"However, this also applies to religion, and the arts."

Good point SM. Some though do hold to a higher standard http://www.victorynetwork.org/DD.html - nothing but the highest standards there by the looks of it.

The area that really sticks out in terms of quackery is Gender Studies. For the most part it's straight out advocacy starting from some core assumptions that are never tested.

R0bert

John, this article is sad on two counts, firstly you are spot on and secondly it is too late to undo, the damage is done.

The socialization approach to the philosophy and history of science has become distressingly familiar.

The socialization advocates promote the abandoning of the idea of science as a separate domain of activity and enquiry, they promote that science must be understood not as a means of acquiring objective general truths about the world but simply as another for of social behavior! In effect that science is no different to any other form of knowledge. This appears to be a form of reflective angst by trying to establish that it is science that is elitist and privileged and not the humanities academics.

They further postulate that scientific laws are the product of “consensus” and must be understood in terms of the prejudices, social pressures and power relations that result in the emergence of consensus and not in terms of advances in understanding, in logical consistency or correspondence with external reality. (now where have we heard this before?)

These are the partisan and issues based activities emanating from academia in relation to their influence upon the corruption of the curriculum in both university and high school education. It also relates to academia’s partial and very public position on scientific issues.

I agree with the author absolutely - universities are supposed to be the ultimate bastions of truth, responsibility and excellence. There should be no place in such institutions for pseudoscience, quackery or untruth. Questionning, investigation, hypothesis, testing of boundaries - yes - but always within the bounds of sound intellectual responsibility.

There is obviously an important role for chiropractors, as also for physiologists, radiologists, nurses, dietitions, sociologists, occupational therapists and speech therapists, etc, and for accupuncturists, herbalists and psychologists. It must be up to responsible educational foundations to determine the appropriate level of training, the appropriate place (educational institution) for such training, and required oversight of standards, practices, licensing, regulation and recognition of all of these, and so many other, professions.

Some training will be held responsibly to be the role of universities; other training a role for TAFE or CofAE; and this is for relevant professional educators to determine.

Whilst it is appropriate for there to be responsible training, licensing and regulatory oversight of potentially 'pseudoscience' 'disciplines', it is necessary to separate such credibly legitimate fields as homeopathy and herbal medicine from such questionnable 'treatments' as aromatherapy and iridology - which might be regarded as more akin to palm-reading and astrology rather than any form of science, and potentially may have no greater (or even less) benefit than a facial, hair-styling, manicure, massage, sauna or some light exercise. (Or a cupo'tea, a Bex and a good lie down.)

Quackery should be put in its place, but it can not be left to run riot unchecked - for part of the human condition is an enduring 'faith' or 'hope' in/for all manner of unlikely panaceas for real and imaginary conditions, including for sheer boredom and loneliness.

People sometimes just need to be protected from themselves.

Saltpetre:"universities are supposed to be the ultimate bastions of truth, responsibility and excellence. There should be no place in such institutions for pseudoscience, quackery or untruth. Questionning, investigation, hypothesis, testing of boundaries - yes - but always within the bounds of sound intellectual responsibility."

I agree, but if you follow the money, you'll see the influence of the "BigPharma" on doctors and scientists alike, who are scared to lose their money machine.

BTW.What is the average age of a doctor being sent to heaven?
and to give you further lessons from our world university, research the fact that Naturopaths and related professions live longer.

As far as science is concerned, the results of research are only right until proven wrong by the next bright spark, and should never made into a law.

First do NO harm. Tell that to the millions of people who died from the so called cancer research, by literally poisoning all cells, what a farce! Funding this research only means more suffering.

Again, follow the money! Taking a silver solution,apple cider vinegar,baking soda,Vitamins and cleaning up the internal environment does a lot better for healing dis eases.

I rest my (healthy) case!

eftfnc,

With all due respects, no one has ever claimed that medicine is an exact science, largely due the differences in human chemistry, however, great strides have been made, and the poison of Chemotherapy saves millions.

The same cannot be said for "complementary medicine", with many recorded cases of people dying because they trusted serious health problems to quacks.

I believe that complementary "medicine" has its place in society, as does religion, however, it should not be confused with real medicine.

Saltpetre "it is necessary to separate such credibly legitimate fields as homoeopathy".

Get real. This would have to be one of the greatest quackeries ever conceived by man.

Topomountain. I have to agree with you. There does seem to be almost an air of mysticism about some of their practitioners although the ones who have treated me all seem to be very effective manipulators.