| Revision as of 21:06, 27 October 2006 editSolar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,913 edits →Quackwatch: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:07, 27 October 2006 edit undoSolar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,913 editsm →QuackwatchNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ::I'm okay with the line of criticism not being located in the intro paragraph, but I'm not okay with it being relegated to the very bottom of the article. One line doesn't deserve its own section header, and I believe integrating criticisms into the article text is preferred rather than dividing it up into a separate section. — ]\<sup>]</sup> 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | ::I'm okay with the line of criticism not being located in the intro paragraph, but I'm not okay with it being relegated to the very bottom of the article. One line doesn't deserve its own section header, and I believe integrating criticisms into the article text is preferred rather than dividing it up into a separate section. — ]\<sup>]</sup> 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::It is usual practice to place the criticisms after the main explanation. But at present I'm not even sure why this statement has been included, Quackwatch have no real relevance and they don't even make any direct statement to do with IONS, they have just been included in a list. You admit you don't know much about Quackwatch, so it just looks like an attempt to add criticism to the article for the |
:::It is usual practice to place the criticisms after the main explanation. But at present I'm not even sure why this statement has been included, Quackwatch have no real relevance and they don't even make any direct statement to do with IONS, they have just been included in a list. You admit you don't know much about Quackwatch, so it just looks like an attempt to add criticism to the article for the sake of it. I think in situations like this it may be better to see if we can gain a consensus on how to include the information if at all. I would like to invite other users to comment maybe a post to both project Rational Skepticism and Paranormal might help. For now I will leave it as is until some other members comment. - ] 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:07, 27 October 2006
No! The article noetic should not be merged into this article !!!! I beleive noetic is an old word, used in religious and philospohical literature long before there were astronauts or instutes of neotic sciences.linas 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Seconded. The Institute of Noetic Sciences is a specific organisation devoted to the study of what many would call parapsychology or transpersonal psychology. (The reason the designation "noetic science" (or, noetic scientist) is used is because not all individuals involved in frontier consciousness research are themselves psychologists - many are statisticians, biologists, medical doctors, physicists, etc.,.) The word noetic itself is a philosophical term and merging these articles would be utterly illogical.
- The second above is not exactly correct. The mission of the Institute is "Exploring the frontiers of consciousness to advance individual, social, and global transformation." This includes parapsychology, but the Institute is interested in a broader range of topics. As just one example, from its beginning IONS has studied the role of consciousness in healing. From its early research came today's mainstream interest in mind/body medicine, the health effects of meditation, and psychoneuroimmunology. As often occurs when a previously controversial topic becomes mainstream, the origins of these concepts are forgotten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.167.35 (talk · contribs) (the ca.comcast.net anon)
- Does anyone have an idea why there's a neutrality tag on the article? The article seems to be a pretty straightforward description of what the Noetic Institute studies, and there doesn't seem to be any controversy here in the talk section.A.V. 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can't recall whether I add the tag (which someone must have removed) but if I did, I probably meant that the sentence claiming that this organization uses science to explore yadda yadda should be neutralized, perhaps by a quotation of the mission statement. My point: it is not clear to me that mainstream scientists would uncritically agree with the implication that Noetic Institute is a scientific organization.
- Also: ca.comcast.net anon, not everyone would agree with your claim that the topics you mentioned are entirely "mainstream".---CH 23:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Quackwatch
I would suggest moving the following to a new 'criticisms' section of the article: The skeptical organization Quackwatch lists IONS as a voluntary organization it views with "considerable distrust.". Quackwatch are no more reputable than many of the organisations they criticise, they are hardly notable and little more than a personal project for Stephen Barrett. They are also through Barrett closely linked with CSICOP who are also far from neutral. In light of this to place them in the first paragraph of this article is far too POV, that is why I attempted to make the addition more NPOV. Thanks - Solar 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know much about the organization honestly, but they do seem to be at least a little controversial. I don't have a problem with moving the critique from the intro to the next paragraph, but there ought to be some sort of critical voice in the article. — e. ripley\ 18:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm okay with the line of criticism not being located in the intro paragraph, but I'm not okay with it being relegated to the very bottom of the article. One line doesn't deserve its own section header, and I believe integrating criticisms into the article text is preferred rather than dividing it up into a separate section. — e. ripley\ 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is usual practice to place the criticisms after the main explanation. But at present I'm not even sure why this statement has been included, Quackwatch have no real relevance and they don't even make any direct statement to do with IONS, they have just been included in a list. You admit you don't know much about Quackwatch, so it just looks like an attempt to add criticism to the article for the sake of it. I think in situations like this it may be better to see if we can gain a consensus on how to include the information if at all. I would like to invite other users to comment maybe a post to both project Rational Skepticism and Paranormal might help. For now I will leave it as is until some other members comment. - Solar 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)