Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:29, 13 September 2007

This editor is currently on holidays. Please contact me via email.

Parapsychology

First, if you've left Misplaced Pages, why did you make a contribution just today?

Secondly, a "course in pyschology" shouldn't an opinion make. Parapsychology is a legitimate course of study, one pursued in labs at several Ivy League universities. --DashaKat 11:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And now you retract your statement? Weak. --DashaKat 19:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Email and removed comments

Hi. I received your email, but am tied up right now, so I will respond over the weekend. I replaced your comments at Talk:Pseudoscience because others including myself already responded to them. The accepted procedure on talk pages is to use a strike-through for comments one wishes to retract, accomplished by placing <s> before the text and a </s> after the text one wishes to strike. The result looks like this. ... Kenosis 13:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear:

Curious. Your referral to psuedoscience shows none of my contributions. Nearly 15 footnotes (12 from Ph.D.s in scholarly works by Oxford and Harvard University Press), provided in Chicago of Style format (with Word software), with a complete bibliography (30 works). Perhaps you could point me to where you've hidden it? Since the criticisms stem from (i) natural scientists, (ii) philosophers of mind and science, (iii) psychiatrists at U.C.L.A. and the University of Rome, and (iv) reports of ethical abuse, all cohere into a single conceptual and logical objection, pluralistically explored, perhaps your relocation is misguided. The governing authorities are identified, they are Drs. McGuire and Troisi (both research, teaching, and practicing psychiatrists), which makes their governing critiques neither "anti-psychiatry" or relevant to "pseudoscience" (categorical mistake, even derivatively), are licensed and practicing doctors of medicine, in the speciality of psychiatry, with wide recognition of their credentials; McGuire is published in 26 peer-reviews texts and journal, Troisi in 7, merely those identified in their bibiolography to Darwinian Psychiatry. How do two eminent psychiatrists qualify as "pseudoscience?" They are NOTHING OF THE SORT. Their critiques belong to the main article as mainstream critics of psychiatry/psychology by eminent psychiatric professors, researchers, and scientists, and writers. (Critiques of psychiatry presume the same critics of scientists; save biomedical addition to credentialed psychiatry, the same criticisms apply. If you want the style done differently than Chicago, please explain WP:SIZE, since "coherence" may not allow redaction to reductionism. THESE COMMENTS ARE CITED BY EMINENT SCIENTISTS -- EVERY ONE OF THEM. That hardly makes them germaine to "pseudoscience." Explain. It would appear YOUR POV is prejudgmental.

Pseudoscience

Maybe I should have said "never been framed in a scientific context", instead.

Largely, I meant that nobody of any consequence has ever has tried to convince the world that faeries and elves etc (the entry that I deleted) are scientifically viable. In order for Faeries to be a pseudoscientific concept somebody of note would have had to have attempted to use (pseudo)science to either justify the existence of faeries, or to justify their hypothetical existence. Which they haven't.

For example, perpetual motion can be counted as a pseudoscience because a great many people have created devices and have then used twisted or incomplete versions of the laws of physics in order to convince others that they are workable.

perfectblue 11:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

NLP

Here AP! Had you noticed its now been rated as B-Class. Thats promotion. I think we were in the warzone class before. Fainites 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Connirae Andreas

Hi Action potential. I've seen that your field of interest (at least one of them) is on NLP Now I have written an article on Connirae Andreas and there's been raised the question whether she is notable enough for an article on Misplaced Pages. I was wondering if have an opinion or sources in mind that may give clarity there? Sincerely, Davin7 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do a search for you. I know Connirae Andreas's book, Core transformation well. I'm not sure how well she is known outside the subject of NLP. You might like to search the literature to what impact she has had on counseling, etc. I will also do this when I have some time. ----Action potential 00:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell is Connirae Andreas? Davin7 originally had her listed as co-author of several seminal NLP works including Frogs into Princes! Fainites 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Connirae's partner Steve Andreas edited "Frogs into princes". However, they did edit some other books and they train together. Connirae Andreas authored and co-authors several important books, "Heart of the Mind" and "Core transformation" as well as "Change Your Mind-And Keep the Change". ----Action potential 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Connirae Andreas is one of the most significant people in the field of NLP. It's ridiculous to even be discussing whether she is notable. The company she co-founded with her husband, NLP Comprehensive, is largely responsible for popularising NLP. That's still the only place you can get tapes of early trainings with Richard Bandler. People really shouldn't be editing pages if they don't know this kind of basic information on the topic. Nlpenthusiast 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Being an expert on a topic is not necessary for wikipedia. In addition, the skeptics are keeping a close eye on this page so we really need to be extra-careful with verifiability, evidence, etc. ----Action potential 00:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope things have settled down

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Hope things are going well. ... Kenosis 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. ----Action potential 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NLP Associations / Links

You have made 43 edits to the NLP page in the last two days and reverted every change anybody else has tried to make. I can't see any good reason for your reverts. Please realise Misplaced Pages is a wiki and not your personal homepage. Nlpenthusiast 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I did not revert every change, I only reverted undiscussed adding of links to external sites. I don't think the links you added met wikipedia criteria for entry because they were for individual trainers and were biased to a particular school of NLP. I'm open to discussion about the notability of the other links. I'd accept evidence from reputable third party sources to justify the inclusion of the links you added. ----Action potential 23:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not add them but I agree with the person who did. Your reasons don't add up in the context because other links already there are biased to a particular school of NLP too, and most of them have less members than the ones you excluded. At the end of the day, we should have all of them or none of them. I have commented further on the NLP discussion page. Nlpenthusiast 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hollander on NLP

Alright, or just make it clear it was a reply. It was actually posted after Corballis, a famous neurologist. Maybe state that Jaap Hollander is an IEP/NLP trainer. --Piechjo 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice edit on the psychology page

Good catch on the Psychology page (change from "Freudian psychology" to "Freudian psychodynamics"). -DoctorW 05:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with a bully

Would you please consider helping me with this that is related to this? I know you may be busy, so only if you have a little time. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)