Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:33, 2 October 2007

Skepticism Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:TrollWarning

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

why is radionics described as a pseudoscience? on what basis is this classification made? Peter morrell 07:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide credible evidence as to why radionics is not a fraud and fakery, that would be most welcome. There are numerous problems with the whole concept, but I do not feel these should be mentioned in the article.

How does the device "know" what is being read from the source well? I would tend to assume that if it can detect the rate for any object, then how does the diagnostician separate out a reading for the well-material itself from the sample material?

Presumably even an empty well should still give a reading since the well itself is a material with a rate, as is the wiring a material with its own rate, and even the wooden box itself that encases the source well. The box could be said to be an insulator for the metal well, but that isn't how this works since the object being read could readily be a piece of wood. How does the well separate the rate of the wood sample inside the well from wooden box surrounding the well? And indeed an empty well is not empty either since it is full of air. How is the rate detector capable of sorting all this out from the actual test material with just a simple collection of knobs?

From what little I've learned about these devices, it seems the metal wiring could just as easily be replaced with nonconductive silk thread, and it would still work. So how are variable-resistance electronics potentiometers capable of reading anything from something that doesn't need metal signal wire to work?

It goes much further and gets weirder than this. Supposedly mystical symbology can be used with these devices. It is not necessary for the subject of the device to even be present. Instead a symbol can take the place of the subject, such as a diagram on paper that the subject also holds or wears, or a personal item of the subject such as hair or blood. The power of the device would flow through the symbols to the subject, and the subject could be diagnosed and treated as if they were linked by direct point-to-point radio transceivers.

Does this device also need to be cleared and purified after each use by being placed in a pentagram made from salt?

Because so much of this does not follow the simple and well-understood rules of mainstream science and technology, how can it be called anything else but a pseudoscience?

DMahalko 05:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

you have missed the point I was making. A pseudoscience is something that presents itself as a science. As far as I am aware radionics does no such thing; it merely exists; it does not present itself in any other way than being just what it is; it has no pretensions of being a science and simply is a world unto itself; it does not claim to have any truck with so-called mechanisms so beloved of official science; it just is what it is; therefore on that basis it is not a pseudoscience. it is simply an empirical system that some/many people find useful and effective. All your answer has revealed are the unwarranted assumptions and ingrained prejudices of official science and nothing more than that. Peter morrell 05:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive any misdeeds against the Misplaced Pages conventions, I'm just an reader dropping in, finding your claims a tad bizarre. By your admission, it purports to be empirical. It has a theorical model that it uses to make predictions (the diagnose). By what practical definition of science this thingie does not pretend to be scientific? It appears to me that the three main points of a science are purported. Please dont't take it personally, but saying, "Radionics is not a science" does not make any less pseudoscientific. 87.64.66.245 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The biggest maker of Rife Machines, which harness this technology, make all kinds of claims that this is in the realm of science and is a cure for cancer. http://www.rife.org/ 216.39.146.25

Labelling something as a pseudoscience before even defining it is POV. The first sentence does not meet WP guidelines. Jedermann 11:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

further reading

The further reading section doesn't read like things to read but like a list of items, many of them redlinks. Needs cleanup. RJFJR 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

needs more references that are reliable

This article desparately needs more references. And ones that are reliable per the WP:RS. --Rocksanddirt 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Edward Wriothesley Russell in his book "Report on Radionics" such as this book? what is it, has anyone read it? what does it say and why is it not referenced? --Rocksanddirt 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And no, this article does not need transforming into uncritical adulation. This theory (or method, or whatever) is clearly pseudoscience and should not be written about as though it were perfectly factual. The claims of its practitioners need to be balanced against scientific criticism and review. Moreschi 09:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert sourced content otherwise you are editing against policies (edit war). You are welcome to add content if sourced Jenny☤ 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourced to what? The Radionics Association's website and journals of alternative medicine? This seems dubious at best. Moreschi 09:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Searching around for information on William Tiller, he may well be a world-beating engineer but his espousal of "psychoenergetics" seems just as pseudoscientific as everything else in this article. Moreschi 10:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with current version

The current version(at the time of this post is this version) has numerous problems that I will elaborate on right here.

1. The article is worded in a way that seems to be written like an Essay rather than an encyclopedia.
2. The paragraphs are not formatted properly and the lead seems to be loosely fitted together.
3. There is not enough information given explaining criticism and too much information given other aspects thus not corresponding to WP:WEIGHT.
4. The citations are incorrectly used and need to be inline rather then listed at the end of each section. See WP:REF for more info.
5. Some of the sources seem to be dubious at best.

Wikidudeman 15:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A list of problems presented by who enters in coalition with editors working from a POV is also highly dubious. Please edit constructively and avoid POV criticism ℒibrarian2 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please address the criticism not the criticizer. Wikidudeman 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is not enough information about criticism of Radionics is because there are not sources in published bibliography, only in highly POV websites, you are welcome to provide (no quackwatch kind please, more kind of books) I was unable to find RS more than the mentioned. Inline citations are not obligatory and the full sections have different references in the sources given. Please take the time to read the sources not criticizing with no constructive input. Please also, before acting as you do, check the editor capacities and provide respect if you want to achieve a decent talk Jenny☤ 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well allow me to say that firstly, Many of your sources are from individuals who support and believe in Radionics, thus are POV. Secondly, If used as a primary source, we can use POV individuals merely to cite what they are saying. For instance we can say "Some critics criticize it because..." and then cite Quackwatch. Wikidudeman 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Recruiting others to continue an edit war where you're outnumbered is not on. Ditto spurious warnings and attempts to cast blame on others for your own editwarring. Adam Cuerden 15:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Need for explanation

I can see here only reverts with no other purpose than deleting well sourced content and administrative privileges abuse. It is expected unprotection of the page or protection at its most recent constructive edit (Jennylen) or a very good explanation for these actions Daoken 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, deletion of POV-pushing material from poorly-sourced cites is the only way forward. The protection of the page is explained above. Adam Cuerden 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Jennylen shouldn't have constantly reverted. Adam explained why he reverted what he reverted and there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Anymore reverts after that were unjustified. Moreover, Jennylen attempted to draft other editors to aid in her edit war. This is also uncalled for. Wikidudeman 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts were not adding constructive edits neither were for deleting non reliable sources. All sources added were published books and I have reviwed the citations in detail all are correct. All reverts have been done from a POV. I was not drafted, I received a thank you with no previous contact, do not drag dirt over honest editors for justifying your actions ℒibrarian2 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on, we can check your talk page history. No previous contact? Adam Cuerden 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You know I meant no previous recent contact, I would seriously suggest to stop your campaign ℒibrarian2 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources? I checked just *three* and here was my findings:

• Pavior "Pavior (Transformational concepts brought to life) Welcome to Pavior. Do you know that you are a more wondrous and complex 'Being' than you can now imagine? Which of the many parts of you comes seeking?"....
• Trafford "Trafford is the best way to publish your book. Guaranteed. Our breakthrough process lets you have your book published quickly, affordably, effectively and available worldwide."
• Trencavel "Trencavel Press was founded to publish books that empower people. Areas of interest include complementary medicine, sustainable agriculture and spirituality in its broadest sense."

We're talking one vanity publisher and two which are clearly not likely to be harbingers of independent reportage. I would look through the remainder but it's clear there are issues. I could go out and publish a book tomorrow on any subject but citing it on Misplaced Pages would be a big no-no. Orderinchaos 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories get treated as such

Some people here need to read Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. If mainstream scientific consensus (reflected via reliable sources) is that Subject X is pseudoscience/complete crap, we describe the theory in question as such. We do not launch into an extensive description/defense of the theory, giving it the more complementary label "alternative medicine" and cutting all mention of pseudoscience, sourcing this to self-published books written by authors nuts for all sorts of New Age whackiness. Moreschi 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Though we should expand the article and elaborate on what radionics is, how it's said to work, It's history, etc. This can all be done without giving any weight to the idea that it actually works. Wikidudeman 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in integrating into this article RS of all kinds, please inform or post sources of scientific consensus (reflected via reliable sources) in one POV or other. Please provide RS of scientific background or reputable scientific publications. Thank you ℒibrarian2 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. However, reliable sources do not include the Radionics Association website and self-published/published-by ridiculous-publishing-houses books written by known advocates of pseudoscience. Such things are not acceptable, and why people were trying to include them earlier today, I don't know. At Misplaced Pages, we are not especially interested in the non-notable views of cranks. Moreschi 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Librarian2 mentioned this page incidentally to me, so I poked my nose in without telling her in advance. On the general issue, the question is how extensive it should be--whether a detailed description (and refutation) , or as brief a mention as possible. Personally, I think the age was getting to me much too long--it also seemed unbalanced, but hats because the refutations sections were barely begun. the present version looks about right to me, but I'm not intending to work on it. I think Wikidudeman has it about right.

