User talk:Chunbum Park/Sub/Homeopathy research

Many of your questions make perfect sense

We can find a way to discuss specifics, but I agree that many of the things you call awkward are, indeed, awkward. They were often attempts to make compromises with the advocates of homeopathy, preserving some of their specialized terminology.

For example, I cannot define "wisdom of the body" or "vital force", but these are axiomatic for homeopaths, and, as I understand the neutrality policy, they do get to use them. I would prefer to see them described as axiomatic, and that they are not consistent with any medical concept of which I am aware. Larry does have a view, with which I don't fully agree or perhaps don't understand, of "sympathetically" presenting positions.

Let me know if I can clarify why I did anything. As you know from the talk page, I'm incredibly frustrated with the article, but perhaps a new viewpoint can help. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think that the Homeopathy article has unfortunately taken a similar path to that of many Wikipedia articles under dispute. Controversy, debate, and edit warring often mess up articles in Wikipedia with unhelpful compromises that may or may not satisfy the disputants involved. At the end of the day, these compromises just end up worsening the quality of the article.

A lot of the awkward edits were I think truly unnecessary but they were put nonetheless to promote the practice of homeopathy. For example, it's wrong to attempt to imply that homeopathic practices improve the immune system with the following quote: "life energy," sometimes called a "vital force," which today is commonly referred to as a person's immune and defense system Effects and the inner mechanisms of a person's immune system can be measured, monitored, and explained at the molecular level. I'd think that the "vital force" is a spiritual energy that is separate from the biological functions of the physical body. (Chunbum Park 16:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC))