Although medicine and origins are different branches of science, similarities exist. For example, both require the scientific method to produce reliable results… Probably because the implications of what we discover deeply affect our beliefs and fears, many with incomplete understanding construct pseudoscience that fits what they want to believe… Frequently in false medicine, terms such as “powerful,” “energy,” “all natural,” “stimulate your immune system,” “treat the cause and not the symptom,” and paranoia about “what your doctor won’t tell you” alert you to the presence of pseudoscience. Alternative medicine practitioners also sometimes claim to have special knowledge that others have not discovered.
In contrast, from my understanding, even if the real science is difficult to understand, the true practitioner should carry the mark of willingness to explain how he/she came to their conclusions. Like Dr Cootsona and @jpm noted, the mission is to open knowledge up to empower others.
Also, it’s been argued that alternative and placebo medicine help people by making them feel better. This point of view implies that it’s OK to let them take a sugar tablet or herb (though all biochemically active substances can harm), even if it is not achieving the desired effect, because the person taking it feels better… Is there a parallel in origins science? Is it ever ethical to let people believe what they want, even if it’s wrong? Or what do you find is a helpful way to discuss the scientific method and relevant information?
Here are some websites relevant to medicine:
https://www.naturopathicdiaries.com/ --Britt Hermes, ex naturopath
http://paul-offit.com/ Vaccines/pediatric infectious disease
To clarify, I like to think of a quack as someone who wants to help you, but is mistaken. In contrast, a fraud is someone who knows what s/he is selling is snake oil, but continues to provide it. In that respect, everyone who has made a mistake is a quack–and that means we all can take that name!