RSs for this sort of article have been frequently discussed at the RS noticeboard. The general feeling is that self published stuff & even web sites can be used for limited purposes--to show what the authors of those sources believe. Its perfectly reasonable to take a description of how it is supposed to work from the books or sites of the people who devised it. Moreschi, you may be a little too restrictive--though the original state, listing every tract that has every been written supporting this, was totally absurd. We are certainly not restricted to peer-reviewed sources in describing popular beliefs. What is not acceptable is to take any possibly disputable facts from there, like whether it actually cures anyone. "According to X, " quote" is a nice way of doing it. Let them speak for themselves; if the other views are given, sensible people will decide on their own. Our job is just to provide the information, not tell them what to believe. DGG (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but we must be careful to avoid issues of undue weight. Describe the history all we may in "According to X form", but are here to reflect academic consensus, and the fact that this is pseudoscience simply cannot be allowed to elegantly slip under the radar. Moreschi 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that discussing the history of Radionics would be giving weight to the idea that it works? Wikidudeman 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm simply saying that while discussing the history is the right thing to do, and a great thing, you have to be careful how you do it and where you get your sources from. Moreschi 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hasting acting unnecessary

I have carefully studied the edits that started the edit war of today. Please do the same calmly. Jennylen started to add content and sources from a POV and when she was ready at that started to add content and sources from the other POV. Her edits were interrupted by the reverts and the rest is history. I cannot avoid to wonder, if there has not been such a haste in reverting her edits, wouldn't she have arrived to a balanced NPOV with as much sources and content from one POV as from the opposite. Then could haave been time for cleaning up any citations not very reliable and the article could be now richer and better. Please do take the time to see the chain of edits, it is very clear what she was doing until the edit war started. Her last edits were adding university press sources showing radionics as not accepted and pseudoscientific, sources that no one of you gentlemen have produced before. I think you acted on haste and error. ℒibrarian2 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, that's not how we treat fringe theories. We don't list junk books and cite them all as entirely reliable references, and then perhaps start citing reliable stuff when someone complains. Apart from maybe when using the form "X says Y", we don't cite junk books and websites at all, and treat we do treat this topic for exactly what is is: pseudoscientific bollocks. Jennylen's edits were a classic example of violating Misplaced Pages:Undue weight. Moreschi 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, your response certainly establishes clearly not only that you missed totally my point but also that you are acting under extreme POV as shown by your choice of words. Thank you for your opinion ℒibrarian2 21:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Why don't we drop the sanctimoniousness, and all go and read Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories together? The results might prove enlightening. Perhaps after that Misplaced Pages:Undue weight? Moreschi 21:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There are ways to get around aggressive and impatient edit warring: JennyLen should put an {{inuse}} template on the article while she works, and if more time is needed, use {{Underconstruction}}. She should also put a {{POV}} on the article till she is finished balancing. The other editors should let her work.

Editors wishing to treat any subject whatsoever as "bollocks" need to refrain from editing till they read WP:NPOV. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, another one? Is there an invisible noticeboard? Look, junk science is just that: junk science. It's bollocks. Nothing wrong with that. Radionics is a fringe theory, obviously (and verifiably), and as such falls under the editing guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, which obliges us to treat fringe as fringe. And if Jennylen is going to violate this guideline and Misplaced Pages:Undue weight, she is going to get reverted until sanity re-emerges. Moreschi 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks on articles are not meant for dealing with trolls, but with regular editors who have gotten a bit out of hand. I suggest that this article be unblocked, and if the trolls go beyond 3RR, we report.

Such agressive POV editing only draws other editors who wish to maintain NPOV. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Stub-Class medicine articles
• Unknown-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics