Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:42, 5 February 2008

If you leave a comment for me here, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template. If I have left a comment for you on your talk page, expect that I will be watching your page and you should reply there (if you wish) rather than here. This way, conversations are kept in their proper context. However, if your talk page policy is different than mine, I may follow your preferred style of conversation. I reserve the right to delete or archive (but will not otherwise modify) any comments left here.

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2.

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Re: User:Danaullman

I think my personal views on pseudoscience, time constraints, as well as having declined one of Ullman's previous unblock requests will disqualify me from adopting them. However, assuming they manage to get unblocked, there's a whole category of people over at Category:Wikipedians seeking to adopt in Adopt-a-user. east.718 at 04:41, December 29, 2007

thanks

thanks for the help, man. its a great help. Smith Jones (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

thznks again

i noticed that the archiver wasnt working but i didnt wnat to tamper with it since i didnt know what was going on. i manually archived th e last bit of text, but im going to leave your recent coment up to see if it works now. thanks for checking up on the automatic archiver for me thoguh. Smith Jones (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Video

Thank you, that is a most interesting video. You were very kind in letting me know about it. I was also called the attention recently to some interesting reading about that found in Psychosocial Factors in Pain: Critical Perspectives by Robert J. Gatchel (page 44 and beyond) and The Physicists' View of Nature: The Quantum Revolution: Pt. 2 by Amit Goswami. I will give a more detailed view when i have the time, it is an interesting subject. Jenny☤ 11:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually

Actually, I don't know any of the "paranormalists" who are compensated, but many of those pushing skepticism -as opposed to real science- have paid work in the fields they edit, or else are in school to work in those fields. It is really a pretty stark contrast. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

You will note that WAS 4 and Nergaal started by commenting upon the generally agreed scientific opinion. Yourself and Anthon01 then continued this discusion. It was only then that I joined in. My own official comment on the request did not discuss the matter at all. Of course, you would be right in saying that this is no excuse, and as such I apologise to the ArbCom for this, as I hope all the other involved parties will. LinaMishima (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Whig)

Hello, Whig. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Whig 3, where you may want to participate.

-- Adam Cuerden 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

I have been terribly ill and almost did another hospital run. I live in FL and Pot isn't well received. I will read over what you sent though as it might be useful for me through my pain doctor though. Thanks for thinking of me, --CrohnieGal 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

oh really? hadnt noticed that until just now. thanks for the heads. up Smith Jones (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Yes, Smith Jones, don't get caught, if you are indulging. --CrohnieGal 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

QED

Is this about biophotonics? Anthon01 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No. —Whig (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As you suggested, I have rewatched "Photons: Corpuscles of Light", and I really cannot see anything that can be transfered from what he talks about and used to explain any method of action for homeopathy. It should be noted that within that lecture, water was only discussed in terms of an example of a reflective medium, and similar processes to what he talks about occurs in all materials (although less ordered in terms of angle of reflection, and with absorption of certain wavelengths to give colour). I shall watch the other lecture you note also, but please could you detail what it is you see in the lecture that is of use for this purpose? LinaMishima (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) I see why you linked to the youtube sample, a discussion of interference patterns. No wonder you found that exciting. It should be noted that transference of information requires the expenditure of energy - for information to be retained on both objects, the individual signal strengths of the information stored on each object must be reduced compared to the original. This can only be reduced to a certain level until it becomes so small that it cannot be determined as a separate component at all (see planck constant and the Uncertainty principle). Current understanding of quantum physics is such that at these levels, things stop being deterministic and become probabilistic, and this is unlikely to change any time soon, and the important thing to note is that at scales above those being considered at a quantum level, any underlying determinism is equivalent to the current understanding of probabilities in wave equations. In addition, fourier analysis makes it clear that the most important parts of a wave form are those components with the greatest amplitude. The probability of smallest components having a significant effect is so small as to be typically discarded. It should be noted that of course any such speculation is entirely based on a vague and undefined term of "energies", when indeed at an atomic level there is no such thing as a separate magical energy signature for a substance (vibrations are dependant on a given molecule's resonance frequencies, electron energy levels also dependant upon the protons in nuclei and other nearby electrons - these are the languages of molecular chemistry and physics, and no other long term means to store information remains). I could go on, but I shall finish with the greatest stumbling block of all - if homeopathic techniques do impart innformation onto the solvent in use, then the molecules or groups of molecules onto which information is imparted must have also naturally experienced similar events over their history to have acquired other trace information from their past environments. If homeopaths believe that remedies can be stored for periods of time, then these other sources of information must also remain. If there is any other means remaining that you would like to use to appropriate QED and other theories to explain homeopathy's method of action, please let me know. LinaMishima (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to watch and comment. While I could compose a detailed response, based on my own understandings, I do not think it would be constructive to do so here. I personally find Feynman enjoyable (as long as he doesn't go too heavily into the maths), and hope you found it worthwhile. I continue to believe that QED has tremendous importance to homeopathy consistent with the observed sinusoidal curve of different potencies, but it would not be useful to engage in synthesis here. —Whig (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC

