Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:32, 3 April 2008

User talk:Martinphi/Template

Protected Edit

Please say "yea" or "nay" here. If I ask an admin to edit the page in a protected state, I'd like to have one handy section for him to look at to determine people's stance.Kww (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I'm probably going to contribute an outside view, but there is a lot more that I am going to write about him. Uconnstud (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview again

Hi! To avoid any chance of unfairness in the interview, it has been suggested that you email your responses to me rather than posting them on the interview page. That way, there will be no issue of someone posting his answer first, and giving the other a chance to respond in his interview. Whether you choose to do this or to just post your responses on the interview page, I remind you to please complete the interview by Tuesday. Thanks, --Zvika (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Just wanted to let you know that ScienceApologist has emailed his responses to me. I hope you will email your response too so I can proceed to integrate and wrap up the interview. Have a nice day, --Zvika (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit to Don't take the bait?

Martin, isn't disruptive (agenda-driven or otherwise) still disruptive? I don't think agenda-driven or otherwise adds much, if anything. I will not revert because it is not a big issue, I leave it to you. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview question

Hi, you wrote in your interview: "But it isn't Misplaced Pages's mission to correct social ills (there should be such an area, IMO)." I confess that I could not understand what you are referring to here. Do you mean that it's not WP's mission to improve the state of scientific literacy? And what does "there should be such an area" mean? Thanks for clarifying, --Zvika (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Integrated interview

Hi! I have placed a semi-final draft of the integrated interview here. I made several editorial changes to the interviews to improve the flow of the text and make it more appropriate for community-wide publication. Specifically, I removed several references (by both interviewees) to specific incidents where, in my opinion, the interviewee was being impolite, or just overly specific; I removed one question (on RS) which I think did not result in interesting responses; and I have made several other stylistic adjustments, including changes to the text of the interview questions. I would appreciate it if you could carefully read through the final interview and make sure that I did not misrepresent your opinions. For your convenience, here is a diff with the main changes I made. Please get back to me by Sunday, 09:00 UTC at the latest, so that I can make the deadline of the next Signpost issue. Thanks again for your cooperation, --Zvika (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

can this page be turned into something of use since he retired? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki443556 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

Can you detail your objections to the "New Age Reception" section?Kww (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

Did you intend to restore the faculty webpage and blog post used as criticism that Doc glasgow just removed from the article? John254 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Truzzi

Regarding this edit, please provide me with Truzzi's words (regarding dishonesty) to that effect. -- Fyslee / talk 15:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is it. Anyway, another source could be found.

• Skeptical Odysseys: Personal Accounts by the Leading Paranormal Inquirers edited by Paul Kurtz, Prometheus Books, 2001

Anyway, the quote is,

• "They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly."

Here is another good source http://www.tricksterbook.com/truzzi/Tributes/IRVA-Aperture.html

Thanks for looking this up. Very interesting. The quote certainly describes a devious form of behavior which is often done unconsciously (and therefore not really "dishonest"), but nonetheless improper. You could use it as a source for "block honest inquiry" in the Debunker article. I'd back you on that one. Good work. Do you have a URL source?

The skeptical and scientific community has moved on from Truzzi's POV, and is more open to setting limits to just how far investigation should proceed in matters that are too far out, or have been investigated over and over again. Truzzi himself hinted at this:

• "Evidence in science is always a matter of degree and is seldom if ever absolutely conclusive. Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seen unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim."

I think he would agree with CSI that there comes a point where the probability for some things is so slim that further investigation is pointless. Naturally you and I might disagree on precisely which subjects have reached that point, but I think you understand what I mean. The problem of pseudoskepticism is when it becomes a habit, rather than normal human nature, when scientific skeptics in exasperation make bombastic statements and forget to remain agnostic in their statements. In that Truzzi is correct, and scientific skeptics still recognize this statement of his as a classic:

• "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."

One of my favorite quotes (especially the last sentence) on pseudoskepticism is found in the article:

• Groups sometimes accuse each other of pseudoskepticism. Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation" puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and criticisms of paranormal studies."

Carroll also has this to say about Truzzi:

• "... Truzzi maintained that the true skeptic is a seeker rather than one who arrives at a position. As such, he was out of tune with the vast majority of skeptics, who believe that it is appropriate to take a position when the evidence warrants it."

It's pretty easy for skeptics to carelessly go too far and assert counterclaims, when they aren't obligated to make such counterclaims. They can take the high road and just demand more evidence of an extraordinarily strong form. Truzzi was a true skeptic. We lost a great man.

It is likewise easy for believers in fringe POV to go too far and persevere, "clinging to any slim loose end." -- Fyslee / talk 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Association for Skeptical Investigation website
2. Skepdic article on positive pseudo-skeptics
3. Robert Todd Carroll "Internet Bunk: Skeptical Investigations." Skeptic's Dictionary

I agree with everything you say. Yeah, in common speech and even sometimes in WP we could go so far as to state things as fact, even when there is some controversy. Like "the earth is round." We would disagree on the exact boundaries of where we could state such facts, but if it were anywhere else besides WP, we could probably easily agree. I have always been impressed with your statements of NPOV, like the one on your userpage, even though I have disagreed in practice.

Let's see if the discussion on the NPOV page couldn't lead to a new day in WP, because I think it would be a relief to both of us if policy were made crystal clear about fringe stuff. I will support any move to make mainstream science the POV of WP- I'll argue for it if anyone comes along to support that move. And I think even if there is a statement against SPOV, that would be good for you as well, since then you'd know exactly where the WP community really stands. You could then try to change their mind (knowing what that mind really is) or not participate. But it would be good no matter what happened. What I won't support is anything which will allow the continued dissension. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A meeting of the minds! Love it. BTW, I have just added a ref and refined the statement at the Debunker article. I hope that improves it. -- Fyslee / talk 03:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very nice (; ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Another idea for your input

Ok since you are a bit shy about your voice, and have not yet responded to my idea about altering your voice electronically so you are unidentifiable, how about this. Why not have you listen to one of these programs (without you talking) and then when there is a point you want to make, or a question you want answered, you could respond by IM (instant messenger)? At that point, someone could then read out your response (or comment). What do you think?--Filll (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Filll, the attention is flattering, but I just don't see the need- can't even get the print interview any attention. What program was it anyhow? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at .You can listen to previous recorded programs. Or you could eavesdrop on any of the upcoming programs (one tonight) if you wanted.--Filll (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see it says "To participate, you'll need to install the latest version of Skype onto your computer," I have a connection speed of 2.1 to 2.9 kilobytes per second )= ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That might make it a bit difficult I suspect. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well thanks for the thought. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A comment on comments

Martin, there's a way to make comments in a way that won't disrupt conversations.

Take this thread:

something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something -- Someguy

Well, something else something else something else something else something else something else --Anotherguy

This disrupts the flow:

something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something -- Someguy

Well, something something something something something something something something something something something something --Martinphi

Well, something else something else something else something else something else something else --Anotherguy

On the other hand, this preserves both the flow and the temporal order:

something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something -- Someguy

Well, something else something else something else something else something else something else --Anotherguy

Well, something something something something something something something something something something something something --Martinphi

Just wanted to let you know that there's a more helpful way of replying. Antelan 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)