Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Plea for help: Orthomolecular medicine

The article on Orthomolecular medicine is currently embroiled in a very verbose, very contentious edit war. A helping hand from rational clear thinkers is needed. Caution: I am finding that a band of kooks and cranks are now attacking me on my own talk page; so getting involved may be hazardous for your nerves. linas 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As one of the supposed "kooks and cranks" Linas is complaining about, let me state for the record that I would be very happy if knowledgeable skeptics assist in editing orthomolecular medicine, which until last week, had been entirely under the control of fervent alternative-medicine supporters. The problem on Linas's talk page came when he burst onto the page and threatened a bunch of skeptics with "bans and blocks" because he disagreed with their edits citing mainstream medical sources. I hope he and User:Fyslee patch up their differences, because the two should really be on the same side on most issues if Linas is really a rational skeptic. I certainly consider myself one, and I'm really befuddled why Linas is taking what seems to me the topsy-turvy position that I'm on the side of kooks and cranks. -- Cri du canard 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I can only second Cri du canard's message. Linas is seeking support from people who would normally call him a kook or crank. He is far from a skeptic. (Okay, he is "skeptical" of modern medicine and skepticism.)
Rhetorical question: What is an anti-quackbuster? (A quack promoter....;-)
-- Fyslee 00:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Help on Auroville, please

I'm not sure if this is exactly the place to put this, but it seems at least plausible. I am having a load of trouble keeping things NPOV over there because some editors (members of this utopian ("utopian?") community, I suspect) feel the need to delete all criticism of the community (particularly in regards to free speech, which is rather creepy). The site's important to the Rational Skepticism Wikiproject, I feel, because Auroville is the creation of Mirra Alfassa, proponent of "Supramental Truth Consciousness", out-of-body experiences, and cellular consciousness. If I could just get a couple of people monitoring the page with me to maintain NPOV, it would be extraordinarily helpful. Thanks, --TurabianNights 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I should add that the article is basically unsourced, which is problematic for both sides. --TurabianNights 01:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not as urgent now - we've gotten some rational editors in. I would still appreciate it being on a few people's watchlists, just in case. Love and Thinkees, --TurabianNights 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Need more rational skeptics to help with Natasha Demkina article

For well over half a year, I've been battling with pro-paranormal editors who are trying to insert false and dubious claims from sleazy newspaper tabloids (such as Sun and Pravda RU) and self-published personal web sites into the Natasha Demkina article. Despite Wiki guidelines against the use of such sources, a few editors continue to insist that those guidelines need to be ignored in the interest of adding more information favorable to the Demkina's claims. I'd welcome the help of other rational skeptics in keeping such disreputable sources out of Wikipedia. Askolnick 16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

news flash! perpetual motion!

Article for deletion: EmDrive. linas 04:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop alien mind control

The hagiography of Michael Menkin, inventor of the "thought screen helmet", is up for deletion. Byrgenwulf 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dorn method

Does anybody know more about this? Any critical sources? --Hob Gadling 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-body experiences

I have started a discussion on the talk page for out-of-body experiences (OBEs) to address some pro-psi POV issues by presenting the alternative view based on neuroscientific data from Olaf Blanke that these experiences are a result of brain activity in the right parieto-temporal junction (see the talk page here). I will probably have a chance to write a block of text this weekend to add. At this point, the discussion is still civil, and I haven't actually started the article yet, but if anyone here would like to add their two cents to this discussion, any input would be appreciated. Edhubbard 10:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now made some additions to the out-of-body experiences page by adding a neuroscientific explanation of the experience, and have tagged the article with numerous {{primarysources}}, {{fact}} and {{unsourced}} tags, as appropriate. If anyone here would like to help to eliminate the pro-psi bias on that page, it could actually start to become an example of how Rational Skepticism can provide scientifically verifiable accounts of phenomena that, until recently, had been thought to be explainable only in psi terms. Edhubbard 10:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


RfArb

User:Iantresman has started a request for arbitration members of this project may wish to comment on WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience__vs_Pseudoskepticism. --ScienceApologist 12:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience arbitration

This looks to be like a very important case, in my opinion. You may wish to watch parts of it or comment on talkpages even if you are not directly involved: [1]. --ScienceApologist 12:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles in need of attention

I'm not sure whether one may nominate articles for revision here, but I feel that some articles, such as Telepathy, urgently need attention. Moreover, I believe it would be beneficial to keep an eye on articles part of the Wikiproject Paranormal in order to maintain a neutral point of view in these articles. --Tail 14:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out that Wikiproject Paranormal's membership roll includes skeptics (myself included), and I somewhat resent the implication that its members, regardless of their personal beliefs, de facto wouldn't be just as dedicated to WP:NPOV. — e. ripley\talk 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have wondered about the members of that project, and I'm glad to know what you told us. Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we can take it for granted that such projects, including this one, are infiltrated. -- Fyslee 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that there are no skeptics in the Paranormal project, but rather that articles on paranormal phenomena (articles part of the Wikiproject Paranormal probably make a good list of these) would benefit from skeptical input. --Tail 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you weren't trying to offend, but it did rather imply that the Wikiproject Paranormal participants wouldn't be able to do that themselves. — e. ripley\talk 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Of possible interest

Scientific skepticism and Skepticism

I think they need a fair bit of work. I think skepticism should just be a brief dictionary definition of skepticism and the rest being just a disambiguation to other kinds of "skepticism". --Havermayer 06:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree they need work but disagree with the end result. I briefly put the case for summary style at Talk:Skepticism --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that skepticism should be a summary-style article instead of a disambig page. Bubba73 (talk), 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Institute of Noetic Sciences

This article needs some de-POVifying attention, I think. I added a line of criticism from Quackwatch, but the rest of the article reads like an impenetrable press release from the institute. — e. ripley\talk 18:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Institute of Noetic Sciences and Quackwatch

The following has been added to a prominent position in the Institute of Noetic Sciences article: The skeptical organization Quackwatch lists IONS as a voluntary organization it views with "considerable distrust." [2] I have started a discussion on the talk page on whether this group and their views are relevant enough to warrant such a position with the aim of gaining some level of consensus. I should also note that Quackwatch have not made a direct statement to do with IONS they have simply included them in a list with over 500+ other organisations. - Solar 10:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

New category

There is now a new category for tagging non-mainstream proposals that the scientific community has ignored in the journals. Check out Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation and tag it to appropriate articles. --ScienceApologist 12:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP article

The CSICOP article is mainly being edited by pro-paranormal editors. Someone might want to take a look at it. Bubba73 (talk), 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I sign up?

Is there a way to officially join the group, or do I just add my name to the page? —Długosz 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just add your name to the main page under Project/Active members, or something like that. And welcome aboard! Bubba73 (talk), 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this a valid Wikiproject?

Other wikiprojects seem to be based around particular topics, with the goals of improving those articles. This wikiproject seems to have a particular belief system as a condition of entry. Does that contravene any guidelines? If not, is it appropriate? Leon 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Our goal is to improve articles. Our "belief" system is science, and that is not against guidelines. In fact, the scientific point of view is preferred by guidelines. Bubba73 (talk), 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Skeptics want verification. Wikipedia wants verification. Skeptics want to know how reliable and valid informationis. Wikipedia wants reliable, valid information. Critical thinking is essentical to Wikipedia. Skepticism does not have to be synonymous with disbelief. Pseudo-skeptics reject everything closedmindedly. True skepticism includes questioning one's own disbelief, questioning one's assumptions even while having to work on certain assumptions in order to function. Rational skepticism is at the heart of encyclopedic writing.Doczilla 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Right! Rational skeptics (scientific skeptics) aren't skeptical about everything — they are only skeptical of things that aren't true. Bubba73 (talk), 01:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, we'll be skeptical about things that are true too when we have not yet been given a good reason to believe them. For example, some ancient philosophers thought the world had to be round because a sphere is a perfect shape. They happened to be right that the world was round, but that was a dumb reason to think the world was round. (And they were wrong about its being a perfect sphere anyway. It bulges at the equator.) Skepticism is about seeking truth more than it is about finding it. Once you conclude something is definitely true or that it isn't, you might have no reason to be skeptical about it any more.

