Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:15, 17 October 2006

A Guide to my Biases

• Mixed parentage
• Lived all over the place
• Pretty much Western outlook, tho some would say not.
• Hindu by birth, strong Catholic (school) influences

• Science education
• Education sector (work, yuk!)

• Anti war
• Anti any narrow mindedness
• Anti cult (belief is a different matter tho)
• Democrat and a bit of a green supporter

• Trained in the ancient art of hitting my friends (boxing)
• Chef extroadinaire (with chili)
• I keep my eye open for wine and good rare teas (and drink them socially)

• I don't like working in tight-nit groups
• I don't believe in conspiracy theories (cockup theories are ok tho)
• I believe Misplaced Pages could do with presenting NPOV compliant answers to "why" questions, rather than just making statements
• I believe it is always best to avoid sweeping unqualified statements
• I think Misplaced Pages will evolve pretty quickly, especially if views are kept open at the top
• I'd like to have more time to contribute more

Category_talk:Pseudoscience

Hi KV, I appreciate your recent comments on pseudoscience on User_talk:Jefffire and elsewhere. You may want to check out Category_talk:Pseudoscience as well. best regards, Jim Butler 05:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thought field therapy

KrishnaVindaloo wrote:

Hi Super. I made some changes to NPOV the art. If you have any particular recommendations to keep it neutral, please don't hesitate to post.

Exactly which article are you referring to? — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

hi again. I mean the TFT (thought field therapy) article. Cheers KrishnaVindaloo 04:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked up the article without capitalizing 'field' and 'therapy'. Anyway, I think the article is a bit better. However, I'm not sure you'll get anywhere simply by changing 'claims' and 'claimed' to 'says' and 'said'. I did see your edits further down the page, and they seem fine. However, I'm not really the one you should talk to about improving the article. I simply replaced a box with the proper template. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 14:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Super. I'll keep working on it. KrishnaVindaloo 06:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Integration of subjects i the Pseudoscience article

In keeping with this comment of yours.....:

"Well, now (or else continue a reversion war) it seems the only option is to make the issues more concrete and recognizable to the reader by integrating examples of pseudoscientific subjects into the article text." KrishnaVindaloo 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been wondering how to couple the list and integration of the subject into the article. I think that if an item deserves listing, the reasons should be documented by inclusion in the article. I have a non-standard idea that might work, it just needs the proper heading.

We could use the references' code, with a proper heading. Then the explanatory notes, with references and links, would automatically appear in a section that provides explanations and documentation.

That way, if an item's documentation and references aren't good enough, removing it from the list automatically removes all mention of it.

What do you think of the idea? I know it's not standard practice, so another way might be better, but more cumbersome. -- Fyslee 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Fyslee. I believe integrating into the narrative of the article will be fine, and also a list will help readers to search. There may be different reasons for placing an item into a list, or into the text, so reasons (or excuses) for removal from each may be different. Things right now are a bit too hot for reasonable normal editing. So I suggest normal editing be postponed until censorship due to agenda is less prevelant. So, I believe it would be more appropriate now to integrate certain examples into the text of the article. The section on characteristics of pseudoscience certainly needs expanding, and the piece on protoscience needs minimizing. So lets just get on with explaining pseudoscientific subjects with reference to specific pseudoscientific subjects in order to help the reader. We will no doubt be able to add a list of fields considered to be pseudoscientific later on (as that is what NPOV policy tells us clearly we can do). Explanation and clarity are the goal. But lets try to avoid triggering the censors and promoters of various interests. KrishnaVindaloo 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi agian Fyslee. There's definitely more work to do on the category talk of pseudoscience cat also. Right now its written as if there is a definitive list of pseudosciences somewhere (which is nonsense). The reader needs to be able to browse a good list of pseudoscientific subjects in order to understand the subject of pseudoscience. It can be a lot more extensive when good sources are given. KrishnaVindaloo 09:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuanced thinking

We seem to be editing a number of articles together. I would encourage you to embrace nuanced characterizations rather than making issues "black and white".

I seem to notice you getting into a rather a lot of polarized discussions. I personally find it helpful to start by acknowledging as much as possible of another person's contribution - to work to find common elements - and then to raise remaining points of difference with the expectation that a compromise might be viable. None of us has the one truth; each of us sees a refracted view of the world, one point of view on the totality.

