Misplaced Pages

User talk:Enric Naval: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:29, 14 January 2014 editNederlandse Leeuw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users61,551 edits →Searches for Noah's Ark← Previous edit Revision as of 22:26, 16 January 2014 edit undoNederlandse Leeuw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users61,551 edits →Searches for Noah's ArkNext edit →
Line 157: Line 157:
:::::::::::::::And ] etc. ? ] (]) 19:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::And ] etc. ? ] (]) 19:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::So? What about Noah's Ark? Stop throwing in red herrings, please. ] (]) 20:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::So? What about Noah's Ark? Stop throwing in red herrings, please. ] (]) 20:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::]? ] (]) 22:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 08 January 2014 == == ''The Signpost'': 08 January 2014 ==

Revision as of 22:26, 16 January 2014

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 9 sections are present.

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Volume I, Issue III
February 2012

Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads

To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page.
ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.


Edit summary

Your edit sumamry here was misleading, as what you did was very different from undoing my edit. You need to be careful to make sure that your edit summaries accurately reflect what you are doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, next time I'll try a different approach when writing the edit summary. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You may enjoy...

While the subject area is reproducibility in astrophysics rather than materials science, you may appreciate this oldie-but-goodie. I first ran across it in a print collection a couple of decades ago, but it keeps coming to mind for some reason....

Liebovich, L.S. (1974) "Discovery of a new radiation source Z-1 in Taurus" Q. J. Roy. Astro. Soc. 15:141-145.

Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Pure win.
This type of paper is all too familiar to me. In Abiogenic petroleum origin there are papers saying that one oil field is of abiogenic origin. Thus, it can be deduced that every oil field must be abiogenic. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Cold fusion advocate attacking you

Note , which I have removed, IRWolfie- (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The supposed attack is an impression based on a hasty conclusion. I was about to give the details sustaining the so-called atack--5.15.198.117 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Email

Hello, Enric Naval. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You've got mail!

Hello, Enric Naval. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

ArbCom decisions

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Pseudoscience

Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized

Christian Science appears to generally be studied as a New religious movement and not as "pseudoscience." You might want to read . The connection of CS to PS in popul;ar literature diminished greatly after 1920. Page 205 specifies that CS is a "religion."

Williams states that Eddy did not use "science" in the same sense as "orthodox scientists."

Real googlebook results number under 100 (at that point, the hits do not necessarily contain the search terms) (1.1K gross hits in books)

"Christian Science" + "religion" gets well over a thousand real hits (I got bored at that point) (191K gross hits)

Cirt and others got into problems for their manner of handling NRMs so I trust you will understand that a hundred to one ration in books might be considered significant. Questia search only finds 7 books for "Christian Science" + "pseudoscience". 1,038 for "Christian Science" + "religion." Cheers -- and the templating idea is not really that great. Collect (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

According to your first source, in the second half of the XXth century a lot of religion-related stuff was labelled as pseudoscience. page 196: "Just as they had during the late 1800s, differences between science and religion loomed large in characterizations of pseudoscience, although in precisely the opposite way than they had before. Rather than signaling the over-aggressive separation of scientific and religious concerns, American during the second half of the twentieth century more often linked pseudoscience to the illegitimate mixture of science and religion. Charges of pseudoscience aimed at a wide variety of targets, from creationism to UFOs to federal standards for organic food, all of which were denounced as involving religious motivations rather than scientific ones." I can't read page 205, but it looks
I find your second source irrelevant: we are talking of mainstream scientists calling something pseudoscience, not what the receivers of the label call themselves. Never mind that the source is an encyclopedia of pseudoscience and lists "Creation science" as one of its entries.
As I said before, there are enough sources of enough quality to warrant inclusion in the list. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


And how many current books make the overt statement you seek? And how many call it "religion"? And the ratio is? And what percentage of books holding a view are needed not to properly assert that a view is "fringe"? Where well under 1% of the sources make the connection you seek, I suggest that <1% is "fringe." Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, how many sources in that 99% are explicitly saying that Christian science is only a religion and is not related at all to science? (and how many of such sources are independent from this Church, and were written by people who had good reputation among serious scientists). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I spent time on Questia - your turn. Tell me how many Questia sources explicitly call CS "pseudoscience". Cheers -- you ask for more than 50 hours of work with your demand at a minimum. I can tell you than I am not a CS member or adherent, and that trying to find out who among thousands of authors is connected in any way to CS is likely a fool's errand. Collect (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't need to meet any arbitrarily number. As I said before, the sources in the article are already enough to warrant inclusion in the list. The burden of proof was already met for inclusion. And you still haven't presented any source that actually counters them. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Mind you, the entry could be tweaked to specify which parts of Christian Science are causing it to be considered pseudoscience. --~~

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Searches for Noah's Ark

Hello Enric Naval,
I think that, by now, we have given a decent reply to Collect's assessment of the sources and found them unconvincing. He seems unable to provide any "real scientist" or RS to back up his claims. Shall we restore Searches for Noah's Ark to the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)2014 (UTC)

Curiously enough, Misplaced Pages is not a high school debating society -- I presented material from reliable sources related to the general scientific community in Israel and "biblical archeology" which is the broad topic at issue as
Yes, we should do that. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:05, 11 January the "finding of the ark" is clearly pseudoscience, but searching for biblical sites is not pseudoscience. You are simply pursuing WP:OR in your debate style -- the requirement that any editor be an expert on any topic or to "prove" anything is actually contrary to how Misplaced Pages works - we only use what the reliable sources state. I suggest your desire to re-add the material is actually contrary to how
Collect, I'll repeat for the last time, "biblical archeology" in Israel is irrelevant to searches for Noah's Ark. Wherever the "Mountains of Ararat" may be located (be it Turkey, Armenia, Syria etc.), they are definitely not to be found inside the territory of the present-day State of Israel. Please, examine a few maps of the Middle East if this wasn't clear to you yet. Since you were unable to give us a name of a "real scientist" (you have to be more specific than "the general scientific community in Israel") or that has done research to find Noah's Ark by following the scientific method (disregarding all those who claimed to have found it) and are once again not delivering any reliable sources –unlike Enric and I have done–, you have not given any useful input other than systematically disagreeing. WP:OR does not apply in our case (we've named Dundes, Rickard & Michell, Prothero, Williams, Feder, Fagan & Beck, Cline and again Fagan), but it does in yours; your argument backfires. The only "source" you have provided was Livingstone et al, which is not fully accessible, but the snippets I was able to view mostly talked about films and books about Noah and the Ark; just 2 had anything to do with our subject: "...Armenians as Massis, and is actually but one contender among several sites associated with the mountains of Ararat in the story of Noah. The modern ark hunters belief that this particular mountain is the site where Noahs Ark came to rest is based largely upon..." (p.246), again revealing how inaccurate "modern ark hunters" are doing their geographical homework, and "...evangelicalism the widespread conviction that the ancient Ark of Noah is embedded in ice high atop Mount Ararat, waiting to be found..." (p.245), which merely points to the "conviction" it can be found and the motivation to go look for it among this evangelical demographic. You also appear not to understand what WP:CON means: we disagreed with your revert, discussed it and reached a compromise, which includes the concession not to name it "arkeology", but does not have to be unanimous to be acceptable. You are always free to reopen the discussion when you have RS to back up your claims, but for now, we are moving on. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Ultimata are not a great way to seek WP:CONSENSUS. Try meeting me on this as I find "or else" stuff to be quite objectionable. My suggestion was that we label "finding of the Ark" as pseudoscience, but that we also note that "real archaeologists" do, indeed, work on "biblical archaeology." Is there any solid ground for refusing such a reasonable statement? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
We've not given any ultimata, let alone somehow "threatened" you; in fact, I've kept the option open for you to challenge the newly-reached consensus with RS once the edit is done. Actually, there is a solid ground to refuse your statement, because it's a logical fallacy (and calling it "reasonable" makes this a loaded question):
It would be nice if you deal with what I write and not create a series of syllogisms which I did not write. It is very hard to follow
Give us a RS saying searches for Noah's Ark is science then. It's not that hard, is it? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Try dealing with my suggestion instead of assuming a combative stance, please. I am not desirous of jousting - only of giving readers accurate information - and the accurate information is precisely what I suggested here. At no point have I said the "finding of the ark" is science - the problem is the current wording appears to include a great deal which is not the "finding of the ark." Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Then let's be clear here. There are three "levels of investigation" involved, two of which you and I both agree. First: so-called "biblical archaeology" is a "real science", I don't dispute that and have never done so. Second: claims to have found Noah's Ark are pseudoscientific, you don't dispute that and have never done so. So, let's stop arguing about those two levels and discuss the one in between: whether the entire enterprise of investigating the location of Noah's Ark is to be considered pseudoscientific or has at least some scientific validity. Do you agree? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Those people fall into two categories: Those who "know" what they will find, and do not use scientific methodology in the first place as a rule. And those who look not claiming to know exactly what they will find and who generally do use scientific methodology (my old acquaintance Doc Edgerton was that sort of person in real life). I am quite loath to call that "pseudoscience" thus my suggestion as to the reasonable line of demarcation -- that of suggesting the "finding" is pseudoscience, but the general field is not specifically "pseudoscience." Thus not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Good. Can you name an equivalent of Doc Edgerton in the field of searching for Noah's Ark? Remember that your personal opinion on whether the qualification "pseudoscience" is appriopriate is irrelevant, unless you can back it up with evidence to the contrary (that overrides the evidence Enric and I have supplied). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess you missed the fact that Doc searched for the Loch Ness Monster. Cheers Collect (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I did, but how is that relevant? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
And Atlantis etc.  ? Collect (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
So? What about Noah's Ark? Stop throwing in red herrings, please. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Collect? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Misplaced Pages Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Misplaced Pages researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!