You can be skeptical about whether or not a home remedy will work. A rational skeptic will want to see a reason to believe it does or doesn't. Some home remedies turn out to be right. Many don't. The skeptic does not have to have an opinion either way until the evidence is shown. The real skeptic will question evidence in either direction and will not accept weak evidence regardless of what it indicates. Doczilla 02:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should say "skeptical of things not known to be true". Bubba73 (talk), 03:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! Doczilla 03:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
(And we have a high standard for what "known to be true" means.) Doczilla 03:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I share Leon's concern about the apparent entry condition for this WikiProject. Other projects are open to everyone. WikiProject Christianity, for example, is not a project for Christians, but a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Christianity. WikiProject Paranormal is not a project for believers in the paranormal, but a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal. WikiProject Rational Skepticism, in contrast, explictly casts itself as "the central hub for Skeptical Wikipedians to get together and work on improving Wikipedia." Improving Wikipedia is great, but factionalizing it is not. Inasmuch as this project's typical subject area is largely covered by other projects like WikiProject Pseudoscience and WikiProject Paranormal, and inasmuch as it employs a divisive and exclusionary condition of entry, I join Leon in questioning its validity and appropriateness. Tim Smith 03:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a project dedicated to promoting the use of valid sources and making certain that unconfirmed ideas and reports are identified as such. A believer can be a skeptic. A believer can require evidence and still be a believer. Yes, strong believers are less likely to be great skeptics, but it's still a separate issue. The project is about far more issues than the paranormal. Skeptics question advertisers' claims. Skeptics want reasons to believe one politician as opposed to another. Skeptics want proof of the pudding.

    Skepticism is not just about science. It's about asking questions and not settling for poorly validated answers. Skeptics seek truth. Some unbelievers call themselves skeptics when they are simply unbelievers. "Trust those who seek truth. Doubt those who find it." Doczilla 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP NPOV policy says that if something is believed by an overwhelming majority of scientests, it can be stated as a fact. Rational skepticism is a cornerstone of the scientific process. See Cudos. Bubba73 (talk), 13:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, rational skepticism is a cornerstone of science, not the other way around. Doczilla 06:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is. Specifically why would it not be? And let's be forthright about this and put all our cards on the table here: It's not as if you don't have a personal axe to grind with ScienceApologist considering your very aggressive actions against him in the recently closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. FeloniousMonk 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD debacle

I am in an AfD-debacle over retrocausality and I think we should list supercausality for similar reasons, but as I'm tied up with a debacle, could I ask someone else to help? Thanks. --ScienceApologist 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe things are straightened out.

Try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercausality. --ScienceApologist 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Where to Find Sources?

A lot of things we "know" from reading books and websites, such as how Psychic detectives are really a second wave of preditors, have never solved a case, etc. But where do I go to point to primary source for such statements? I'm afraid of circular references, and websites like http://randi.org are more scattered in their coverage.

So what are authorative sources we can easily use and cite?

—Długosz Dec 18, 2006

Attribution is the best way to go, even though it does seem circular, practically any of the famous skeptics, CSCIOP, Randi, Skeptical Inquirer, etc. are all fine. Be careful in your wording, though. Instead of saying that "psychic detectives have never solved a case", it might be better to write something alon the lines of: "Critics of psychic detectives such as James Randi have pointed out that psyhcic detectives do not have a particularly good track-record with solving criminal cases.<ref>Put your citation here</ref>". Make sure your reference is to an actual statement by Randi about the subject at hand, and not just to his website in general. The better the reference, the better the chance your prose will be kept. The point is that the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablility and not truth. You want the prose you write to be so ironclad in how its referenced that even after your gone and the page becomes innudated with ne'er-do-wellers, editors who are less familiar with the material than you will be confident in reverting to your version because you properly attributed and referenced your contributions. --ScienceApologist 07:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as psychic detectives, the book The Blue Sense by Author Lyons and Marcello Truzzi examined all of the major psychic detectives, and none of them ever solved a case. And the authors state that they don't know of any valid case. Bubba73 (talk), 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism/Archive_2&oldid=560960601"