatening disease claimed by those who have applied for aid to Saint Jude, who is known as the "patron saint of lost causes".

The cite references are articles in Catholic Encyclopedia. The article about Psychotherapy is dated from 1911 and should be replaced with a contemporary source to show possible development. Nevertheless, it states in a "Faith cures" section that

Science, or the supposed application of scientific principles, has probably been the responsible cause of more faith cures than anything else. [...] Each new development of chemistry and of physics led to new applications to therapeutics, though after a time most of them have proved to be nugatory. The faith in the scientific discovery had acted through the mind of the patient so as to bring about an amelioration of symptoms, if not a cure of the disease. The patients who are cured are usually sufferers from chronic diseases, who either have only a persuasion that they are ill or, having some physical ailment, inhibit through solicitude and worry the natural forces that would bring about a cure. This inhibition cannot be lifted until the mind is relieved by confidence in some wonderful remedy or scientific discovery that gives them a conviction of cure.

and in a "Faith cures and miracles" section

It is often said that the cures at shrines and during pilgrimages are mainly due to psychotherapy — partly to confident trust in Providence, and partly to the strong expectancy of cure that comes over suggestible persons at these times and places. [...] An analysis of the records of cures carefully kept — as, for instance, at Lourdes — shows, however, that the majority of accepted cures have been in patients suffering [...] but from [...] affections as tuberculosis, [...] ulcers [...], broken bones that [...] failed to heal, and other readily demonstrable organic affections. When cures are worked in such cases, some force beyond that of nature [...] must be at work. [...] A visit to a shrine like Lourdes is sufficient to convince any physician that there is something more than psychotherapy, though he can see also abundant evidence of psychotherapy at work.

The other cited article about Notre-Dame de Lourdes furnishes some very general statistics from 1910, e.g. that "nervous disorders [...] do not furnish even the fourteenth part of the whole; 278 have been counted, out of a total of 3962."

Neither article mentions Jude. I am not competent to say that the term psychotherapy in 1911 is used the same way in 2015 so I didn't add the probably dated material. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Too much focus on USA in lead

The lead should be a world view not US centric. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a fair point: this fraud is rampant in some parts of Africa and there have been prominent UK advocates as well. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat that Blandford had a better lead : "Faith healing is the generic term used for prayer, meditation, incantations or rituals for therapeutic purposes, either as a substitute for, or in conjunction with, conventional medical treatment." I think that would also cover other countries, New Age, Wiccan, and Tribal practices. Markbassett (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that New Age, Wiccan, and Tribal practices fall under "faith healing". zzz (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: see comment by John Carter. I think every society still has prescientific concepts about the world – new age, wiccan, and tribal practices, even outside their original context, do have beliefs that the physical body can be affected by their practices. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but "faith healing" is generally understood to refer to the Christian variety, whether in the US, Africa or elsewhere. zzz (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: yes, I agree, but that may be my cultural incredulity, e.g.: "Some New Age techniques, like faith-healing, geomantics, fortune-telling, and astrology, belong to the traditional repertoire of healing and counselling practices of pre-industrial societies", [12] "[...] three forms of healing are practised by African traditional healers [...]: (1) that practised by those who have ‘graduated’ from the period of tuition and self healing, called sangomas; (2) the practice of those who use or sell herbal remedies (inyangas); and (3) the practice of faith healing in terms of one or other form of African syncretic Christianity [...]"[13] –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: - This thread was complaining that the lead is too narrow which I think comes from the definition in lead talking at 'laying on of hands', 'New Testament' and 'American'. So I showed the alternative lead wording "Faith healing is the generic term used for prayer, meditation, incantations or rituals for therapeutic purposes, either as a substitute for, or in conjunction with, conventional medical treatment" is better wording for not having 'too much focus on USA'. That wording is more neutral and inclusive so would cover outside Christian (e.g. Buddha or Islam) and outside the US, and even offered three other faith groups with non-physical approaches to healing to show it fits a wide diversity. Wiccan is a religion (mostly UK/Canada/US) that has spells for healing. New Age is general label on recent spiritual/religious practices which includes healing and alternative medical approaches (e.g. psychic healing, energy therapy, crystal healing). And by 'tribal practices' I meant all the aboriginal approaches such as Native American, Eastern Shamanism, African Witch doctor, or Australian. Anyway, change the lead so the article covers where healing is attempting treatment by ritual masks or chanting or dancing or or charms or sympathetic magic and so forth. Basically the faith healing article as is covers US specifics, and I repeated the other lead wording as suggestion to make it more about all healing attempts by ritual and belief. Markbassett (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes you're right. Those all do in fact need to be covered, I agree. The lead should be changed, to your suggested version. zzz (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

But what is it?

