> Now if the definition of something not being quackery is if it's the best treatment available to us at the time,
I do not believe that to be the common definition of quackery.
>then homeopathy couldn't have been quackery by definition, since it was in fact the most scientifically advanced (or however you'd phrase it) form of medicine available at the time.
Again, this is misleading. Homeopathy was and still is completely scientifically bogus. It was never and is not now advanced. It is misleading to say that a field that unintentionally had no effect was scientifically advanced. It's simply the (undisputed) truth that their outcomes were better because of their lack of real intervention, not because of any scientific merit whatsoever.
I do not believe that to be the common definition of quackery.
>then homeopathy couldn't have been quackery by definition, since it was in fact the most scientifically advanced (or however you'd phrase it) form of medicine available at the time.
Again, this is misleading. Homeopathy was and still is completely scientifically bogus. It was never and is not now advanced. It is misleading to say that a field that unintentionally had no effect was scientifically advanced. It's simply the (undisputed) truth that their outcomes were better because of their lack of real intervention, not because of any scientific merit whatsoever.