Draft talk:Hindutva and pseudoscience

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hindutva and pseudoscience page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Kumar, Sanjay (2019-02-15). "In India, Hindu pride boosts pseudoscience". Science. 363 (6428): 679–680. doi:10.1126/science.363.6428.679. ISSN 0036-8075.
Subramaniam, Banu (2019). Holy Science: The Biopolitics of Hindu Nationalism. Seattle: ‎University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-74559-6.
Ali, Arbab; Sarwar, Nadeem (2023-07-26). "Amid Indian Nationalism, Pseudoscience Seeps Into Academia". Undark Magazine. Archived from the original on 2023-08-02. Retrieved 2023-12-10.
Gopinath, G.R. (2021-06-16). "A seesaw of science and pseudoscience". The Hindu. Retrieved 2023-12-10.
Krishnan, Vidya (2020-08-18). "Where Pseudoscience Is Spreading". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-12-10.

Scientific Consensus on Ayurveda[edit]

The Scientific Consensus on Ayurveda seems to vary across various institutions, rather than explicitly state it as pseudoscience (as you mentioned).

Various sources from reputable institutions such as Johns Hopkins University, WebMD, and Mount Sinai show "lowers blood pressure and cholesterol, slows the aging process, and speeds recovery from illness" [3], it "reduc[es] symptoms, increas[es] resistance to disease" [1], and even then WebMD says it offers "risks and benefits" [2].
Even the scientific critics of Ayurveda point out that it is effective, but has unintended side effects [National Library For Medicine]

The only organization backing up Ayurveda as a pseudoscience is Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, but "these practices are in fact embraced by many of the movement's members" - Ayurveda, so the organization's members seem to disagree.

Edit: I made an account at Signing (Wicontrib4 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

2603:6081:700:2E:C8C7:E8B5:F91D:AF7F (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda is considered a pseudoscience because it is not based on scientific principles. Please refer to the Wikipedia article on pseudoscience to understand what this means.

None of the sources you cite claim that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience. The claim that "the only organization backing up Ayurveda as a pseudoscience is Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti" is absolutely ludicrous; do you think the world begins and ends in Maharashtra? The Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry and numerous scientific publications explicitly categorize Ayurveda as pseudoscience; please refer to Ayurveda#Classification and efficacy. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"numerous scientific publications explicitly categorize Ayurveda as pseudoscience"

Numerous say otherwise too (not complete opposite), even some are backed by Harvard and Cambridge; first source says it was effective to a certain extent and the latter says the evidence yields inconclusive results and will do so for quite some time to come.

Does a publication from one person who comes from a renowned institution beat various other publications from the global scientific community? Wicontrib4 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

first source says it was effective

No, it doesn't. The first source is also not even a particularly reliable source on this matter as it's just the transcript of an interview with some dude, who isn't a doctor, medical researcher, or biologist, and who admits himself I have a formal education in basic statistics—but even this seems to be overstate his case since from what I can tell, he is essentially a sociologist, and his insights are perhaps useful in the context of sociology or ethnomedicine, but not evidence-based medicine. And again, even he doesn't make such a claim as you seem to think he is, at least not in this particular article.

the latter says the evidence yields inconclusive results and will do so for quite some time to come.

That is indeed how pseudoscientific claims tend to pan out. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Distorted Perception of Hindutva[edit]

The majority of Hindutva don't believe or promote facts that our texts forecasted airplanes/UFOs and that the IVC was some sort of futuristic civilization living in the past - though they did have cool sanitation systems. The only thing we believe in is Ayurveda - yes modern medicine is better but we still believe Ayurveda's a viable alternative. So to me it seems like this article distorts the true image of what we represent - the restoration of certain cultural values.

Hey, you do you though.

(I'm not trying to give you a hard time - I have a genuine point here) Wicontrib4 (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Hindutva don't believe or promote facts that our texts forecasted airplanes/UFOs and that the IVC was some sort of futuristic civilization living in the past

@Wicontrib4 I'm not aware of any polls attesting to such a claim, so this is just your own WP:OR, but even if true, it's besides the point. WP:Reliable sources have written, repeatedly and at great length, about Hindutva ideologues not just believing in but actively promoting pseudo-scientific and other pseudo-scholarly views. The majority of Muslims do not endorse terror attacks, and yet the page Islamic terrorism exists; I can think of at least a dozen other such analogies. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, and if reliable sources feel this is enough of a thing to write about, the same must be true of us. If you have reliable sources saying most adherents of Hindutva reject such views, however, that is certainly important information and should be included in the article; please provide it here and I will try to vet and incorporate it as appropriate. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]