Talk:Bloodletting

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Byron[edit]

Is it really such a good idea to have an anecdote taking up over half of the article?--Krejtalk 01:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Better?--Token Conservative (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, so now it's less than half, but can't we get rid of the Byron story?--Krejtalk 06:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you have an all too broad understanding of what constitutes an anecdote.

The story is worth including because it breaks up the anti-alternative medicine diatribe (we're preaching to the choir here). I think we should include more on martyrs of bad treatments, and Byron is an outstanding example.Albannach (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a look at Talk:List of people killed by alternative medicine practitioners.--Krejtalk 03:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Science was wrong before[edit]

From the comments on this blog post (emphasis added):

1) Hikmat is not medicine but intelligence.2) Perhaps, ‘Tibb’ is the word my Urdu speaking friend was lookin’ for.2) I restrain from comments on the system as they may ‘bleed’ of ignorance.3) Science, once believed the earth to be flat.4) If 60% of India is treated this way, this method must be damned oops deemed good for, if it was’nt, we’d never get past 10 million let alone a billion.

--Krejtalk 15:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Blog[edit]

This would be a perfect topic for the RW Blog's 100th post. I'm trying to expand it to be useable.--Krejtalk 03:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm or what?[edit]

Is this sentence intended to be factually accurate?

The bloodletting improved the body's natural defensive terrain by removing viruses, built-up toxins in the body, and stagnant blood (causing it to be replaced with new, fresh blood), thus allowing the immune system to fight the disease more effectively.

Or is it sarcasm? Because it's not clear. And if it's the former, I'd like some citations.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's sarcasm. I thought it would be obvious from context, since the other commentaries were parodies, but apparently not. I added quotation marks. Is it better now?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 19:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Not much. It still sounds like a factual statement, if you read it without pre-existing assumptions about the tone - like something a bloodletting proponent would say, or like one of those ad hoc "scientific explanations" for miracles and other "paranormal" events people like to make up. And it's still snarking instead of a proper rebuttal.
One of the problems of this wiki is that some texts are apparently written with the assumption that the readers already find the expressed ideas ridiculous, and just reproduce them. As a result, some... "believers" tend to overlook sarcasm and link to those articles as if they support their ideas. The worst offender seems to be Project Blue Beam. :| --ZooGuard (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)