The first sentence says "Faith healing refers to notably overt and ritualistic practices" (and right away we have a problem with WP:REFER) while the last paragraph of the lede says "Faith healing can be classified as a belief in a spiritual, supernatural, or paranormal event, and, in some cases, that belief can be classified as magical thinking". So, which is it? A set of practices, or a belief, or both? StAnselm (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a good point, as, for that matter, is Guy's comment above, in which he seems to be referring at least somewhat to that discussed in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion article "African cults of affliction." His comment also raised the issue between such cults and faith healing in those faiths. I have really come to loathe saying this anywhere around here, although, unfortunately, I seem to wind up saying it more times than I really would like. I have a definite feeling, and it is only a feeling at this point, that a lot of the content in this article might be best handled spunout into offshoot articles of some sort. And, although I haven't checked other pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity/Articles indicates that there are lengthy articles in an encyclopedia on CC about both the "Gift of healing" and "Healing in the Christian Church," leading me to think that there may well be sufficient sourcing and notability for at least a few spinout articles. But it would help a lot to try to figure out how many, what they should be, and al the other stuff like that. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

African faith "healers" are basically just an case of the age-old issue of new religions suborning traditional practices. African faith healers are to shamanism as Easter is to Eostre. In an area where there is often little or no actual medical care, it's inevitable that this particular form of delusion will proliferate. In the West, faith healing pretty much divides into the sincerely deluded, and the blatantly fraudulent (e.g. Peter Popoff). The pseudoscience comes when the True Believers try to prove their claims. For an illuminating parallel, see n-rays. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

More precisely, pseudoscience would enter into it if said True Believers claimed that they used science to prove that faith healing happens, regardless of whether they actually did try to prove their claims scientifically. If they try to "prove" them through some other method, e.g., via anecdote, appeal to authority, etc., then it's not pseudoscience. "I used a team of scientists running experiments to prove that magic exists", when you didn't, is pseudoscience. "Open your mind to the healing power of God, because if you are pure and believe, then it will happen" is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I choose the falsifiability criteria to determine if something is or is not a scientific claim. Are they making falsifiable claims? Are they claiming actual, measurable effects? If so, then they have crossed the line into scientific territory and, if they have not used the scientific method, or have seriously violated it, then they might be guilty of making pseudoscientific claims. Does that make any sense to you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bull here. Granted the somewhat sensationalist usage of the word "pseudoscience" recently, the word itself does clearly seem to indicate that it is something which purports to be science, or perhaps avoids using that specific word conducts itself in a manner which mimics science, and thus, effectively, "pretending" to be science. So, for instance, the various medics and others who examine and approve miracles for the causes of saints would be seen as doing "science," because they try to in some way "scientifically" examine the purported miracle and see if the event is remarkably unusual or "miraculous". Granted, in recent days, the development of science to include such things as spontaneous remission of cancer and the like makes it harder to determine what may or may not be "miraculous," which brings in issues of probability and such. Also, I guess I should note that not all peoples of the earth even today necessarily completely accept the scientific model of the body, world, and health, and, on that basis, those who don't would not necessarily be meaningfully called "science" of any sort if they do not in their own culture accept what we call "science" as what we in the basically Western world think of it as being. This includes some of the indigenous religious practices of Ethiopia and elsewhere. I know that this might be seen as just making the matter harder, and I'm sorry about that. But it does seem to me to be the best and most neutral way to proceed. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 I respectfully disagree with WhatamIdoing.  I do not believe that claiming to use science is a necessary condition for someone to be practicing pseudoscience.  Asking someone to believe something through faith alone is not pseudoscience.  But presenting what one believes to be irrefutable evidence of something, and expecting people to be convinced of whatever they're trying to prove can indeed be pseudoscience.  Some good examples are the cases of Bridey Murphy and Colton Burpo. At no time did/do they claim to be practicing science; but they do expect people to accept their "evidence" as absolute proof. When you're presenting evidence and expecting it to be accepted as proof of a claim you're making, then you're practicing either science or pseudoscience (depending on the validity of your data and methods).
Richard27182 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, if I tell you that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and I present you with evidence of this claim in the form of birth certificates, am I really "practicing either science or pseudoscience"? Is it possible that one could practice something that truly is neither science nor pseudoscience (e.g., historical document research  ;-), but that still results in a claim that I might expect most people to accept?

I believe that there are many ways to "claim to use science", but that making such a claim (whether explicitly or implicitly) is an absolutely necessary condition for engaging in pseudoscience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing.
 OK, maybe I should have added a few qualifying words to my statement.  But I'm sure you get the point I was making.  (And in a sense, if you tell me that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and you present me with evidence of this claim in the form of birth certificates, you're at least proving your claim in a scientific way by producing valid evidence.). My point is that when someone is presenting evidence on an important topic not limited to one or a small number of specific cases (a topic such as how old the Earth is, or whether astrology really works, or whether a certain drug is effective in curing a disease, or whether prayer is effective in curing diseases); and if they're claiming that the evidence constitutes proof of their claim; then they are practicing science (if their methods are valid) or they're practicing pseudoscience (if their methods are invalid).  It's really the behavior and methods and nature of the evidence that determine whether the person is practicing science (or pseudoscience); for something to qualify as science (or pseudoscience), I don't believe that it's necessary that the person make an explicit declaration to that effect; sometimes a person's behavior and approach implicitly make that claim.
 In the case of "faith healing," I don't believe it's always pseudoscience.  If it's presented as a matter of faith, then it's outside the realm of (pseudo)science.  But when "proof" is offered as evidence, then it crosses the line into pseudoscience.
 All editors reading this, please note; this posting is a direct response to the previous posting, but is not related to the posting that follows.  That posting was already there, and relates to something else.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No, "presenting evidence" does not make something scientific, even sort of. History and law are not branches of science, even though both care a great deal about evidence. Your expansive definition is going to lead you to a "scientific" reading of poetry, because I can "produce valid evidence" about the rhyming scheme, and I don't think you want to end up there.

I think you should re-consider your working definitions. You have defined innocent mistakes as "pseudoscience": anyone can screw up a lab protocol, or pick the wrong protocol, and thereby use "invalid" methods. That's not pseudoscience; that's bad science. At a minimum, your list of critical terms needs to include good science (hooray!), bad science (oops), pseudoscience (yuck), and non-science (e.g., art, history, law, and religion).

I agree with you that faith healing could be packaged as a pseudoscience. However, "I prayed for X and now he's not depressed, and I personally believe that my request for him not be depressed was the cause of his healing (aka 'it worked')" isn't pseudoscience. Getting into the pseudoscience range would require something like these kinds of claims:

• "Faith healing follows the scientific method. Faith healing has been proven to work in multiple scientific studies". (Straight claim)
• "Faith healer Fred Fraud intentionally formulates questions about faith-healing methods and seeks to determine which ones work best. He has dropped methods that have not been proven to work to his satisfaction and is constantly seeking to refine his techniques. He trains other people in exclusive seminars and encourages them to use his techniques and to report their level of success, so he can see which methods work best for other people." (Simple description of part of the scientific method)
• "Faith healing is ultimately based on string theory. There are invisible strings between humans that can be affected by intentional release of quantum energy. A trained person can use those string to transfer healing energy to enhance the immune system's response and change the microelectrical currents of the neurological system." (Science-y sounding nonsense)

Any of those would warrant such a charge, but "it works" alone isn't enough to be a scientific claim. I agree with you that it's the behavior and methods and nature of the evidence that determine whether the person is practicing science. For example: I take a green shirt. I pour bleach on it. It's not green any longer. Result: "It works!" But I didn't practice science when I changed the color of the shirt. My behavior and methods show no evidence of me doing science. Instead, I used 18th century technology in the form of a bottled chemical solution. There's probably some chemist working on Clorox bleach who could tell me what chemical reaction was involved, but I am neither doing science nor claiming to. Similarly, I take some eggs, cream and sugar. I run them through a pair of electrical machines. It now meets the definition of custard-based ice cream. Result: "It works!" But that's called "cooking", not science. A food chemist could use scientific-sounding words to describe what I did, but I'm not doing that. If I overcook the eggs and end up with a mess instead of ice cream—if it "doesn't work"—then I've not engaged in either pseudoscience or in bad science. I've just made a mistake in the kitchen.

