Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
OK y'all I think this is no longer a productive line of discussion |
||
Line 79:
:::::::::Some of them do. Consider [https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-pseudoscience/should-we-take-reiki-seriously what this source says]: "none of these mechanisms make sense scientifically. Some believe trauma is stored in our cells and therapeutic touch can restore communication between cells (a claim cell biologists would definitely frown upon). Others say the iron in our blood creates an electromagnetic field as it circulates, and this aura can be manipulated. Finally, Reiki traditionalists simply claim to channel their god’s divine energy."
:::::::::That last is strictly religious, and therefore not pseudoscience. Detecting the existence of and any changes in an electromagnetic field, on the other hand, should be easily testable. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Given that both parties agree that Reiki is in fact a pseudoscience, that it purports to make scientific claims, and that said claims are not in fact science, and thus no change in relation to this point is currently required for this article, might I suggest that discussion on the finer points of what may or may not constitute a pseudoscience and which specific claims are pseudoscientific be relegated to a different forum? [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 06:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Konanen|Konanen]], {{tq|...pseudoscience ... “quackery” ... in my opinion, a serious breach of neutrality and objectivity... }}
::{{tq|Reference ... seriously outdated ... 15 years out of date, which is a very long time as seen from the lens of ever-evolving medical research.}}
| |||