With all respect, Whig, I'd really suggest adding a response at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Whig 3 - this was started in order to avoid the awkward section at the other RfC in my name where there wasn't a way for you to defend yourself. Adam Cuerden 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am unable to assume good faith in this matter. Recommended reading: WP:Honesty. Please proceed as you wish. —Whig (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is your chance to defend yourself. Why not ?--Filll (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have edited my reply. —Whig (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would however like to make clear that I am not requesting the deletion of this RfC at this time as it might function as an RfC on the submitters. Though it is very interesting that you come to my talk page to discuss your concerns after filing an RfC instead of before. Usually it's the other way around. And you don't seem to want me to take any comments from this, just to go away or be banned. I have never been under probation and you should stop pretending that it's okay to say that or that it was okay to mark my block log incorrectly. —Whig (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Pls reply to my e-mail asap Wanderer57 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case (maybe)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Adam Cuerden 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Just wanted to say, hope you come on over and check it out! Blissfully far quieter than homeopathy; in fact at times we despair for having more than one or two active editors. best regards, Jim Butler 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Homoepathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Water Memory

I agree with you, infobox was not properly sourced. I have also removed links and categories related to pseudoscience, as they do not have proper references either. BETA 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --BETA 07:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is this the way things go here? Anthon01 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you still around? Anthon01 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Intermittently. Is there something you thought I should add or comment on right away? —Whig (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been in contact with FT2 and have submitted my explanations to him. I am awaiting his reply. Anthon01 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting I post on AN, even though I mentioned it at the AN/I? What do I do about Filll who I feel is exaggerating my involvement all over the place? Anthon01 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I defend myself against the stonewalling claim? Anthon01 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Make a polite request to WP:AN and ask for diffs to justify your restriction, I think. That would be how I would proceed. —Whig (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. The second link is here. Ambiguous section titles. In any event its at the bottom of the page. Anthon01 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why waste your time in a talk page dispute with Filll? —Whig (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

He keeps commenting everywhere I go, and his comments are inaccurate accusations. What do you suggest? You saying I am bothering him, but he is posting inaccurate accusations inflammatory messages in several different places. Anthon01 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest ignoring him, as he isn't an admin and cannot block you. —Whig (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New ShortCut

On my editing break, I've created a shortcut that you might find useful. WP:PSCI. Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"The correct standard"

Thank you. Clearly, the correct standard to apply here is:

• Questionable science: "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."

• Does homeopathy have a substantial following? Yes.
• Do some critics allege it to be pseudoscience? Yes. —Whig (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're on the wrong side of the line of demarcation in the four sections from the ArbCom. See here. The correct listing would be the first, and barring that the second. Of course the third applies in a sense, but it is far too lenient, since the first two apply even better:

1. Obvious pseudoscience
2. Generally considered pseudoscience

-- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion vs. policy? Anthon01 (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, I think we can exclude Obvious pseudoscience, and given the substantial criticism we can probably remove it from Alternative formulations. So the question is whether it is "Generally considered pseudoscience" or does it have a substantial following within the scientific community? Astrology is the ArbCom's example of something generally considered pseudoscience, and I don't know of a single scientist who holds astrology as anything other than mysticism. Homeopathy is controversial, it is alleged to be pseudoscience by some people, but it is also accepted and used as a regular part of many medical practices and there are serious scientists and doctors who believe it is valid and useful. Similar to Psychoanalysis. —Whig (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no comparison to psychoanalysis, which is a mainstream practice which some criticize, but which is still mainstream and largely accepted. Homeopathy is an alternative practice that is definitely not considered mainstream and is criticized by a massive majority of the mainstream, not just by "some" people. The fact that is practiced by larger numbers in parts of Europe (and is going down very fast in England, both in numbers and governmental support) and India is only proof of its deceptive nature and how people can be fooled, or that they just hold on to old traditions. Your twisting of words and facts is disingenuous and disruptive. Stop it. -- Fyslee / talk 07:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is mainstream where I live, in California. It is becoming increasingly mainstream, in fact. It is mainstream in Europe, and in India. Again, it is unlike Astrology which is not accepted by any scientist. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely not mainstream science in California. The attitudes of the gullible public are not included in the definition of "mainstream" science. -- Fyslee / talk 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is mainstream medicine here. You can deny it all you like, but that does not change the fact. Mainstream is determined by public acceptance, and it is accepted. —Whig (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a parsing of policy. You are both trying to move the goalposts by reclassifying "obvious" or "generally considered pseudoscience" to the wrong category so as to avoid telling the truth according to good sources. That is disruptive and a violation of the article probation. Stop it. Even Jim Butler has now admitted the category does apply to homeopathy, IOW he has changed his mind when presented with abundant evidence. Here is where it happens: & , because of this, & this, & this, & this, as well as this very clear warning to a user who is pushing the same arguments as yourselves right here. -- Fyslee / talk 07:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had conversations with Jim Butler in his talk, we don't agree. If you are alleging misconduct on my part please bring it to the attention of an admin. —Whig (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have at Whig's request. The article probation should have taught you something, and that is when to learn you are beaten and to stop. Continuing this line of argumentation is precisely the type of disruption that the article probation is intended to stop. -- Fyslee / talk 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will wait to hear from the admin you have contacted, but otherwise I will not regard your threats as anything but precisely what you accuse me of. —Whig (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You said You are both trying to move the goalposts by reclassifying "obvious" or "generally considered pseudoscience" to the wrong category so as to avoid telling the truth according to good sources. Remember, there is no truth. I don't believe in censorship. You are not AGF. Reasonable people can disagree. Butler's POV is based on an article he discovered yesterday. I feel like I will be reported for going against the "truth." I suspect DeMatt will see it differently. How will you deal with that. I will now disengage. Anthon01 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You two aren't the only ones who have proposed precisely this line of reasoning, which is incorrect. I am not proposing that you are doing this out of ill will or that you are acting in bad faith. I AGF because I know that you really believe it, but it's still disruptive and by failing to align yourselves with the mainstream position and learn from the evidence your continued insistence becomes advocacy, which is forbidden. NPOV requires that we include the viewppoints of homeopaths and tell the whole story, but we should be aware that we are including nonsense that is properly sourced, and we should be careful to not believe it or incorporate it into our own belief systems. Also keep in mind something that doesn't jibe with my AGF, considering this statement of yours:

• "You and I both know that in many ways, Homeopathy is unquestionably Pseudoscientific."

While you are properly seeking to find good sources, your continued argumentation and supporting of other editors who do believe is unhelpful and further disruption. -- Fyslee / talk 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And in fact I asked you if it is opinion or based on policy? As you have saidto me in the recent past it they could be different, that is you could believe somethin but NPOV requires that you approach it a certain way. If you are telling me that you are going to report me to the thought police ... You've got to be kidding! Anthon01 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I said that even if you were a believer, you should subordinate those beliefs to the evidence and NPOV and edit from a mainstream POV (IOW factual position) by stopping any advocacy. Only then you can still include the nonsense of believers without advocating it. We are supposed to "write for the enemy", but we shouldn't believe it or advocate it. -- Fyslee / talk 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe you fundamentally misunderstand NPOV. We do not write from a single mainstream POV. We include all significant views and we describe them all neutrally. —Whig (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We basically agree that we include all significant POV and describe them without advocating them. It is as regards your personal POV that it is an advantage to adopt the mainstream POV to avoid advocating nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal POV is based upon my own experiential knowledge. You would have me deny my senses to avoid "advocating nonsense"? We have all kinds of different POVs on Misplaced Pages, nobody is required to adopt some hypothetical "mainstream POV" here. —Whig (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

you should subordinate You meaning you or I or anyone else needs to subordinate their beliefs to NPOV. So I understand that. NPOV flows from RS. So far so good. You are certain that your interpretation and only yours is correct. I'm sorry but that scares me. That's where we part and that where consensus is suppose to help bridge that gap. Anthon01 (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm just trying to provide some advice that has saved me from lots of problems here and I'm hoping you will learn from it. I don't expect you to change your beliefs, but suspend disbelief (for you that would mean temporarily be a skeptic) and attempt to be more objective while editing. That's all. It's pretty easy for me since I have been where you are and can see these issues from both sides. -- Fyslee / talk 08:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a skeptic. I told you that on your talk page. I take it all with a grain of salt. I can see both sides also. You are assuming you know me but you don't, and frankly you statement is a bit patronizing. I do suspend by beliefs. I am looking at RS and making judgements based upon that. When you get a chance I hope you'll take a look at the post I left on your talk page earlier today. Anthon01 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice the warning template that Fyslee put at the top of your page? Anthon01 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, and I will remove it now. —Whig (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I placed one on my own as well. All places where there is discussion of homeopathy may need it. It is an aid and helpful to have it there. Removing it can be seen as a refusal to accept the advice in that notification. You need to AGF about that template. -- Fyslee / talk 08:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Telling people they need to AGF is not how AGF works. —Whig (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we don't behave this way in the US. Anthon01 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't? —Whig (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean generally we don't. I don't have anyone coming to my front door and putting up signs without my knowledge. Anthon01 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some political races where that's happened, not to me personally but anyhow, I agree it's rude. —Whig (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've had time to think about it, the template is placed at the top of article talk pages, but placed like ordinary comments on user talk pages. I guess that's what I should have done, just like has happened other places. Sorry for any offense. It was not intended. -- Fyslee / talk 04:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)