.
Part One .
The distinction between "quackery" and medicine isn't always as clear as it may seem. Medicine/medical treatment is defined as the "use of therapies, such as prescription medications or surgeries, that are specifically order and supervised by a physician" (CFIDS). This differs from medical quackery in that the treatment is supported by scientific data and research, proving to efficiently treat the injury, illness, or disease. The reverse of that then is medical quackery, which is defined as "deliberate misrepresentation of the ability of a substance, a device, or a person to prevent or treat a disease" (Medicine Net). This involves the practitioner consciously understanding that the treatment he or she is providing is ineffective and that there is almost no scientific data to support the form of treatment, giving it a name many refer to as pseudoscience. Therefore, the distinction between the two appears to be extremely well defined by stating that it is determined by scientific data and testing. The difficulty with such a statement though is that the science determines whether a form of treatment works or not, but what then does it mean to "work"? Is a treatment considered to "work" simply because the patient feels better after the treatment? Or does it need to be scientifically proven to treat the injury, illness, or disease? There is a difference between curing a person's illness and merely relieving the symptoms. .
Both Karl Popper and Jacques Quen, contribute two ideas in determining whether a theory is valid. Popper focused on the problem of demarcation, distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. He believed in theories that could be tested and proven incorrect, the idea; that determining whether a theory is in fact scientific or pure quackery is based on this idea of falsification. As long as scientific testing fails to prove the theory wrong, the theory still stands, until there is evidence to refute it.