Best wishes, Hgilbert 10:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, HGilbert. I am interested in the shades of grey. The facts need to be presented, and the reader needs to make up their own mind. KrishnaVindaloo 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

KV, after reading your comments about your plans, I feel guardedly comfortable with intentions concerning adding the pseudoscience elements to the chiro page. I agree with you that chiropractic has the history and even some current activities that can be described as pseudoscience. And I trust in your neutral tone and ability to bring it out in a NPOV way. If successful, we will have succeeded in creating an article that is probably the most complete and accurate description of chiropractic to date. I am only hopeful that you are able to help us illustrate how chiropractic is not the practice it was 100 years ago. 90 percent of people go to chiropractors for neck and low back pain. That is different than the perceived epistomology that chiropractic's competition would like scientists and the public to believe. They would like them portrayed as quacks. There is strong opposition to any edits that shed chiropractic in any form of positive light. We have yet to be able to present any research that is not deleted as insufficient or biased, no matter who performed it. I know this is really not your concern, as you will move on to other things. So please be careful and I will continue to work with you for a complete and balanced article. --Dematt 12:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dematt. Do you have any sources on "chiropractor's competition"?. Sounds intriguing. KrishnaVindaloo 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

These are sites by an MD and physical therapist. Both fields are competitors and both website owners are editors here at WP. I'm not sure healthy skepticism is a good description, but you can decide for yourself as I am certainly POV in the other direction. As far as pseudoscientific qualities of each field, I do not have a reliable source that would call them pseudoscience, but I don't have access to any of the books that consider this subject. Perhaps you do;) --Dematt 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, they both refer to science and pseudoscientific ideas one way or another, so I think they are both reliable to read for yourself. But Chirobase seems to be the more relaible for Misplaced Pages. The other one looks to be a personal website. KrishnaVindaloo 04:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

KrishnaVindaloo, I would be remiss in not letting you know you are already up to four reverts on pseudoscience. Three different editors have disagreed with your assertions on an issue that has been extensively argued on the talk page. Any further reversions on the issue of chiropractic in that article will perhaps result in a block of your access in accordance with WP:3RR. ... Kenosis 05:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis. I understand the 3RR. My last edit was a correction, and not a revert. Re-parenting is not mentioned by Lilienfeld. Lilienfeld classes chiropractic as pseudoscience and he criticises chiropractors for using spinal manipulations for such "ailments" as mental "imbalance", the vapours, add, dyslexia, mental trauma, and increasing "human potential". Your so called extensive discussion is completely unclear, as is the description and title of the section in question in relation to the entries already there. Plus, in order for you to be consistent with your deletion of chiropractic, you must delete other entries from the list. Now, if you are interested in being even halfway convincing, perhaps you would like to discuss and refer to the literature in question. KrishnaVindaloo 05:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal issues

I don't expect other editors to agree with me or me with them. This is not about disagreement about facts. It is about your persistent attribution of motives to other editors - that they are making this or that edit out of malice, out of bias or pov, or out of a wish to censor or suppress alternative points of view. Frankly, I am far from sure whether your personal opinions on many subjects are any different from mine. The issues on the Talk page are nothing to do with content or differences of opinion. They are solely to do with WP policies and guidelines, in particular WP OR, and WP Good Faith. Failing to recognise that is itself a breach of good faith.Gleng 08:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine Gleng, then lets deal with your objections on my talk page, instead of making a fuss on the PS talk page. I believe that will be in the best interests of the article and editors concerned. I am fine with continuing with RfC though I believe things can be ironed out here. I lost count of the amount of times I have been called a liar in one form or another. There are statements such as, "KV has far outlasted his usefulness", and you are making appeals to boot me from the article. A reasonable arbitrator is going to look at the attacks directed at me, and conclude that there is at least some malice. Even in the face of personal attack, I have made clear statements in order to calm the situation down.

If you remove all the personal attack, our discussions revolve around the inclusion of the PS elements of chiropractic. Some of that discussion has been fruitful, especially in terms of me obtaining literature I didn't previously have. I have long since stopped including chiropractic on the article using the citations previously presented, and you should recognize that. I have made apologies in order to placate angry and abusive editors. Any reasonable arbitrator is going to call your main objection silly. The assuming good faith (lying subclause) is based on the inclusion or exclusion of facts, not whether one source is correct and the other is a support for the correct source. It would be daft for any reasonable mediator to conclude that anything destructive was happening there. Well, thats my view. Now what reasonable specific suggestions could you make that will help us all carry on editing without incurring constant conflict with chiropractic proponents? KrishnaVindaloo 09:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Conflict reduction

See Gleng's response. •Jim62sch• 10:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have avoided personal attacks and don't intend to start now. If you need clarity on exactly why I and other editors are angry about your remarks on Talk pages, then see for example this In this you commented on my correction of the reference to Ford where I substituted the word psychtherapy for the word chiropractic. You commented that it was the silliest edit... That edit was absolutely correct both to the spirit and to the meaning of Ford's article. It seems likely to me that, at that point you referred to that article and realised it, because from that point on you stopped trying to defend your reference to Ford directly. However, instead of openly acknowledging your error you continued to deceive the editors on that page until your deception was directly exposed by Steth.