And when we go back to faith healing, "the behavior and methods and nature of the evidence" indicate that they are not practicing science. The behavior seems to be religious, the method seems to be asking for divine intervention, and the nature of the evidence is personal belief (apparently in defiance of readily observable facts, in at least some cases) and anecdote. That's not any kind of science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

[insert] @Richard27182 and WhatamIdoing: a document could be fictitious or could contain fictitious or imprecise information, a field of knowledge that tests a document is forensic science. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: "Getting into the pseudoscience range would require something like these kinds of claims" is presenting your own opinions as the standard and that standard contradicts the sources I mentioned. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

[insert] @WhatamIdoing: @BoBoMisiu:

WhatamIdoing, you certainly have a lot to say on the subject! I think we could probably discuss it ad infinitum and still not reach complete agreement. I believe that we do agree that faith healing in some circumstances is pseudoscience, and in other circumstances is not pseudoscience. Our area of disagreement is where and how to draw the line (and what terminology to use). Can we simply agree to disagree on those points?

Richard27182 (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And we can see that in Studies on intercessory prayer. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a science, either explicitly or by the way it is organized & promulgated. Faith healing is just the opposite. It is based on the concept that science is irrelevant. Presenting what one believes to have irrefutable evidence of something is not science, but faith, or otherwise all religion is science or pseudoscience. Faith is something one is certain of not on evidence at all, necessarily, but on an inner conviction, which one can in most bases believe is confirmed by all the available evidence. . Science is the claim to knowledge based on at least theoretically refutable evidence. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Faith healing is the generic term used for prayer, meditation, incantations or rituals for therapeutic purposes, either as a substitute for, or in conjunction with, conventional medical treatment." Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really, no. Faith healing is an alternative to medicine, not a complement to it. Those who adopt prayer in addition to medical treatment are engaging in intercessor prayer, not faith healing. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: faith healing is a substitute for science-based medicine for only some groups. For example, Catholics do not see it as an alternative but a complement. Intercessory prayer, at least for Catholics, is related but something different. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: no faith healing is not "based on the concept that science is irrelevant" and not all faith healing is represented as providing "irrefutable evidence" of anything (see Talk:Faith healing#Poor explanation of Catholic understanding). Your conclusion "otherwise all religion is science or pseudoscience" is a sweeping generalization since only a fraction of religious topics make a claim of causing a physical change in an person – the usual claim of religion is about metaphysical change or conversion. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

{{citation needed}}. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: citations included (see Talk:Faith healing#Poor explanation of Catholic understanding) for not a substitute. Intercessory prayer here for description and here for distinction: "Both scholars of religion and Pentecostal theologians agree that faith healing of physical and psychological distresses, mostly carried out through intercessory prayer," here for distinction: "The psychiatrist Daniel Benor, a leading authority on faith healing, located more than two hundred studies on spiritual healing. Spiritual healing is an umbrella term for a range of unorthodox healing practices, including intercessory prayer, focused meditation [...]" more on search for: "intercessory prayer" "faith healing" catholic. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I said only "as a substitute for, or in conjunction with". Whether that is a complement would imply it completes where medicine is lacking and that medicine feels the same, which is obviously not being tried in cases where it is substituted, and it just doesn't seem like it generally talks of itself as partner in a medical-faith combo. Markbassett (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

May I say that I think one of the core problems here is the lack of articles related to this content here? This page shows the most recent Encyclopedia of Religion has three separate articles relating to the intersection of religion and medicine, one for the eastern tradition, one for the western tradition, and one for tribal cultures. So far as I can tell, we don't even have one dealing directly with the topic. I have a feeling a lot of the discussion here would fit better into one of those articles, and maybe others, if anyone were interested in developing them. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)