Talk:Faith healing

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".([1]) 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"([2]) and "a belief that merely thinking about an event in the external world can cause it to occur".([3]). 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([4],[5])
• 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."([6])
• Several other journals seem to reflect the same rational definition, that magical thinking is defined on context. ([7], [8]).
• 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)

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.

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

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, [9]) 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)"

RfC: Is faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience?

Request for comment: Is faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not Pseudoscience makes no scientific claims, therefore can't be pseudoscience. From what I can see in the above discussion there is no strong sourcing claiming labeling it as pseudoscience.Brustopher (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Could be omniscience with the right sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Not Pseudoscience Still fake, but it's not pseudoscience. Also, I am likely the only person who came from Wikiproject Christianity and Wikiproject Skepticism >_<. I think it'd fall under paranormal claims like psychics. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• comment was this topic not discussed already in the text prior to this request?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It was. I added the RfC to get a broader range of opinions. I also notified some of the wiki projects that might have an interest in the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• The academic study of faith healing is largely pseudoscience. That justifies the category. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't have access to the ATLA Religion Database, which would probably be the best way to find out what religious scholars make of this. However, I checked a few that I do have access to, and here are the results:
    • At ProjectMUSE, 4% of sources containing "faith healing" also contain "pseudoscience", and 2.5% of those containing "pseudoscience" also mention "faith healing". Even if we unrealistically assume that every single source mentioning both words is saying that faith healing is pseudoscience, then it's still true that sources discussing faith healing almost never mention pseudoscience, and that sources talking about pseudoscience rarely even mention faith healing.
    • Ebscohost, Gale Virtual Reference Library, Gale Science in Context, and Britannica Library each have somewhere between a dozen to a couple hundred sources on each of the two subjects, but zero that contain both. Gale General OneFile has one source mentioning both, and it's a book review that doesn't directly equate them.
  • Most of the sources about faith healing are about cultural or religious issues. My conclusion: There is a significant academic study of faith healing, and that academic study is almost entirely uninterested in pseudoscience. (Perhaps Guy meant to write "The medical study of faith healing, as seen in some remarkably low-quality journals" rather than "the academic study". Academia is bigger than the science division.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - so far no comments have addressed the questions that are specific to this article, and a distinction should be made between them. I will answer them separately below. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Should faith healing be labeled a pseudoscience in the article?

• Qualified yes. There are plenty of reliable sources supporting this classification. For example, in this book search it gets its own article in two encyclopedias of pseudoscience and full chapters in some of the other books. I find this quote particularly useful:

Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, psychokinesis, faith healing, clairvoyance or ufology are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously. As Hansson (2008, 2009) observes, we are thus faced with the paradoxical situation that most of us seem to recognize a pseudoscience when we encounter one, yet when it comes to formulating criteria for the characterization of science and pseudoscience, respectively, we are told that no such demarcation is possible.

— Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, pages 30-31

However, I agree with Bblandford that if it is just stated baldly, then it is a mere perjorative. The statement should be coupled with an account of scientific investigation of faith healing. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• You cannot use a source that says it is "either pseudoscience or...[not] to be taken seriously" to say "it's pseudoscience". "It's either red or blue" does not permit us to claim that something is red. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not labeled pseudoscience as a whole, but specific claims can be labeled pseudoscience iff scientific claims are made in sources that are not backed by actual science in reliable sources. Some faith healing claims may be pseudoscientific, but this subject as a whole is not. - MrX 13:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Not pseudoscience but the existence of the demarcation problem, and the fact that a minority of sources include it as either pseudoscience or as things similar to pseudosciences, would be fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Should it be placed in the pseudoscience category?

• Depends on how "commonly and consistently" sources have to use a definition for it to be a defining characteristic. There are a lot of sources that refer to faith healing as pseudoscience, but far more that don't, as these searches indicate:

• Google Scholar: faith healing pseudoscience (about 7,340 results), faith healing -pseudoscience (about 360,000 results)
• Google Books: faith healing pseudoscience (about 1,150 results), faith healing -pseudoscience (about 31,900 results).