This type of editing in my view gives skeptics a bad name. Had you looked at my contributions on WP closely, you would have realised that I am neither a chiropractor nor a proponent of it, but a scientist and rational skeptic myself. Gleng 13:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Gleng. But I told the truth when I said I realised the confusion when Steth asked me. I said yes, then clarified, yes I have read it, and there are other more specific cites. Ford is very easy to confuse as its written on the Christianson article. There, so silly me. Two names are easy to confuse when they are both talking about the same subject. Jim Butler did it himself, silly Jim also.

Concerning skepticism; I wasn't born yesterday. The main skeptic argument about chiropractic is that it is used as a panacea, right? People make wierd claims and say it can be used for anything. So of course applying chiropractic to treating homosexuality is pseudoscientific. Its plainly obvious. And the literature backs it up eg, Christianson. When Ford writes about pseudoscience in RT, its not psychotherapy that he blames. Its all the vitalistic whackos like those applying chiropractic. Its the best example for the point. So yes, its silly to replace it with psychotherapy. Your edit showed a complete lack of understanding, a desire to over-protect chiropractic even when its being presented very fairly, and it shows an unwillingness to write a clear article.

You seem to be very religious about defending chiropractic in comparison with all other subjects. The arguments you've presented are extremely spurious and largely PS arguments. I know because I've read a lot of chiropractic literature recently. Its all there. Others here will no doubt recognize it too, but I'm sure they don't want to get drawn into conflict on the talk page. Probably quite sensible too. KrishnaVindaloo 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Vitalism

Hi there. I built a criticism section on the vitalism page... can we concentrate the counterpoints of the topic there? and use the talk page? more resources are welcome if you can find them. Thanks. --Travisthurston 15:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Travisthurston. A criticism section seems to be quite inappropriate here. The majority scientific view is that vitalism is an old pseudoscientific idea. There are some more recent New Age notions of vitalism that try to sound more scientific, but the majority is still in the opinion that vitalism is pseudoscience. If there was an article on New Age Vitalism then a criticism section would be fine there. But in this case, science comes first and the subject should be written from the science view primarily, otherwise we are going to get a very confusing set of excuse laden versions from all and sundry pseudoscientific followings. Thanks KrishnaVindaloo 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts about where to place vitalism on the scientific spectra:

"Prescientific" is a term that can be used to judge the historical significance of a phenomena, whether it be a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief or practice. As such its usefulness as a term is limited to discussing the history of a phenomena, and does not accurately describe the phenomena's present day status.

A prescientific phenomena can follow at least one of three paths leading to extremely different conclusions:

1. It can be scientifically validated and accepted, becoming a part of scientifically accepted fact. In medicine, such phenomena often start as traditional medicine, or "alternative" medicine, and end up becoming evidence based medicine (EBM).
2. It can be disproven and rejected after much experimentation shows negative results. Such phenomena are relegated to the history books as historic artifacts.
3. It can, in spite of a lack of scientific validation - and even in spite of clear rejection - be preserved and believed, thus becoming a current pseudoscientific phenomena. In medicine, such phenomena are often labeled quackery by the medical community and skeptics.

Translation: Vitalism was a prescientific concept, and for those who continue to espouse it, it is a pseudoscientific idea, and makes them vulnerable to being labeled with the pejorative term "vitalist." -- Fyslee 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fyslee. As far as I know, vitalism is untestable. It doesn't matter how many people say such and such biochemical reaction looks just a little bit like "vitalism" in inverted commas. The majority view is that it is untestable. Its also certainly pseudoscientific. The scientific method has been largely neglected in the article in favour of fring or minority boosterism over emergence. Normally, emergentism exclused the idea of any kind of vitalism. In scientific testing or theory building, vitalism is definitely frowned upon. This is the majority view, and minority should be stated in a way that says it is minority. Well, I pretty much agree with you over your statement, except vitalism is untestable and is presently not pre-science. Thanks KrishnaVindaloo 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Vitalism. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Reversion is not endorsed as a way of pursuing content disputes. Guy 10:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks Guy. I'm working without sleep. Time kinda gets second dibs. I'll watch it. KrishnaVindaloo 11:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Majority view of vitalism

Thanks for this edit. I was having a hard time getting comfortable with that section. I think it is true that within biology there is a majority position with respect to vitalism, and it is important to explain what that position is and how it came about. However, as soon as we step outside of the rather small circle of biologists, I'm not sure what the majority position is! --JWSchmidt 19:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure JW. We just have to represent all significant views with the science ones explaining things properly. The reader should be able to work out what the majority view is on their own. KrishnaVindaloo 01:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much Thatcher131. Will do. KrishnaVindaloo 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)