But that's still a lot of reliable sources calling it a pseudoscience, so maybe that qualifies. Another approach would be to see how much material on faith healing as a pseudoscience is justified in the article body, then decide whether it is enough to justify summarizing it in the lead. If not, by NON-DEFINING it probably shouldn't be in that category. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• For those who don't "do" math, or at least not in their heads, that's about 98% of Google Scholar hits that don't use "faith healing" and "pseudoscience" together, and the remaining 2% includes some sources that directly say that faith healing is not pseudoscience. Among Google Books, that 96.5% of books that don't use the two words together, and 3.5% that do—again, including a non-trivial number that mention both words to say that they're not the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The question and topic both have too many aspects for a simplistic categorisation to suffice.v There are aspects of faith without significant scientific associations and too much invocation with quackery for it to escape the pseudoscientific label. I agree pretty well in detail with RockMagnetist's summary and reckon that is the way to look at it and proceed. JonRichfield (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Marginally Pseudoscience.  If you're talking purely about the belief that (presumably religious) faith can bring about physical healing, then it's probably not pseudoscience. But inevitably people perpetuate stories of cases where people were supposedly healed by "faith healers" and/or the "power of prayer." When such anecdotal "evidence" is presented as "proof," then it definitely becomes pseudoscience.
  Richard27182 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  If that is the standard then there are not going to be many subjects that could not have a pseudoscience label thrown on them, including probably every article dealing with religion or religious faith. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, but most of those do not have a faux-scientific literature around them. That is what characterises actual pseudoscience. Faith healing has a cottage industry of ideologically motivated "researchers" publishing a steady trickle of papers in the literature. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  I see very few such articles in my trip to PubMed, and most on the subject say that it doesn't work for organic diseases—hardly what I'd expect an industry of ideologically motivated authors to publish. (Even skeptics believe it could occasionally "work" for purely psychological conditions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not pseudoscience for purposes of categorization 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 13:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes Faith healing is pseudoscience and should be included in Category:Pseudoscience. It is based on pre-scientific ideas and follows procedures. Faith healing is dangerous when it used as a substitute for science based medicine and benign when it used as a supplement for science based medicine. Non-fraudulent faith healing employs a pre-scientific method analogous to a scientific method: there are presuppositions, that something supernatural exists, that the supernatural affects the natural, etc.; there is observation that something is perceived as not normal; there is a protocol followed, i.e. some type of ritual, prayer, etc.; there is observation for perceived change; there is a followup protocol, i.e. some type of ritual, prayer, etc.; there are hypotheses for negative results, e.g. lack of faith. Fraudulent faith healing (of the type by some televangelists like Peter Popoff in the article) employs active deception and intentional psychological manipulation in addition to some type of ritual, prayer, etc. The term paranormal is less than a century old and, from what I have read in the past, was used to reframe the spiritualists activities in a more positive way after over a half-century of exposed fraud. Nevertheless, if faith healing is defined in a paranormal sense it is still pseudoscience by definition. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Omit category. With very rare (=notorious) exceptions, religious activities should not be included in any science or pseudoscience category. People looking for information about pseudoscience will not be looking for prayer (or for fraud: I should check the cat page to see whether there's a pointer to a cat for fraud). As noted in the stats above, only a very small minority of sources even discuss the two ideas in the same article or book. "Follow the sources" and "give DUE weight to the mainstream position" means that this should not be categorized as pseudoscience (and certainly not as a defining characteristic). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - I'm not sure this RfC is going to achieve its intended goal - deciding how to handle references to pseudoscience in this article. Most people are simply offering opinions without any reference to sources or the article. It might be better to close it and start a more carefully worded RfC. RockMagnetist(talk) 14:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I tend to agree with RockMagnetist above. The question is as phrase too broad to be useful. Falun Gong, for instance, could be (rightly or wrongly) said to have claims to a scientific nature, and there have been some reported instances of "faith healing" involving its founder. So, as that movement makes claims which could be theoretically scientifically tested, aspects of it could be, conceivably, characterized as pseudoscientific. Oral Roberts, however, has never made any claims of a scientific nature to any of his alleged healings, so there would be reasonable difficulty in characterizing his healings as pseudoscientific. There are too many variations within the broad "faith healing" area for any single definition to be able to be reasonably applied in any and all instances. It could reasonably be said that at least some, maybe several, instances of faith healing contain pseudoscientific elements, and I wouldn't have any objection to that, or to more clearly itemized discussion of those variations which do clearly contain claims of a scientific nature, but I would be very hesitant to paint all the variations within this broad field with the broad brush of such labelling. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 9 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)